Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

notion, must have aimed at perfection, and could not by principle indulge themselves in evil actions,

(8.) I do not observę Orosius, in the account which he gives Augustine of the Priscillianists, to charge them either with falsehood or lewdness.

X. We now proceed to Pope Leo; for I have thought it worth the while to place him by himself, and to consider distinctly what he says; I' therefore transcribe him largely below. The sum of what he says is this : « The Priscillianists agree with the Manichees in sentiments, con• sequently in practice. Wicked and obscene mysteries had been proved upon the Manichees; • and therefore they were also used by the Priscillianists. Moreover, such things had been proved upon the Priscillianists in former times.'

In answer to which I say: 1. I am of opinion, that obscene mysteries never were proved upon the Manichees by Pope Leo, or any others. And I would willingly refer to what has been already observed relating to this point in this volume, and particularly to the Remarks, upon Mr. Bower's account of the Manichees. 2. Supposing such things to have been proved concerning the Manichees, it does not follow, that they may be righteously ascribed to the Priscillianists. For allowing the Priscillianists to have agreed with the Manichees in some of their peculiarities, it cannot be thence reasonably concluded, that they embraced them all : yea it is apparent, that they differed from them, and in a material point, receiving the scriptures of the Old Testament: not now to mention any thing else. 3. Pope Leo says, obscene mysteries had been proved upon the Priscillianists in former times ; referring, I suppose, to the trial of Priscillian and his friends. To which I answer: I am of opinion, that they were not then proved upon Priscillian nor his followers; and of this let every one judge, who has perused the preceding part of this chapter. 4. I think, it appears, that Pope Leo had not any positive proof, that the Priscillianists used obscene mysteries, or practised any wickedness by principle : for he alleges not any such proof; and founds his charges against them upon their supposed agreement with the Mani- . chees, and the transactions of former times.

XI. As yet I have taken nothing from Philaster, because the Priscillianists are no where mentioned by him under that name. But he has an article of heretics, whom he calls Abstinents, which I shall now transcribe at the bottom of the page.

It is the opinion of° Fabricius, and' Tillemont, that the Priscillianists are the heretics here intended by Philaster.

What he says is briefly this: That in Gaul, and Spain, and Aquitain, there was a sort of Abstinents, a branch of the Gnostics and Manichees, who dissolved marriages without mutual consent, and enjoined abstinence from some kinds of food. And he shews the inconveniences of the former of those doctrines, and confutes it by texts of scripture, as he does also the latter. He moreover says, that they captivated many people.

Whenever this article was written by Philaster, it tends greatly to wipe off some aspersions

[ocr errors]

a In exsecrabilibus autem mysteriis eorum, quæ quanto majoris consequendze a Domino, et aliud contra legem suaimmundiora sunt, tanto diligentius occulantur, unum prorsus dere, contraque amborum facere voluntatem. Et iterum : nefas est, una est obscenitas, et similis turpitudo. Quam etsi • Qui non manducat, manducantem non spernat : et qui maneloqui erubescimus, solicitissimis tamen inquisitionibus indaga- ducat, non manducantem non judicet.' [Rom. xiv. 3.] Quod tam, et Manichæorum, qui comprehensi sunt, confessione ex voluntate est itaque, laudis est amplioris, immo potius merdetectam, ad publicam fecimus pervenire notitiam. —Quod cedis cælestis est desiderium. Quod autem extra legem est, autem de Manichæorum fædissimo scelere, hoc etiam de Pris- non a Deo Christo est traditum, sed inani hominum præsumcillianistarum incestissima consuetudine olim compertum, tione et errore inventum. Scriptum est enim, 'Do vobis multumque vulgatum est. Qui enim per omnia sunt impie- omnia edere, sicut fænum.' (Gen. ix. 3.] Hoc autem ideo tate sensuum pares, non possunt in sacris suis esse dissimiles. faciunt, ut escas paulatim spernentes, dicant eas non esse Ep. 15. cap. 16. p. 230, 231.

bonas, et ita non Deo hominibus escæ causâ fuisse concessas 6 P. 158-160. c P. 240-243.

sed a Diabolo factas ut adserant, ita sentiunt. Inque hoc jam Sunt in Galliis, et Hispaniis, et Aquitania, veluti Absti- creaturam non a Deo creatam, sed a Diabolo eam factam prænentes, qui et Gnosticorum et Manichæorum particulam per- dicare nituntur. Perque hoc mendacium multorum animas niciosissimam æque sequuntur, eamdemque non dubitant captivârunt. Philast. H. 84. Abstinentes. prædicare : separantes persuasionibus conjugia hominum, et e Perspicuum vero est a Philastrio perstringi Priscillianistas, cscarum abstinentiam promittentes, quæ non ex legis præ- qui circa A. C. 380. proferre se cæperunt. Fabric. annot. in cepto, sed promotionis cælestis, et dignitatis causâ voluntati Philast. p. 161. hominum talis a Christo concessa est gratia. Dicit enim Do- "Si les hérétiques qu' il nomme Abstinens sont les Prisci)minus Petro : 'Non omnes capiunt hoc verbum.' Matt. xix. lianistes, comme il y a assez d'apparence, il n' a écrit, qu' 11.] Et iterum idem Dominus ait : 'Qui dimiserit uxorem après l'an 360, auquel cette hérésie commença à éclater dans suam sine causâ criminis, facit eam mæchari.' [ib. ver. 9.] l'Espagne. S. Philastre. Tillem. Mem. Ec. T. viii. Aliud est itaque consensu communi hoc fieri, laudis causa

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus. A. D. 878

017 which were cast upon the Priscillianists. Their distinguishing character was not licentiousness, but rigour and abstinence: this was their profession, this their outward appearance; and thereby they gained upon many people. If this article of Philaster was written soon after the rise of Priscillianism, and before the trial of Priscillian at Treves, (which may be reckoned very probable) it confirms the conjecture mentioned some while ago ; that the charges brought against him were first invented about that time.

The only two articles imputed to these Abstinents by Philaster, are their rigid doctrines about marriage and diet. These, as I apprehend, first induced men to call them Manichees: and having once given them that denomination, or said that they were a branch of the Gnostics and Manichees, men were led to ascribe to them all the enormities, which were generally imputed to those people.

XII. Upon the whole, from what has passed before us in this chapter, I think it appears, that the Priscillianists received the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, which were generally received by other Christians. They likewise made use of apocryphal books; but what respect they had for them cannot be now clearly determined. Some ecclesiastics, who went under this denomination, are represented, from an ill-judged zeal and without sufficient reason, to have deserted their stations in the church, to betake themselves to a retired and solitary course of life. They had errors concerning the soul, and some other matters. They seem to have had a disadvantageous opinion of marriage, and thereby sometimes made unhappy breaches in families, if their adversaries do not aggravate. They also had rules about diet, not founded in reason, nor scripture. Some of these people are blamed for not consuming the eucharist at church : and they were irregular in fasting, when other Christians feasted. But as we have none of their writings remaining, we do not know their whole system with certainty. By some they have been charged with obscene doctrines, and lewd practices. But so far as we are able to judge upon the evidence that has been produced, they rather appear to have made high pretensions to sanctity and purity, and to have practised uncommon mortifications.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

CHA P. CVIII.

DIODORUS, BISHOP OF TARSUS.

Diodorus, of^ a good family, and probably born at Antioch, in which city he long resided, was ordained bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia by Meletius bishop of Antioch about the year 378. He died in 394, or sooner.

2. St. Jerom, whom I place below, reckons the time when he was presbyter the most shining period of his life. He does not assign the reasons of that judgment: but they may be collected from other writers, particularly the ecclesiastical historians of those times.

3. Diodorus, whilst presbyter, seems to have had the direction of some monastery, or school, in or near the city of Antioch. Ato which time he instructed divers young men in the knowledge of the scriptures, and the principles of religion : among whom three, who were afterwards very eminent, are particularly mentioned; Maximus bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, Theodore bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, and John Chrysostom bishop of Constantinople. Chrysostom in an oration calls Diodorus his father, and boasts of the share he had in his esteem.

4. Moreover, Jerom may have an eye to some sufferings, which he underwent from the

• Και την μεν το γενες εκ ελονιζελο περιφανειαν, την δε υπερ tari non potuit propter ignorantiam secularium literarum. De της πιςεως ταλαιπωριαν ασπασιως υπεμεινε. Theod. Η. Ε. 1.

V. I. cap. 119. iv. c. 25. p. 188. B.

4 Τηνικαύλα Αν είσι [Ιωαννης, Θεόδωρος, και Μαξιμος] σπο• Ib. l. v. c. 4. in.

δαιοι περι την αρετην γενομενοι, μαθήλευασιν εις τα ασκηθικα Diodorus, Tarsensis Episcopus, dum Antiochiæ esset Διοδωρω και Καρλεριων ολινες τότε μεν ασκητηρια προϊσανίο: Presbyter, magis claruit. Extantque ejus in Apostolum com- Socr. 1. vi. c. 3. p. 302. B. Et Conf. Soz, l. viii. c. 2. p. 757. mentarii, et multa alia, ad Eusebii magis Emiseni characterem A. Et Thdrt. 1. v. c. ult. pertinentia ; cujus cum sensum secutus sit, eloquentiam imi- « In Diod. T. iii. p. 748. A.

Arians in the time of Valens: whereas his episcopate was peaceable. Chrysostom says, he was more than once banished from his native country, for his freedom in speaking the truth.. Theodoret, in divers places, celebrates Diodorus's courage in those difficult times. He says, • that when Leontius was bishop of Antioch, he and Flavian, though they were then but laymen, * not only openly professed the apostolical doctrine, but were also very diligent in keeping the people in the right faith. He elsewhere calls them lights of the truth.'

To these, and some other like things, Jerom may refer.

5. Jerom says farther, that • Diodorus wrote Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles, and many s other things, imitating the manner of Eusebius of Emesa ;' of whom, it may be remembered, we spake " formerly. To the like purpose Socrates, and ' Sozoman : who say, that Diodorus wrote many books, representing the literal or historical sense of scripture, omitting the mystery.

6. I formerlys had occasion to take notice of Diodorus's work against the Manichees, in five and twenty books, of which there is mention made in Photius. The same learned critic mentions a book of Diodorus ' concerning the Spirit, and gives a large account of his work against Fate, in eight books, and three and fifty chapters.

7. By Theodoret we are assured, that' Diodorus wrote against Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Marcellus, and Photinus.

8. Suidas says, “that Diodorus lived in the time of Julian and Valens : and adds, as from * Theodore the reader, that he wrote Commentaries upon all the books of the Old Testament, • Genesis, Exodus, and the books following, and upon the Psalms, and the four books of the

Kingdoms, and the difficult places of the Chronicles, and upon the Proverbs : the" difference • between theory and allegory: upon Ecclesiastes : upon the Canticles; upon the Prophets• upon the four Gospels : upon the Acts of the Apostles : upon the epistle of the evangelist John :

Against the Melchizedekians :—Against the Jews: of the resurrection of the dead : of the soul, an the different opinions about it -of Providence: against o Plato, concerning God, and • the gods: of nature and matter: against the Astronomers and Astrologers, and of fate: of • God, and the fictitious matter of the Greeks, or Gentiles-against the philosopher Euphronius,

by way of question and answer:-against Porphyry of animals and sacrifices :' and divers others, which need not to be here rehearsed.

9. Ebedjesu, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers found in the Syriac language, says, That Diodorus' wrote sixty books, which the Arians had burned. However he mentions eight, which had remained, having escaped the diligence of his enemies ; one of which is the work against the Manichees; another is an explication of a part of St. Matthew's gospel.

10. One book, in Suidas, and which may be supposed to relate to the right interpretation of scripture, is entitled • The difference between theory and allegory.' In the enumeration of his works, it is placed, as we have seen, next after the Commentary upon the book of the Proverbs; and therefore may have been a Dissertation subjoined to it. But the design of it is not very obvious. Fabricius thinks, it " shewed the difference of the mystical sense from the allegorical and moral. Ludolf Kuster,

Ludolf Kuster, in his notes upon Suidas, says, that theory denotes the abstruse and • Αλλα και ελος πολλακις της πατριδος εξεπεσε δια την υπερ • Composuit libros numero sexaginta, quos Ariani combusτης σισεως σαρρησιαν. Ιbid. p. 749. Β.

Remanserunt vero ex illis quæ sequuntur-et Ex"H de agradasos Eurwpis hablaros xat Alodwpos, positio in partem Matthæi. Ebed. Cat. n. 18. ap. Asseman, sepalixns jerapilepsias underw TEIUXyxoles, TW de aw ourlelas- Bib. Or. T. iii. p. 39. μενοι, νυκτωρ και μεθ' ημέραν εις τον υπερ της ευσεβειας ζηλον 1. In Proverbia : cui addidit dissertationem de · Differenden Serpar ánarias.' Theod. L. ii. c. 24. p. 107. A. B. Vid. et tiâ Theoriæ et Allegoriæ,' sive sensûs mystici ab allegorico 1. iv. cap. 25.

atque morali. Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. viii. p. 362. oi ons aardelas Qusopes. L. iv. c. 27. p. 190. C. u See note. - See p. 315, 316.

* Ewpia hic significat sensum abstrusiorem et mysticum : - πολλα βιβλια συνεύραψε, ψιλω τα γραμματι των cui opponitur to øylov, sive sensus literalis. Sozomenus de θειων προσεχων γραφων, τας θεωριας αυλων εκθρεπομενος. Socr. Diodoro nostro : περι δε το ρηίον των ιερων λοίων τας εξηντ- , a 1. vi. c. 3. p. 302. C.

σεις ποιησασθαι, τας θεωριας αποφευονία : id est : “Quem i Soz. I. viii. c. 2. p. 257. A.

& P. 144. 150. • accepi multos libros a se conscriptos posteris reliquisse, et h Cod. 85. p. 204. i Cod. 102. p. 275.

sacram scripturam ad literam exposuisse, omisso sensu mys* Cod. 223. p. 662, &c.

• tico. Εt Socrates -ψιλω τωγραμμαζι των θειων προσεχων ! Hæret. Fab. I. ii. cap. xi.

τι V. Διοδωρος.

γραφων, τας θεωριας αυλων εκτρεπομενος. Diodorus vero η Τις διαφορα θεωριας και αλλη οριας.

multos conscripsit libros, simplicem tautum atque ob. Εις τα δ' ευα/γελια εις τας Πραξεις των απος ολων εις vium scripturarum sensum inquirens, mysticam vero earum την επιςολης Ιωανν8 τ8 ευαγγελισ8. Ιbid.

• interpretationem refugiens. Bewpia igitur quid significet, P Περι ψυχης καια διαφορον σερι αυτης αίρεσεων.

binc patet. Ab eâ differt allegoria, quod hæc in inferioribus 9 Καθα Πλαίωνος σερι Θε8 και θεων.

subsistat, nec in tam sublimi argumento versetur, quam theoria. 1 Περι θες και υλης Ελληνικης πεπλασμενης.

Kuster.

serunt

b

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

be fairly

mystical sense in opposition to the literal sense : and moreover, that the theory is more sublime than the allegory.

11. Diodorus seems to have been an apologist for the Christian religion. He wrote, as we have seen, against the Jews, as well as against heretics. And it may be reckoned very probable, that in some of his works he confuted heathenism, or some of its principles : it may argued from the titles of several of them above-mentioned from Suidas. And, if Facundus may be relied upon, the emperor Julian wrote a letter to Photinus, in which he reviled Diodorus, as ignorant of the mysteries of the gods, but well versed in the fishermen's theology; a large part of which letter Facundus has left us in a sad Latin translation.

12. The respect shewn to Diodorus appears, in part, in some things already said.

13. Theodoret speaks of him in terms of the highest respect, and often commends him. Basil, who was' acquainted with Diodorus, testifies his esteem and affection for him, as an excellent and useful man. They who are pleased, may also consult" Facundus.

13. Many learned moderns have been very sensible of his merit. Cave speaks honourably of his method of interpreting scripture. And as he imitated Eusebius of Emesa, so, as it seems, to him we are indebted for Chrysostom and Theodore, whose taste was formed by his. I place in the margin a part % of Beausobre's character of our Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. He calls them two of the most learned bishops of antiquity: both which, as he • says, banished from their Commentaries allegorical interpretations, confining themselves to the « literal sense. The loss of their works has been a great detriment to the Christian interest. • But the Greeks sacrificed them to their hatred and envy, because Nestorius had been their • scholar.'

15. The usefulness of Diodorus's Commentaries, if they had been extant, may be collected from what Montfaucon says: That "from the remaining fragments of them, to be found in the Chains, he appears to have been well acquainted with Origen's Hexapla.

16. I have allowed myself to enlarge in the history of Diodorus, and his works, because they are most of them lost, and many of them were designed for illustrating the holy scriptures. But for farther accounts of them, and the reflections cast upon his and Theodore's memory, after the rise of the Nestorian and Pelagian controversies, I refer to other writers; though I have made some use of them, and have been assisted by them in composing this article.

p. 59.

Julianus enim, Christo perfidus Imperator, sic Photino teno, ita ut sensum literalem, potius quam, ex recepto apud hæresiarchæ adversus Diodorum scribit.--Diodorus autem plerosque alios illis temporibus more, allegorias sectarentur. Nazaræi magus,-acutus apparuit sophista religionis agrestis &c. Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. viii

. p. 362. usque adeo ignorans paganorum mysteria, omnemque & Je ne say, si Theodore de Mopsueste, et Diodore de miserabiliter imbibens, ut aiunt, degenerum et imperitorum Tarse, deux des plus savans Evêques de l'antiquité, decouvriejus theologorum piscatorum errorein. Facund. l. iv. cap. 2. rent cette vuë des loix Mosaïques: (pour être un préservatif.

contre l'idolatrie :) mais ils bannirent, l'un et l'autre, de Και Διοδωρος μεν ο σοφωλαίος τε και ανδρειολαλος, οία τις leurs commentaires sur le V. T. tout ce fatras d' allégories, s' πολαμος διειδης τε και μελας, τοις μεν οικειοις την αρδειαν προσε- attachant uniquement à bien expliquer le sens literal. Quelle φερε, τας δε των εναντιων βλασφημιας επεκλυζε. Theod. 1. iv. perte pour l'Église que celle le leurs excellens ouvrages, que c. 25. p. 188. B. Vid. et l. v. cap. ult.

les Grecs ont sacrifié à leur haine et leur envie, parce que ces • Bas. Ep. 244. al. 82. p. 378. D.

d Fac. I. iv. 2. savans hommes avoient été les maîtres de Nestorius. Beaus. • Vir sane undequaque doctissimus, qui in indagando S., H. de Manich. 1. i. ch. iv. T. i. p. 288. Scripturarum sensu, repudiatis allegoriis, simplicem duntaxat h Diodorus Tarsensis, in sacra. Scripturâ apprime versatus, atque obviam verborum intelligentiam sectatus est. Cav. Hexaplorum plenam notitiam habuisse videtur : ut ex ejus H. L. T. i. in Diodoro.

fragmentis, quæ iu Catenis supersunt, deprehenditur. Montf. * Præcipuus Diodori labor fuit, quo plerosque Scripturæ Prælim. in Hexapl. Orig. p. 95. libros-interpretando imitatus est Eusebium Emesenum. Atque i Vid. Cav. H. L. Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. viii. p. 358-363. ipse præivit Joanni Chrysostorno atque Theodoro Mopsues. Tillem. Mem. Ec. T. viii, et Du Pin. T. ii.

[ocr errors]

CHAP. CIX.

A COMMENTARY UPON THIRTEEN OF ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES.

1. The time and author of this work. II. His testimony to the books of the New Testament,

[ocr errors]

HAVE already more than once a taken notice of a Commentary upon thirteen of St. Paul's epistles, usually joined with St. Ambrose's works, and of late ascribed by many to Hilary, deacon of Rome.

1. And as I have not yet given any account of him, I shall do it now, but briefly. He was born in Sardinia and made deacon of Rome about the year 354. He is mentioned by Jerom in his book of Ecclesiastical Writers, in the chapter concerning · Lucifer of Cagliari, and several times in his book against the Luciferians. Hilary was always a zealous Homoüsian. Afterwards he became a rigid Luciferian, and even exceeded the bishop, from whom those people received their denomination. Jerom pleasantly calls him another Deucalion, as if he would bring again an universal deluge on the world, because he was for rebaptizing Arians, and other heretics, when they came over to the church: whereas it had been the general usage of Christians in former times, and of the church of Rome in particular, to receive heretics upon repentance. Upon the ground of this notion Hilary separated from the church. He also wrote treatises in favour of his opinion. So says Jerom.

2. Cave readily allows this Hilary, deacon of Rome, to be author of the fore-named Commentary, written, as he supposeth, before 384, as also of Quæstiones in Vetus et Novum et Testamentum, written about 370, and usually joined with St. Augustine's works.

Pagi' likewise contends, that Hilary, deacon of Rome, was author of both these works. Du Pins carefully examines this point. Tillemont says: It is now thought by many, that Hilary is author of the forementioned Commentary: but that this opinion is not without its difficulties. James Basnage, without determining who is the author, says, he i lived in the time of Damasus, before the end of the fourth century. Samuel Basnage * hesitates. And as for the Quæstiones, &c. he will not deny them to have the same author with the Commentaries, because they agree in several things. But he says, they are written in a manner much inferior to the commentaries. None, in my opinion, have treated this question more fully, or more judiciously, than the Benedictine editors of St. Ambrose's works: they say, that " the manuscript copies of the commentaries are very different from one another; and that in some parts of those commentaries there appear to be interpolations of long passages. Nor are they certain that the Quæstiones were written by the author of the comnientaries. And if they were, they also have been interpolated : which indeed, I take to be very probable, or even manifest, concerning both these works.

II. I shall make some extracts out of the commentaries; but I forbear to transcribe any thing out of the Quæstiones in V. et N. Testamentum.

i. In these Commentaries upon thirteen epistles of St. Paul, most books of the Old and New a See p. 15. 162.

zandis edidit : et ibi reperiet, ipsum Hilarium confiteri, a Vid. Cay. H. L. T. i. p. 317.

c De V. I. cap. 95:

Julio, Marco, Silvestro, et cæteris veteribus episcopis similiter d Est præterea aliud quod inferemus, adversum quod ne in pænitentiam omnes hæreticos susceptos. Hieron. Adv. mutire audeat Hilarius, Deucalion orbis. Si enim hæretici Lucifer. T. iv. P. ii. p. 305. Vid. ib. p. 302. infr. m. baptisma non habent, et ideo rebaptizandi ab Ecclesiâ sunt, e Tom. iii. edit. Lovan. T. iv. edit, Benedict. quia in Ecclesiâ non fuerunt, ipse quoque Hilarius non est f Ann. 362. n. XXV. xxvi.

8 Bib. Ec. T. Ü. Christianus. In eâ quippe Ecclesiâ baptizatus est, quæ h St. Ambroise. art. xci. Mem. Ec. T. X. et Lucifer de semper ab hæreticis baptismum recepit.-Diaconus eras, o Cagliari Art. ix. et not. 9, 10, Mem. T. vii. Hilari, et a Manichæis baptizatos recipiebas. Diaconus eras, Histoire de l'Eglise. l. xix. ch. 7. n. 15. p. 1181. et Ebionis baptisma comprobabas. Repente, postquam exor- * Ann. 362. n. 21, 22. tus est Arius, totus tibi displicere cæpisti. Segregas te cum Commentarius porro operi Quæstionum longissime præstat. tuis vernulis, et novum balneum aperis.

Ib. n. 22. dum quispiam putaverit, hæreticos a majoribus nostris semper m In Commentar. Admonit. ap. S. Ambrosii. Opp. T. ii. in fuisse susceptos, legat beati Cypriani epistolas.Legat et Appeud. p. 21. &c. ipsius Hilarii libellos, quos adversus nos de hæreticis rebapti

[ocr errors]

Quod si negan

« ElőzőTovább »