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.' с 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 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 formerly 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. g 7. By Theodoret we are assured, that' Diodorus wrote against Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Marcellus, and Photinus. m 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 Prophetsupon 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 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. १ 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. t 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, in his notes upon Suidas, says, that theory denotes the abstruse and • Αλλα και εἿος πολλακις της παίριδος εξέπεσε δια την ύπερ • Composuit libros numero sexaginta, quos Ariani combus serunt Remanserunt vero ex illis quæ sequuntur-et Expositio in partem Matthæi. Ebed. Cat. n. 18. ap. Asseman, Bib. Or. T. iii. p. 39. της πίσεως παρρησιαν. Ibid. p. 749. Β. b Ἡ δε αξιαίαςος ξυνωρις Φλαβιανος και Διόδωρος, ἱερατικης μεν λειλυρδιας μηδεπω τευχηκολες, τῳ δε λαῳ συνείαςμενοι, νυκίως και μεθ ̓ ἡμέραν εις τον ύπερ της ευσεβειας ζηλον διηΓειραν ἁπανίας. infeipay aπavlas. Theod. L. ii. c. 24. p. 107. A. B. Vid. et 1. iv. cap. 25. X In Proverbia: cui addidit dissertationem de Differentiâ Theoriæ et Allegoriæ,' sive sensûs mystici ab allegorico atque morali. Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. viii, p. 362. u See note. Ewpia hic significat sensum abstrusiorem et mysticum: cui opponitur To pylov, sive sensus literalis. Sozomenus de Diodoro nostro :- -περι δε το ῥηλον των ἱερων λοίων τας εξήίης σεις ποιησασθαι, τας θεωρίας αποφευδονία : id est: Quem 'accepi multos libros a se conscriptos posteris reliquisse, et sacram scripturam ad literam exposuisse, omisso sensu mys• tico. Et Socrates -- ψιλῳ τῳ γραμματι των θείων προσέχων γράφων, τας θεωρίας αυτων εκτρεπόμενος. 'Diodorus vero - multos conscripsit libros, simplicem tautum atque ob 'vium scripturarum sensum inquirens, mysticam vero earum 'interpretationem refugiens.' Ewpia igitur quid significet, hinc patet. Ab eâ differt allegoria, quod hæc in inferioribus subsistat, nec in tam sublimi argumento versetur, quam theoria. Kuster. 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 be fairly 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. a 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. g 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.' h 15. The usefulness of Diodorus's Commentaries, if they had been extant, may be collected from what Montfauçon 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. Julianus enim, Christo perfidus Imperator, sic Photino hæresiarchæ adversus Diodorum scribit.-Diodorus autem Nazaræi magus,-acutus apparuit sophista religionis agrestis -usque adeo ignorans paganorum mysteria, omnemque miserabiliter imbibens, ut aiunt, degenerum et imperitorum ejus theologorum piscatorum errorein. Facund. 1. iv. cap. 2. p. 59. * Και Διόδωρος μεν ὁ σοφωΐαίος τε και ανδρειοΐαίος, οία τις πολαμος διείδης τε και μείας, τοις μεν οικείοις την αρδειαν προσε φερε, τας δε των εναντίων βλασφημιας επέκλυζε. Theod. 1. iv. c. 25. p. 188. B. Vid. et l. v. cap. ult. Bas. Ep. 244. al. 82. p. 378. D. d Fac. 1. iv. c. 2. Vir sane undequaque doctissimus, qui in indagando S. Scripturarum sensu, repudiatis allegoriis, simplicem duntaxat atque obviam verborum intelligentiam sectatus est. Cav. H. L. T. i. in Diodoro. Præcipuus Diodori labor fuit, quo plerosque Scripturæ libros interpretando imitatus est Eusebium Emesenum. Atque ipse præivit Joanni Chrysostomo atque Theodoro Mopsues i teno, ita ut sensum literalem, potius quam, ex recepto apud plerosque alios illis temporibus more, allegorias sectarentur. &c. Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. viii. p. 362. Je ne say, si Theodore de Mopsueste, et Diodore de Tarse, deux des plus savans Evêques de l'antiquité, decouvrirent cette vue des loix Mosaïques: [pour être un préservatif. contre l'idolatrie:] mais ils bannirent, l'un et l'autre, de leurs commentaires sur le V. T. tout ce fatras d' allégories, s' attachant uniquement à bien expliquer le sens literal. Quelle perte pour l'Eglise que celle le leurs excellens ouvrages, que les Grecs ont sacrifié à leur haine et leur envie, parce que ces savans hommes avoient été les maîtres de Nestorius. Beaus. H. de Manich. 1. i. ch. iv. T. i. p. 288. h Diodorus Tarsensis, in sacra Scripturâ apprime versatus, Hexaplorum plenam notitiam habuisse videtur: ut ex ejus fragmentis, quæ in Catenis supersunt, deprehenditur. Montf. Prælim. in Hexapl. Orig. p. 95. Vid. Cav. H. L. Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. viii. p. 358-363. Tillem. Mem. Ec. T. viii, et Du Pin. T. ii. I. CHAP. CIX. A COMMENTARY UPON THIRTEEN OF ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES. I. The time and author of this work. II. His testimony to the books of the New Testament. I a HAVE already more than once 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. с 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 Pin 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 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 commentaries. And if they were, they also have been interpolated: which indeed, I take to be very probable, or even manifest, concerning both these works. m 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. Vid. Cav. H. L. T. i. p. 317. De V. I. cap. 95: Est præterea aliud quod inferemus, adversum quod ne mutire audeat Hilarius, Deucalion orbis. Si enim hæretici baptisma non habent, et ideo rebaptizandi ab Ecclesiâ sunt, quia in Ecclesià non fuerunt, ipse quoque Hilarius non est Christianus. In eâ quippe Ecclesia baptizatus est, quæ semper ab hæreticis baptismum recepit.-Diaconus eras, o Hilari, et a Manichæis baptizatos recipiebas. Diaconus eras, et Ebionis baptisma comprobabas. Repente, postquam exortus est Arius, totus tibi displicere cœpisti. Segregas te cum tuis vernulis, et novum balneum aperis.Quod si negandum quispiam putaverit, hæreticos a majoribus nostris semper fuisse susceptos, legat beati Cypriani epistolas.Legat et jpsius Hilarii libellos, quos adversus nos de hæreticis rebapti zandis edidit: et ibi reperiet, ipsum Hilarium confiteri, a e 'Tom. iii. edit. Lovan. T. iv. edit. Benedict. h St. Ambroise. art. xci. Mem. Ec. T. x. et Lucifer de Cagliari Art. ix. et not. 9, 10, Mem. T. vii. Histoire de l'Eglise. 1. xix. ch. 7. n. 15. p. 1181. * Ann. 362. n. 21, 22. Commentarius porro operi Quæstionum longissime præstat. Ib. n. 22. - In Commentar. Admonit. ap. S. Ambrosii. Opp. T. ii. in Append. p. 21. &c. d A Commentary upon thirteen of St. Paul's Epistles. A. D. 380. b с 521 Testament are quoted: as the four gospels, Mark's in particular; the Acts of the apostles very often; the first and second epistle of Peter; St. John's first epistle often, his third epistle once at least; the Revelation he ascribes to John the apostle, and quotes it very freely: whether the author received the epistle to the Hebrews, as Paul's, may be questioned; since he wrote commentaries upon his acknowledged thirteen epistles, and not upon that. However, the epistle to the Hebrews is mentioned in these commentaries. e 2. I shall now put down some remarkable observations and explications of this author. 3. He says, that all the apostles were chosen out of the Jewish nation, and that it was fit it. should be so. g 4. Upon Gal. i. 19, he says, that & James, there mentioned, and called "brother of the Lord," was son of Joseph by a former wife: but some impiously asserted, that Joseph had children by Mary. h 5. He supposeth, that the Christians at Rome had no apostle with them, before the time of St. Paul's writing to them; which to me appears very probable: it may be argued from the whole of his epistle to them, though from some parts of it more especially. However, Pelagius manifests a different opinion in his commentary upon that epistle. k 6. Upon Col. iv. 14, "Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you:" he says, "That * Luke was justly dear to Paul, because he constantly accompanied him. Moreover, he is said to have written the gospel and the Acts of the apostles.' Which manner of expression seems to intimate some doubt about the truth of that tradition; or, whether Luke here mentioned, and called physician, was the evangelist. 7. He supposeth the epistle, called to the Ephesians, to have been written to them. n 8. The translation of Col. iv. 16, followed by him, is "that ye read the epistle of the Laodiceans." The same is in the commentary ascribed to Pelagius. Which expression I take to be ambiguous: it may import an epistle written by the Laodiceans; or an epistle which was their property, as having been written to them. In which of those two senses Pelagius understood the expression does not appear: but this author, I think, understood it in the latter sense; and supposed, that hereby was meant a letter sent to the Laodiceans by the apostle: Since, therefore, he allowed the epistle, called to the Ephesians, to have been written to them; and that there was an epistle sent to the Laodiceans, mentioned Col. iv. 16, he must have looked upon this as a lost epistle. For it does not appear, that there was any epistle of the apostle Paul received by him, which was inscribed to the Laodiceans. 9. The first epistle to the Thessalonians is inscribed in this manner: Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians.' Upon which the author observes: The letter has the names of three bishops, [or of bishops, without three,] but the sense and words are the apostle's alone.' A somewhat like observation may be seen in Pelagius's › Commentary upon a Quamvis dicat Marcus Evangelista de dæmonibus: Sciebant enim Christum ipsum esse Jesum.' [Marc. i. 34.] In 1 ep. ad Cor. cap. ii. 8. Ap. Ambros. T. ii. Append. p. 118. D. 6 b Sicut Petrus Apostolus inter cætera dicens: Ut sitis,' inquit, consortes divinæ naturæ.' [2 Pet. i. 4.] In Philip. i. p. 251. F. с c Hic est Caius, ut arbitror, ad quem scribit Joannes Apostolus, exsultans in caritate ejus, quam exhibebat fraternitati. In Rom. xvi. p. 110. E. Sicut dictum est in Apocalypsi Joannis Apostoli. In 2 Thess. c. ii. p. 286. C. Vid. et in 2 Cor. xi. p. 198. B. in 1 Thess. iv. p. 282. A. Et passim. e Nam simili modo et in epistolâ ad Hebræos scriptum est, quia Levi, qui decimas accepit, decimas dedit Melchisedec. In 2 Tim. 1. p. 305. B. f Hoc est quod dicit, quia dispensatio prædicationis his decreta est a Deo, qui ex Judæis crediderunt in Christum. Unde nullus ex Gentibus ad Apostolatum electus est. Dignum enim erat, ex his eligi prædicatores, qui ante speraverunt. salutem, quæ illis promissa est in Christo. In Eph. i. ver. 11, 12. p. 233. B. 8 In Galat. i. p. 213. F. h Romanis autem [ut Galatis] irasci non debuit, sed et VOL. II. laudare fidem illorum: quia nulla insignia virtutum videntes, nec aliquem Apostolorum, susceperant fidem Christi, ritu licet Judaïco. Proleg. in ep. ad Rom. p. 25. B. i Romanos Petri prædicatione fidem tenentes confirmare se velle Paulus dicit; non quo minus accepissent a Petro, sed ut duobus Apostolis testibus atque doctoribus, eorum roboretur fides. Pelag. in Rom. i. 11. Ap. Hieron. T. v. p. 927. k Vere carissimus Apostolo fuit Lucas, quia, oinnia postponens, Apostolum semper sequutus est. Qui et Evangelium et Actus Apostolorum scripsisse perhibetur. In Col. p. 276. C. I Vid. Proleg. in ep. ad Eph. et Comm. in c i. v. 1. mEt vos ut eam, quæ est Laodicensium, legatis ] Quia generales sunt Apostolorum, et ad omnium profectum ecclesiarum scriptæ epistolæ: -idcirco, etiam Laodicensibus epistolam hanc legi præcepit, ut per hanc quid agendum sibi esset addiscerent: et Colossenses ut eorum legerent, juxta sensum supradictum. In Col. iv. p. 276. D. "Et ea, quæ Laodicensium est, vobis legatur. Pelag. in Col. ap. Hieron. T. v. p. 1076. • Trium quidem Episcoporum nomina literæ continent. [Al. Episcoporum nomine literæ continentur.] Sed sensus et verba solius Apostoli sunt. In 1 Thess. p. 277. A. PEt Sosthenes frater.'] Frater,' inquit, non Apostolus. 3 x the beginning of the first epistle to the Corinthians. And it is very just. All the authority of the epistle is derived from the apostolical character and commission. 10. His reading at 1 Tim. iii. 16, is which was manifested in the flesh.' That must have been in many Latin copies at that time. b 11. In the note upon Tit. iii. 13, he makes no question, but that Zenas was a Jewish lawyer: which appears to me very probable, though then a Christian. с CHAP. CX. PHILASTER, BISHOP OF BRESCIA. d I. ACCORDING to Cave Philaster, bishop of Brixia, or Brescia, in Italy, the author of a work Concerning Heresies, flourished about the year 380. Tillemont likewise thinks it probable, that the forementioned work must have been written in the year 380, or soon after. Fabricius not only thinks that Philaster wrote after Epiphanius, but that he also borrowed from him: which does not appear certain to me. Some few instances of agreement between authors, who have the same design, will not amount to a full proof. If Philaster had read Epiphanius, in all probability he would have mentioned him. It needs not to be reckoned at all strange, if he was wholly unacquainted with Epiphanius's work, even supposing him not to have written before 380, or somewhat later, which is not certain. Augustine, long after that, had seen only the Summary or Synopsis of Epiphanius, as all allow. Philaster is often quoted by Augustine in his book of Heresies. It may not be amiss to put down a passage of Augustine in his letter to Quod vult deus concerning that work, in which he gives the preference to Epiphanius above Philaster. The year of Philaster's death is not certainly known; but it is generally supposed that he died in 386, or 387. h i g 2. Philaster has a catalogue of the books of scripture: which, omitting some things relating to apocryphal writings, is to this purpose. It was appointed by the apostles, and their suc'cessors, that nothing should be read in the catholic church, but the law, and the prophets, and the gospels, and the Acts of the apostles, and thirteen epistles of Paul, and seven other, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude, and one of James, which seven are joined with the Acts of the apostles. But the hidden, that is, apocryphal scriptures, though they ought to be read by the perfect, for the improvement of men's manners, may not be read by all.' 3. In that article are omitted the epistle to the Hebrews, and the book of the Revelation. Nevertheless, perhaps, they are not quite rejected, but only denied to be publicly read. Let us therefore observe some other places. k 4. The very next article relates to the epistle to the Hebrews, and is to this effect: There * a Hunc autem idcirco secum scribentem inducit, quia ex ipsis See S. Philastre Mem. Ec. T. 8. e Etiam ante Philastrium scripsit Epiphanius, ex cujus libris ille profecit. Fabric. Not. ad Vit. Philast. per Gauden tium. Philastrius quidam Brixiensis episcopus, quem cum sancto Ambrosio Mediolani etiam ipse vidi, scripsit hinc librumNeque enim putandum est, aliquas ignorâsse Epiphanium, quas noverat Philastrius: cum Epiphanium longe Philastrio doctiorem invenerimus. Epist. 222. T. ii. 8 See St, Philaster in Tillemont, near the end. i h Vid. Cav. H. L. T. i. et Basnag. ad ann. 386. n. x. Propter quod statutum est ab Apostolis, et eorum successoribus, non aliud legi in ecclesiâ debere catholicâ, nisi Legem, et Prophetas, et Evangelia, et Actus Apostolorum, et Pauli tredecim epistolas, et septem alias, Petri duas, Joannis tres, Judæ unam, et unam Jacobi, quæ septem Actibus Apostolorum conjunctæ sunt. Scripturæ autem absconditæ, id est, apocrypha, etsi legi debent morum causâ a perfectis, non ab oninibus legi debent. Phil. de Hær. cap. 8. *Sunt alii quoque, qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebræos non adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt, aut Barnabæ esse Apostoli, aut Clementis de urbe Româ episcopi. Alii autem Lucæ Evangelista aiunt. Epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam. Et quia addiderunt in eâ quædam non recte sentientes, inde non legitur in ecclesiâ, etsi legitur a quibusdam. Non tamen in ecclesiâ legitur populo, nisi tredecim epistolæ ipsius, et ad Hebræos interdum. Et in eâ quia rhetorice scripsit, sermone H |