Skip to main content

Full text of "The minor theological works of John Pearson ..."

See other formats


unj 



TRINITY UNIVERSITY 

LIBRAR/, 



9 H 







FROM TH E LIBRARY OF 
TRINITYCOLLEGETORDNTO 



TRmrr 

LIBRARY 
S.N_/ds.H 



THE MINOR 

THEOLOGICAL WORKS 



OF 



JOHN PEARSON, D. D. 

BISHOP OF CHESTER, AND SOMETIME MASTER OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDOB. 

NOW FIRST COLLECTED, WITH A MEMOIR OF THE 
AUTHOR, NOTES, AND INDEX. 

BY EDWARD CHURTON, M. A. 

CANON OF TORK, AND RECTOR Or CRAYKE, IN THE COUNTY Of DURHAM. 



Oljuat irdinv tu> (t^oXoyrjOrivai riav vovv f \6fruf, mlStvffu> ruv trap rj 
tlva.i fb wparov ov ravnjv fj.6vT}v r^jv tvytvfffrtpcu' Kal fifi.f repay, 1>, TTOV TO iv 
\6yois it6fi.-fyov <caJ ^xXoTi^oc aTi^a{oiitra, /UO^TJS ^TM TTJS ff<an)pias Kal rov 
Ttav voovpfvw a\\a Kal rty QtaOtv, $i> ol iro\\ol Xpt(rriayi/ tiiairrvovffiv, u>s 
&ov\ov Kal <r<f>a\(pav KOI Qeov iroppw /3<L\Aov<rcu/, KOKVS tlSores. 

S. Gregor. Nuluxeo. Ormt. In Uudem S. Basilil. 



VOL. II. 



OXFORD: 

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 

M.DCCC.XLIV. 



PRESENTED 

BY THE 

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 

TO THE 

LIBRARY OF TRINITY COLLEGE, 
TORONTO, 

1857. 



CONTENTS 

OF THE SECOND VOLUME. 



CONCIONES AD CLERUM SEX. 

Precatio 3 

Concio I. Jer. vi. 1 6. Interrogate de semitis antiquis. In Religione 
Christiana nulla novitas. In detenninandis controversiis ad 
Ecclesiam priraitivam respiciendum 5 

II. Joann. v. 31. Si Ego testimonium perhibeo de Meipso, 

testimonium meum non est verum. Testimonia Ethnicorum atque 
Judseorum de Christo et Christianitate primaeva 15 

III. Act. xii. 24. Verbum autcm Domini crescebat et mul- 

tiplicabatur. Quibus praecipue adjumentis Evangelium apud 
Gentes creverit 29 

IV. i Tim. iv. I. Spiritus autem manifeste dicit, quia in 



novissimis temporibus discedent quidam a fide, attendentes spiriti- 
bus erroris, et doctrinis deemoniorum. Excutitur V. Cl. Josephi 
Mede nimis docta atque subtilis hujusce loci interpretatio... 41 
V. Act. xvii. 18. Quidam autem Epicurei et Stoici philo- 



sophi disserebant cum eo. Philosophorum in Christi disciplinam 

hostilis animus 56 

VI. Num. xviii. 8. Et ecce floruerut virga Aaronis pro 

domo Levi ; produxerat gemmam, et emiseratflorem, et maturaverat 
amygdala. Divina asseritur institutio ministerii, et distinctio 

ministrorum 69 

Oratio ad Exsequias Matthaei Wrenn, Episcopi Eliensis 79 

THREE SERMONS, PREACHED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. 

Sermon I. St. Luke xi. i. When ye pray, say, Our Father. -The 
Excellency of Forms of Prayer, especially of the Lord's 
Prayer 97 



i v CONTENTS OF VOL. II. 

Sermon II. Gen. 1. 10. And he made a mourning for his father 
seven days. The Patriarchal Funeral ; a Sermon preached before 
George Lord Berkeley, on the death of his father 112 

HI. Ps. cxi. 4. He hath made his wonderful works to be 

remembered. A Sermon preached at the Abbey- Church in 

Westminster, Nov. 5, 1673 136 

Christ's Birth not Mistimed ; or a Refutation of an Attempt to 
prove by Scripture that Jesus Christ was not born in Decem 
ber '53 

THREE TRACTS RELATING TO THE SUBJECTS OF THE 
SAVOY CONFERENCE. 

I. No Necessity of Reformation of the Public Doctrine of the 
Church of England 165 

II. Answer to Dr. Cornelius Burges , 205 

III. Letter against Promiscuous Ordinations 23 1 

FIVE PREFACES TO DIFFERENT THEOLOGICAL WORKS. 

I. Praefatio in ' Criticos Sacros.' 241 

II. Praefatio Paraenetica ad Vetus Testamentum Grsecum LXX 
Interpretum 246 

III. Preface to Lord Viscount Falkland's Discourse on the Infal 
libility of the Church of Rome 276 

IV. Preface to Stokes's Paraphrase on the Minor Prophets. . . 282 

V. Preface to the Golden Remains of the Ever Memorable John 
Hales of Eton College 285 

DISSERTATIONES DILE DE SERIE ET SUCCESSIONE 
PRIMORUM ROM.E EPISCOPORUM. 

.! '.umi- Thani Dedicatio ad Ven. Gulielmum Sancroft, Archiep. Can- 

tuarensem 293 

Dissertatio Prima, De Successione Primorum Romse Episcoporum 

in Genere 296 

Dissertatio Posterior, De Annis Primorum Romae Episcoporum 

sigillatim 436 

APPENDIX. Pearsoni Prolegomena in Hieroclem, et alia quaedam 
Opera Subseciva 573 



CONCIONES AD CLERUM 
SEX. 



PR ARSON, VOL. 11. 



Note prefixed by Mr. Stones. 

Reliquiae hasce Pearsonianas ab ipsis autographis, in museo Reve- 
rendi Viri Joannis Thane, S. T. P. Archidiaconi Cestriensis, nuper 
defuncti, reservatis, transcripsit J. S., A. D. 1727. 



PRECATIONIS FORMULA A PEARSONO 
IN CONCIONIBUS USURPATA. 

Oremus. 

OMNIPOTENS et Sterne Deus, respicere dignare 
servos tuos ad nutum Domini sui composites, et 
ad verbum tuum percipiendum congregatos : Exaudi 
orationes nostras, quas pro S. Catholica Ecclesia fun- 
dimus, quacunque in ora ac parte terrarum. Benedic 
viticulis per has insulas tuae manus consitura pullulan- 
tibus. Protege Carolum Secundum, Regem Britanniae, 
Franciae, Hiberniseque, defensorem fidei, omniumque 
nostrum in causis turn civilibus turn ecclesiasticis rec- 
torem summum : Propitius esto Serenissimae Reginae 
Catharinae, Jacobo Duci Eboracensi, totique regiae 
familiae. Instrue, dirigeque clerum tuum, archiepi- 
scopos, episcopos, presbyteros, diaconos, primatem prae- 
cipue Cantuariensem, et Eliensem praesulem : Fave 
magno regni conventui, optimatibusque regni, illis prae- 
sertim, qui regi sunt a sanctioribus consiliis: Tu, cui 
summum est in omnes imperium, redde hos auctoritate 
tua ita munitos, atque consilio instructos, ut singuli, 
prout officii cujusque ratio postulaverit, operam dent, 
aut fidelibus sancte instituendis, aut reipublicae recte 
administrandae, memores illius diei, quo populi curae 
suae crediti rationem sunt reddituri. 

B 2 



Oramus insuper, O Pater luminum et misericordi- 
arum, ut universas prophetarum scholas regere, rigare, 
ac fovere veils ; Academiam utramque, Cantabrigiensem 
hanc, Oxoniensem illam. Respice apud nos Honoratis- 
simum Dom. Illustrissimum Georgium Ducem Buck- 
ingamice, Cancellarium nostrum, Dignissimum Procan- 
cellarium, Oniatissimos Professores, Procurators, Tax- 
atores, reliquosque qui aliquo apud nos publico officio 
funguntur. Propitius esto omnibus collegiis, tua pro- 
videntia .et fundatorum benefactorumque munificentia 
extructis et ornatis, illi praesertim quod Sanctae et 
Individuae Trinitati dicatum est. Respice Collegium 
Jesu, Regale, Reginaleque ; fave praefectis, sociis, scho- 
larilms, omnibusque bonis literis inibi operam navan- 
tibus. 

Spargant se bonitatis tuae radii ad hujus regni fines, 
omnesque harum insularum angulos: doce gentem, 
instrue populum, ut Te vera fide et timore colant, ut 
debita regem obedientia et honore prosequantur, ut se 
invicem mutuo amoris ardore et charitatis affectu am- 
plexentur. 

Benedictum sit nomen tuum, Domine, pro beneficiis 
quae quotidie in nos immerentes contulisti ; pro iis, qui 
intra Ecclesiae pomoeria, in vera fide, per omnia post 
conditum mundum srecula, obdormierunt. Adesto 
nobis eodem lumine et fervore Spiritus, quo illi animati 
sunt ; ut eomm exempla secuti, eadem cum illis amicis 
sponsi resurrectione potiri, et immortalitate frui pos- 
simus. 

Hac ut omnia nobis contingant vim et efficaciam 
indas verbo in tuo nomine prsedicando ; respicias Filium 
pro nobis mortuum, et exaudias orationem, quam ab 
Tllius ore acceptam refundimus : 
Pater nosier, qui es in ccelis, fyc. 



CON CIO I. 

Jer. vi. 16. Interrogate de semitis antiquis. 

UAM perturbata, quara afflieta jam diu fuerit 
Ecclesia nostra, nemo est qui nescit; quam 
lubrico in loco adhuc versetur, quot scopulos latentes, 
et arenas avide hausturas merito reformidet, norunt 
illi saltern, qui de illius salute solliciti, omnem publicae 
religionis curam nondum deposuerunt. Qua ope tot 
periculorum nietus tollatur, qua arte tot inimicorum 
animi molliantur, quibus adminiculis tot motus atque 
molimina in aeternum conquiescant ; hoc vero scire, 
prudentis, hoc efficere, felicis, hoc velle, hoc cupere, 
hoc conari certe omnium est. 

Ne autem officio meo desim, in re tarn ardua, ac 
tamen pernecessaria, quid consilii apud me sit, ex- 
proinam ; quid ipse sentiam, dicam, patres fratresque. 

Haec in qua versamur academia, altera est prophe- 
tarum schola, alter videntiurn oculus ; hie odore primo 
testae recentes imbuuntur, hie religionis semina spar- 
guntur, quibus herbeseat terra, et flavescat messis ; ab 
his Athenis oleum est, quo templorum lampades nutri- 
untur; ab hoc fonte scaturiunt aquae, quibus agri 
Ecclesiae perfunduntur ; hinc exit sonus, quo sacer- 



(i Semites Antique. CONCIO i. 

dotum tubae, quo Boanerges perstrepunt : si hie recte, 
illic male esse non potest. 

Hie itaque opportune dandi consilii locus, hie fun- 
damenta ecclesiasticae pacis rite ponenda, hie formandi 
:n i in i i. et veritate imbuendi. 

Vos igitur, si a me quseratis, quid in religionis negotio 
maxime spectandum putem ; quo, in pietatis studio 
recte instituendo, praecipue collineandum sentiam ; quid 
ad errores convellendos, et stabiliendam veritatem, quid 
ad audaciam nefariorum hominum refraenandam, et 
comprimendos impetus, quid ad tumultus in Ecclesia 
sedandos imprimis aptum existimem, sic accipite. 

Qui divino theologise studio operam datis, qui chartis 
potissimum sacris irnpallescitis ; qui venerandum sacer- 
dotis officium aut occupatis, aut ambitis ; qui tremen- 
dam animarum curam suscepturi estis ; excutite prse- 
sentis saeculi pruritum, fugite affectatam novitatem, 
quod fuit ab initio quaerite, fontes consulite, ad anti- 
(liiitatem confugite, ad sacros Patres redite, ad Eccle- 
siam primitivam respicite ; b. e. ut cum propheta nostro 
loquar ; Interrogate de semitis antiquis. 

Verba Propbetae ad Judaeos, imo consilium Dei ad 
populum suurn ; ad populum ignarum, Interrogate ; ad 
errabundum, Interrogate de semitis ; ad instabilem, 
Interrogate de semitis antiquis. Interroga de diebus 
antiquis, inquit Moses, Deut. iv. 32. Interrogate de 
semitis antiquis, inquit post Mosen Jeremias. Ante 
Jeremiam Moses, Interroga de diebus antiquis, quid 
8cil. Deus pro populo fecerit : post Mosen Jeremias, 
Interrogate de semitis antiquis, quid Deus per Mosen 
populum clocuerit. 

Moses populo Israelitico viam monstravit, cum pro- 
mulgavit legem ; semitas praescripsit, cum mandata Dei 
tradidit: vivente adhuc Mose, semitse recentes sunt; 



Semitce Antigua:. 7 

h. e. leges nuper promulgate ; ambulante populo sub 
Mose Josuaque, adhuc recentes, vestigiis sanctorum 
noviter tritae. Prophetante Jeremia, post multa saecula, 
semitae factae sunt antiquae, turn ex institutione vetusta, 
turn ex observatione diuturna. Sed aberraverat tandem 
populus a lege Dei, mandata rejecerat, exempla sanc 
torum contempserat, novas semitas sibi adinvenerat : 
quare revocat Propheta ad praecepta vetera, et pristina 
sanctorum vestigia : h. e. ad semitas antiquas. 

Si itaque Judaeos spectes, quos per prophetam his 
verbis Deus allocutus est, ex hoc ipso monito sive 
inundate, hujusmodi officium illis incubuit, ut quoniam 
praecepta divina neglexerant, et alienos Deos venerati 
fuerant, quoniam novellas legis interpretationes admi- 
serant, et humanas etiam traditiones superaddiderant, 
quoniam regulas sibi prioribus sseculis inauditas prae- 
fixerant, atque ita vitam jam agerent voluntati Dei 
patefactae minime conformem, scirent praesentis saeculi 
neque doctrinam neque mores probari, et, depositis 
novarum opinionum erroribus moribusque ex nupera 
consuetudine corruptis, meutem animumque ad legem 
Dei revocarent ; reputarent secum, quomodo patri- 
archae coram Deo ambulaverint, quid tot retro annis 
Moses prsescripserit, quern ad modum sancti homines, 
et dilecti Deo, et legem datum intellexerint, et in- 
tellectam custodiverint, atque ita tandem ad pristina 
ilia saecula se totos componerent, atque formarent. 

Haec autem Judaeos tantum spectant, non et Chris- 
tianos ? exivit lex e Sina, sed non et e Sione ? ad 
populum suum Deus sub lege haec locutus est, non et 
sub evangelio ? Imo multo magis. Si illos tarn diserte 
revocet ad Mosen, patriarchas, et synagogam veterem, 
multo magis nos ad Christum, ad Apostolos, ad Eccle- 
siam primitivam. 6<W /ue' iroXXaJ, ol ayiot Trpo<f>qrat' 



Fides semel tradita. CONCIO i. 

w ayaOfj, 6 Kvptos ww. ut observavit S. 
Theodoretus a . 

A lege data, ad deploranda ilia Jeremiae tempora, 
plures quam mille anni sunt elapsi : ab evangelic 
Christi promulgate, a S. Scripture canone per Apo- 
stolos consignato atque Ecclesiae concredito, ad haec 
nostra tempora jam plane deplorata, plures quam ses- 
quimille ad calculum numerantur. Per hgec tarn lon- 
ginqui temporis spatia, quot haereses pullularunt ! quot 
eruperunt schismata! quse aetas horum monstrorum 
tarn ferax, quae Ecclesia his turbinibus tarn vexata, 
quam nostra est ? Prodierunt novi homines clamitantes 
Ecce hie Christus est, et ecce illic Christus est: quo 
nos vertimus? Post Mosen Deus excitavit saepius pro- 
phetas, qui populum suum in vera doctrina cultuque 
Dei retinerent : at per Filium novissime locutus est ; 
nobisque Christus non prophetarum oracula ulterius 
promisit, sed pseudo-prophetarum commenta in per- 
petuum praedixit. Ita Christi ipsius dignitas, evangelii 
natura, Ecclesiae constitutio, et novissimorum temporum 
ratio, nos ad antiquitatis asylum refugere non invitant 
tantum, sed et cogunt. 

1. Ut a dignitate Christi et evangelii natura ordi- 
amur. Christiana fides semel tradita est ; et per omnia 
saecula Christianos decet, quod Judas ad universos 
scripsit, supercertare semel traditce sanctis fidei. Jam 
vero si fides " tradita" sit, ab aliis earn accipimus, non 
ipsi excogitamus; si "semel tradita" sit, non potest 
serius nasci, non potest nata immutari : si denique 
" sanctis semel tradita" sit, ab illis recipienda est qui- 
bus tradita; neque enim est sanctis tradita, nisi ut 
tradenda. Interrogemus igitur quid Apostoli scrip- 
serint, quid fecerint, quid praedicaverint ; quseramus 

H In hunc loc. Jer. vi. 16. 



In Reliyione nulla nomtas. ' 9 

quid Apostolic! viri senserint, quid proxime sequentibus 
saeculis tradiderint ; sciscitemur quid sancti illi, quid 
confessores, quid martyres crediderint, qua doctrina 
imbuti, quo spiritu animati ad ignes cucurrerunt, ad 
coelos evolarunt. 

2. A constitutione Ecclesiae quid aliud discimus? 
quae non est nisi una, et quae ad unam illam baud per- 
tinet, ad nullam sciat se pertinere. Ipsa autem Ec- 
clesiarum unitas non aliunde quam a prima petenda 
esse videatur. Nam ut recte Tertullianus b , " Omne 
*' genus ad originem suam censeatur necesse est. Ita- 
" que tot et tantae Ecclesiae una est ilia ab Apostolis 
" prima, ex qua omnes." Et ut ex Tertulliano S. Cy- 
prianusS " Cum de fonte uno rivi plurimi defluunt, 
" numerositas licet diffusa videatur exundantis copiae 
" largitate, unitas tamen servatur in origine." Quae- 
rendum itaque imprimis, quae veteris Ecclesiae facies, 
quales Apostoli catbedras reliquerint, quales succes- 
sores elegerint, qui d totam doctrinam cum sanguine 
suo profuderunt : tenenda est regula, quam e Ecclesia 
ab Apostolis, Apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo Patre 
tradidit : remeandum est ad illos quibus Christus dixit, 
Docete omnes genles, et Ecce Ego vobiscum sum omnibus 
diebus, usque ad consummationem saculi. 

Hsec ipsa est religionis natura, ut non animi saga- 
citate invenienda, non ingenii facilitate excogitanda 
[sit,] sed ab iis, quorum curae commissa est, prudenter 
recipienda, fideliter retinenda. Sic Cotta loquitur apud 
Ciceronem : " Cum de religione agitur, T. Coruncanium, 
" P. Scipionem, P. Scaevolam, pontifices maximos, non 
" Zenonem, aut Cleanthem, aut Cbrysippum sequor." 

Cum in aliis fere rebus omnibus, turn in religione 

b De Prescript. Haeret. c. 20. < De Unitate Ecclesiae, p. 108. 
ed. Fell. d ' cui." S. f " quae." S. 



10 Antiquitas qucerenda. CONCIO i. 

nihil est novitate levius, nihil periculosius. Remedia 
inorbis et vulneribus eligimus, sed non nisi ex iis herbis 
stirpibusque, quarum utilitates longinqui temporis usu 
et periclitatione percipimus : et animas nostras, coelestis 
aurae particulas, et ad immortal itatem anhelantes, ilia 
doctrina studebimns pascere, quam nulla experientia 
coinprobavit ? Philosophia quotidie progressu, theologia 
nisi regressu non crescit. 

Cupio itaque vos in studio theologico, rebusque 
divinis, ad antiquitatem quaerendam, amplectendam, 
venerandam perducere: quod quo distinctius fiat, in 
tres potissinmm partes reliqua dividetur oratio; qua- 
rum 1. Doctrinam, 2. Disciplinam, 3. Cultum Dei 
spectabit. 

I. Quot sunt et prsesenti et superiore saeculo, de 
plurimis Christiana) religionis capitibus, inter ecclesiam 
Romanam Tridentinis placitis mordicus adhaerentem, 
interque f reformatas ortae controversies ! quot inter 
ecclesias reformatas, et ex illis ortas novas indies lise- 
reticorum turbas ! Habent omnes sua in S. Scriptura 
latibula, quibus se abscondant ; habent argumenta 
ingeniosa et subtiliter excogitata, quibus se defendant. 
Sudent orthodoxi quantum velint, vix plures Scripturas 
ostendent, vix plura argumenta afferent. Unius anti- 
quae Ecclesio3 auctoritas omnes opprimet. Nam, ut 
recte S. Trenams, [lib. iv. c. 45.] " ibi discere oportet 
[t veritatem, apud quos est ea, quse est ab Apostolis, 
" Ecclesi;c successio." 

In Sacramento eucharistiae jam consecrato, jam con- 
fecto, dicimus cum Christo " esse corpus Christi ;" 
dicimus cum S. Paulo, esse et " panem." Pontificii 
corpus esse asserunt, j)anem esse negant. Scripturas 
urgent, rationes afferunt ; quid agendum est ? " Inter- 

f Sic, " illas .... que." S. 



Antiquitas quantum talet contra Notatores. 11 

" rogate de semitis antiquis," quomodo fuit ab initio? 
quern in moduni Apostoli intellexerunt Christum ? De 
pane illo edat, inquit S. Paulus, etiam cum Christi in- 
stitutionem repetit, etiam cum modo dixerat, hoc est 
corpum meum. Quomodo Ecclesia intellexit Apostolos? 
Consulite S. Patres, qui millies " panem" vocant, qui 
" simul corpus, simul panem" esse dicunt ; nunquam, 
opinor, absolute panem esse negant. Hie itaque in ea 
regula incedimus, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis, Apo 
stoli a Christo, Christus a Deo tradidit. 

Et jam minori difficultate antiques Ecclesiae auc- 
toritas novatores prosternet, quam pontificios. Hi enim, 
licet errores plurimos introduxerint, et novellos, et 
Ecclesiae primitivae menti contrarios; haereses tamen 
antiquitus condemnatas non defendunt; illi decreta 
Conciliorum aperte rescindunt, haereses sopitas excitant, 
condemnatas [educunt]&, et cum omnia novare maxime 
cupiant, nihil tamen novi proferunt, nihil nisi quod 
antiquatum, nisi quod ab antiquitate condemnatum. 

Doctrinam prorsus novam, priori saeculo, aut Lselius 
aut F. Socinus excogitare sibi videbatur, neque sibi 
soli ; sequebantur eum plurimi, tantum unicum ra- 
tionis arbitrum, et Scripturae interpretem ; sed cum eum 
legimus, aut Photinum semper habemus, aut Pelagium; 
in theoreticis Photinum, in practicis Pelagium, hae- 
reticos ab Ecclesia Dei, dum viverent, percusses ; post- 
quam denati sunt, communi omnium calculo per tot 
saicula condemnatos. 

Eodem fere tempore prodiit Anabaptistarum furor. . 

IT. De doctrina diximus; ad disciplinam accedamus ; 
de qua magnis animis, aut furore potius, odiisque plus 
quam Vatinianis, nuper certatum est. Cum enim pa 
ir Hiatus in orig. " educunt" defectum suppleret. S. 



12 Episcopalis Disciplina, Apostolica. CONCIO i- 

truni nostrorum memoria, in perturbatissimo unius 
civitatis statu, novum quoddam Ecclesiastical Politise 
formam Jo. Calvinus adinvenisset ; disciplina, in mediis 
flammis et saevientis populi furore nata, omnium nu- 
|>erorum motuum civilium aut causa, aut saltern comes 
fuit ; eamque b , qua Ecclesia nostra tarn diu floruerat, 
quam leges omnes tarn sancte stabiliverant, simul turn 
auctoritate regia, sub alterius sceptri nomine, expulit, 

. . . expunxit. 

Si jam quaeritis, quo jure quave injuria hsec facta 
sint, interrogate de semitis antiquis : quid factum sit 
ab initio quivrite ; evolvite annales Ecclesiae, percurrite 
scripta antiquissimorum Patrum : disciplinam episco- 
j)alem ubique invenietis, presbyteranam nusquam. 
" Habemus," inquit S. Irenneus, " annumerare eos, qui 
" ab Apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in Ecclesiis, et 
" successores eorum, usque ad nos." [Lib. ii. c. 3.] 

Primo igitur loco habemus Apostolos; morientibus 
illis habemus episcopos ab Apostolis institutes ; sublatis 
primis episcopis, habemus eorum successores : " uno 
'* avulso, non deficit alter Aureus." " Percurre," inquit 
Tertullianus, " ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsae 
" adhuc cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur 1 ." 
Cathedra Apostoli capax est episcopi, sed haud opinor 
consessus presbyterorum : multo minus si consessus iste 
sit partim clericorum, partim laicorum. Quod autem 
tota ratio disciplines ecclesiasticae ab horum episcoporum 
auctoritate dependeret, notissima sententia est S. Ig- 

liatii : M7<5e/9 %(6p}$ roO cTria-KOTrov n irpaa-trerw T>V avq- 

Kovrtav ei? rrjv ' E^/fXi/a/ai/. Nee minus ilia Tertulliani : 
' Dandi quidem baptismum jus habet summus sacerdos, 
" <|ui est episcopus, dehinc presbyteri et diaconi ; non 

h :. diwiplinant. S. i De Prescript. Hser. c. 36. 

k Ad Sravrn. viii. 



Formula Prectan, Primitiva. 13 

" tamen sine episcopi auctoritate, propter honorem 
" Ecclesise, ' quo salvo, salva pax est 1 ." Ubi igitur 
honor Ecclesiae, ubi pax ilia quam Christus abiens 
legavit, si haec auctoritas sarta tecta non sit, si disci- 
plina ecclesiastica ad originem suam non recenseatur ? 

III. Quid tandem de cultu Dei sentiendum? quid, 
nisi ut omnia ad antiquissima Ecclesiae tempora refe- 
rantur ? ut Deus eo modo a nobis colatur, quo Apostoli, 
quo apostolici viri, quo sancti, quo confessores, quo 
martyres colueruut. In publicis Ecclesiae precibus 
solum Deum invocandum proponimus : pontificii angelos 
addunt, sanctosque, quos aut Deus, aut ipsi fecerunt. 
Scripturas opponimus, regerunt ; rationes proponimus, 
reponunt : praxin Ecclesiae primitivae Scripturis adjun- 
gimus, apostolicis literis apostolicas ecclesias, tanquam 
interpretes, addimus ; quid pro se adducant per multa 
saecula non babent. 

Formulam precum publicarum condidit Ecclesia 
nostra, confirmavit auctoritas suprema. Multa nova- 
toribus non placent ; et ea quidem plerumque quae 
optima, quia sunt antiquissima. Fateor equidem me 
maxime illis precibus accendi, quas antiquas esse novi, 
meque quasi in ilia felicissima tempora delatum sentio, 
dum eadem verba pronuntio. Dum orationem Domi- 
nicam recito, in ipso Apostolorum choro versari videor, 
cum S. Petro, cum S. Jobanne, conjungor; " sic ille 
" manus, sic ora ferebat ;" haec ipsa verba flexo genu ad 
Deum suum protulit. Cum hymnum ilium eucharis- 
ticum, " Gloria in excelsis Deo," post participationem 
canimus, quidni cum illis fratribus primitivis versemur, 
qui fuerunt a-jr' ap-^T^ TTICTTO/, et hunc, inter caeteros, 
hymnum ab initio composuere. Quid mihi cum nova- 
torum objectiunoulis de responsis populi, cum apud 
1 De Baptismo, c. 17. 



14 Liturgies SS. Patrum. CONCIO i. 

S. Augustimim legam, " Quotidie per universum orbeni 
" humanum genus una pene voce responflet, Sursum 
" corda se habere ad Dominum m ;" cum S. Basilium 
audio, o /xeVrot Xao? apyaiav a(f>itj<Ti rtjv (fxavqv, KOI ovSev] 
TrwTTore ao-efieiv evonto-0ti<rav n ' dim S. Chrysostomum 
video defendentem quod populus adhuc apud nos 
USUrpat, err) rS)v (fipiKwSearTaTWv ftva-nipicw eTreu-^erat 6 
tepevs TO) \aw, SC. DeilS vobiscum, eTrev-^erai KO.} o Xao? r<a 
iepei' TO yap, Mera TOV Trvev/maTOS crov, ovoev aAXo CCTTIV rj 

TOVTO . 

Sive igitur doctrinam, sive disciplinam, sive cultum. . 



m De Vera Religione, c. iii. 5. " se nihil aliud quam Dominum 

Notissimus locus est S. Cypriani " cogitare debere." 
de Oral. Dom. p. 152. ed. Fell. n De Spirit. Sanct. c. xxix. 73. 

" Quando Stamus ad orationem, ovdevl TTCUTTOTC do-e/Seiv tvofiiadtja-av 

" . . . . sacerdos parat fratrum ot \tyovrfs, Alvovptv* Hart pa, KO\ 

" mentes dicendo, Sursum corda; Yibv, KOI Tivfvp.a "\yiov Qtov. 
" ut, dum respondet plebs, Habe- Homil. xviii. in 2 Cor. Vid. 

" mus ad Dominum, admoneatur Bingham. Antiq. xv. c. iii. 2. 



CONCIO II. 

Joan. v. 31. 'Eav ey<a fj.aprvpta "rrepl e/xavrov, tj 

fjiov OVK (mv aXtjdfo. Si Ego testimonium perhibeo 
de Meipso, testimonium meum non est verum. 

CUM multa Christus dixerit, prout illius temporis et 
gentis ratio ferebat, quae nobis, et aetate et regione 
longe dissitis, et a Judaeorum statu moribusque maxime 
remotis, mira fortasse videautur ; turn hoc effatum 
praecipue difficultatem quandam baud vulgarem, et 
quasi ignominia in auctoritatem loquentis redundantem, 
prima facie repraesentat. An enim Ille, qui aeterna 
Patris Sapientia fuit, si quid de Seipso assereret, verum 
non diceret ? Ubi certi aliquid aut explorati reperiemus, 
si pro indubitatis non habeantur, quae ab Eo prolata 
sunt, qui dixit, Ego sum via, veritas, et vita f Si ilia 
veritati consentanea non sint, quae Christus de Seipso 
testabatur, quae nobis, in Ejus nomine, aeternae salutis 
spes relicta est ? Nonne Idem in eodem evangelio dixit, 
Etsi Ego testimonium perhibeo de Meipso, verum est 
testimonium meum ? Quomodo utrumque effatum reci- 
piam ? An idem et verum et non verum esse potest ? 
Quomodo alterutrum amplectar ? Si ex testimonio 
dependeam, quomodo aut hoc aut illud verum erit ? 



16 Textm Expositio. CONCTO n. 

Perspicitis, opinor, viri patres fratresque, quas in 
angustias conjecti, quanta in difficultate versamur. Sed 
unica observatione praemissa, haec nebula nullo negotio 
discutitur. Pro circumstantiis et loci, et temporis, et 
gentis varie Christus locutus est. Hie igitur TrpoXafivv 
el-re i haec sententia praeoccupatio est, et concessio 
rhetorica ; TT/JO? rqv eicelvtav virovoiav spectat, ut observat 
8. Chrysostomus 8 ; praeoccupat suspicacium Judaeorum 
objectionem ; concedit quod eos objectum ire optime 
novit. Id enim ipsi postea dixerunt et aperte professi 
sunt Pharisaei, cap. viii. 13. Tu de teipso testimonium 
perhibes ; testimonium tuum non est verum. Neque 
pervicacium Judaeorum haec sententia tantum fuit, sed 
et omnium fere mortalium. " More majorum," inquit 
Cicero, " comparatum est, ut in rebus minimis homines 
** amplissimi testimonium de sua re non dicerent." 

Quamvis per se certissima sit doctrina a Christo 
tradita, et de iis dubitare nefas est, quae ab Illo pro- 
mulgata sunt, in Quo omnes sapientice thesauri reconde- 
bantur ; tamen ad convincendos eos, qui veritati tarn 
perspicuae se opponunt, suo exemplo docet, adhibenda 
esse ea testimonia, quae ipsi admittunt. Cum discipulis 
agens, inquit, Creditis in Deum ; credite et in Me : cum 
Judaeis autem disputans, adducit loca prophetarum, 
testimonium Mosis, Joannis, miracula coram ipsis edita. 
Vos misistis ad Joannem ; et testimonium ille perhibuit 
teritatL Cur mihi non creditis, cum Joanni credatis, 
qui mihi praebet testimonium ? Nostis me Eum esse, de 
quo ille dixit, Cujus ego non sum dignus ut solvam cor- 
rigiam calceamenti. Nee haec mei causa vobis dico, 
quasi humana auctoritate ad evangelii confirmationem 
indigerem ; sed vestri potius gratia, qui nullius, nisi de 
quo praeconceptam opinionem habetis, testimonium 

H In Inc. Horn, in Joann. xxxix. 



Tabula Censuales Romanorum, 17 

admittitis. Ego enim non aJb homine testimonium ac- 
cipio ; sed hcec dico, ut vos salvi sitis ; qui aliter credi- 
turi non videmini. 

Sint igitur ajmd nos principia religionis Christianas 
avTOTTi<rra, sit auctoritas Christ! revelantis suprema, sit 
traditio Ecclesiae ab illius promissione pen dens firma et 
inconcussa : cum tamen nonnulli, etiam intra Ecclesiae 
pomoeria, in fide vacillent, et nescio quse humana et 
externa argumenta postulent, etiam in eorum gratiam, 
ut et illi salvi sint, talia, si qua sint, conquirenda 
putamus. Jam vero communi hominum consensu ap- 
probatum est, nullum esse ad veritatem confirmandam 
efficacius testimonium, quam quod ab inimico proficis- 
citur, qui sola vi veritatis compulsus, et rei ipsius 
dignitate commotus, contra animi propensionem cal- 
culum suum apponere voluisse putandus est. Chris 
tianae religioni primulum exortae totus se opposuit 
mundus : foris Ethnici, domi Judaei, se illi hostes in- 
fensissimos et praebuerunt et professi sunt. Illis evan- 
gelium insipientia, his scandalum fuit. 'E^rei^ KOI 
"fj\\t}(ri KOI Ba/>/3ct|Oot?, Kal Tratriv aitOpwTrois r\ T>V e^jdpwv 
/maprvpia e/VoTO)? <We<~ afydxpeoo? eivai. ut recte Isid. 
Pelusiota b . " Tuum testimonium" inquit Cicero, " quod 
" in aliena re leve esset, id in tua, quoniam contra te 
" est, gravissimum debet esse." Primo igitur Ethni- 
corum, dein Judaeorum testimonia proferemus. 

1. Natus est Dei Filius, ut diu ante a prophetis 
fuerat praedictum, Bethleemi ; et huic nativitati vix 
citius de coelo angeli testimonium perhibebant, quam 
Romani imperii tabulse censuales. Illuc, Dei provi- 
dentia, Cyrenius ab Augusto missus, Josephum et Ma- 
riam evocabat ; eorum nomina cum filio jamjam nato in 
tabulas illas relata sunt, et Romae, non tarn ad am- 

b Epist. lib. iv. ep. 225. Ubi de testimonio Joseph! loquitur. 

PEARSON, VOL. II. C 



18 Tabttlfs Censuales. CONCIO 11. 

plitudinem imperil, quam solummodo spectabat impe- 
rator, quam ad rei inauditee memoriam, diligenter 
custodita sunt. De hisce tabulis Tertullianus c , juris 
Romani et antiquitatum peritissimus : " Censum Au- 
" gusti, testem fidelissimum dominicae nativitatis Ro- 
" mana archiva custodiunt d ." Ad has incredulos 
Judaeos mittit, ut vel ex illis aliquid de Messia dis- 
cerent, quod a Scripturis haurire noluerunt. " Fuit 
" enim," inquit, " de patria Bethlehem et de domo 
" David, sicut apud Romanes descripta est Maria, ex 
" qua nascitur Christus e ." Ad has provocat adversus 
Marcionis discipulos disputans, qui Christum vere 
natum negabant, et primam evangelii partem sua ma- 
chaera resecabant. " Sed et census constat actos sub 
" Augusto nunc in Judaea per Sentium Saturninum ; 
"apud quos genus ejus inquirere potuissent f ." De 
hisce tabulis censualibus, TO?? ap-^aioi^ rots Srj/jiocria 

KeifJievoi? Kwoifyv e-jri TJyy 'Paj/xijy, loquitur S. ChrjSOS- 

tomus s. Unde dies ille, quern nos ad honorem na 
tivitatis Christi etiamnum celebramus, in Orientem 
dimanavit, et ab Epiphaniorum Festo distinctus est, et 
unica communi tanti beneficii memoria ac celebritate 
totam Ecclesia replevit. 

Apparuit stella in Oriente, et nova et mira, et nun- 
quam ante conspecta, quae excitavit Magos ad testi- 
monium Christo perhibendum. Ubi, inquiunt illi, natus 
est rex Judceorum ? Imo vero de loco quaeritis ? de re 
ipsa prius docete, unde certiores facti estis. Vidimus, 



e Ante Tertullianum Justinus Kvp^viov rov vfurepov tv 'l 

Martyr. Apol. i. . 44. Kayxq d irp&Tov ytvo^vov fTrirponov. 
ns i<rr\v ii> rfj x&pq lovdaimv, dirt- d Adv. Marcion. iv. . 7. 
XOVtra (TTadtour rpioKovrmrevrt It- e Adv. Judzeos. ix. 

pwro\vnw, f v f, lytv^ey I^o-oCr ' Adv. Marcion. iv. .19. 
Xpurror r ical ^addv Mvatrdt l* g Horn, in Diem Nat. Dom. 

rS>v y f vop. ( ' vmv i n \ Nostri. torn. ii. p. 354. ed Bened. 



Macrobii testimonium. 19 

inquiunt, stellam Ejus in Oriente, et venimus ad Eum 
adorandwn. Quo testimonio hominum a gente et 
sacris Judaicis alienorum, quid aut majus aut divinius 
dici potuit ? Sed haec nostra sunt, inquies, neque hujus 
rei aut vola aut vestigium alibi quara in evangelic 
reperitur. Fateor equidem rerum Orientalium monu- 
menta periisse, nee ad manus Christianorum pervenisse. 
Quid illi rerum coelestium observantissimi Magi, ad 
patriam suam reversi, aut dixerint aut scripserint, 
prorsus nescimus : habemus tamen ejusdem rei cer- 
tissimum etiam ab Ethnicis testimonium, quod his- 
toriae ex adventu Magorum natro fidem facit. Herodes 
enim, putans se a Magis delusum, occidit omnes pueros 
qui erant in Bethleem el in omnibus finibus ejus, a 
bimatu et infra^ secundum tempus quod exquisiverat a 
Magis. Hoc autem infanticidium, quod celare tanto- 
pere cupiebant Judaei, terrarum domini Romani agno- 
verunt, et suo calculo imperator Augustus foctum fuisse 
comprobavit. Cum enim jocos affectaret, ne hujus 
quidem occasionem famcc sibi oblatum praeteriit ; sed, 
ut refert Aurelius Macrobius, non religioni Christianas 
sed Ethnicae superstitioni deditus, etiam in hac pa 
laestra ingenium exercuit. Verba Macrobii notatu 
digna haec quidem sunt : " Cum audisset inter pueros 
" quos in Syria Herodes rex Judaeorum intra bimatum 
" jussit interfici, filium quoque ejus occisum, ait, Melius 
" est Herodis porcum esse quam filium." Innotuit 
igitur Romanis, Herodem omnes intra bimatum in 
fantes Bethleemi, crudelitate inaudita, et ex mera h 
suspicione orta, interfecisse. Cujus tarn insoliti furoris 
et insaniae ratio reddi nulla potest, nisi quod illi ab 
Oriente sapientes regi timido, et ad novi successoris 
nomen exhorrescenti, alia Judaeae sceptra praedicerent, 

h mira. S. 

c 2 



20 Testimonium Phlegontis. CONCIO 11. 

et illi, qui ab Augusti nutu tantummodo pendebat, 
regni minam de coelo minarentur. Ita historia, ab una 
hostium parte serio seduloque suffocata, ab altera joco 
erupit, et aeternitati consecrata est. 

2. Phlegon, libertus Hadriani imperatoris, in chro- 
nicis, quorum exigua tantum fragraenta supersunt, non- 
nulla de Christo scripsit sane honorifica. Nam, ut 
legimus Orlgenem, harurn rerum et maxime curiosum, 
et testem fidelissimum, irep\ TIVUJV /xeXAoWwi/ Trpoyvoxriv 
e$u)K ru> Xpi<TT<S, " rerum futurarum scientiam Illi tri- 
" buebat," quam sibi soli vindicat Deus ; *at eimaprv- 
ptjcrev, ilKjuit, on. Kara ra eiprnj.eva WTT' avrou TO. \eyo/Ji.eva 
airrivTti<Tf> " et aperte testabatur etiam res ipsas secun- 
" dum ea quae prsedixerat evenisse '." Quinetiam idem 
tenebras, sub morte Christi mundo offiisas, sub magnae 
eclipseos nomine descripsit k , quamvis plena luna illae 
contigerint, qua eclipsin solis effici non posse omnes 
norunt. Ita, dum effectum potius quam causam re- 
spiceret, in philosophia imperitum, in historia diligen- 
tem et fidelem se praestitit. Neque enim ad calculos 
corporum coelestium motus digessit, sed per Olympiades 
temporum intervalla et rerum eventus descripsit. Huic 
consensit etiam Thallus historicus, teste Africano l ; 
unde Tertullianus, Origenis synchronus, Apologetico 



' Contr. Celsum. ii. p. 69. ed tea, suadente Sykesio, locum 

Spencer. omisit. Unde Sykesium non im- 

k Ibid. p. 80. et Comment, merito indignabundus castigat 

Lat. in Matth. . 134. Cf. Eu- nequam iste Will. Whiston ; 

sebii Chronicon. A. D. 33. apud (Vit. Clarkii, p. 117.) qui et ipse 

Hieron. Opp. torn. viii. p. 649. plura ad hoc testimonium illus- 

Phlegontis, inter " viros erudi- trandum congessit in Disser- 

" tissiraos" meminit S. Hierony- tatione sua, The testimony of 

mus, Quaest. Hebr. in Genesin. Phlegon fyc. examined and cleared, 

Mirum, quod vir doctus Sam. in answer to Dr. Sykes. Lond. 

Clarke, quam ad hoc Phlegontis 1732. 

testimonium provocasset, (Boyle i Biblioth. Gallandi. ii. p. 374. 
lect. p. ii. p. 276. ed tert.) pos- 



Acta Pilati. 21 

ad Gentes, " Eum mundi casum relatum in archivis 
" vestris habetis m ." h. e. certissimum horrendae Ju- 
daeorum impietatis argumentum, ac divinissimum in- 
nocentiae potestatisque Christi. 

3. Pilatus, procurator Caesaris, qui innocentiam Christi 
adeo palam vindicabat, nee nisi invitus a Judaeis 
expetitum et quasi extortum tradidit, Illius gesta mor- 
temque in acta publica, qualia in provinciis a prae- 
sidibus earum et procuratoribus Caesaris confici solebant, 
referenda curavit, et Tiberio Romam transmittenda. 
" Ea omnia," inquit Tertullianus, " super Christo Pi- 
" latus, et ipse pro sua conscientia Christianus, Caesari 
" tune Tiberio nuntiavit n ." Ante Tertullianum Jus- 
tinus Martyr in Apologia ipsis imperatoribus Rom83 
dedicata, de modo crucifixionis Dominicae ad publica 
haec Pilati acta provocabat : KaJ ravra ori yeyove, Sv- 
naQeiv CK TU>V eirl Tlovrlov TliXdrov yevofteiHav 
: " Quod haec ita gesta sint, imperatoris pii et 
" philosophi, ex actis quae sub Pilato conscripta sunt, 
" cognoscere potestis ." Dubitari igitur non potest, 
quin Pilatus Judaeae procurator, ea Tiberio Caesari 
rescripserit, quae ad veritatem historiae de vita et morte 
Christi demonstrandam maxime pertinerent, eaque ipsa, 
in archivis Roraae, conservata fuisse. Neque enim 
Justinus et Tertullianus adeo dementes aut fatui pu- 
tandi sunt, ut et Romanis omnibus, et imperatoribus 
ipsis, ea objicerent, quae aut nunquam extarent, aut 
contra Christianos facerent. Romanorum nimia sedulitas 
et manifesta fraus, cum summa credelitate conjuncta, 
indubitatam huic rei fidem faciunt. Cum enim haec 
Pilati acta in apologiis Christianorum frequenter sibi 

m Apologet. . 21. Act. Apost. iii. . 4. 

n Apologet. ibid. Cf. Lect. in Apol. i. . 45. et 63. 



22 Acta Pilati. CONCIO 11. 

objecta viderent, et maximam eorum in Ecclesia auc- 
toritatem et famam esse perspicerent ; tandem ipsi 
acta, sub Pilati nomine, sed adultera, sed falsissima, 
publicabant P. Nam sub Diocletiani et Maximini im- 
perio, ea sub hoc titulo ediderunt, quae ad infamiam 
Christi maxime redundarent ; quae et edicto per omnes 
imperii provincias spargi curarunt, ludi magistris decla- 
randa, et j)uerorum memoriae commendanda, tradi- 
derunt, et confessoribus ad Martyrii coronam festinan- 
tibus objiciebant. 

4. Sed fraus ista facile Christianis subolebat, neque 
tarn fictis et adulteratis mercimoniis decipi potuerunt. 
Noverant^ alia Tiberio rescripta fuisse, quae in illo 
cautissimo suspicacissimoque imperatore aliam de 
Christo sententiam excitaranf. Ille enim, acceptis a 
Pilato actis, ad senatum retulit. S. Chrysost. Horn. 
XX vi. in 2 Cor. "Ore yovv TO. Kara Xpia-rov aTTJ/yyeA? 
iravra, eTre/u.'yev 6 TOV eOvovs ap-^av Trvv6avoiJ.evo$ el SOKCI 
avrots Kai avrov ^eiporovria-at Oeov. Ante eum Tertul- 
lianus : " Tiberius ergo, cujus tempore nomen Chris- 
" tianum in sasculum intravit, annunciata sibi ex Syria 
* k Palaestina quae illic veritatem istius divinitatis reve- 
" larant, detulit ad senatum cum praerogativa sententiae 
" suae 8 ." Quid illustrius hoc testimonio ab inimicis 
Christianae religionis profecto vel excogitari potest? 
quid honorificentius? unde miror equidem Christianum 
aliquem, historiam adeo nobilem in tanta luce et 
antiquitate Ethnicis objectam, et a nemine, quod sci- 
mus, negatam, aut pro suspecta habitam, negare, re- 
jicere, et exercitatione critica reprobare voluisse. Ad- 
ditur quidem a Tertulliano, ** Senatus, quia non in se 

P Vid. Euseb. I. ix. 3. IX. v. r excitarunt. S. 
' Noverunt. S. s Apolog. . 5. 



Tiberii relatio ad Senatum. 



" probaverat, respuit." Inde Criticus l , " Hem ! re- 
*' spuit Senatus quod Tiberio placuit ?" Senatus ille 



* Tanaquil. Faber. Epist. 1 2. 
lib. 2. Vid. Pearson. Lect. in 
Acta Apost. iv. . 14. p. 64. 
inter Opp. Posthuma. S. Praeter 
Fabrum, TertuHiano fidem ab- 
negarunt Basnagius, Jo. Clericus 
in Biblioth. Univ. ix. 139. alii, 
que, quos recensent Jo. Alb. 
Fabricius, Cod. Apocryph. N. T. 
p. 217, Gottfrid. Lumper. Hist. 
Theol. Crit. de SS. Patr. vol. vi. 
p. 702. Gibbono idem placuisse, 
nihil mirum. Mirari quis potest, 
Dom. Episcopum Lincolniensem, 
de hac historia agentem, Pear- 
soni sententiam non advocasse. 
(Eccl. Hist, ex Tertulliano Illus- 
trat. p. 1 10. 1 1 2.) Ait quidem 
ille, " Pearsonum lectionem, in 
" se, substitutam velle pro vul- 
" gata, ipse," quo interpreta- 
tionem suam Tertulliani con- 
firmet. At ista lectio non nata 
est ex conjectura Pearsoni, sed 
quam exhibent B. Rhenani edi- 
tiones post primam, quam recepit 
Pamelius, et quam ex Codicum 
auctoritate tuetur Havercamp. in 
editione sua Apologetici, Lugd. 
Bat. 1718. Dubitari ergo po 
test, annon lectionem, ipse, re- 
ceperint alii ex comparatione 
Graecae versionis Eusebii, Hist. 
Eccl. ii. 2 ; ubi legitur 17 de <rvy- 
jcXi/ro?, irei ov\ avnj (aliter, OVK 
avrff) 8t&oKip.dic(i, aTraxrcrro. At, 
i. non inde satis liquet, quid 
legerit Eusebius ; potuit enim 
utramvis lectionem sic vertisse : 
2. quod notat Havercampius, 
non adeo certum est, Eusebium 
Tertulliani mentem perspexisse. 
Est enim amphibolia ex duobus 
antecedent ibus, Romanis ipsis 
aliquando, ut docet Quinctilia- 



nus, ambigua. Certe quae Ter- 
tullianus hie habet, " annunciata 
ex Syria Palaestina, quae illic 
" veritatem illius divinitatis reve- 
" larant," non assequitur Euse 
bius, reddendo, dyyX&Wor < 
noAaiOTii^jf rov boynaros TOVTOV, 

fvQa npStrov fjparo. Vid. Valesii 
not. ad loc. 

Quod ad summam quaestionis, 
cum, praster Pearsonum, Is. 
Vossius, Tillemontius, Huetius, 
Fabricius, ut alios taceam, hanc 
" historiam adeo nobilem" suis 
suffragiis comprobaverunt, vellem 
Dom. Lincolniensis suis de fide 
Tertulliani suspicionibus ipse po- 
tuisset satisfacere ; neque enim 
tanti erant, quae virum in anti- 
quitate tarn bene versatum mo- 
rarentur. " TertuHiano uno auc- 
" tore," ait, " traditam." Et, 
" undo evenire potuit," rogat, 
" ut imperatoris relatio ad Se- 
" natum de re adeo memorabili 
" scriptores cseteros omnes la- 
" tuisset ? Justinus Martyr, qui 
" de Evangelicae Historise veri- 
" tate non semel ad Acta Pilati 
" provocat, ne verbum quidem 
" admiscet de sententia Tiberii, 
" qua Christum inter divos Ro- 
" manos adscribi voluit." Prae- 
missis negativis nihil probatur. 
Quis enim de scriptoribus caeteris 
omnibus, quorum copiam nobis 
invidit setas, ausit pronuntiare ? 
Neque certo statuendum est, Jus- 
tinum de Tiberii proposito nihil 
audivisse, eo quod in scriptis 
hodie exstantibus nihil diserte 
meminit. Sunt quibus videri 
potest plura rescivisse, quam 
scripsit, de actis istis Pilati, et 
quid Roma? ex Pilati nuntio 



Tiberii relatio ad Senatum. 



CONCIO II. 



scilicet, qui Tiberio acleo servilis fuit. Sed nee Ti- 
berium, nee Senatum, nee Tertullianum intellexit, qui 
huic testimonio tarn praeclaro contradixit. Id Tiberii 
ingenium fuit, ut Senatus ex relatione facta, quid ipse 
voluerit, minime intelligeret. Senatus antea Tiberio 
divinitatem obtulerat, quam ille respuit; quia igitur 
" divinitatem in se non probaverat," sed oblatam re- 
jecerat, tutissimum putabant [senatores] alium nemi- 
nem inter decs suos referre, ne eum Tiberio majorem 
efficere viderentur. Refert Suetonius, " neque tarn 
" parvum quicquam neque tarn magnum publici pri- 
" vatique negotii fuisse, de quo non ad P. C. referretur." 
Et quidem *' quaedam ad versus sententiam suam de- 
" cerni ne questus quidem est u ." Unde evanescunt 
omnes illse de ira imperatoris levissimse suspiciones ; et 
testimonii a Pilatio Romam missi, cum jam a metu 
tumultuantis populi Judaici liberaretur, certitudo per- 
spicitur. Haec de Christo ipso. 

5. De Christianis hanc confessionem etiam ab illis 
qui religionem nostram coram tribunali negaverant, 
accepit Plinius Secundus, et imperatori Trajano re- 
misit : " Affirmabant autem, hanc fuisse summam vel 
" culpae suae, vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die 
" ante lucem con venire : carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, 



factum, imperante Tiberio. Sin 
minus, neutiquam veritati frau- 
dem facere oportet S. Justini 
silentium, viri in Asia inter 
Graecos philosophos enutriti, Ro 
mano foro procul, qui nonnisi 
sero ad urbem accessit, de legi- 
bus, de senatu, et principum 
moribus, pauca admodum videtur 
intellcxisse. Contra, ei Tertul- 
liani unius auctoritate moti hanc 
historian! tradidere Eusebius, 
Chrysostomus, caeteri ; nonne 



Tertullianus unus inter Patres 
erat Romani juris callentissimus, 
rerum transactarum idem curio - 
sus indagator, et qui unice fidem 
sibi in re ejusmodi proprio quo- 
dam jure vindicaret ? Error in 
virum doctum aeque et pruden- 
tem non cadit. Finxisse vero 
ausum quis credat, cum inter 
hostes tot tantosque Christiani 
nominis causa ageretur ? 
u In Tiber, c. 30, 31. 



Testimonium Josephi. 25 

" dicere secum iiivicem ; seque sacramento, non in 
" scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, 
" ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne 
** depositum appellati abnegarent." 

Ammianus Marcellinus, et ipse Paganus, Christianam 
religionem " absolutam et simplicem" vocat, eamque 
" professionem" esse ostendit, " quae nihil nisi justum 
" suadet et lene x ." 

II. Haec ex antiquissimis Gentilium monumentis, ad 
ea quae de originibus Christianis prsedicantur confir- 
manda, adduximus. Judaei vero, ex quibus ortus est 
ChristllS, uon tantlim KOTOTTIV 'EXAjJy&n' eyevovro, Trent 
rtjv etV avrov Trio~rtv, ut observat Sozomenus ?, sed et 
Ethnicis multo pervicaciores extiterunt. Qni, cum 
Romanum procuratorem ad Eum crucifigendum coge- 
rent atque compellerent, " oninia de Christo nobis 
" abstulerunt praeter crucem." Quicquid de Ejus vita 
credimus adeo pernegant, quasi Eum vixisse nolint, 
quern mortuum praedicant ; adeo eorum temporum 
historiam confundere conantur, ut ne quidem quando 
vixerit scire velint. Et cum nos Pontii Pilati nomen, 
etiam in symbolo fidei, quotidie recitemus, longe ab 
illius aetate passionem Cbristi removere satagunt, quasi 
et illud nobis inviderent. Sed et inter istos non reli- 
quit nos Christus sine testimonio. 

1. Josephus, et Judaeus, et sacerdos, et Apostolis 
synchronus, et eorum temporum callentissimus, locu- 
pletissimus rerum nostrarum testia est. Nam primo de 
Joanne Baptista, Christi prodromo, honorificentissime 
loquitur : appellat eum ayaQov avSpa, ostendit quomodo 
Judaeos ad virtutem, justitiam, atque pietatem hortatus 
est, qualiter illi ejus praedicatione affecti sunt, et ex 
Judaeorum sententia docet, Herodis exercitum ab 
* Lib. xxii. c. 1 1. y Hist. lib. i. c. i. 



gfl Testimonium Josephi. CONCIO n. 

Arcta penitus deletum fuisse ex justa Dei vindicta, 
quod tarn sanctum virum occidisset *. Hie autem 
bonus, et sanctus, et Deo charus Joannes, quern Judaei 
non tantum in Evangeliis nostris, sed in ipsorum scriptis 
prophetam agnoscunt, ille ipse est quern Christus tan- 
quam testem appellavit. Quinetiam idem de Jacobo 
fratre Domini perhonorifice scribit. Narrat Ananum 
pontificem furiosum fuisse, quod, synedrio convocato, 
procuratore mortuo, Trapayaywv 19 airro rbv ae\(f)ov 
It]<rou TOV Xeyopevov Xpia-Tov, 'laW/So? ovoina avrov, /cat 
rivas aXXoy?, TrapeSwice. " Adducens fratrem Jesu, qui 
" dicitur Christus, nomine Jacobum, et alios, tradidit 
" lapidandos a ." Imo vero obsidionem Hierosolymorum, 
omnesque illas Judaeorum aerumnas, hujus unius in- 
justissimae neci imputabat. Taura <5e, inquit, a-vufiefiri- 

Kev lovSaiois /car' KiKr](riv IaK(a/3ov TOV Jt/ca/ov, 09 yv 
a$c\(f)o$ Irjcrov TOV Xeyoftevov XpcrTcy, eTretS^Trep SIKO.IO- 
TdTOv avrov ovra ot 'lovfiaioi KaTeKTeivav. " Haec omnia 
" contigerunt Judaeis propter Jacobum justum, fratrem 
*' Jesu, qui dicitur Christus, qui, cum esset omnium 
" consensu justissimus, nihilominus a Judaeis necatus 
" est." Haec ille, qui hujus tristissimae tragoediae non 
tantum spectator sed et actor fuit, de fratre Domini, de 
episcopo Hierosolymitano, testatus est b . 

z Antiq. xviii. c. v. . 2. log. Vir. Illustr. c. ii. et xiii. 

a Ibid, xx c. ix. . i. Sunt qui credunt memoria lap- 

b Sequuntur haec uncinis in- sum Origenem, et ad Jacobum 

clusa : " [Sed posteriora verba retulisse quse scribit Josephus 

"Origenis sunt, non Josephi.]" alibi de Joanne Baptista. Cum 

In textu non reposui, quia mihi vero is locus huic non omnino 

non constat, utrum 1'earsono an respondeat, probabilius videtur 

Stonesio debeantur. Verba ista, quod conjicit Spencer, in loc. 

quasi ex Josepho desumpta, ex- Origenis, verba quaedam ex Jo- 

hibet Origenes contra Celsum, sepho, librariorum incuria, pe- 

lib. i. p. 35. ed. Spenc. Post riise. Vide tamen quae de hoc 

Origenem, Eusebius in Hist, loco habet Pearsonus, Lect. in 

Eccl. ii. 23. Hieronym. in Cata- Act. Apost. iv. 3. 



Josephi testimonium de Christo. 27 

2. Qui talia de Christi prodrome Joanne, de fratre 
Domini Jacobo dixit, nihilne de Christo scripsit ? nul- 
lam in Illius honorificam mentionem facit ? Imo vero 
imprimis. Cum enim Pilati procuratoris res in Judaea 
gestas breviter describit, breviusculam quidem, sed satis 
luculentam narrationem Originum Christianarum inter- 
ponit. r/i/ercu $e Kara TOVTOV rov xpovov Irja-oii? erodes 
avrjp, eiye avrov avSpa Xeyeiv XP*>' " lisdem temporibus 
" fuit Jesus vir sapiens, si tamen Eum virum appellare 
" fas est. J ' Rationes multas addit, quare vix Eum 
hominem simpliciter appellare liceat : " quia miracula 
" operatus est, veritatem amantium doctor fuit, plu- 
" rimos, turn Judaeos, turn Gentiles, ad se traxit : quod 
" cum crucifixus esset, discipuli Eum baud desererent ; 
" quod post triduum vivus apparuerit ; quod prophetae 
" de Illo haec et plura praedixerint, quod Christianorum 
*' gens ad earn aetatem qua scripsit, h. e. ad extrema 
' fere Uomitiani tempora duraverit." Quare haec Jo 
sephi verba Eusebius excerpsit, Hieronymus in Cata- 
logum transtulit, Ruffinus ex Josepho vertit, Isidorus 
Pelusiota in Epistolam transcripsit, Sozomenus illus- 
travit. 

Quid igitur iis faciemus, qui, nescio qua critica pru- 
rigine perciti, tarn luculentum nobis testimonium eripere 
conantur 6 ? Parum hoc est: locum nobilissimum, ad 
honorem Christianas religionis scriptum, ad summam 
Christianorum infamiam et dehonestamentum torquent. 
Fraudem hie et foedam imposturam reperisse se glori- 
antur, easque clarissimis inter Christianos scriptoribus 

c Horum agmen duxit Tana- monio Josephi. Lond. 1 706. 8vo. 

quillus Faber; clausit,quod sciam, et in Append, ed. Havercamp. 

Voltairius. Fabri rationes in Rem totam summatim attigit vir 

Diatriba sua editas. A. D. 1655, doctus et bonus, Lud. Bagot. olim 

docte refutant nostri, Cavius in Episc. Asapb. Disc, in Prophet, 

vit. Josephi Hist. Liter, i. 33, 34. vii. p. 174. sqq. 
Car. Daubuz. in Dissert, de Testi- 



28 Testimonium externorum utUitas. CONCIO n. 

imputant et impingunt d , nulla ratione solida suffulti, 
nudis suspicionibus, iisque levissimis, ducti. Certe haec 
de Christo et Christianis dicta, maxime Josepho con 
venient, cujus haec semper, ut ipse testatur, sententia 
fuit, Setv cKaa-rov avOpcoirov Kara r*)V eavrov Trpoaipecrtv rov 
Seov cvo-epetv, aXXa fir, juera /3/a ? e . Hinc illius scripta, 
lectu sane dignissima, a prsefractis Judaeis repudiata et 
rejecta, a Christianis semper in pretio habita et hucusque 
conservata sunt. Sed haec alterius et loci et temporis 
sunt. 

Interim nos, qui Christian! sumus, ne earn methodum 
deseramus, quam secutus est Christus. Agnoscamus 
Christi doctrinam esse per se, sua certitudine, veram, et 
a veritatis fonte ad nos derivatam ; neque aliis admi- 
niculis ad infallibilem in nobis fidem generandam in- 
digere. Sed nee ilia testimonia negligamus, aut a nobis 
extorqueri patiamur, quse cuipiam utilia esse possint, 
aut ad Christianas religionis honestamentum spectare 
videantur. Eadem ratio fidem retinendi, qua) dissemi- 
nandi fuit. Non artes doceo Romanas; non collegia 
condenda suadeo de propaganda fide, ut piis fraudibus 
animi hominum ad religionem amplectandam alliciantur: 

" Non tali auxilio, nee defensoribus istis 

egemus : quse nobis tradita sunt, fideliter retineamus, a 
male feriatorum hominum objectionibus vindicemus, 
providentise Dei omnia committamus, et Illius opem in 
conservanda fide imploremus. 

Gratia Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et charitas Dei, &c. 

d " Mihi imprimis credibile fit, F. A. Heinichen, nuperus Eusebii 

" auctoremhujusTexJ'aoYMiToresse editor, interpolatum Josephi lo- 

" Eusebium." Tan. Faber in Dia- cum ex parte esse contendens, et 

triba. p. 37. Longe diversum interpolatum ab Eusebio. Re- 

Pearaoni de fide et diligentia Eu- spondeo cum Pearsono : "Ostende 

sebii judicium. Vid. Vindic. Ig. " mihi lapsum Eusebii in aliquo 

nat. P. i. c. viii. Ergo, qui Pear- " alio opere, ut de hoc credam!" 

eonum audiunt, nee viam illam e In Vita sua. c. 23. 
medium probabunt, quam tentavit 



CON CIO III. 

Act. xii. 24. 6 Se Aoyo? TOU 0eou yv^ave KOI e 
Verbum autem Domini crescebat et midtiplicabatur. 



ROPAGATIO evangelii, res imprimis omni admi- 
ratione digna, nee aliunde quam a voluntate et 
consilio Dei proficisci, nee alia quam plane divina 
potentia perfici potuit. Unicum quidem sibi aliquando 
adscivit Deus hominem, Abrabamum ; ex illo populum 
produxit, quern unius provinciae satis angustae finibus 
affixit ; cultumque nominis, stirpe Abrahami satis suc- 
crescente, unius templi claustris inclusit. 

Sed interim consilium per prophetas enunciavit, 
Messiam se aliquando missurum, humani generis Re- 
demptorem, daturumque ei gentes hareditatem, et pos- 
sessionem terminos terra. Ipse tamen Filius Dei Sal- 
vator omnium hominum, protitetur non se missum, nisi 
ad oves perditas domus Israel. In Judaea ita sedes 
Evangelii figenda, fundamentum Ecclesiae collocandum 
ruit. Ibi Verbo caro factum est ; ibi vixit et mortuus 
est ; ibi resurrexit ; inde in coelum vectus est. 

Mirandum itaque omnino non ruit, si apud Judaeos, 
quibus oracula concredita sunt, quorum erant promissiones, 
ex quibus^ et ad quos, Christus venit, Verbum Dei 
cresceret et multiplicaretur. Miranda potius, et 



30 Evangelinm iinde Gentibus receptum. CONCIO in. 

omnibus modis detestanda populi, adhuc Dei, protervitas 
et pervicacia ; quod cum in propria venerit Deus, sui 
eum non receperint. Facillima novi foederis receptio 
ab iis merito expectanda fuit, qui vetus ante reeeperant, 
qui interpretationes prophetarum amplexi sunt, qui 
Messiam etiam tune tarn avide expectabant, coram 
quibus Apostoli ex Vet. Testamento tarn firmiter pro- 
babant, Jesum esse Christum. 

Ut autem, etiam renitente Judaea, ab Hierosolymis 
ad omnes fines terrae Evangelii sonus pertingeret, et 
verbum Dei etiam apud gentes cresceret et multiplica- 
retur, hie Rhodus, hie saltus. Hebraei ipsi gens minima, 
propriis finibus, unico templo contenta ; religio licet a 
Deo instituta, reliquis tamen mortalibus incognita, et 
ab aliis omnibus penitus distincta atque disparata. Ita 
exteri loquebantur ; " dedita sacris incerta Judaea Dei a ." 
Nesciebant illi, an Deum an asinum colerent b . Quod 
a Cicerone de Romanis dictum est, ab aliis etiam 
gentibns dici potuit. " Istorum religio sacrorum, a 
splendore hujus imperii, gravitate nominis nostri, ma- 
" jorum institutis, abhorrebat. Quam chara gens ilia 
" diis immortalibus esset, docuit, quod victa, quod 
*' elocata, quod serva facta est c ." Quid quod vita 
sanctissimi Jesu, et mors, et miracula, facto constabant, 
eujus fides penes Judaeos solos, gentium consensu mor- 
talium levissimos, et quibus regeri solebat, " credat 
" Judaeus Apella." 

Hie igitur divina providentia adoranda est, observan- 
daque diligenter vestigia, quibus haec religio Christiana, 
et nova, et inaudita, et oppugnata, et a patriis sedibus 
pene expulsa, non igne, non gladio, non vi ulla, seel 
mira quadam praedicationis stultitia in animos hominum 

Lucan. Pharsal. ii. 593. b Tertullian. Apolog. c. xvi. 

c Oratio pro Flacco. c. 28. 



Judceomm Dispersiones. 31 

sensim illaberetnr; et ubi homines aut densa caligine 
obruti, aut inveterata superstitione praeoccupati, aut 
daemonum praestigiis irretiti essent, ibi Verbum Dei 
cresceret et multiplicaretur. 

Ut haec olim facta fuisse constet, et sapienter et 
suaviter omnia disponente Deo ; primum, nobis recog- 
noscendae sunt Judseorum vetustissimae Siatnropa}, qui 
in Palaestina, Dei ipsius manu collocati atque constituti 
sua quidem culpa, sed singulari quadam providentia, 
per varias terrarum oras dispergebantur. 

Primo, Tiglath-pelesserus, Reubenitas, Gaditas, Ma- 
nassitas et Naphthalitas ; mox Salmanassar decem 
tribuum reliquias in Assyriam transtulit. Sennacha- 
ribus d duas tribus cum Levitis in Babyloniam transpor- 
tavit. Ptolemaeus Lagi centum millia Judaeorum in 
Jigyptum, Libyam, et Cyrenen traduxit. Antiochus 
Soter, jure civium Hebraeis in Ionia dato, illuc quam 
plurimas pellexit, ut Seleucus in Antiochiam. An 
tiochus Magnus duo millia familiarum, ex Babylonia 
et Mesopotamia arcessita, in oppidis Phrygiae, Lydiae- 
que collocavit. Ptolemaeus Lathurus decem millia 
abduxit. Antiochus Epiphanes, Hierosolymis occupatis, 
quadraginta millia Judaeomm vendidit. Fosdus inter 
Romanes et Judaeos ictum, temporibus Maccabaicis, 
multos etiam in Italiam evocavit. Plurimos bello 
captos Romani libertate donarunt, qui, Philone teste, 
et patria religione, et jure civitatis fruebantur e . 

Hi igitur omnes tarn longe lateque dispersi, Judaeam 
tanquam patriam, et Hierosolyma velut metropolim 
suam respiciebant f . Illuc frequenter commeabant, illic 

d Sic S. Veritas autem pos- Apost. iv. 7. 
tulat " Nabuchodonosor." { Cf. Lect. in Act. Apost. i. 

i' Philonis Legatio ad Caium, .8. 
p. 1014. c. Cf. Lect. in Act. 



32 Proselytismus. CONCIO nr. 

libentissime diversabantur, turn ad negotia, turn prse- 
cipue ad sacra peragenda, Hierosolymitano templo 
affixa atque coimexa. Hinc prima propagandi evangelii 
opportunitas ; cum Spiritus Sanctus ipso Pentecostes 
die, quo potissimum ad urbem undique advolarunt, 
Apostolos afflavit, concitavit, implevit. Aderant tune 
Judaoi KaroiKovvT9, ex omni natione quce sub ccelo est. 
Aderant et eTriStj/movvres, qui miraculi linguarum et causa 
simul et testes erant. Hinc statim apposite sunt EC- 
clesia animcK circiter tria millia. Et sonitus ille, tan- 
quam mentis spiritus violenti, non domura tantum, 
sed totum pene orbem penetravit. Quid enim illi, 
ad patriam suam quisque reversi, libentius popularibus 
praedicabant, quam linguam nativam atque vernaculam 
fuisse Hierosolymis intellectam, et divinorum myste- 
riorum revelatione illustratam? Ita ab initio perspicimus, 
quam divino consilio antiquitus evulgato, et recenti 
miraculo consentaneum fuit, ut verbum Dei cresceret, 
et multiplicaretur, et prsedicatio evangelii, coram unius- 
cujusque gentis Judaeis, lingua una primum concepta, 
eosdem ad patriam usque suam et domum prose- 
queretur. 

Secundo, Ad incrementum Judaicse religionis ab ipso 
Deo institutus est proselytismus, ut ex aliis gentibus in 
populum Dei adsciscerentur homines ab idololatrico 
cultu alieni, et ad veri numinis religionem amplectandam 
proclives; ideoque ipsa lege Mosaica aliquando, non 
tantum indigenae et Israelitae, sed et advenes seu pere- 
grini diserte obligantur, et sub ipso Decalogi praccepti 
continentur. Paucissimi quidem proselyti facti sunt, 
et ex gentibus tantummodo conterminis aut subactis, 
dum Judaei Terras Sanctae finibus circumscriberentur. 
Postquam autem in terrarum orbem dispersi sunt, et 
opportunitas major se obtulit, et acrius ferventiusque 



Duo Proselytorum genera, 33 

desiderium incessit quam plurimos ad Deum Israelis 
redigendi. Sub ipso Christi adventu, scribce et Phariscei 
circumibant mare et aridam, ut prosely turn facer ent. 

Etiam hie divinae providentiae manifestissima vestigia 
adoranda sunt. Proselytismus enim non tantum Chris- 
tianismi quasi prolusio fuit et adumbratio; sed et 
aditum aperuit propagando evangelic maxime accom- 
modatum atque congruentem. Duo enim genera ab 
initio proselytorum agnoscebantur ; quorum hi sig- 
naculum circumcisionis receperunt, Legis Mosaicae jugo 
colla submiserunt, et plane Judaei facti sunt, religionis 
consortio conjunctissimi, et solo genere distincti ; alii 
vero gentilium tantum numinum venerationi renuncia- 
bant, Deum Israelis tanquam verum et unicum adora- 
bant, leges humano generi communes admittebant, a 
Mosaicis ceremoniis abstinebant. Et priores quidem 
proselyti, non minus quam Judaei, Apostolis resistebant, 
imo magis; erant enim vel ipsis Pharisaeis evangelicae 
veritati plerumque iniquiores ; nam et Christus hoc 
significavit : Prosely tus cum fuerit factus, facitis eum 
filium gehannce duplo quam vos. Et Justinus Martyr, 
optimus sui temporis testis : ol <Je xpoo-j/Xm-ot ov povov ov 
TricrTcvovcriv, a\\a SnrXoTepov VJULUIV (3\acr(f)t]/J.ov(Tiv e/y TO 
ova/ma avTov, KOI ^/xa? rovy ei'y exeivov TrurTevovras KUI 
(povevetv KOI aiKifyiv /3ovXoVTaif>. 

Posteriores vero, cum viderent ab Apostolis eundem 
Deum, ad quern ante confugerant, praedicari, ceremonias 
Legis, quas ipsi prius respuerant, repudiari, aeternam 
vitam, quam jam expectabant, clarius multo evidentius- 
que repromitti, facile et libenter iis se adjunxerunt ; 
praesertim cum perspicerent multo meliori conditione 
apud Christianos se futuros, quam apud Judaeos fuerant. 

f Dialog, cum Tryphone. c. 122. p. 350. ed. Paris. 1636. 

PEARSON, VOL. II. D 



34 Philosophi mam Evartgelio straverant. CONC. in. 

Extraordinaria et quasi fortuita fuit sub lege gentium 
vocatio ; sub evangelic ordinaria, congrua, atque per- 
petua. Apud illos etiamnum pro gentilibus et immundis 
hi proselyti portae habebantur, neque cum ipsis versari 
dignati sunt ; ad atrium tantummodo Gentilium et 
immundorum admittebantur : cum in Ecclesiam Christi 
aequo jure reciperentur, quae ex Judaeis et gentibus 
conflata est, nulla generis, nulla religionis distinctione 
habita, secundum Isaiae vaticinium, xiv. 1. KOI 6 yeiwpa? 

irpoy auroi/y, Kal TrpoyTeO^crerai irpos TOV 

Quod in his proselytis impletum non 
est, donee, diruto pariete, ad intimum cum Judaeis 
commercium in Ecclesia Christi admitterentur. 

Hi igitur ab atriis templi, hi a synagogarum finibus, 
sonante per Apostolos evangelii tuba, ad Christum con- 
volarunt, atque ita verbum Dei crescebat et multiplica- 
batur. 

III. Sed receptis etiam Judaeorum aliquibus, et 
adjectis proselytorum appendiculis, adhuc regnum 
Satanae, et numero et potentia, formidandum stelit ; 
gentesque per omnes terrarum oras idololatrico cultu 
imbutae, et foedis superstitionibus per tot saecula assuetae 
obstiterunt. Verum enimvero et hie divina providentia, 
Apostolis, apostolicisque viris praedicantibus, viam 
stravit, ostium aperuit, aditum patefecit. 

Multi jam philosophorum prudentiores consultiores- 
que, rationem ducem secuti, de uno Deo summo docu- 
erunt; contra deorum imagines, et foedissimas tune 
temporis ceremonias disputabant ; a superstitione po- 

11 S. habet yytpas et irpoartQf)- Tryph. c. 122, 123. Valesii not. 

fftTatavTois. Correxi ad editionem in Euseb. Hist. i. 7. et Albert! 

LXX. Cantabr. 1665, quam juxta comment, adv. Tttapas in Hesych. 

exemplar Vaticanum excudi cu- Hieronymus derivat ab Hebraico 

ravit Pearsonus, et ad Holmesi- 1J. Idem videtur Turcicum mo- 

anam. Vid. Justin. Martyr. Dial, dernum, Giaour. 



Anna Romana. Oraculorum silentium. 35 

pulomm animos revocabant, et ad iuternum quendam 
iiuininis cultum, animique puritatem adhortabantur. 

Quamplurima haec primis Christianis argumenta 
adversus Gentiles suppeditabant. Pleni sunt Chris- 
tianorum primitivorum libri, refertae philosophorum 
Jmjusmodi sententiis Apologise, quas ex Mose excerptas 
et surreptas putabant ; ut Justinus Martyr asserere non 
dubitaret, OVK aXXoTpia ewat TO, FIXaTan/o? SiSaynaTO. TOO 
Xpto-Toi/' ; et Clemens Alexandrinus, de Philosophia, 
282. D. evaiSayutyet yap avrrf TO 'E\\t]viKov, toy 6 VO/JLOS 
TOW 'Ejfya/ov? ei9 Xpt<rrai/ k . Cum S. Paulus Ignotum 
Deum in ara Atheniensi reperiret, hunc illis enunciabat, 
quern illi ignorantes colebant, et Dionysium ab Areo- 
pagitico tribunali, et ab ipsa ara extraxit. 

Sed gentium, de fictitiis numinibus suis,praeconceptam 
superstitionem, arma Romana praecipue fregerant : quo- 
cunque victrices aquilae pervolarunt, ibi veterum deorum 
majestas cecidit, et auctoritas imminuta est ; quot de 
populis victorias consecuti sunt, tot de diis eorum 
patriis triumphos egerant. Vetustissima omnium opinio 
fiiit, deos suos prius civitatem deserere, quam ab 
hostibus caperetur 1 . Ita omnia eorum numina Romani 
exercitus fugaverunt, sic tandem reliquis insultare di- 
dicerunt, ut vix ipsi suos, nisi frigide et perfiinctorie, 
colerent. 

Tune oracula ubique siluerunt; tarn diu ambiguus 
Apollo Pythius, jam plane nullus. Mira mihi semper 
visa est, philosophorum de ejus silentio anxia et subtilis 

1 Apol. ii. . 13. Vide quae explicat, </>tAo<ro<un> TroXAcuwr flpr\- 

S. AugUStinus habet de Plotini tcapev TO Kara fytkoaofyiav (iriTfVK- 

dicipulis in militiamChristi trans- rucbv -tys a\i^tW. 
euntibus. Epist, cxviii. . 33. ' ^Eschyl. TOVS 0eoi>s 

Ad Dioscorum. TOVS TTJS aAou<rjs rroXeot tK\flrrtir 

k Stromat. lib. i. p. 337. Idem Xdyos. 

ait, Strom, lib. vi. p. 823. ubi se 

D 2 



36 Gentilium Religio antiquata. CONCIO m. 

disputatio, cum tarn manifesto, et voluntate Dei, et 
opinione hominum, supprimeretur. Cum nihil de im- 
perio, nihil de victoria, nihil de publicis aut gravioribus 
negotiis quaereretur, sed tantum ext Trpdyv-aan piicpoi? KCU 
SWOTIKOIS e/owrijo-et?, ut fatetur Plutarchus m . Descendit 
itaque, primo, Pythia a carminibus et heroicis responsis, 
ad prosaica et pedestria, utpote ejus temporis qua3stiun- 
culis congruentiora ; et cum illae etiam pedetentim de- 
ficerent, prudens conticuit. Idque divina providentia 
factum docuit olim Cynicus : a\\a KOI irpovoia 6ea>v, 
a-ucTKevaa-aiJLevt] TO. ^prj<TT^pia 7rarrap(O0ej/, oi^erai' " Pro- 
" videntia deorum, oraculis undique convasatis, abiit, 
" evanescit, evasit." Cum igitur ipsae Gentilium de 
orum nefandae ceremoniae evilescerent, cum reverentia 
numinibus praestita quotidie minueretur, cum oracula 
et aruspicinae ubique declinarent, et ad interitum pro- 
perare viderentur, eo ipso temporis articulo, viri Deo 
pleni, et vigore Spiritus animati, principiis maxime 
rationi consentaneis instructi, dono miraculorum, qnoties 
opus erat, armati, virtutibus omnibus imbuti, et summa 
vitas innocentia et sanctitate prsediti atque conspicui, ad 
debellandas SatanaB arces, ad eximendas hominum 
animis evellendasque aniles de fictitiis numinibus 
opiniories, et apti imprimis et accommodati erant : quo 
facile perspicias quomodo Verbum Dei, etiam inter 
gentes, cresceret et multiplicaretur. 

IV. Ut haec omnia ab Apostolis et apostolicis viris 
perficerentur, neque alia ratione, quam praedicatione 
evangelii, quam solum Deus ipse instituerat, opus fuit 
ut linguis ab omni populo intellects loquerentur. 
Neque enim miraculum die Pentecostes editum diu 
duravit, eodem saltern vigore et efficacia. Divina 
itaque providentia factum est, ut diu ante adventum 
" De Oracul. Defect. Opp. ii. 428. ed. Xylandr. 



Versio LXXciralis. 37 

Christi, Dei ipsius oracula, veteri Hebraeo sermone 
concepts, jam ipsis pene peregrine, in Graecam linguam 
transferrentur, eique versioni Hebraei ipsi, extra Judaeae 
fines positi, assuescerent et adhaererent, aliisque unde- 
cunque ambitiose exponerent. 

Ingens haec ad evangelium ubique dilatandum uti- 
litas, maximum compendium : id si non aliunde li- 
queret, vel inde tamen conspiceretur, quod refractarii 
Judaei versionem illam, primo festo die celebrarent, 
postea jejunio debonestare et deturpare couarentur, 
cum viderent apostolicum virum, ex quacunque natione 
accersitum, LXXvirali versione munitum, idem fere 
praestare potuisse, quod Apostoli Pentecostal! miraculo 
roborati praestiterunt. 

Nam Graeca turn lingua toti terrarum orbi fuit 
omnium notissima. " Graeca leguntur in omnibus 
" gentibus, Latina suis tantum terminis atque iis 
" exiguis continentur." Ita, ante adventum Christi 
Cicero; post, Juvenalis, " Nuuc totus Graecas habet 
" orbis Athenas." Luculentissimum est S. Hieronymi 
testimonium, ex eorum temporum scriptoribus de- 
promptum. " Legarnus Varronis de antiquitatibus 
" libros et Sisinnii Capitonis, et Grascum Phlegonta, 
" caeterosque eruditissimos viros, et videbimus pene 
" omnes insulas, et totius orbis littora, terrasque mari 
" vicinas Graecis accolis occupatas n ." Quid quod ipsi 
Graeci Alexandri victoriis circumlati, ejusque succes- 
sorum armis et imperiis collocati atque fixi, inquilini 
tamen et advenae ab indigenis non minus putabantur, 
quam vel exules extorresque Judaei in iisdem civitatibus 
habitantes ; unde inter eosdem major orta est conjunc- 
tiorque familiaritas et necessitudo. 

Cum igitur sacri codices non tantum Alexandriae, 
n Quaest. Hebr. in Genesin. c. x. 4, 5. 



38 Excidium Hierosolymcp. CONTCIO in. 

ubi primum exarati sunt, sed etiam in aliis terrarum 
oris legerentur; habebant ad manus ubique fere viri, 
ad evangelium paedicandum missi, libros, quos non 
multo minori effectu proponerent et explicarent, quam 
afflante Spiritu Pentecostal! Hierosolymis loquuti sunt 
Apostoli. Hinc Novi Foederis libri Graece script! sunt : 
non tan turn ad Corinthios in Achaia, ad Philippenses 
aut Thessalonicenses in Macedonia, ad Smyrnenses aut 
Ephesios in Lydia, sed et ad Romanes in Italia, imo et 
ad Hebraeos ubicunque degentes eadem lingua scripsit 
S. Paulus ; ad duodecim tribus r^y Siaa-Tropas S. Jaco 
bus ; ad Siacnropav Ponti, Galatiae, Cappadocise, Asiae, et 
Bithyniae, S. Petrus. 

Cogitemus igitur S. Paulum Tarso, et S. Barnabam 
Cypro oriundum. cum Judaeis, utpote qui se indignos 
evangelic reddidissent, valedicerent, et renunciarent, 
summa alacritate se ad gentes proficisci professes esse : 
minime dubitantes quin inter illas verbum Dei cres- 
ceret et multiplicaretur. 

Sed cum haec omnia secundum Dei consilium tarn 
probe succederent, nova orta est difficultas. Judaei enim, 
cum viderent etiam Gentiles in Christi Ecclesiam recipi, 
et non justitiae, non portae, sed Christi proselytes, vel 
potius, amicos fieri, eo magis exacerbati et exulcerati 
facti, acrius insurgebant, et adversus Christianos ubique 
persecutionem moliebantur. Idque eo facilius per- 
fecerunt, quod arcem religionis tenerent, quod sanctam 
civitatem obtinerent, quod templo totique cultui patrio 
praeficerentur, 

Sed et hie laboranti tenellse Ecclesiae suae succurrebat 
Deus, et mortis dilectissimi Filii memor, scelerumque 
Judaicae gentis, excitavit Titum, qui templum incen- 
deret, urbem devastaret, sacrificiis Judaicis finem in 
wternum imponeret. Idque tarn manifesto Dei consilio 



Quota pars Ecdesice Primitives restat ! 39 

et voluntati attributum est, ut imperator ipse, Dominus 
Judaeae factus, coronam capiti impositam recusaret, 
quod non sua fortitudine, sed Dei iracundia effectum 
crederet ; ut refert in vita Apollonii Philostratus. 

Tune tota Judaeorum terra vendita est, synedrii 
potestas pessundata, vectigal Templo pendi solitum, 
Capitolio reservatum est, et victi manus non tain 
Romanis quam Christianis dederunt. Turn " dispersi, 
" palabundi, et coeli et soli sui extorres, vagabantur 
" per orbem, sine homine, sine Deo Rege ;" ut loquitur 
Tertullianus . Turn vero, Verbum Dei liberius multo 
crescebat, et mnltiplicabatur. 

Proreptavit quidera antea in Caesaris palatium, etiam 
Neronis, cum S. Paulus missus in carcerem, persecutoris 
domum Christi fecerat Ecclesiam. Dehinc vero in im- 
mensum crevit, teste Tertulliano. " Hesterni sumus, 
" et vestra omnia complevimus, urbes, insulas, tribus, 
** decurias, palatium, senatum, forum P." Tandem etiam 
ipsam imperialem sedem occupavit, factique sunt reges 
nutritii, et reginae nutrices Ecclesiae. Sed in omnibus 
maxime praevaluit Christianorum sanctitas. Sic Deo, 
sic Christo Ecclesiae capiti visum est, ad nominis sui 
gloriam, et ad mundi salutem. 

Haec Dei benignitas summa, utinam nos in causa 
non simus, ut non sit sempiterna. Dixit aliquando 
Dominus ad Ecclesiam Ephesinam, Venio tibi cito, et 
movebo candelabrum tuum de loco suo. Vidimus hanc 
prophetiam nimis certo et evidenter impletam. Quot 
Ecclesiae Asiaticae, quot Achaicae, quot Macedonicae, 
quas fundarunt Apostoli, jam perierunt ! A Jerusalem 
per circuitum usque ad lUyricum, inquit Apostolus, 
replevi evangelium Christi; et habemus itinerarium S. 
Pauli in chartis depictum, amplum sane atque spati- 

Apolog. c. xxi. P Ibid. c. xxxvii. 



40 In Christo spes unica. CONCIO in. 

osum ; sed praeter ipsas chartas, Christianis parum 
relictum est. Quod Dei providentia et benignitate tarn 
cito crevit, nostris secleribus sensim decrescit. 

Peccata Palaestinorum sobolem Abrahami introdux- 
erunt in Juda?am ; scelera Judaeorum ipsos e Terra 
Sancta expulerunt ; illorum dispersio nostris fuit incre- 
mento : eorum abjectio erat mundi reconciliatio. Per 
aliorum scelera crevimus, per nostra decrescimus ; 
Videmus bonitatem et severitatem Dei, in eos quidem qui 
ceciderunt severitatem, in nos autem benignitatem, si per- 
manserimus in bonitate ; alioquin et nos excidemur, 
qui sub hac conditione crevimus et multiplicati sumus. 
An putamus Christum, cum venerit, inventurum fidem 
super terrain f Si Christianos spectemus, vix ac ne vix 
quidem sperare possumus; in Christo solo spem collo- 
camus, qui dixit, Super hanc petram cedificabo Ecclesiam 
rneam ; et portce inferwum non prcevalebunt adversus 
Earn. 



CONCIO IV. 

1 Tim. iv. 1. To Se Ilvei///a ptjrws Ae-yei, on ev v 
Katpoi? aTTO<rrri<rovTai rtvey TrJ/y 7rt<rre&>9, 7rpoo-e-)(OVTe$ trvev- 
Hacri TrXai/o/y, Kal Si$a<rKa.\lai$ Sat/movicov. Spiritus CUttem 
manifests dicit, quid in novissimis temporibus discedent 
quidam a fide, attendentes spiritibus erroris, et doctrinis 
dtemoniorum. 

DATE mihi veniam, viri patres fratresque, si minime 
pro more nostro, explication! hujus loci, non 
admodum difficilis aut obscuri, tempus impendam, et a 
nimis docta atque subtili, ut ego quidem arbitror, inter- 
pretatione vindicem, quae mihi Catholicam Christi 
Ecclesiam plane apostaticam et idololatricam facere 
videtur. 

Et quidem ilia imprimis interpretatio summopere 
placet, quae primo intuitu, plana, facilis, et minime 
coacta est, quae quadam luce nativa atque propria 
animos legentium statim ferit, et in consensum trail it, 
quse S. Apostolum, praeceptis institutisque religionis 
Christianas discipulum suum quasi formantem, et 
adversus omnes Ecclesiae hostes munientem, decet. 

Here tibi scribo, inquit, ut scias quomodo oporteat te in 
domo Dei conrersari : non tantum ut cognoscas quales 
instituendi ordinandique sint, qui populo praesint ; aut 



42 Quid prcemoneat D. Paulus in hoc textu. CONCIO iv. 

qua fide instruendi imbuendique sint Christianorum 
animi, quorum mysteriorum cognitione illustrandi, et ad 
sanctam beatamque vitam perducendi; sed etiam ne 
ignores praestigias Satanae, omniumque spirituum seduc- 
torum, qui homines ab Ecclesia seducere et nefandis 
erroribus inquinare conantur : de quibus quid mini 
Spiritus revelavit minime celandum,teque admonendum, 
ut iis faciliter occurras, putavi. Quse igitur ad naturam 
hsereseos et originem, quaeque ad praedictionem detec- 
tionemque haereticorum jamjam prodeuntium spectant, 
paucis accipe. 

Spiritus autem manifeste dicit, hoc clare et distincte 
a Spiritu Sancto revelatum est, quod discedent quidam 
a fide ; quid enim credenduin sit homini Christiano, 
DOS diu docuimus, et constanti praedicatione verbi palam 
fecimus: qui hanc fidem sunt amplexi, in unum con- 
gregati, quasi in Ecclesiae gremio conquiescunt. Sed 
adveniet dies, quo etiam ex illis aliqui ab ea quam 
edocti sunt fide desciscent, et salutarem doctrinam, qua 
primum fuerant imbuti, respuent. Hoc autem even- 
turum ev varrepois /ccu/ooFy, novissimis, seu potius, posteri- 
oribus temporibus, Spiritus diserte docet. Nihil autem 
certius est, quam haec ipsa tempora, quibus prsedicatur 
Christus, et totius Judaicae reipublicae finis appropin- 
quat, novissima vocari. Ad tuum igitur officium 
spectat, ut cum haec futura scias, discessione aliquorum 
minime percellaris, aut in munere tuo implendo flac- 
cescas, aut desperes ; sed quotcunque poteris, diligentia 
tua in officio atque salutari doctrina retineas. Oportet 
quidem hcereses esse ; et discessio de fide, de qua 
Spiritus loquitur, genuina propriaque est haereseos de- 
scriptio ; ut enim charitati schisma, ita fidei adversatur 
haeresis. 

Sed miretur fortasse quispiam, unde haereses eo prac- 



Spiritus mali, tpiritus erroris. 4-S 

sertim tempore oriri possent, cum Apostolorum non- 
nulli adhuc in vivis essent, cum eorum comites atque 
discipuli plerisque Ecclesiis pncessent, cum divina cha 
rismata ubique florerent, cum miracula nondum ces- 
sassent, cum novae quotidie Scriptune ad fidem con- 
firmandam, ad errores convellendos, ederentur. Quare 
idem Spiritus originem et causam haereseon non minus 
aperte depingit. Discedent, inquit, quidam a fide, 
attendentes spiritibus erroris, (sive, seductoribus,) et 
doctrinis dannoniorum. Ut enim Spiritus Sanctus, 
qui Spiritus est veritatis, ducit in omnern veritatem, et 
efficaciter operatur in animis hominum, ad ingenerandam 
et stabiliendam fidem ; ita sunt et alii spiritus mali, 
spiritus erroris, qui etiam operantur in hominibus hujus 
saeculi, qui inter triticum zizania seminant, qui doctrinas 
et veritati et sanctitati contrarias docent, qui fidem in 
ecclesiis stabilitam corrumpere, et discipulos Christi ad 
se trahere conantur. Si qui igitur sint, qui his spiritibus 
attendunt, qui doctrinae a dsemonibus excogitatae atque 
promulgate adhserent, hi a fide discedunt, et in haereses 
aTTwXe/a? prolabuntur. *' Omnis enim haeretica doctrina 
" daemoniorum arte composita est," ut observat Pri- 
masius. 

Tales jam extitisse S. Paulus animadverterat, qui 
naufragium fidei fecerant, ideoque nominatim Timotheo 
significaverat, et Satanae preceptori suo tradiderat ; 
Hymenseum scilicet, et Alexandrum. Hos autem, de 
quibus Spiritus monuit, quia nominare non potuit, 
quod nondum cogniti essent, sed brevi tamen erupturi, 
ita descripsit, ut ex ipsorum doctrina, a S. Spiritu 
prsevisa atque pnedicta, quamprimum erumperent, dete- 
gerentur. 

Haec est facillima simplicissimaque de primitivis 



44 Subtiliora modernorum inventa. CONCIO iv. 

haereticis textus explicatio, quae etiam verbis quae 
sequuntur maxime confirmatur. Docet enim idem 
Spiritus, eos qui a fide recessuri erant, illis adhaesuros, 
qui nuptias damnarent, et a cibis quibusdam, tanquam 
immundis et illicitis, abstinerent. Quinam autem illi 
fuerint, in historia Ecclesiae apertissime refertur ; neque 
enim diu post Apostoli mortem exorti sunt. Ideoque 
statim Timotheum affatur, H<BC proponens fratribus, 
bonus eris minister Christi Jesu: utpote quibus, a 
prsestigiis daemoniorum, a nefandis haereticoruin placitis 
praemuniri, et in sana doctrina fideque vera retineri 
possent. 

Sed sunt quibus hsec simplicia, et vulgo nota, et ab 
omnibus recepta non placent ; pensiculatius omnia et 
subtilius excutienda putant: magnum hie mysterium 
latere existimant, et quidem illud unicum iniquitatis ; 
grandem cnroa-Taa-lav a longe prsedici volunt, eamque 
idololatricam. Mirum mihi quidem hoc vel prima 
facie videtur. An unquam de apostasia Ecclesise Apo 
stoli loquuti sunt? An de ea Sanctum Spiritum ita 
locutum putabant, contra quam nuperrime Christus 
ipse dixerat ne portas quidem inferni unquam prtevali- 
turas f An de ea S. Paulus, hoc praesertim loco, intelligi 
potest, qui priori capite, ipsam appellat <rrv\ov KOI 



Haec sententia duorum praecipue verborum, 

sc. Saifjiovicw, interpretatione nititur, quae volunt 
non active, seu de causa, sed passive, seu de objecto, 
intelligi debere, ut sint doctrinae de daemonibus, h. e. de 
diis medioxumis, ut a Gentilibus philosophis traduntur. 
Putant igitur Spiritum Sanctum prsemonere, fore ali- 
quando tempus, cum Ecclesia Dei fidei semel sanctis 
tradita; valedicet, et doctrinam a gentibus excogitatam, 



Interpretatio Jos. Medi excutitur. 45 

non quidem de supremis numinibus, sed de mediis 
quibusdam, quos daemonas vocare solebant, avide am- 
plectetur. 

Ad comprobandum hunc loquendi modum, adducunt 
locum ex Epistola ad Hebr. et per se nimis obscurum, 
et ad hanc rem minime accommodum. Volunt hie 
SiSao-KoXiav Sainovicov accipi ut illic SiSa-^ai /8a7rTt<r/AWJ/ a . 
Hebr. vi. 2. 

At 1. eo ipso loco non dicitur SiSa-^tj (SaTr-nov/wi/, sed 
/3a7mo7Aft>i/ o > 5ax/9 b : et ^aTrria-fAol 8i$a-)(fis recte dici 
potest de baptismo cum praevia eaque longa institutione. 
Qui enim baptizandi erant, inter catechumenos diu 
versati, doctrina Christiana imbuebantur. 

2. Daemones personae sunt, baptismi non sunt: si 
diceretur ^iSa^rj /3a7rTioyAcoi>, quod tamen probari non 
potest, verterem, doctrinam de baptismo., quia baptismus 
nisi improprie docere non potest. At doctrina d&mo- 
niorum ita proprie dicitur, ut doctrina hominum ; haec 
autem est doctrina, quam non Deus, sed homo, docuit ; 
ut ilia, quam non Deus, aut Spiritus Dei, sed spiritus 
seductores, sive daemones, docuerunt. Ut sequuntur 
Pharisaei doctrinas hominum, ita haeretici daemoniorum. 
Ita recte Tertullianus conjunxit: " Hae," inquit, " sunt 
** doctrinae hominum et daemoniorum . 5 ' Ita semper 
in Evangeliis SiSa^y X^ion-ov est doctrina quam Christies 
tradidit. In Actibus, SiSa^rj 'ATrocrroXwi/, quam tradi- 
derunt Apostoli. In hac ad Timotheum Epistola, 

a Auctor interpretationis, quam KOI Yiow cai 'A-yi'ou nvfiiparos ftfftai- 

improbat Pearsonus, est vir in ovpLfvyv yvrnpia-avrt*, &v irap(\dftop.fv 

theologia spectatus, Josephus TVTTOV diSaxns irpor^r6(i.(6a ; Eras- 

Mede. Apostasy of the Latter mus ait, " Graecanica scholia sic 

Times, chap. ii. Works, p. 626. " interpretantur, ut separatim sit 

ed. 1672. " legendum ;" i. e. ftaim<rfj.av, 8t- 

b Vid. S. Chrysostom. in loc. ia^r, eVi&Wws rt \(ip5>v. 

S. Basil, de Spirit. S. x. . 26. c De Prescript. Haeret. c. vii. 
ira Tr)v trum)pia raimjv, dta flarpos 



46 Dtsmonum nomen in Ecclesia non medium. CONCIO iv. 

Trapt]Ko\ov6t]Kd? /JLOV rjj AoW/raXm, i. e. doctrinte, quam 
ego pr&dicavi. In Apocalypsi, SiSa^}] BaXaa/x, et SiSa^ 
Ni/coXan-wj/, eodem modo sumuntur. Frustra igitur hie 
loquendi modus in Scripturis quaeritur; certe nusquam 
invenitur. 

Illud autem, in quo praecipue hsec sententia fundatur, 
multo magis a Scripturis abhorret. Volunt enim Sai- 
fjiovtov hie sumi, non sensu malo, ut diabolum signifieet, 
sed bono potius, seu indifferente, ut significentur Sal- 
fjLove? eo plane modo, quo a Gentilibus, prsesertim philo- 
sophis, pro diis medioxumis et hominum curatoribus 
sumebantur d . 

Nova hsec plane, atque in Ecclesia Dei inaudita. 
Origenes in Scripturis versatissimus, simulque philo 
sophise Platonicae callentissimus, aliter judicavit, eaque 
docuit quae sunt huic sententiae prorsus et ex diametro 
contraria. Ita enim ille, libro contra Celsum quinto : 
TO Sai/moveev ovopa ovSe /JLCCTOV ecrrti', ov$ acrrelov' *' nomen 
** daemonum neque medium, seu indifferens, neque 
** bonum est ;" ael $e ETTI TU>V (pavXcav e^o> TOW Tra-^yrepov 
<T(o/uaTO? Svva/ULfwv Tacro-erat TO Ttav Sai/movav 6vofjLa, TrXa- 
VU>VTGOV KOI TrepunrdiVTcov TOW? avBpwirovs, KOI KaOe\KOVT(av 
a?ro TOW 0eou AC at TU>V vvepovpavicov Trl TO. TtjSe Trpa.yiJ.aTa.. 
*' semper autem nomen daemonum pro malis extra 
" corpus crassum potestatibus ponitur, quse seducunt 
' et avellunt homines, et a Deo rebusque crelestibus 
u ad hasc inferiora detrahunt 6 ." Idem lib. vii. contra 
Celsum asserit omnes fere qui Sat/nova? statuerunt, 
aliquos ex iis malos fuisse fateri : Kara $e foa^ inquit, 
Travre? Sal/moves, aTroTrecroWe? T^? et? TO ayaOov 6Sov, jrpo- 
Tepov OVK ovres oW/xoves* KOI earnv etSo? ru>v CKTrea-ovrtav 
6eou TO Ttoi/ Sat/jiovcov . " secundum nos autem omnes 
" daemones a via ad bonum ceciderunt, cum ante 

'1 Mede. Apostasy, chap. iii. etc. P. 234. ed. Spencer. 



Testimonia SS. Patrwm. 47 

" dacmones non essent ; adeoque species est a Deo 
" excidentium dsemonum genus." Haec Origenes f . 

Pariter etiam Eusebius, cum philosophorum doctrinam 
de diis et daemonibus accurate recit asset, Praep. Evang. 
lib. iv. c. 5. Christianorum ex adverse sententiam 
tradit : TO. nev yap Trap fjniv 0em Xo-ym ovS 1 oX&>5 ayaOov 
oiSev ovo/md^eiv Sat/j-ova?, Trdnra? Se irovr)poi>$ elvai TOVS rrjs 
X>jea>9 Tavri/y KOI STJ KOI TJJy TT poarrjy opta? ^terezX^^OTaf. 
" Nam divina quidem apud nos oracula nusquam 
" omnino daemonem bonum vocare sclent, omnes autem 
*' malos esse, qui ilium ordinem& aut nominationem 
" sortiti sunt." Et S. Augustin. de Civ. Dei, lib. ix. c. 
19- " Nos autem, ut Scriptura loquitur, secundum quam 
Cbristiani sumus, angelos quidem partim bonos, partim 
malos, nunquam vero bonos dcemonas legimus, sed ubi- 
** cunque illarum literarum hoc nomen positum repe- 
" ritur, sive daemones, sive daemonia, dicantur, non nisi 
" maligni significantur spiritus." 

Et haec quidem observatio a literatis viris facta, et 
verissima, et certissima apparet. Nam 1. LXX Inter- 
pretes nunquam Sainovia nisi malo sensu usurparunt, et 
eorum loquendi modum semper agnoscunt omnes libri 
Vet. Testamenti Apocryphi. In evangeliis, ubi Judaei 



* P. 377, 378. ib. S. Hieron. " brarum.quiaesselucisprincipes 

Comment, in Eph. lib. iii. c. vi. " noluerunt." Quae fortasse ex 

. 12. " Quomodo in urbibus eos, Origene excerpserat. " Sunt 

" qui aliquid commisere flagitii, " enim illi commentarii," ut Pear- 

" videmus vel bestias alere, vel soni verbis utar, (Vindic. Ignat. 

" secare marmora, vel mundare part. i. c. x.) " nihil aliud ferme, 

" spurcitias cloacarum, vel prse- " quam ex veterum scriptis ex- 

" esse gladiatoribus, et fundendo " cerpta : et locus videtur esse 

" reorum sanguini destinari : ita " plane Origenicus." Vid. Lib. 

" et dsemones, ex proprii arbitrii viii. contr. Cels. p. 399. ed. Spenc. 
" libertate, insidiarum, fraudum, g Ita v. X^|co>r interpretatur 

" scelerum, atque perjurii, et reli- etiam Toupius. Vid. not.Gaisfordi 

" quam vitiorum provinciam esse in loc. Euseb. 
" sortitos, ut sint rectores tene- 



48 Dcemonum nomen non medium. CONCIO iv. 

cum Christo colloquuntur, ut hsec vox frequentissime 
usurpatur, ita semper eodem modo sumitur. Non 
aliter utitur Jacobus in Epistola, non aliter Joannes in 
Apocalypsi, non aliter denique S. Paulus in Epistolis. 

Locum quidem afferunt ex Actibus h , ubi vulgari 
sensu sumitur : evu>v Sainov'nav SOKCI KarayyeXeu 9 elvai : 
sed ilia sunt ab ipsis philosophis dicta, et uniuscunque 
verba secundum mentem loquentis accipienda nemo 
negat. Verba Gentilium Scriptura recitat, sensum non 
agnoscit. Non vocat sacra pagina Barnabam, Jovem, 
aut Paulum, Mercurium, quia narrat gentes iis nomi- 
nibus eos indigitasse ; non deos esse eos tradit, quia 
Lystriani dixerunt, Dii similes facti hominibus descen- 
derunt ad nos. Si Lystriani non 6eov$, sed (W/xoi/a? eos 
appellassent, nemo unquam Apostolos, qui Christianus 
esset, dgemonas appellasset. Alia Apostolorum, alia 
philosophorum, uti mens, ita et locutio est. 

Sed et ipsum Paulum ita aliquando, imo semper 
locutum esse volunt 1 , ut hie scilicet, ita et in 10. cap. 

l re ad Corinthios : a Ovei TO, eOvrj, ai/u.ovlois Ovei, KOI ov 0eft). 

Statuunt Apostolum his verbis alludere ad doctrinam 
philosophorum de diis, seu dsemonibus suis, cum certum 
sit eum, sensuin S. Scripturae, Mosis, et prophetarum, 
secutum fuisse. Ita enim legimus, Deut. xxxii. 17- 
"EiOvo-av Satftoviots KOI ov Gew. Haec sunt verba Mosis, 
eadem Apostoli ; sicut in Barucho, iv. 17- 6v<ravre<s Sai- 
/uLoviois KOI ov Gew. Et respexisse Apostolum ad verba 
Mosis ex ipso loco certissimum est ; statim enim sub- 
jungit, *H 7rapafy\oviJ.ev TOV l&upiov ; An provocamus et 
irritamus Dominum f alludens ad ea quae in Deut. 
sequuntur, v. 21. Avrol TrapefyXcoa-dv ^te eV ou 0ew, Trapco- 
e ev rol<s etdwXois avrwv. Haec fuerunt in Ecclesia 



h Mede. Apostasy, chap. vi. i Mede. ibid. p. 636. 
Work?, p. 635. 



Testimonia ex Vet. Test. 4*9 

tritissima. Ut enim leimus Ps. xcv. 5. irai/rey ol 0eoi 



TU>V 



De mensa autem et poculo dtemoniorurn quod loquitur 
Apostolus, non opus est ut hue accersamus poculum 
ayaQov Saiftovo? ex Athenceo 1 ; diserte enim spectat ad 
ilia Isaiae prophetae, Ixv. 11, 'Y/ue?9 & ol e-y/caraXiTroVre? 
yue, . . . Kal eroifidfyvres TU> Sat/movitp Tpa-rre^ai/, KOI TrXij- 
povvrey Ttj rv-^y Kepa<rfJ.a. Ubi igitur .Apostolus ipsis 

verbis et sensibus Scripturae utitur, eum ad nescio quos 
philosophos et Gentiles respexisse, et eorum potius 
more intelligi voluisse, prorsus incredibile est. Ex 
Mose, Davide, Isaia, Barucho, ex evangeliis, Jacobo, 
Joanne, Paulum, potius quam ex Platone aut Plutarcho 
interpreter. 

Putant etiam S. Lueam EYangelistam innuere voluisse, 
esse aliquos daemonas bonos, quia dixit hominem habu- 
isse TrvevfjLa SaifjLoviov aicaOapTov, spiritum deemonis im- 
puri, rel itnmundi 1 : eum ille saepius quam quisquam ex 
evangelistis ^a^owoi/, malum spiritum, indigitet, et 
expresse dieat, dedisse Christum Apostolis Svva/j.iv KOI 
eoi/<T/eu/ eV/ Travra TO. SaifjLovta, virtutem et potestatem in 



k Locam ex StephaniThesauro locutum, non propter ambigui- 

affert Mede, ib. p. 636. tatem vocis daifwviov, sed propter 

1 Mede, ib. " St. Luke, the tisum vocis 7ri/v^a sensu Gentilibus 

' best-languaged of the Evan- insolito ; et wtvfjM Smpovtov ac- 

' gelists, knowing the word to be ffaprov scripsisse, ne quis dubitaret 

' ambiguous, to distinguish it, quales aut unde essent subinde 

' doth the first time use it with memorati spiritus immundi. Ita 

' an explanation, &c." c. iv. v. SS. Patres, quum apud Gentiles 

33. At istud epitheton, dicddap- de iisdem verba faciunt, saepius se 

TOV, solenne est omnibus evange- explicanti utCyprianus.mentione 

listis, quoties -nvtv^ar^v irovrjpStv facta de " spiritubus insinceris et 

fiat mentio ; et wvev/xa dac/xoiuou " vagis," " hos," ait, " poetae 

idem est ac si dixisset " daemonas norunt:" etMinucius 

andBaprov, quod in Vet. T. Felix, c. 27. " impuri spiritus, 

semel, Zach. xiu. 2. et ter et " daemones." Vid. etiam Didym. 

vicies in N. T. legitur. Unde Alex, de Spirit. Sanct. c. 56. ad 

crediderim S. Lucam hie plenius fin. 

PEARSON, VOL. II. K 



50 Expenditur locus S. Epiphami. OONCIO iv. 

omnia d&monia. ix. 1. At Apostoli, opinor, tantum 
acceperunt potestatem in spiritus malos ; omnia igitur 
daemonia, secundum S. Lucam, sunt spiritus mali. 

Cum tarn infeliciter Scripturas interpretati sint, con- 
cedunt quidem Patres hunc locum nunquam intellexisse ; 
dicunt ab eorum oculis de mdustria occultatum fuisse ; 
aliter enim mysterium iniquitatis nunquam obtinere 
potuisset" 1 . Mira quidem mihi haoc videntur, ut Deus 
ipse tam solicite mysterium iniquitatis foveret atque 
procuraret, ut ne illud deficeret, omnium sanctorum 
martyrumque oculis tenebras offunderet, ne Ecclesiam 
suam ab apostasia retinerent. 

Interim tamen, inquiunt, Deus non reliquit Spiritum 
sine unius testis suffragio 11 . Testem autem ilium nobis 
producunt S. Epiphanium; sed mutilum et imperfectum, 
et perperam explicatum. Ille enim, ut reliqui omnes 
Patres, plane noster est. Accusat quidem Antidico- 
marianitas , quod S. Mariae sacrificarent ; peccatum 
illud his verbis graviter increpat : wcrre elvai TO 
oia/3o\iKov evepyyima, KCU Trvev/naTO? ctKaOdpTov 
jrXripovTai yap KOI CTT] TOI/TO/P TO, a7TO(TTy<rovTai Tive? 
SiScuTKaXlas, TrpocrevovTes uvdoi? Kal StSacrKa} 

I /V 

v. " Quare totum illud est operatic diabolica, 
" et spiritus impuri doctrina : impletur enim et in illis 
" istud, Deficient quidam a sana doctrina, attendentes 

" But you will say, Did any " without a witness. For, as I 

" of the Fathers or ancients ex- " take it, Epiphanius, out of the 

" pound it thus in this place ? If " most zealous of the Fathers of 

" they had done so, the mystery " his time against saint-worship 

" of iniquity could never have " then peeping, took 8i8uo-KaXu 

" taken such footing : which, be- " kupovluv for a doctrine of wor- 

" cause it was to come according " shipping dead men." Mede, ib. 

" to divine disposition, what won- Qui, Epiphami locum citans, 

" der then if it were hidden from omissa priori clausula, inoipit, 

" their eyes ?" Mede. ib. p 636. TrXj/potJrat yap K. r. \. 

n " Howsoever, it may seem Legend, videtur " Collyri- 

" that God left not his Spirit " dianos." Vid. not. seq. 



Hcerescs respiciuntnr primesKce. 51 

" fabulis et doctrinis dcemoniorum" Quis jam non 
videt, apud Epiphaniura, SiSaa-xaXiav Sai/j.ovl(av idem 
esse quod Tn/VaToy axaOapTov SiSaa-KoXla ? interpretatus 
igitur est Saipoviov, non bono aut inditferenti sensu, sed 
prorsus malo, pro spiritu scil. impuro: accepit verba, 
non sensu passive, sive pro objecto, sed active plane, 
et pro causa, cum appellet Sia/3o\iKov evepyqua, " dae- 
" inonis afflatum." Reliqua, quse sequuntur apud Epi- 
phanium plane obscura, non ad hunc Antidicomariani- 
tarum actum, sed ad posteriora, de adorata Jephthe 
puella, pertinent^. Sola igitur et nuda stat haec inter- 
pretatio, nullo Scripturae loco, nullo veterum Patrum 
testimonio suffulta. 

Quid quod hi, qui ab Ecclesia reeessuri erant, atten- 
dentes doctrinis daemoniorum, claro et manifesto cha- 
ractere describuntur, qui nuptias simpliciter damnarent, 
et a cibis abstinerent. Quicunque igitur primo hacc 
docuerunt, hac Spiritus praedictione manifesto ferie- 
bantur, et a periculo eorum communionis muniebantur 
Ecclesiae. Optimus interpres, S. Chrysostomus : irepl 
Maw^a/wi/, Kcil EyicpaTiTiav, KOI MapKHavKrrwv rai/ra (f)tj<Tiv. 
h. e. " de bsereticis qui a prirnitiva Ecclesia desciverunt, 
*' haec sine dubio scripta sunt." Jta Tertullianus : 
** Paulus Timotheum instruens, nuptiarum quoque in- 
" terdictores sugillat ; ita instituunt Marcion et Apelles 



P Hsec sunt quse apud Epi- cultum institutum arbitratur ex 

phanium sequuntur : "Eaovrm yap, traditione quadam de Jepthe filia. 

<f>rj<rl, vfKpols Xarpfvorrfs, u>s teal iv Etenim ./Egyptii tiliiiin Pharaonis 

T^i lo-pa^X eVf/Sao-^ija-ai/' ical f) rS>v colebant, Thermutin, Moysis aer- 

(\yiutv Kara Kaipuv is Q(ov &6a vatricera. Haec comparat cum 

aXXoiv yiyovt rols /z^ opSxri T^V prava superstitione Antidicoma- 

tl\T)6fmv (If 7r\dvrjv. Deinde com- rianitarum, seu potius Collyri- 

niemorat, quomodo Sichcinitie in dianorum, quos in hoc loco per- 

monte Ephraim. quorum vicus stringit, mox plenius de iisdem 

postea dictus Neapolis, sacra fa* acturus in Hier. Ixxix. 
ciebant fit Svofut -rijt Kopqs, quem 

E2 



52 Nihil hie somniandum de Munachis. CONCIO iv. 

" ejus secutor." [De Praescr. Hocr. c. 33.] Ante Mar- 
cionem, Saturnilusi, Menandri discipulus, Apostolis 
suppar, TOV Se ydfjLOi' ouro? Trparo? TOV <$ia(36\ov SiSaa-Ka- 
\lav wvo/JLacre' vo/J.o0Tet Se KCU e^v^av cnreyea-Qai : " nup- 

" tias hie primum omnium diaboli doctrinam appellavit ; 
*' jubet autem et ab animatis abstinere ;" ut loquitur 
Theodoretus. [Ha3ret. Fabul. Compend. i. c. 3.] De 
primitivis his haereticis, Clemens Alexandrinus : ela-iv f ol 

TTOpvetav O.VTIKOVS TOV ydfj-ov \eyova-iv, /cat VTTO oia/3o\ov 
ravrtjv TrapaSiSoa-Oat SoyfJ.aTi^ov<rtv. " Sunt," inquit, " et 
" ex haereticis, qui matrimonium fornicationem esse 
" asserunt, eamque a diabolo traditam." Contra quos 
disputans, Strom. 1. iii. 462. b. KaJ MTI CTTI TU>V roiov- 
TCOV etVorft)? TO TTi/eu/xa avTUCpv$ \eyei, OTI ev vcrrepois icai- 
pois K. T. X. Manichoei abstinebant ab animatis, " non 
" ad regendam carnem, sed ad exercendam blasphe- 
" miam ;" quos ita alloquitur S. Augustinus : " Quoniam 
" plerumque in agapibus etiam carnes pauperibus ero- 
" gantur, misericordiam Christianorum similem dicitis 
'* sacrificiis j>aganorum." [Contr. Faust, xx. 20.] 

Hos certe Spiritus Sanctus praevidit ; quos autem 
praevidit, eosdem et prasdixit ; et Timotheum monet, ut 
etiam fratres doceret, hos hsereticos esse, qui aMenderent 
spiritibus seductoribus, et doctrinis desmoniorum. 

Haac autem ad monachos, et quidem veteres, trahere, 
quales tamen neque Timotheus, neque fratres visuri 
erant, ad eos restringere, qui ipsi tantum a nuptiis 
abstinebant, in aliis nunquam damnabant, qui tantum- 
modo virginitatem matrimonio, cum Apostolo, prae- 
ferebant, nuptias nunquam fornicationem vocabant, 
animata nunquam esu illicita prscdicabant, ab omni 

I Saturninum appellat Irenaeus, i. 22. Cf. quse habet Epiphanius, 
Hser. xxiii. c. 5. 



Promissio Domini Nostri ds Ecclesia. 



ratione abhorrere arbitror r . Vidit hscc S. Chrysos- 
tomus, ideoque hanc objectionem acute refellit : rl ovv ; 
wets ov Ku>\vofj.ev, <fj<n, yafietv ; " quid igitur ? num nos 
*' vetamus nuptias ?" Respondet, ov /cwXuo/xei/, M yevoiro, 
/3ov\0fivov?, aXXu TOV? fJLrj /3oiAo/ueVot/y ya/j.iv TrpoTpeTro/mev 

CTTI Tt]v TrapQfviav " nullo modo ; non vetamus eos qui 
" volunt ; sed non volentes nubere adhortamur ad vir^ 
*' ginitatem :" erepov ecm K0)\vcrat, KOI erepov xvpiov 
a<peivai rw Tpocupe(rea>$' " aliud est prohibere, aliud 
'* electionis suae dominium dimittere :" 6 yap /cwXiW, 
KaOonra^ TOVTO iroiei' " qui enim vetat, generaliter hoc 

" facit ;" 6 <Je coy e-Tr) /mefi^ova TTJV TrapOevlav evdywv, ov 
K(a\v(av ya/j.ti> TOVTO iroiet, o\Xa TrpOTpeTrcov TrapOeveveiv. 
" qui autem ad virginitatem, tanquam sublimiorem, 
" adducit, non vetans nuptias, sed ad virginitatem ad- 
" hortans hoc facit 8 ." Ita S. Augustinus contra Mani- 



r Vid. Mede. Apostasy. Part. 
. chap. vii. p. 688. Such as 
forbid marriage, and command 
to abstain from meats. Who 
are these ? The wonderful cor- 
: respondence of the event makes 
me verily believe, that the Holy 
Ghost intended here, at least 
chiefly, to decypher unto us 
monks, and doctors of monkery, 
by two such marks as are the 
chief points and grounds of 
that singularity of life. For 
prohibition of marriage, and 
difference of meats, are inse 
parable characters of monastical 
profession, and therefore com 
mon to all that crew of hypo 
crites, whether solivagant Ere 
mites, or Anchorites which live 
alone, or Caenobites which live 
in society. And if we take 
them together, as our Apostle 
doth, I think they can befit no 
other kind of men by way of 



" rule and precept, but these 
" alone." Deinde TO f3pa>fuiTa)v 
dirtxfo-6ai adhuc subtilius inter- 
pretatur de voto monastico, quo 
possessi onibus renunciatur. Ut 
vero probet extitisse etiam primi- 
tivis temporibus " Antichristi sa- 
" cerdotes," qui nuptiis malesani 
abstinebant, advocat S. Chrysos- 
tomi Horn. vii. in S. Matth. irdvra 
TU TU>V vofuav KOtva irpos TOVS 

\r)v TOV yaftov. 
8 Horn. xii. in i Tim. Cf. Rom. 
Iv. in Matt. sub. fin. Horn. vii. 
in Hebr. sub fin. Quinetiam S. 
Chrysostomo pene solenne est, 
ubicunque de caelibatu et nuptiis 
agit, haereticos nuptiarum infama- 
tores redarguere. Vid. Tractat. 
de Virg. c. 9. 10. Horn. xii. in 
Coloss. xx. in Ephes. ad c. v. 33. 
Uov ol aiptriKoi ; OVK uv, ft rSv Sia- 



yfios, vvfi(j)T)v Ka 

(Ecclesiam scil. 
et Christum ;) OVK &v irporpiiruiv 



54 In Eeclesiam Catholicam Apostasia non cadit. CONCIO iv. 

chsenm : " Ille prohibet, qui hoc malum esse dicit, non 
" qui huic bono aliud melius anteponit." [Contra 
Faust, xxx. 6.] 

Hsec a me ideo tantam dicta sunt, ne de promissione 
Jesu Christi, de viris apostolicorum temporum, (sine 
quibus ne sacris quidem Scripturis jam frueremur,) 
reliquisque primitives Ecclesise heroibus, tarn male sen- 
tiamus; ne tarn fcedam Ecclesiae apostasiam, tamque 
idololatricam, praedicemus : Quae, si vera sit, non tantum 
ab imperii Romani dissolutione, sed ab ipsis fere 
Ecclesiae incunabulis, omnes Christianorum conventus 
infecit atque conspurcavit. Nam, si angelorum sanc- 
tprumque, pro nobis humi degentibus, et cum immun- 
dornm spirituum caterva colluctantibus, omnem inter- 
cessionem intercludamus ; si martyrum pro Christo 
vitam profundentium nullam omnino apud thronum 
Dei potentiam agnoscamus ; si omnes, qui eorum reli- 
quias venerabantur, rejiciamus, conspnamus, et idolo- 
latras vocemus ; si haec omnia ex bestiarum cornibus, e& 
tempore, et temporibus, et dimidio temporis, scire nos 
prsesumamus* ; qusenam ilia unquam fuerit Ecclesia, 
cum qua nos communionem habere possumus, penitus 
ignoro. 

Novi equidem, quae, in hac foece homfnum, facies 
ecclesiarum sit ; quantus unicuique, dissuta Christi 
tunica, animus assurgat. Sed cum omnia discussimus, 
cum universa ventilavimus, ad ilia tempora nobis red- 



naprtyaye, TO, KaraXft^fi ni*. t Mede, ut supra. P. i. C. xi 

sTov irartpaK. r. X. In Horn. xv. Scripserat hie S. " ex tem- 

xiv. in i Tim. de vidua Anna " pore, et medio teroporis ;" 

loquens, quod Dallaeus forsan mi- quod cum parum intelligam quid 

ratus esset, ait haereticorum esse velit, reposui verba Apostoli no- 

etiam secundas nuptias damnare. tissima ex Apocalyps. xii. 14. 

Quod idem agit S. Bernardus, Pearsono enim in mente fuisse 

contra Catharos sui temporis, arbitror quse ex isto loco excogi- 

berm. in Cantic. Ixvi. 4, 5. taverat Mede, ib. p. 



In Ecclesiam Catkolicam Apottasia non cadit. 55 

eandum est, ad ilia, inqnam, qua? Apostolos et Apo- 
stolorum discipulos noverunt; quse Christianam reli- 
gionem non tantum professa sunt, sed et vitsc puritate, 
et sangninis profusione, dilatamnt. Cum omnia veterum 
argnmeBta, quibus tarn fortiter adversns Clirigtianae 
religionis hostes pugnavere, anhno recolo ; mi Hum 
equidem yalidias invenio, quam quo ostendernnt, tot 
hominum in unaquaqne mundi ora millia, Christum, 
post crnentam mortem, ad vitam innocentissimam 
purissimamque eonvertisse. Si autem ilia religio, qua? 
totum fere niundum sub Cbristi jugum misit, apostatica 
et idololatrtca fuit ; ubi vere Christiana, ubi C'atholica, 
ubi Apostolica unquam apparebit? 

Gratia Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, et Cbarftas 
Dei, et Communicatio Spiritus Sancti, sit vobiscum. 
omnibus. Amen. 



CON CIO V. 



Act. XXvii. 18. TiV9 Se TWV ISnriKOVpeiwv Ka\ TWV 
ZT<oi/ca>v (pi\o<ro(f)(t)v (rvvefiaXXov avrw. Quidam autem 
Epicurei et Stoici philosophi disserebant cum eo. 

/^lONCIONEM ad Clerum habiturus, quern potius 
vv' ante oculos ponereni, quam doctorem gentium ? 
apud Clerum Academicum, ubi loci convenirem Apo- 
stolum, potius quam Athenis ? spectaculum vobis 
dignum praebiturus, in quo prius vitse discrimine virum 
Deo dilectum exhiberem, quam ad Areopagiticum 
tribunal anhelantem ? quid agentem potius prseconii 
evangelici candidatis S. Paulum ostenderem, quam cum 
philosophi s disserentem ? Eccum autem S. Paulum, 
idque Athenis. Quidam autem jEpicurei et Stoici phi 
losophi disserebant cum eo. 

Graece legimus, o-we(3aX\ov avrw. Arias Montanus, 
conjiciebant eo, sensu plane nullo. Arabica versio, 
consenserunt opinioni ipsiw, sensu plane contrario. 
jEthiopica, apprehenderunt eum, sensu ne quidem ve- 
risimili. Melius Syriaca, disceptabant cum eo, ut Act. 
iv. 15, oW/3aX\oi/ aXXjJXo/y, conferebant inter se. Ita 
Vet. Interpres, disserebant cum eo : satis hsec quidem 



Philosophi cum Apostolo commtssi. 57 



proprie, sed baud satis plane : au/u/fifoX^ enim Graecis 
aliquid amplius et acrius sigiiificat, commissionem scil. 
ad pugnam, ad certamen, ad praelium. Ita S. Lucas 
loquitur, xiv. 81. r/9 /SacriXev? Tropevo/mevos cru/i/9aXe<V 
eT-'/D&> /8ao-<X ei? TroXe/uoi/, h. e. Quis red? proficiscens ad 
committendum prcelium f Hostilis pariter est et hie 
congressus. Philosophi disputandi arte instruct!, li- 
terarum saecularium panoplia armati, infenso animo, 
impetu acerrimo ferebantur in Apostolum, oW/3aXXo>/ 
avrw, ipsuin adorti, cum ipso congressi confligebant a . 

Quare extra periculi aleam positi, imo certi vic- 
toriae, spectemus pra3lium : committamus unicum ath- 
letam Christianum cum tot hostiuin cohortibus, ex- 
plicemus aciem, dispiciamus S. Apostoli adversarios, ut 
Epicurei, ut Stoici, ut utrique, ut philosophi fiiere. 

Quatuor itaque cum sint in hoc religionis certamine 
praecipue spectanda, quod ex ordine verborum primo 
nobis occurrit observandum hoc est : 

1. S. Paulo Christiane philosophanti Epicurei stre- 
nue et animose se opponunt. 

Duo hie imprimis discutienda sunt ; 1. Quinam hi 
Epicurei fuerint ? 2. Unde illis erga S. Paulum tarn 
hostilis animus ? 

Quinam fuerint Epicurei, aut Stoici, plane ignorasse 
videtur interpres ^.thiopicus, qui, utroque horum 
philosophorum nomine praetermisso, tantum " pru- 
" dentes" appellavit : *' Et fuerunt ex prudentibus qui 
" apprehenderunt eum." Satis accurate Syrus nominat 
" philosophos de dogmate Epicuri." Philosophi enim 
veteres " inter se variis sectarum libidinibus," Ter- 
tulliano teste, " discordabant b ", ac tanquam Bacchae, 



* Conf. Pearsonum, ubi inter- De Success. Roman. Episcop. c. 
pretatur S. Dionysii Alex, phra- viii. 3. 
Bin, o/ioaf tiJlafrirrts, Dissert, i. ^ De Patient, i. 



58 JZpicurei. CONCIO v. 

ut refert Clemens , Pentheum suum discerpebant. 
" Ut enim ex Apennino fluviorum, sic ex sapientum 
" jugo sunt doctrinarum facta divortia," teste Cicerone. 

Inter hsec superbientium sectarum discrimina, Epi 
curus, quasi avro&'&zKTo?, et magistrum agnoscens 
neminem, tamen Democriteum se primo professus est, 
casque partes sequi, quas aut Platonis silentiura aut 
Aristotelis argumenta jam pene obtriverant. Sed sub 
alieno nomine non diu latuit, et cum convenientes 
doctrinae suse hortulos elegisset, amicis discipulisque 
undique convolantibus, ratas sententias tradidit, no- 
vamque sectam condidit, et numero, et consensu, et 
duratione notabilem. Qui igitur hujus dogmata am- 
plexi, qui in hujus verba jurati, hunc quasi deum 
quendam coluerunt, Epicure! dicti sunt. 

Unde igitur illis erga S. Panlum tarn hostilis 
animus ? Unde, nisi quod religio Christiana sit ratis 
Epicuri sententiis ex diametro opposita ; idque turn ut 
religio est, turn ut Christiana est. 

Nam primo, asserunt Epicurei mundum hunc factum 
quidem, sed non a Deo ; a casu pendere, non a 
Numine ; ut ipsa divina natura sit " semota a nostris 
"rebus sejunctaque longe." To naicdptov, inquit, /caJ 
a(f)OapTOv, cure avro Tr^oay/xara e^e/, ovre aXXw Trape^ei. 
h. e. interprete Cicerone, " nihil curare Deum sui, 
" neque alieni." Ita Deum nobis exhibent, ut scite 
Tertullianus, " otiosum, et inexercitum, et, ut ita 
" dixerim, neminem humanis rebus d . w Ex hac schola 
illud Plinianum erupit : " Irridendum vero agere curam 
" rerum humanarum illud quicquid est summum." 
Atque ita, dum Dei curam et providentiam negant, 
religionem tollunt, ipsis ultro fatentibus : 

c Stromat. I. xiii. p. 348. Potter. d Apolog. . 47. Adv, 
Gentes, ii. . i. 



Ejricuri de Corpore et Anima Sententia. 59 

" Humana ante oculos foede cum vita jaceret 
" In terris oppressa gravi sub relligione, 
" Primum Graius homo mortaleis tollere contra 
" Est oculos ausus, primusque obsistere contra : 



" Quare relligio pedibus subjecta vicissim 
" ObterJtur ; nos exsequat victoria coelo." 

Viderint itaqne de ipsa religione, qui Epicuri manes 
eolicitant, vitamque et dogmata tarn honorifice re- 
censent. 

Secundo, rellgionem Christianam tollunt, dum uninur 
immortalitatem negant, dum ipsam ex corpusculis 
componnnt, ut morte dissolvant, difflent, atque dis- 
pergant. Unde rata Epicori sententia, o Odvaros ovScv 

irpo? j/juay 6 . 

" Nil igitur more est, ad nos neque pertinet hflum, 
" Quandoquidem natura animi mortalis habetur." 

Ita, observante Tertulliano, " Nihil esse post mortem 
" Epicuri schola est f .'* u Epicure! et de corpore et 
" de anima hoc idem sentiunt, quod utrumque mortale 
*' est ; et, quod est gravius et detestabilius, prius 
" dicunt animam post mortem dissolvi quam corpus," 
S. Augustin. [Serm. cl. 6.] 

Aliam plane doctrinam a Christo S. Paulus accepit : 
Nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus, animam autem 
non possunt occidere. Aliam S. Paulus ex suo pectore 
protulit : Cupio dissofoi, et esse cum Christo. Ac si 
ipsius Epicuri argumentum hoc voto solveret ; quod 
dissolvitur, inquit, sensu caret ; quod sensu caret, nihil 
ad nos $ : [at] non dissolvitur morte anima, sed homo ; 
quo dissoluto, anima Apostoli et sentit, et cum Christo 
vivit. 

e Id suis Epicurus " quasi f De Resurrect. Carnis, init. 
" oraculum edidit ;" ut ait Tul- K Verba sunt Tertulliani. De 
lius, de Fin. ii. .31. Anima. . 42. 



60 Stoici. CONCIO v. 

Tertio, religionem Christianam tollunt, dum asserunt 
" hominem nullius beatitudinis esse capacem, prater 
" sanitatem corporis et tranquillitatem animi ;" in his 
summum bonura, in his humanae felicitatis apicem 
ponunt. 

At doctrina Christiana aliam nobis felicitatem pro- 
ponit, hanc interimit ; ad aliam vitam nos revocat, spe 
tantum et expectatione beatos docet. Discutiamus 
beatitudinum catalogum, quern Christus prsedicavit ; 
inveniemus nullam nisi ad futura ssecula spectantem. 
Beati pauperes spiritu, quoniam ipsorum est regnum 
ccelorum. Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum vi- 
debunt. Gaudete et exultate, quoniam merces vestra 
copiosa est in ccelis. 

Sit igitur observatio prima, Vere Christiani esse non 
possunt, nisi qui Epicurei esse desirmnt h . 

2. S. Paulo Christiane philosophanti Stoici strenue 
et animose se opponunt. 

Duo hie pariter discutienda sunt ; 1. Quinam hi 
Stoici fuerint. 2. Unde illis erga S. Paulum tarn 
hostilis animus. 

Ac Stoicos quidem constat, OTTO TW Zroa? nomi 
nates, ab ilia scil. Porticu, quae Atheniensibus, prae 

h " Epicureae sectae inter Eusebii Prseparat. Evang. lib. 

" Christianos nullus locus datus, xiv. c. 27. "Ovrc yap els ovpavbv 

" nullus honor habitus est, eo d^Xe^e votpols o(f>6aXp.ois, Iva rijs 

quod inter atheas sectas re- evapyovs avaQtv <p<n>vr)s aKovo-fifv, 

" ferretur." Jac. Brucker. Instit. fa 6 irpovcKnicbs Qfarfjs KaraKova-as 

Hist. Phil. Period, ii. part ii. lib. ipapTvpTjaev, Sri ol ovpavoi Sir)- 

i. c. 3. .7. Neque iramerito, yovvrai 86gav Qeov, Troirjcriv 8t 

quoniam idem vel apod Gentiles x et P^" airoi) dvayye\\ti TO OT- 

de Epicuro judicium. Cicero de p'/io- otJre rg Stai/oi'a Karddtv els 

Nat. Deor. i. 30. Certe non levi- rovdatpos- epadf yap av, on rov 

bus argumentis Epicuri atheis- eXeovs Kvpiov n-X^pjjs fj y^, K al Sri 

mum asserit doctus ille et elo- rou K^t'ou f, yfj, Ka l T b 
quens philosophua Christianus, 
S. Dionysius Alexandrinus, apud 



Stoicorum Dogmata. 61 

imaginum varietate, TTCWK/XI;, Latinis, " paecile," dice- 
batur. Illic quippe Zeno Citieus, origine Cynicus, 
l)hilosophiam professus, novam sectam instituit ; dis- 
cipulique ejus primum ab auctore, Zenones, mox a loco 
Stoici nominati sunt. 

Unde autem illis erga S. Paulura tam hostilis ani 
mus, origine Pharisaeum, Stoicis simillimum, jam factum 
Christianum a Stoicis, ut videtur, non admodum ab- 
horrentem? Certe " Stoici nostro dogmati in plerisque 
" concordant," inquit S. Hieronymus '. Unde igitur 
tanta animorum dissensio ? 

Imo vero latissimum discrimen inter Zenonis et 
Christi disciplinam. Haec sapientia de schola coeli est ; 
haec institutio de porticu Solomonis. 

Agnoscit ille quidem Deum, etiam intra hunc mun- 
dum ; non sejunctum, et cum Epicuri numine ex- 
clusum, sed quasi mundi sui partem, materise im- 
mersum, corporibus alligatum. Siquidem Deum vo-' 
luit k " sic per materiam decucurrisse, quomodo mel 
" per favos ;" ut Tertullianus l . Imo, Deum suum 
adeo materiae immiscuisse, ut a mundo ipso discernere 
non potuerit. Ita enim disputabat : nihil mundo 
melius ; ex quo efficitur esse mundum Deum m . Atque 
ita Stoici Karaio-xyvovcriv are^vwy rrjv <^>tAocro<^>/aj/, ut 
observat Clemens". Providentiam quidem divinam 

* " Stoici, qui nostro dogmati ejusdem Epist. ad Ctesiphontem. 

in plerisque concordant, nihil k volunt. S. 

appellant bonum, nisi solam 1 Ad Nationes ii. . 4. Adv. 

honestatem atque virtutem ; Hermog. . 44. 

nihil malum, nisi turpitudi- m Ita Balbus apud Cic. De 

nem." Comment, in Isai. lib. Nat. Deor, ii. . 17. Mitius 

iv. c. ii. Alibi vero minus ho- aliquant o de Stoicorum princi- 

norifice loquitur S. Hieronymus pibus pronunciat Cudworth, cap. 

de Stoicis ; ut in Comment, in iii. . 28. cap. iv. . 25. 

Jerem. lib. iv. Prsef. et Dialog. n Cohortatio ad Gentes. torn, 

contra Pelagianos. Vide locum, i. p. 58. ed. Potter, 
quern mox affert Pearsonus, ex 



62 Conspiratio PhilosopJiorum in S. Paulum. CONCIO v. 

statuit ; atque inde religionem postulat : sed dum 
providentiam fatalem docet, religionem quain postulat, 
enervat, evertit, exterminat. Peccata quoque omnia 
paria statuit, aut, posito fato, potius nulla. Peccata 
autem neque paria, neque nulla, pietatem patiuntur. 
Passiones animi penitus a sapiente removet, a beato 
tollit : at " hoc est hominem ex homine tollere, et in 
corpore constitutum, esse sine corpore, et optare potius 
** quam docere ;" ut S. Hieronymus . Summum de- 
nique bonum in seipso posuit, nee majoris beatitudinis 
capacem hominem, quam quae ex ipsa virtutis natura 
redundaret. 

Alia plane doctoris gentium disciplina. Deus mundi 
conditor; sed qui ante ipsum retro fuerit, et post 
ipsum pro infinitis soeculis sit futurus ; ipsi ubique 
essentia praesens, ab ipso prorsus substantia distinctus. 
Providentiam docet, sed quse sanctitati et justitiae 
divinae non repugnat ; quae praemium virtutibus pro- 
ponit, quae supplicium peccatis minetur ; quae ordinem 
conservet, non necessitatem imponat. Peccata omnia 
prohibet, minima condemnat, nulla confundit. Pas 
siones non funditus tollit, sed in ordinem cogit, et, cum 
Deo servire docuerit, remunerat. Beatitudinem ho- 
minis non in seipso, non in hac vita, sed in coelo, sed 
in Deo, sed in seternitate collocat. " Epicurei secun- 
" dum carnem viventes, Stoici secundum animam 
" viventes ; sed neque illi, neque isti secundum Deum 
* viventes." S. Augustinus. [Sermo clvi. 7.] 

3. S. Paulo Christiane philosophanti, et Epicurei, 
et Stoici simnl se opponunt. Ecce Zenonis vigor, et 
Epicuri stupor P. 

Observandum primo, hae duae sectae nunquam inter 

Epist. ad Ctesiphont. cxxxiii. i. P Tertullian. de Anima. . 3. 



Quamdiu h<e Schoke duraverint, 63 

se convenire potuerunt, sed perpetua exercebant odia, 
certabantque calumniis : 

" Stoicus has partes, lias Epicurus agit." 

Erant Pharisaei Stoicis simillimi. 'H <&api<raiti>v atpeo-it 
TrapatrXya-ios ecm Ttj Trpos *E\X7<rt 2/rwiV^ Xe'yo/uevj/, ill- 
quit Josepbus i. Erant Sadducaei Epicureis similiores. 
Quod fit Hierosolymis, fit et Atbenis. Conspirant 
Pharissei et Sadducaei adversus Christum ; Epicurei et 
Stoici adversus Paulum. 

Observandum est secundo, harum sectarum odia hoc 
ipso tempore paulo deferbuisse. Certe hoc ipso tern- 
pore, quo Athenis pracdicavit Paulus, informavit Romoe 
Neronem Seneca ; qui fortasse primus ex Zenonis 
schola Epicurum diserte laudavit, dum diceret " eum 
** sancta et recta praecipere, et si propius accesseris, 
** tristia. Non enim, inquit, quod putes magnum, in 
" quo dissidemus r ." Cum Christus pateretur, Luc. 
xxiii. 12. facti sunt amid H erodes et Pifatus in ipsa 
die, nam antea inimici erant ad invicem. Cum Ecclesia 
periclitatur, sectarii pontificiique manus jungunt : cum 
Apostolus Jesum et resurrection em docet, Epicurei 
et Stoici HIM ul disserunt, nee putant magnum in quo 
dissident. 

Tertio, observanda hie est singularis Dei Providentia. 
Utraque haec schola eidem tempori originem suam 
debet. Zeno et Epicurus simul sectam instituerunt ; 
simul hie hortos conduxit, simul alter porticum oc- 
cupavit. Zeno, quanto senior, tanto serior accessit. 
Rursus, utraque ut simul incepit, ita et duravit, nullo 
turbine difflata, nulla tempestate perculsa ; post Phi- 
lippi furores, post Mithridatis tyrannidem, post Syllae 
odia, post diversas Augusti victorias, post jam non 
Athenas tot cladibus extinctas, sed colluviem nationum 

q Iii Vit. c. a. f De Vit. Beat. c. 13. de Const. Sap. 16. 



64 Quomodo victus Epicureus et Stoictts. CONCIO v. 

libertate precaria superbientem 8 , post haec omnia utra- 
que perraansit integra, ut vires illaesas in oppugnanda 
Ecclesia experirentur, utque, quod observat S. Augus- 
tinus, Epist. ad Dioscorum, " errores gentium, qui in 
" his duabus maxime sectis eminebant, expugnantibus 
" doctis, et tanta disserendi subtilitate atque copia 
" subvertentibus, durarent tamen usque in tempora 
** Christiana." Idque divina providentia factum, ut 
quae simul inciperent, simulque crescerent, simul etiam 
post exortam Christianas religionis lucem, interirent. 
" Quos," inquit sanctissimus Pater, " nostra setate sic 
" obmutuisse conspicimus, ut vix jam in scholis rhe- 
" torum commemorentur tantum quae fuerint illorum 
" sententise ; certamina tamen etiam de loquacissimis 
" Gra3corum gymnasiis eradicata atque compressa 
" sunt V 

" Dicebat Epicureus, Mihi frui carne bonum est ; 
" dicebat Stoicus, Mihi frui mea mente bonum est ; 
" dicebat Apostolus, Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum 
" est. Dicebat Epicureus, Beatus, cujus est in fructu 
" voluptas carnis ejus. Dicebat Stoicus, Imo, beatus, 
" cujus est in fructu virtus animi ejus. Dicebat Apo- 
" stolus, Beatus, cujus est in nomine Domini spes ejus." 
S. Augustin. [Serm. clvi. 7.] 

Uterque pugnavit, uterque victus est, duplici praelio, 
simplici victoria : argumenta bina, responsum unicum. 

4. S. Paulo Christiane philosophanti philosophi se 
opponunt. 

Observatum est a S. Augustino, quod " cum essent 
" plurimae philosophorum sectae in civitate Atheniensi, 
" non contulerint cum Apostolo Paulo nisi Stoici et 
" Epicurei : . . . . divina enim," inquit, " sapi- 
" entia hos ei apposuit, in quibus dissensionis phi- 

8 Ex Tac. Annal. ii. 55. l Epist. cxviii. ad Dioscorum. . 21. 



Philosophic, Christo adtersa. 68 

" losophorum tota prope causa consisteret." [Serm. cl, 
c. 5.] 

Hoc si concedamus sanctissimo Viro, vellem tamen 
has sectas non tantuiii qua tales, sed qua philosophos, 
S. Paulo restitisse : seu, quod idem est, S. Paulum 
noh his tantum, sed et reliquis omnibus philosophis se 
opposuisse. 

Quid enim, nonne ad Areopagum properantem in- 
terrogant, Possumus scire qua est hac nova qua a te 
dicitur doctrina f nova enim qu&dam infers auribus 
nostris : Kaivyv SiSa-^v, et ^evfl^ovrd Tiva > S. Paulo ob- 
jiciunt ; quae scil. a nulla unquatn philosophorum secta 
audiverant : erant enim omnibus, aeque atque ipsis, et 
nova et peregrina. Novorum, inquiunt, dcemoniorum 
mdetur annunciator esse ; quia Jesum et resurrectionem 
annunciabat eis. Tota itaque pene religio Christiana, 
quatenus est Christiana, erat omnibus philosophis pa- 
riter nova, peregrina, ignota. Non igitur Epicurei, 
aut Stoici tantum, sed et Peripatetici, sed et Platonici, 
sed et Pythagorici fundamenta Christianae religionis 
prorsiis ignorabant. Recte Tertullianus, " Ut caruis 
" restitutio negetur, de una omnium philosophorum 
" schola sumitur u ." In cultu veri Dei omnes pueri, 
omnes ignari ; quam ridicula divini Socratis etiam 
suprema verba, " Reddamus gallum ^Esculapio !" N^- 
irioi ovv KOI ot <f>i\6<ro<f)ot) eav n,tj VTTO TOV Xpto-Tow 
cnravSpwOSxriv. Clemens Alex. * 

Parum hoc est, philosophi veteres, verae religionis 
ignari, falsae patroni sunt. " Hi sunt patriarchae hae- 
" reticorum," ut Tertullianus a S. Hieronymo laudatur. 
'* Ipsae haereses a philosophia subornantur," et rursus, 
" Ex philosophorum ingeniis omnis haeresis animatur." 

* De Prescript. Haer. c. vii. x Stromat. lib. i. p. 347. ed. 

Potter. 

PEARSON, VOL. U. P 



64 Hcereses ex Philosophia nataz. CONCIO v- 

Neque haec exprobrans, sed gemens loquitur. " Doleo," 
inquit, " bona fide Platonem omnium haereticorum con- 
" dimentarium factum." 

Agnoscamus igitur monitum Apostolicum, Col. ii. 8. 
Videte ne quis vos decipiat per philosophiam et inanem 
fallaciam, secundum traditionem hominum. Perpendite 
S. Paulum, memorem eorum quae Athenis facta sunt, 
hsec tradidisse, et Clemens .A lexandrinus conjiciebat >'. 
Audite quid Tertullianus hac de re sentiat : " Si- 
" quidem et ab Apostolo jam tune philosophia, con- 
" cussio veritatis, providebatur : Athenis enim experta 
" linguatam civitatem, cum omnes illic sapientiae atque 
" facundiae caupones degustasset, inde concipit moni- 
" torium illud edictum z ." Et alio loco, (nondum, ut 
opinor, satis aut explicato aut intellecto,) ad eundem 
versiculum : " Praeter providentiam Spiritus Sancti, 
" fiierat Athenis, et illam sapientiam humanam, af- 
" fectatricem et interpolatricem veritatis, de congres- 
" sibus noverat a ." 

Ut igitur Apostoli curam ex hoc ipso ortam cer- 
tamine, ut Ecclesiae periculum, cui, post scholas de- 
bellatas atque subversas, ex ipsis haereses pullularunt, 
ut sanctissimorum Patrum honorem atque dignitatem, 
qui cum tot hostibus decertarunt, ut haec omnia rite 
perpendamus, rem ipsam paucis consideremus. 

" Esse philosophiam," tradebant Veteres, " rerum 
" humanarum divinarumque scientiam:" res huma- 

T Stromat. lib. i. torn. i. p. " providentiam Spiritus Sancti. 

346. Potter. " Fuerat Athenis, &c." Viderat 

z De Anima, .3. Pearsonus verba postrema ad sa- 

a De Prsescript. Haeret. . 7. crum textum nihil pertinere ; 

Vulgo legitur alia distinctione : unde intelligit Tertullianum di- 

" Videte ne quis vos circum- cere voluisse : S. Paulus, praeter 

" veniat per philosophiam et ina- ea quae ex Spiritus Sancti moni- 

" nem seductionem, secundum tis providerat, (Act. xx. 29, 30.) 

" traditionem hominum, praeter fuerat Athenis, &c. 



Per Philosophiam Mundus non cognovit Deum. 67 

nas concede, divinas denego. In divinis enim 
non rationem sed traditionem tantum sequebantur, 
eamque ex Oriente delatam. Eduxit Deus Abra- 
hamum ex Mesopotamia, ut patriam, ut affines, ut 
deos etiam familiae suoe relinqueret ; edocuit Mosen in 
deserto, licet universa ^Egyptiorum doctrina ante im- 
butum; revelavit populo suo et Ecclesise historiam et 
voluntatem suani ; suscitavit quotidie prophetas, neque 
fecit taliter utti nationi : hoc est, hsec omnia erant toti 
generi humano praeter Israelitas incognita, etiam turn 
cum Magi, cum Chaldaei, cum Gymnosophistae, cum 
It alien, cum lonica, cum omnes sectae Athenienses 
florerent ac superbirent. 

Locutus est Deus tandem per Filium suum, et Filius 
per Apostolos revelavit mysteria fidei a constitutione 
mundi incognita ; confirmavit prophetarum scripta, et 
apostolica consignavit ; Ecclesiam sibi condidit, illi 
divina oracula credidit, et sanguine suo, et miraculis 
confirmata : ita fides Christiana semel tradita est, cum 
omnibus religionis nostrae principiis. Ita lux ilia 
venit in mundum, plusquam ducentis anuis postquam 
omnes sectarum philosophicarum patres mortui sunt. 

Jam vero quanta dementia est, theologiam ab illis 
philosophis petere, qui primam divinae voluutatis pate- 
factionem jam factam, cum viverent, ignorabant ; ante- 
quam secunda fieret, e vita excesserant. An ab illis 
voluntatem Dei petemus, a quibus Ipse abscondidit ? 
ab illis in Ecclesia Dei doctrinam accersemus, quos 
Deus Ipse in Abrahamo reliquit, in Mose repudiavit ? 

Videte, ne quis decipiat vos per philosophiam, se- 
cundum traditionem hominum : tota enim ilia theologia 
philosophica est traditio hominum ; h. e. hominibus per 
homines tradita, non per Deum ; non ex ratione pro- 
fecta, sed per manus tradita. 

F2 



68 Philosophies legitimi fines. CONCIO V. 

Novam philosophiam non accuse ; rationem, ubi- 
cunque appareat, araplector; novam et Ecclesiae Dei 
inauditam theologiam repudio ; quse, si nova sit, aut 
nulla, aut certe nostra non est. Non postulat reli- 
gionis nostrse ratio, tit simus ignari rerum naturae, ut 
tollamus, aut negemus ulla adjumenta, quae nos ducere 
possunt ad intimam cognitionem creaturae.. Sed non 
inde voluntas Dei explicatur, non inde consilium Ejus 
de salute humani generis eruitur, non inde hauriemus 
quid Deus pr&paraverit timentibus, non inde cogno- 
scemus quales erimus cum Deum viderimus. 

Pene cogor cum Tertulliano exclamare, " Quid si- 
*' mile philosophus et Christianus ? Graeciae discipulus 
" et coeli ? famae negotiator, et salutis ? b " Quid igitur 
Athenis et Hierosolymis ? quid Academiae et Ecclesiae? 
quid haereticis et Christian] s ? 

Regulam illam potius sequamur, quam ipse tradit 
saluberrimam : 

" Constat omnem doctrinam, quse cum Ecclesiis 
" Apostolicis conspiret, veritati deputandam, sine dubio 
" tenentem quod Ecclesiae ab Apostolis, Apostoli a 
" Christo, Christus a Deo accepit ; omnem vero doc- 
" trinam de mendacio prsejudicandam, quae sapiat contra 
" veritatem Ecclesiarum, et Apostolorum, et Christi, et 
" Dei c ." 

b Apolog. . 46. c De Prescript. Haeret. .21. 
Note by Mr. Stones, written at the end of this Sermon : 

N. B, Quinque praecedentibus Prselectionibus, sive Concionibus 
ad Clerum, licentiam imprimendi addidit Reverendus vir Joann. 
Batteley, a Sacris Archiepiscopo Cantuarensi, sub hac forma : 
Mart. 22. 1686. Imprimatur 

JO. BATTELEY. 

Eodem Anno, Sept. 9. 1686. Licentiam imprimendi Opera Post- 
huma Chronologica Pearsoni J. Batteley dedit. 



CONCIO vr. 

Num. xvii. 8. Et ecce Jloruerat virga Aaronis pro 
domo Levi ; et produarerat gemmam^ et emiserat Jlorem, 
et maturaverat amygdala. 

AD clerum locuturo, patres fratresque, quid prius 
dicendum fuit, quam domus Levi ? apud pro- 
phetarum filios concionem habituro, quae orationis 
aptior materies, quam Aaronis virga ? coram sacerdotii 
candidatis, quid potius expromere, et explicare deceat, 
quam sacerdotales flores ? quo tempore magis haec 
omnia ostendere conveniat, quam illo maxime admi- 
rando, post gravem seditionem ortam, judicatam, pu- 
nitam, prostratam, apud Israelitas manifesto judicio, 
apud nos iudubitata providentia, utinam ne hoc tem 
pore iterum resuscitandam. Et ecce Jloruerat virga 
Aaronis fyc. 

Neque vero haec simplex aut nuda, sed multiplex et 
foeta virgae efflorescentia : Si originem spectes, gem- 
mata, si progressum, florida, si finem, fructuosa. Pro- 
duxerat gemmam ; quid efficacius, quid vividius ? 
emiserat florem ; quid pulchrius, quid ornatius ? ma 
turaverat amygdala; quid utilius, quid fructuosius? 
Hoc triplici gradu, sacerdotale fastigium scanditur : 

a Transcr. e Lib. MSto in 8vo. S. 



70 Textus distributio. CONCIO vi. 

his tribus emicationibus pectoralis Aaronici splendor 
restituitur ; triplicate hoc velo, sancti sanctorum re- 
verentia a profanatione arcetur ; his tribus testibus 
sacrorum ordiimm dignitas et distinctio in aeternum 
confirmantur. Et produverat gemmam, et emiserat flo- 
rem, et maturaverat amygdala. 

Verba haec duabus constant partibus, quarum prior 
est, miraculi summaria descriptio, posterior, descripti in 
sua membra distributio. In miraculi descriptione, prima 
vocula refert textus conjunctionem, Et ; secunda, rei 
pracstitse admirationem, Et ecce ; tertia, admirationis 
causam, Et ecce floruerat ; quarta, miraculi subjectum, 
Et ecce floruerat mrga ; quinta, personae dignitatem, 
Et ecce floruerat mrga Aaronis; reliquse, tribus prsela- 
tionein, Et ecce floruerat mrga Aaronis pro domo Levi. 

Textus conjunctio flagitat historiam, rei admiratio 
praeparat expectationem, admirationis causa exhibet 
miraculum, miraculi subjectum indicat potestatem, dig 
nitas personae ostendit differentiam, tribus praelatio 
denotat ordinem clericalem. 

Quod ad distributionem miraculi attinet, habemus in 
gemma propositum, in floribus verbum, in amygdalis 
fructus operum : 1. initium, 2. progressus, 3. perfectio 
denotatur ; et in tanta varietate sacrorum ordinum, 
distinctio confirmatur. 

Ab historia initium sumendum arbitror, qua incog 
nita, reliqua intelligi minime possunt. 

Orta est saepe inter Israelitas, sed nunquam alias 
gravior seditio. Core, Dathan et Abiram, triumvi- 
rorum pessimi, ac ducenti quinquaginta viri, proceres 
synagogae, accusant Mosen et Aaronem ; nobilis sane 
conspiratio, neque e trivio profecta. In hunc modum 
concepta est accusatio. Omnis multitude sanctorum est, 
et in ipsis est Dominus ; cur elevamini super populum 



Seditio qucerit paritatem Ministrorum. 71 

Dei f Ac si diceret Core, Levi pronepos, pro tribulibus 
suis, " Omnes sancti sunt, omnes Deo conjunctissimi : 
" Quid facit Aaron super sacerdotes ? quid sacerdotes 
'* supra Levitas ? oranes filii Levi, omnes ministri Dei, 
** sunt ejusdem ordinis,.et aequalis dignitatis." 

Moses hac criminatione lacessitus appellat Deum, 
orat ut notum faciat, qui ad se propius pertineant, et 
quis sanctus sit. Conditio accipitur, periculura faciunt. 
Accipiunt Core ccetusque ejus thuribula sua; suum et 
Aaron ; imponunt illi thuribulis suffitum, et confestim 
dirupta est terra sub pedibus eorum, et aperiens os 
suum devoravit illos. Quinetiam ignis egressus a Do 
mino interfecit ducentos quinquaginta viros qui effe- 
rebant incensum. O voraginem justitiae ! O vindictae 
flammas ! Ignis in cultu alienus accendit iram Dei ; 
Deo commoto, scabellum frangitur, hiat terra ; thronus 
accenditur, exardescunt cosli. Itajam res judicata, ita 
seditio repressa ; si tamen vel sic repressa. Sol enim, 
qui cum occideret nihil prater cineres vidit, cum ori- 
retur flammas conspexit. Murmuravit enim omnis 
multitude filiorum Israel sequenti die contra Mosen 
et Aaron, dicens, Vos interfecistis populum Dei. Deus 
bone ! Moses et Aaron interfecerunt Israelitas ? quam 
caeca, quam insana haec accusatio ! Si illi interfecerint, 
quis servavit ? si per eorum manus sint interempti, per 
quas ex ^Egypto sunt educti ? Quis, nisi Dominus creli 
ac terrae, potuit simul et aperire terram, et ignem de 
coelo mittere ? Ecce ! jam latius serpere coeperat se 
ditio : unaquseque tribus sacerdotium spirat. Non jam 
paritas Levitarum, sed aequalitas omnium postulatur; 
omnes tribus sanctae sunt, omnes. Israelitas sacerdotes. 
Profecto ita fieri solet, patres fratresque : primo sedi- 
tiose quaeritur paritas ministrorum, mox aequalitas 
omnium iutroducitur. Imo ita fieri par est, ut qui 



72 Miraculwn de Virga. CONCIO vi. 

superiores ferre nolint, inferiores agnoscere non pos-r 
sint, 

Quid ad haec Moses et Aaron? fugerunt ad taber- 
naculum. Deus nunquam ante eos recepit in nubem, 
quam instirrexerit populus. Sic, lasciviente et tumul- 
tuante ingrato populo Anglicano, recepit Mosen et 
Aarones nostros in nubem Deus; Aarones quidem, in 
nebulam mirse obscuritatis, sed ipsum Mosen, in nubem 
miraculosae protectionis. Turn vero Deus inter fideles 
servos et rebellem populum arbiter apparuit, jussitque 
Mosen sumere virgas duodecim, pro totidem tribubus, 
et uniuscujusque nomen inscribere virgse suse, nomen 
etiam Aaronis pro tribu Levi : jussit et omnes in taberr 
naculo foederis, coram testimonio ponere, dixitque 
virgam ejus germinaturam quern Deus elegerit. Quo 
facto, sequenti die ingressus est Moses tabernaculum 
testimonii, Et ecce floruerat mrga Aaronis. 

Haec est historise series, Beliquas particulas minu^- 
tatim baud prosequimur, sed potius in duas partes 
conjicimus ; subjectum miraculi, et naturam : illud 
quasi animatum, hanc quasi animantem. Virga Aa-? 
ronis pro domo Levi ; hoc subjectum : Ecce floruerat ; 
hoc miraculum, 

Virga est insigne potestatis ; habet naturam sceptri ; 
et virga est Aaronis, datur potestas sacerdotalis, est 
sane aliqua disciplina ecclesiastica. Mater Ecclesia 
vitis est, et factte sunt ei virgce solidte in sceptra domi- 
nantium. Ezek. xix. 11. Praecepit Christus discipulis, 
ne quid tollerent in via, nisi virgam tantum. Sine 
sandaliis, sine pera, sine tunica ministri Christi esse 
possunt, sine virga npn possunt. Non est Ecclesia sine 
potestate, non est Christus sine sceptro, non est Petrus 
sine clave, non est Paulus sine virga b , 
h i Cor. iv. 21. 



Sacerdotum Missio a Deo. 73 

Est Aaroni virga non minus quam Mosi, imo eadem 
videtur fuisse et Aaronis, et Mosis. Dixit enim Deus 
Mosi, Totte virgam. Num. xx. 8. Sequiturque, corn- 
mate 9, Tulit igitur Moses virgam qwe erat in conspectu 
Dei : erat ;mtrm ilia Aaronis, etiam testibus rabbinis, 
quoe posita erat in tabernaculo testimonii. Plures 
manus, baculus unus ; dulce conjugium magistratus et 
ministerii : per manus Mosis et Aaronis venit ex 
jEgypto populus Dei, et in aeternum veniet. Nulla 
unquam dissidia sint inter magistratus gladiura te- 
nentes, et ministros Dei Verbo potentes. Nos fratres 
sumus, olim Loto dixit Abrahamus ; sed Moses et 
Aaron magis fratres sunt quam Lotus et Abrahamus. 
Magistratus non sine causa alodium portat, Dei enim 
minister est, mndex in iram ei qui malum agit. Sa- 
cerdos evangelicus Dei minister est, non minus malis 
iratus, quamvis vindex minus ; imo hujus vindicta mi 
nus conspicua, non minus certa. Ut incurrunt in 
oculos nostros corpora, latent animae, ita poena tem- 
poralis magis apparet, sed affigit minus. Ita in virga 
pontificis elucescit Ecclesiae potestas. 

Cum vero legimus virgam Aaronis pro dotno Levi, 
inde divinam, et institutionem ministerii, et distinc- 
tionem ministrorum concludimus. Non est virga Judae, 
non Rubenis, pro domo Levi, sed Aaronis. Sacri 
ordines ut sunt primulum a Deo instituti, ita sunt ab 
ill is, quos Ipse elegerit, conferendi. Par est, ut Deus 
non tantum cultum sui praescribat, sed et personas per 
quas colatur. .dEquum est ut accessus ad Eum fiat, per 
quos Ipse velit. Sicut misit Pater Christum, ita Chris- 
tus Apostolos, Apostoli successores. Imposuit manus 
Timotheo Paulus, atque sic factus est ab Apostolo 
episcopus. Imposuit manus iterum Timotheus ; et 
factus est ab episcopo, aut presbyter, aut episcopus. 



74 Ministrorum Distlnctio a Deo. CONCIO vi. 



Quodcunque factum, nunquam misit nisi qui missus est, 
nunquam ordinavit, nisi qui ordinatus est, nunquam 
dedit, nisi qui acceperat; solus Pater misit, et non 
missus erat: majorem se Christo facit, quisquis non 
missus audet tamen alios mittere. Haec est Jeroboami 
impietas ; neque dextra ejus unquam ariditate dignior 
fiiit, quam cum impleret manus hominum c , atque ita se 
facere sacerdotes diceret. 

Contra naturae leges est, ut oves pastorem creent, ut 
relictis suis pastoribus coeant, et ex ipsa negatione 
obedientise, sibi jus alios constituendi condant, aliosque 
rursum mittendi potentiam sumant. 

Sub virga Aaronis est domus Levi; tota potestas 
spiritualis non redundat a populo ad clerum, sed a 
clero derivatur ad populum : non a domo, sed pro 
domo Levi accepit virgam Aaron; non a populo, sed 
bono populi "fit institutio ministri ; non ab hominibus 
neque per homines, sed a Christo Sanctus Paulus 
Apostolus d ; non a populo neque per populum, sed a 
Deo per S. Paulum, Titus episcopus. 

Neque tantum hinc institutio ministerii, sed et 
ministrorum distinctio petenda est. Non omnis filius 
Levi etiam Aaronis filius est, nee omnis Aaronis filius, 
sicut ipse Aaron est. Virga Aaronis pro domo Levi, 
omnis in ipso, et ab ipso auctoritas: non facit sacerdos, 
sed Aaron sacerdotem. 

Quomodo haec ad Christianos pertineant, docet nos 
insignis ilia S. Hieronymi ad Evangelum sententia. " Ut 
" sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de Veteri 
" Testamento, quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Levitse in 
" templo fuerunt, hoc sibi episcopi et presbyteri et 
" diaconi in Ecclesia vindicent." [Epist. cxlvi. ad f.] 

l " 2 Chron. xiii. 9. ubi LXX, irXrjpSurai ras \flpas iv povxu. d Gal. 



i. i. 



Miraculi Natura. 75 

Per hanc traditionem Apostolicam, tota ordinandi 
potestas in episcopis resedit, nulla alii cuiquam in Novo 
Testamento indulta est, nulli in Veteri Ecclesia per- 
missa. Quicquid unquam ad honorem presbyteratus 
dictum, semper ei ordinatio negata est ; ut filios crearet 
permissum, non ut patres. Ita hos ordines scite dis- 
tinguit Epiphanius : 'H fj.ev ea-Tt Trarepwv yevvtjTiKt] rants' 
TTdTepa? yap yevva rfj 'EirA>7<r/a* rj Se irarepas fit} Swanevrj 
yevvav, Sia T/y TOV \ovrpov TraAfyyei/ecr/ay TCKVO. yevva, 
ov fjLqv Trarejoa? rj SiSaa-KoXous. [Adv. Aerium. Hwres. 
Ixxv. 4.] 

Satis illustre hujus doctrinae specimen in negotio 
Colluthi et Ischyrae editum est. Primus omnium 
Colluthus, cum simplex presbyter esset, Ischyram pres- 
byterum ordinavit, sed ordinatio statim a synodo vacua 
et nulla pronuntiata est, Ischyrasque in ordinem lai- 
corum redactus, cum justissima magni Athanasii cen- 
sura, ort KoXXouOoy irpea-fivrepos wv ereXevrrjcre, KOI iracra 
^e'tp avrov awpos e . Quid huic exemplo tarn insigni, 
tarn singulari, regerant Novatores, non ignoro; sed 
omnia quae opponunt nihili esse pro comperto habeo. 
Et sane qui ordinandi potestatem presbyteratui origi- 
naliter tribuunt, non possunt non in Aerii haeresin 
delabi : neque enim aliud quicquam agnoverunt S. 
Patres, quod hos ordines intime et necessario dis- 
tingueret. 

Ue subjecto miraculi diximus ; sequitur natura. 

In ipso miraculo, duo potissimum consideranda ; 
modus, et finis. Ecce floruerat virga, ecce floruerat 
sola ; supra naturae leges haec efflorescentia : quod 
floreret, diviriae est potentiae, quod sola, divinoa volun- 
tatis: ita utrobique Deus est. Erant omnes pariter 
aridae, a stirpe recisae, ab humore vitali separatae, 
e Apolog. de Fuga. torn. i. p. 732. ed. Colon. 



76 Separatio Cleri a Deo. CONCIO vi. 

germinandi facultate prorsus destitute: nihil illis ad- 
movetur quod naturam elevet, quod vim exsuscitet, 
quod vitalitatem aut imprimat, aut expromat. Non 
in terrae gremium defodiuntur, ut iterum radices agant: 
non fertilibus aquae rivis ' tinguntur, ut vigore novo 
repullulent: sed tredecim virgae omnes emortuae co- 
ram area Dei jacent, nulla naturae vi, nulla humana arte 
animandae. In medio duodecim virgarum jacet una 
impossibilitate eadem, et desperatione pari ; cum re- 
liquis jacet, nulla vi superior, nullo modo vitae pro- 
pinquior. Sed accedit vis divina, et inter omnes bane 
unam eligit. Qui in principio rerum dixit, Germinet 
terra herbam virentem, idem huic baculo dixit, Ger 
minet, et germinavit. Et ecce floruerat virga Aa- 
ronis, fyc. 

Quicquid efficitur ope ministerii, totum virtute di- 
vinae tribuendum. Tingit sacerdos, et aqua peccatum 
abluit, infantesque regenerat, non aquae virtute, non 
sua, sed promissionis efficaciaeque Dei : panem conse- 
crat, et ut corpus Christi sit efficit, non manu propria, 
sed ex institutione, operationeque divina : poenitenti 
peccata remittit, auctoritate non sua, sed delegata, et 
quae fontem respicit, Accipite Spiritum Sanctum. Sa- 
cros ordines episcopus confert, neque hunc honor em sibi 
sumit, nisi qui vocattts, sicut et Aaron : neque hie honor 
personae, sed officii, nihilque fit nisi per eundem Spi 
ritum, sine quo nihil revera sacrum est : ut apponatur 
virga, officii nostri est ; ut efflorescat, potentiae boni- 
tatisque divinae. 

Fecit hoc Deus ad confirmandum sacerdotium, ad 
tollendum schisma, ad seditionem reprimendam. Ita 
I]>se, versu 5. Cohibebo a me querimonias filiorum Is 
rael, quibus contra vos murmurant. Ac si diceret, 
" Hactenus ad vos tantum clamor pervenit, et aures 



Mtnistrorum successio a Deo. 77 

" vestras verberavit : curabo ne aperte in me saeviant. 
" Agnoscam ordinem, quern Ipse statui, faciamque ut 
" sciant tribum, quam Mihi ipsi vindicavi." Separatur 
tribus Levi a reliquis, non ex ambitione Mosis aut 
Aaronis, sed ex voluntate Dei; et distinctio cleri a 
laicis jure plane divino nititur. Non manifestius 
tabernaculum Dei ab Israelitarum tabernaculis dis- 
tinguitur, quam Levitae ab Israelites. Saepe S. Paulus: 
Num omnes Apostolif num omnes prophetce? num 
omnes doctores f Neutiquam sane. 

Inter Levitas ipsos, num omnes sicut Aaron? num 
omnes sacerdotes? minime gentium. Aaron pontifex est, 
ut Josephus loquitur, apafid-xyns f . Aaro 
nis filii sacerdotes, caeteri simpliciter Levitas. Haec 
tune constituta apud Israelitas graduum Leviticorum 
distinctio ; et hujus distinction is contirmatio finis est 
miraculi. Finis hie effectum sortitus est, turn in ipso 
ordine, turn in ordinis successione. Comprobavit hoc 
miraculum Dei institutum, ut Levitae a reliquis tri- 
bubus separati, divino cultui suo loco moduloque 
inservirent, ut Aaronis filii, caeteris Levitis praelati, ac 
sacerdotes facti, sacrificia offerrent, suffitus adolerent, ut 
filius natu maximus summus pontifex esset, sanctum 
sanctorum quotannis semel intraret, expiationem 
perageret. 

Quicquid hoc miraculum prsestitit in ordine, idem 
effecit et in successione. Habent enim fructus se- 
mina, quae terrae commissa in arbores crescunt, et rur- 
sum fructus edunt. Haec igitur sacrorum ordinum 
distinctio, semel divinitus instituta e crelo confirmata 
est, ut perpetua et interminata successione legi ipsi 

f Sive dvapafiaxijt. Antiq. Hi. c. 7. 



78 Ministrorum successio a Deo. CONCIO vi. 

coseva perduraret*. Facta haec vivente Aarone, con- 
firmatio miraculosa ad Eleazaridas et Ithmaridas uni 
verses pertinebat. Et in himc finem reposita est in area 
Domini Aaronis virga, et? Siarypfjo-iv dixitque Dominus 
ad Mosen, Refer virgam Aaronis in tabernaculum tes- 
timonii, ut servetur ibi in signum rebellium filiorum 
Israel. 

Imo vero, cessante Mosaica lege, area testimonii 
sublata, virgaque Aaronis deperdita, manet adhuc 
hujusce miraculi pro sacerdotali successione contra 
rebelles defensio. Scriptum enim est prophetice ab 
Isaia, de statu evangelico : Adducent omnes fratres 
vestros ex omnibus gentibus, atque etiam ex istis assumam 
sacerdotes et Levitas, ait Dominus. Scil. in Ecclesia 
Christiana haec ministrorum distinctio observanda. 
" Quod Aaron et filios ejus, hoc episcopum et pres- 
" byteratum esse noverimus," inquit S. Hieronymus, 
Ep. ad Evangelum h . Cavendum est itaque etiamnum, 
monente S. Juda, ne in contradictione Core pereamus. 

'Evravtia at Kara rfjv 'EKK\r)crtav nesius in apographo. Ipsa enim 

irpoKOTTal 'EiruTKOTraiv, TrpfcrpvTfpav, S. Hieronymi verba habemus 

SMKUVW ut recte Clemens Alex, superius : quse in textu hie le- 

P. Conf. Vind. Ignat. p. ii. c. 13. guntur paiiEo diversa sunt. 

h Nescio an hie erraverit Sto- 



ORATIO 

AD EXSEQUIAS MATTILEI WRENN 
EPISCOPI ELIENSIS. 



" MATTHEW WRENN, D.D. Bishop of Ely, died April 24, 
" 1667, in the 82nd year of his age, and was interred, accord- 
" ing to his own appointment, in a vault which he had caused 
M to be built for that purpose under the Communion Table of 
" the new-built chapel of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, which 
" had been erected at his own expense, without any further 
" memorial than the initial letters of his name, and date of his 
" death, on his coffin." Bentham's Ely, p. 201. " He was 
" buried with the greatest solemnity seen in the memory of 
" man, performed by the whole University, twenty-four 
" scholars of St. John's, Peter-House, and Pembroke, being 
" his relations, in mourning." Lloyd, p. 612. See Peck's 
Desid. Curiosa, lib. xiv. p. 545. KIDD. 

A memoir of bishop Wrenn, giving the dates of his prin 
cipal preferments, may be found in Athen. Oxon. tit. Corbet, 
Rich. vol. ii. 885, 886, 887. Wood says there, that he attended 
Prince Charles, " after he had taken his journey to Spain." 
This is so worded, as if he had not known that he attended 
him as his chaplain to Spain ; which yet is certain, as stated 
in the MS. History of Pembr. Hall, quoted by Kennett in his 
notes on Wood, by Bp. Pearson in this Oration, and by Collier, 
Hist. vol. ii. p. 726. And in the library of Pembroke Hall 
there is preserved a catalogue of books beautifully written and 
emblazoned by Bp. Wrenn's own hand, in which at part ii. 
p. 4. is an entry dated " Cal. Jan. 1628, 4," in which he 
speaks of himself as " redux avv 0ey factus ex Hispania." 
Wood also says, that Bp. Wrenn was set at liberty from his 
memorable imprisonment of eighteen years in the Tower 
" after his majesty's return." Bp. Pearson, who knew how 
the fact was, here states, truly no doubt, that his liberation 

PRAB8ON, VOL. II. O 



82 

was the act of the same party who had imprisoned him, when 
they saw which way tlie wind had set, and began to apprehend 
the consequences. He was discharged in pursuance of a 
resolution of the House of Commons, acting under fear of 
General Monk, March 15, 1660. See Kennett's Register, 
p. 84-. 

Lord Clarendon, when he wrote the early part of his 
History, seems to have been unacquainted with the personal 
character of this prelate. He speaks of him as " a man of a 
" severe sour nature," though he at the same time says he 
was " very learned, and particularly versed in the old liturgies 
" of the Greek and Latin churches." These words have 
been copied by other writers. But besides the testimony of 
Pearson here, that his temper was admirably calm and equable, 
(without which he could never have borne or survived that 
strange captivity,) we may consider this sentence as virtually 
retracted at a later period by Clarendon himself. Certainly it 
would not be for the qualities here specified, that he afterwards 
found reason " to prefer the bishop of Ely's counsel and advice 
" before any man's" in his plans for restoring the church, that 
he asked him to recommend to the vacant sees, and expressed 
himself as hopeless of success in the business, till Wrenn 
should be at liberty. See his letters to Dr. Barwick in 
Kennett's Register, p. 14, 21, 27, 55, &c. 

There is also another passage in the History, which speaks 
unfavourably of Bp. Wrenn, and tends to confirm the substance 
of one of the articles of impeachment brought against him by 
the House of Commons, that, by " proceeding passionately 
" and warmly'' against the schismatics in Norfolk and Suffolk, 
he caused many of them to leave the kingdom, " to the 
" lessening the wealthy manufacture there of kerseys and 
" narrow cloths, and, which was worse, transporting that 
" mystery into foreign parts." The article in his impeachment 
states the incredible number of .3000 persons, who are said to 
have transported themselves into Holland and other foreign 
countries; and it gives the names of eleven master manu 
facturers, some of whom are said to have employed a hundred 
people, who had thus removed. It is however certain, that 



83 

in the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth an act was passed 
giving peculiar privileges to the manufacturers of Somerset, 
Wilts, and Gloucestershire ; from which time the clothiers of 
those counties have generally continued to flourish, while 
those of Norfolk and Suffolk have entirely declined. The 
descendants of the Walloons and Dutch Protestants, who had 
settled there about the time of the Reformation, are still 
resident in the districts where the manufactories once were ; 
so that there could have been no general emigration on 
religious grounds, as Clarendon seems to suppose. It is 
therefore scarcely a question, that those who went over to 
Holland, went for higher wages, as stated by the bishop in 
his able Defence. The distress neither began during his 
episcopate, nor ended with it 

It is not easy to say how far the excitement of the time 
may have influenced others ; but the Defence, confirmed by 
the records in the episcopal register, shews that, in a diocese 
with about 1500 clergymen, not above thirty had been under 
any censure or monition, of whom some had been for a time 
restrained, but only six finally deprived. At a time when all 
bishops were expected to enforce discipline and require con 
formity, it was not likely that it could have been done with 
fewer prosecutions. The other charges in his impeachment 
relate to the ordinary grievances of raising chancel-floors, 
setting up altar-rails, removing pews, and ordering his clergy 
to preach in surplices. One point, strongly urged also in 
Sir Thomas Widdrington's speech on his prosecution, is that 
he had ordered the church-bells to chime alike for all church- 
services, whether there was a sermon or not. Yet while 
denouncing him for thus " robbing souls of the sweet manna 
" of God's word," his accuser admits, " as for preaching, 
" that he is most able in this kind is agreed by all." See 
Nalson's Collection ii. 395. sqq. Also Abp. Laud's Troubles 
and Trial, p. 541, 2. 548, 9. 

The Meditations or Commentaries on Scripture, which 
Pearson says he wrote in the Tower, appear to have been 
lost ; unless we have a portion of them in " A Brief Theo- 
" logical Treatise touching that unlawful Scottish Covenant, 



84 

" which was in the late ungracious times obtruded upon the 
" people of England : written first upon sundry private 
" occasions, in prison, by Matthew Ld, Bishop of Ely, after 
" the manner of a Sermon upon these words, Ps. xliv. 18. 
" * Nor behave ourselves frowardly in Thy Covenant.' Now 
" thought fit to be published by him for the present use of 
" his Diocese, the readilier to prepare all therein, Divines and 
** others, for the due abrenunciation of the said Covenant, 
" which they are out of hand to make by virtue of the Act for 
" Uniformity." Lond. 1662. 4to. 

Some interesting anecdotes relating to his imprisonment 
may be found in the " Parentalia, or Memoirs of the Wrenn 
" Family," written by Christopher Wrenn, son of the archi 
tect. They do not however add much to Bp. Pearson's 
sketch of his life in this oration ; from which a good portion 
is rather inartificially incorporated with the memoir of Bp. 
Wrenn. They state nothing about the bishop's sons, men 
tioned by Pearson, of whom some account may be found in 
Wood and Kennett. And they say nothing of his writings in 
the Tower ; which one would suppose might have been 
better worth preserving, than many Prison Thoughts, with 
which the world has been indulged. 



ORATIO 

HABITA IN CAPELLA PEMBROCHI AD EXSEQUIAS 
MATTILEI WRENN 

EPI8COPI ELIENSI8 

PER JOANN. PEARSON, S. T. P. 

KT COLL. 8. TRIM J A I is MA6ISTRUM. 

T> EVERENDISSIME Domine,Dom.Procancellarie, 
-I-*' Nobilissimi Juvenes, Viri Ornatissimi Spectatis- 
simique 

Si unquam mihi in ullo reipublicae literariae negotio 
exoptandum fuit, ut feliciter cederet, et officio auspicate 
suscepto eventus responderet, certe hoc potissimum 
tempore votis omnibus expetendum videtur, ut digna 
nobis, digna praesule contingat oratio : ne vel Academiae 
existimatio, vel Ecclesiae honos et dignitas, aut animi 
mei imbecillitate, aut verborum penuria, aut infirmitate 
judicii evilescat. Neque enim hactenus amplissimo 
huic artium domicilio, quod habitamus, justior sese 
efferendi occasio indulta est; neque religionis quam 
colimus illustrior unquam splendor emicuit, quam in 
ejus antistitis vita, rebusque gestis, ac varietate fortunae, 
cujus exsequias fiinebri solennitate celebramus. In 
quo uno Tiro, si haec Musarum sedes, quicquid honestum, 
nobile, gloriosum, ostendere potuit, non exhibuit; in 



86 Oratio ad Exsequias Matt. Wrenn. 

quo, si fama ab omnibus meritissimo elicita, extorta, ad 
nos non maxima redundavit; de honore literis vindicando 
in aeternum plane desperandum est. Adspicite sacras 
infulas vobis quasi in Lycaeo ante oculos positas, cogitate 
ha?c episcopatus insignia tanquam tropaea ad Athenas 
reducta a ; sed praecipue Matthseum, praesulem vestrum, 
animo, memoria recolite, cujus feretrum non magis 
manifesto lure omamenta gestavit sustentavitque, quam 
ipse, dum viveret, sacrum ilium ordinem dignitatemque 
sumilsit, excoluit, ornavit. Erit igitur operae pretium, 
viri gravissimi, et vobis grata cogitatione revolvere, et 
mihi luculentae orationis filo explicare, quibus auspiciis 
consummatissima quaeque aggressus sit, quibus gradibus 
ascenderit, per quas ambages et diverticula transient; ut 
ejus vestigia legentes, illius exemplo ducti, illius virtu- 
tibus ornati, tantum ducem sequi discamus, et ad tarn 
ardua tamque praeclara anhelemus. 

Ut familiam mire antiquam ac satis nobilem, caetera- 
que, quae in exemplum tralii minus possint, praeteream ; 
ad academiam accessit summae spei juvenis, nee vulgari 
expectatione, aut aliorum more missus, sed, (quod feli- 
cissimi ominis erat,) a Lancelotto Andrewsio, Jauda- 
tissimo hujus Aulae praeposito, expetitus, accersitus, 
adductus : illius manu in hoc feraci episcoporum solo 
primulum positus, illius cura diligenter observatus, 
consiliis perpetim instructus, favore pertinaci excitatus, 
bonarum literarum studiis totum se dedit, perpetuis 
vigiliis animum excoluit, corpus maceravit, attrivit, 
exhausit. Brevi, artium linguarumque insigni peritia 
notissimus, publicis academiae muniis exercitiisque 
summa cum laude perfunctus, ritus religiosissime obser- 
vabat, disciplinam acerrime exercuit, privilegia gravis- 

" The funeral solemnity was deceased Bishop's mitre and cro- 
conducted by a herald, and the sier laid upon the altar. Cole'sMS. 



Oratio ad Exsequias Matt. Wrenn. 87 

sime tuebatur, tamque altum animo harum sedium 
amorem concepit ac fixit, ut non aetatis longinquitas, 
non iniquitas temporum, aut obliterare aut diminuere 
potuerit. Postquam omnibus humanioribus literis, 
liberalissimisqne studiis eruditus, excultus, ac perpolitus 
evaserat ; tota mente atque omni animi impetu in 
Ecclesiam incubuit. Et sane eximia acerrimaque 
ingenia, hominesque omni doctrinae genere et illustris 
cujusque notae dotibus maxime florentes, theologia 
quasi jure suo sibi vindicat ; neque enim melius omnes 
animi vires, quam in pietate excolenda, in cultu Dei 
exornando, in rebus divinis celebrandis, exerceri et 
impendi possunt. Dum in his versatur vir rara con- 
spiratione et doctissimus et pientissimus, et ad promo- 
vendos academiae fines et Ecclesiae pariter intentus, 
quamvis inter hos parietes, quos tantopere coluit, deli- 
tescere videretur, aut Lancelotto suo fidissime obse- 
quentissimeque adbaeresceret ; in summa expectatione 
esse coepit ; nihil erat tantum, quod non ab illo perfici 
atque obtineri posse omnes judicabant ; neque perspi- 
cacem sapientissimi Regis Jacobi oculum latere potuit, 
cui erat ante vel ex subselliis nostris satis cognitus 
atque perspectus. Quare eo temporis articulo, quo 
familia principis verum Ecclesiae Anglicanae et explora- 
tissimae fidei filium postularet, hunc potissimum sua 
sponte et ex judicio proprio, hoc est, maximo, a sacris 
Carolo suo assignavit. Cui rei hie etiam honoris 
cumulus accessit, quod tarn secreto gesta sit, ut in 
dubio relinqueretur, an daretur a Rege, an peteretur a 
principe : quae dubitatio adhuc etiam felicissime aucta 
est, quod utrique pariter carus esset ; et in illo secreto 
hoc certe apertum et perspicuum fuit, quod majori 
arcano praeluderet. Ecce enim alte insedit animo 
prudentissimi Regis rei gerendae certissimum consilium, 



88 Oratio ad Exsequias Matt. Wrenn. 

quae toti terrarum orbi, cum ageretur, miraculo fuit, et 
postquam gesta est, fortasse iiunquam desierit : adeo 
fatigantur et caligant hominum ingenia, qui arcana 
principum rimari, et publicorum negotiorum causas 
discutere, ac rationes pernoscere, satagunt, ambiuntque. 
Statutum est regum solertissimo filium unicum, regni 
triplicis haeredem, indulgentissimi patris dilectissiinam 
prolem, paternae familiae spem et solatium, Carolum, in 
eras Hispanise mittere ; prudentissimae occultissimorum- 
que consiliorum genti, nobis hactenus ex versutia, 
superbia, et diuturna inimicitia notse, non exercitu 
cinctum, non classe armatum, (quales Angli Hispanos 
petere solebant,) concredere, et eorum fidei satis sus- 
pectae, sua tantum prudentia munitum, committere. 
Cum igitur Matthaeus vester optimo principi in negotio 
periculosissimo, a sacris, dixerim, an a secretis, esset ; 
ubi enim vera pietas indices egit, et pectus haud ficta 
religione penitus imbutum est, haec, apud alios tarn late 
discrepantia, aut nihil aut parum differunt ; turn vero 
religionis nostrge fundamenta tam diserte ubique expli- 
cavit, nervoseque defendit, et nodos ab ecclesiasticis 
viris ad res principis implicandas nexos tanto cum 
acumine privatim dissolvit, ut nee ullis aliis artibus 
reditus principis ad patrem magis aperte patuerit b . 

b It is perhaps not improbable, imitate the example of his ances- 
from what is here stated, that Bp. tors the former kings of England, 
Wrenn drew up the letter sent by " qui fortunarum et vitae ipsius 
prince Charles out of Spain in " discrimen adiverunt, quo fidem 
answer to one brought by a " Christianam latius propaga- 
nuncio of pope Gregory XV ; a " rent." Prynne gives a French 
copy of which may be found in and English version, which trans- 
Annals of K.James, p. 77. Lend, late the last clause, " pour 1'ex- 
1681. fol. The letter is remark- " altation du Saint Siege," " for 
able for the singular falsification " the exaltation of the Holy 
of it published by Prynne in his " Chaire." The rest is similarly 
" Popish Royal Favourite " perverted. 
Charles speaks of his desire to 



Oratio ad Exsequias Matt. Wrenn. 89 

Caeterum, si ullo indicio, viri gravissimi, reputare 
cupiamus, quanta academiae nostrse ilia tempestate 
aestimatio fuerit; non aliuude conjecturam faciendam 
reor, quam quod hie earn tarn ardenter deperiret, ut 
hue a reduce principe convolaret; Carolus tanta cura 
dignatus, tanta indulgentia prosecutus sit, ut ad earn 
ornandam a suo quasi latere Matthaeum dimitteret. 

Praetereo beneficii opimitatem, qua statim remune- 
ratus ; prsebendae dignitatem, qua ornatus. Ad collegii 
D. Petri gubernacula admotus potius quam evectus, 
cum socios omnes moderatione animi atque imperii ad 
summam concordiam pertraxisset, juventutem ad studia 
bonarum literarum excitasset, nova etiam aedificia ex- 
struxisset, archiva collegii blattis et tineis erepta, ex- 
cusso pulvere, summa industria in luculentum ordinem 
redegisset; videretque pietatis ofticia, ob defectum sa- 
crorum in sinu collegii conventum, et emendicatam 
quandam Deo serviendi extra pomoeria licentiam, minus 
decore peragi; quod proprio sumtu tune temporis 
efficere non potuit, alieno impendio, sed sua apud bonos 
auctoritate, capellam exstrui et ornari curavit. Pro- 
cancellarius factus, disciplinam collapsam restituit, 
omnes in officio continuit, Academiam ipsam docuit, 
ut se tandem aliquando intelligeret. 

Verum enimvero serenissimus rex ferre non potuit, 
ut diu a se abesset, et in academico pulvere decertaret ; 
quare privati oratorii clericum adscivit, (sub minoris 
vocabuli nomine ingens decus :) imo prius capellae suae 
apud Winsoram decanum praefecit : ubi non tantum 
officiis divinis, ut rite et decore fierent, sed etiam 
summa? hujus imperii dignitati atque splendori, qui in 
clarissimo Periscelidis ordine consistit, inserviret. Quem 
non tantum insigni gravitate, prudentia, auctoritate, 



90 Oratio ad Exsequias Matt Wrenn. 

rexit, sed scriptis accuratissime perpolitis ornavit ; et 
locum amplissimum fratri d , exemplum posteris omnibus 
reliquit. Cum enim eum ad publicum Ecclesise regimen 
quasi natum et comparatum, non jam conjectura Rex 
prospiceret, sed omnibus experimentis probe perspectum 
haberet, Herefordensi episcopatui admovit : quern vix 
attigisse crederetis, nisi brevissimo illo temporis spatio 
ecclesiam, aut ambiguis, aut mutilis, aut auctoritatis 
nullius statutis fluctuantem, certis et definitis statumi- 
nasset, accuratis et elegantibus ornasset. Ecce Norwi- 
censis dioceseos sedes vacua, larga quidem ilia et patens, 
scbismate etiam quassata atque dirupta, gnavum, pru- 
dentem, fortem, consultum prsesulem efflagitabat : hue 
igitur, qui solus tanto negotio par videbatur, ab Here- 
fordia translatus est : ubi per biennium et quod amplius 
fait, schismaticorum fraudes detexit, conatus repressit, 
animos fregit. Interim ab oratorio private ad regise 
capellae decanatum, quo altius in aula non ascenditur, 
hoc est, regi propinquius non acceditur, transiit : et 
cum ad episcopatum Eliensem recte administrandum, 
non tantum in rebus ecclesiasticis peritia, sed et aliqua 
legum civilium cum academicorum etiam institutorum 
notitia conjuncta requiratur, cumque in illo uno haec 
omnia tain manifeste concurrerent ; sedem etiam illam, 
ad quam factus esse videbatur, occupavit. 

e He made a collection of topher Wrenn, was installed dean 

statutes for the Order of the of Windsor, April 4, 1635. See 

Garter. See Wrenn's Parentalia, some account of him in Wood's 

p. 63. They were published by Fasti Oxon. i. 393. and in the 

John Anstis, Esq. Garter King at Parentalia. He was a man of 

Arms, in the register, or black learning, and shared the common 

book of the Garter. 2 vols. fol. fate of men of learning and 

Lond. 1724. loyalty in those times, being 

d Christopher Wrenn, the deprived of his preferments. He 

father of the architect Sir Chris- died in 1658. 



Oratio ad Ezsequias Matt. Wrenn. 91 

Ita tandem ad dignitatis fastigium, ad proventus 
uberriraos, ad sinum indulgentissimi principis, floren- 
tissimo et imperii et Ecclesiae tempore, magnis virtutibus 
contendit : inter quas baud postremo loco ponendae et 
apud vos praesertim memorandae modestia et moderatio. 
Neminem unquam rogavit ; neminem vel verbulo solli- 
citavit ; honorem nullum, quern consecutus est, ambivit ; 
impetratum semper est, quod non erat expetitum ; ob- 
latuni est, quod non postulabatur. Facessant, qui 
honoribus Ecclesiae inbiant, qui fores magnatum aut 
praesulum obsident, qui dignitatem non tarn acquirunt 
quam surripiunt. Ilium vobis praeponendum judico, 
quern non sua vota sed merita evexerunt, qui in ipso 
felicitatis apice, cum lectissima conjuge et numerosa 
prole, magnum faventissimi Numinis exemplum stetit. 

Nimium, Academici, ea aetate, nimium felices fuimus : 
ea tune tempora nobis indulserat Deus, quae nee ingratae 
gentis scelera ferre, nee longanimitas clementissimi 
Numinis diutius pati potuit ; ipsa felicitas, quos cor- 
rupit, perdidit ; ipsa beatitas, quos depravavit, pessun- 
dedit. Subito enim ab Aquilone orta tempestas regni 
compagem protenus laxavit ; omniaque membra pestis 
pervasit : sub larva pietatis sceleratissimi homines 
Ecclesiam convellunt ; in episcopos omnes, sed prae- 
cipue Regi caros involant, quod non tarn eos quam 
Carolum peterent ; accusationes corradunt, turbam con- 
citant, invidiam conflant, odia instigant, eo tantum fine 
ut in Regem transferant. Praesulem imprimis nostrum, 
solo principis sui favore sceleratum, gratiaque nefarium, 
insimulant ; non quaerunt quam vere, sed quam fortiter, 
calumnientur ; coram supremo tribunali facinora ex- 
ponunt, ultimumque supplicium exposcunt. Interim 
sedatissimi animi praesul, innocentia fretus, et non sua 
culpa perire certus, defensioni justae se tacite accinxit ; 



92 Oratio ad Ezsequias Matt. Wrenn. 

quae cum mira felicitate prodita servavit, ut quern fraus 
accusarat, perfidia protegeret 6 . In carcerem igitur 
causa incognita conjiciunt, conjurationis celebritati et 
suorum opinioni confisi ; vitae et fortunarum omnium 
reum faciunt ; ab omni indulgentise spe et expectatione, 
publico decreto secludunt. Ita calumniis onustus, de- 
fensione nudatus, potentia oppressus, rapinse expositus, 
bonis omnibus exutus, decreto confossus, libertate pri- 
vatus, latebris inclusus, perpetui carceris paedore foe- 
datus, dignum Ecclesia, dignum orbe terrarum non tarn 
spectaculum quam exemplum factus est. Indigna haec 
quidem, serumnosa, miseranda, omnibusque deflenda 
praeter ilium qui passus est : homines sapientes turpi- 
tudine, non infelicitate, et delicto suo, non aliorum 
injuria, commoventur. Voluit Divina Providentia, ut 
ceterae virtutes, in prospers, aequabili, perpetuaque 
fortuna minus conspicuae, hac tandem quasi flamma 
accensse emicarent, et illustrioribus radiis elucescerent. 
Comparuit enim ad durissima perferenda, ad contem- 
nendas minas, ingenita quadam firmitudine non tarn 
institutus, quam natus atque firmatus : et ne eum 
dubitemus in his angustiis divinitus constitutum, adeo 
erat obfirmati animi, constantiae incredibilis, aequabili- 
tatis inauditae, spe certissima suffultus, expectatione 
semper erectus, ad saevissima perpetienda paratus, ad 
optima quaeque laetissimaque ingenti fiducia praecipienda 
proclivis et promtus, ut conscientia rectae voluntatis et 
honesto praesidio infamaret injurias. Si quern aliquando 
virum tarn fortiter miserum videndi cupido invaderet, 
si virtutis infelicis spectandae desiderium periculo suo 
potentius illiceret; videbat unum hominem erectissimum 
animum se solo sustinentem, et totam regni spem 

e This Defence is reprinted in the Parentalia, p. 73 114. 



Oratio ad Exsequiat Matt. Wrenn. 98 

rerumque meliorum expectationem ad unum angulum 
redactam, in uno pectore conservatam. 

Quinetiam hanc inconcussre mentis firmitatem insuper 
studiorum solatio nutrivit, et quern omnia pene librorum 
subsidia destituerant, ad sacras literas suo ingenio, 
acumine, doctrina, judicio, memoria illustrandas animum 
appulit; quodque alii incarcerationem vocabant, ipse 
liberale otium ratus, totum meditando se et scribendo 
impendit ; intimos sacri codicis sensus triplici linguarum 
peritia rimatus, innumeras chartarum paginas furtim 
conscripsit, totque volumina confecit, ut eum plures 
quam octodecim annos in carcere transegisse facile 
crediderit posteritas. Quae quidem omnia ipse eleganter 
et accurate delineavit, testamentoque curavit, ut ami- 
corum doctissimonim judicio, in publicuui, si ita vide- 
retur, prodirent. 

Dum in his totus esset, tyrannidis jugum paulatim 
collabi, et novae reipublicae gubernacula fatiscere cce- 
perunt ; omniaque, quae mente conceperat, quae solus 
speraverat prospexeratque, contingunt. Dum nefarii 
homines sui facinoris satis conscii, quod fecerunt, 
cogitant, et infectum cupere videri volunt ; carcere tarn 
subito, tarn inopinato eripitur, ut ex omni mutatione 
rerum sola sui ipsius liberatio fuerit ipsi improvisa: 
quod ut divinae indulgentiae singulari acceptum referret, 
eodem die a Turri Londinensi pene invitus prodiit, quo 
capellam Petrensem consecrandam curaverat. Necdum 
tamen aedibus suis restitutus, sed incerto lari expositus 
est, ut e carcere potius ejectus quam liberatus videretur, 
donee Carolus omnium votis expetitus, bonorum 
omnium gaudio exceptus, suprema auctoritate armatus 
et in paterno solio locatus constitit. Quam memorem 
versam illam rerum faciem ! licet enim hoc triste 
spectaculum sit et luctuosum, neminem tamen esse 



94 Oratio ad Exsequias Matt. Wrenn. 

arbitror, quern non illius diei recordatio ab hoc mcerore 
aliquantisper recreaverit. Ille cum ceteris quidem, iis- 
que paucis, restitutus, sed baud pari momento rediit : 
confugit ad sinum ejus concussa Ecclesia, qui aut solus 
aut inter paucissimos disciplinam collapsam extinctam- 
que renovare et novit et ausus est ; in illo pene uno et 
libertas ejus, et salus, et securitas fundabatur. Cum 
igitur eum summa poscerent, videreturque Ecclesia non 
aliter quam illius humeris sustentari potuisse, ad altiora 
minime adspiravit, non provebi cupidus, sed restitui 
contentus; in sua sede resistere, senescere, obdormire 
cupivit. In magna bonorum copia affluentiaque nihil 
voluptati indulsit ; summse continentise temperantiaeque 
inservire obstinaverat animum; ne vini quidem guttulam 
per viginti pene annos hausit, gustavit ; corpus inediis 
jejuniisque macerare perseveravit, aliis satis indulgens, 
sibi soli crudelis, quasi hujus vitae pertaesus festinaret ad 
coelos. Neque vero familiac suae, qua tantopere recrea- 
batur, nimium prospexit ; pari et in hac exornanda 
continentise studuit ; non ad earn ditandam aliena invo- 
lavit, non omnia quae ad ipsuni pertinebant, arripuit; 
successoribus ex industria baud spicilegium sed amplam 
messem reliquit; et hanc insuper aulam adoptavit in 
familiam, in haereditatem adscivit ; pecuniam ex pro- 
ventibus primo receptam in hoc aerarium praemisit ; hie 
in honorem Dei Opt. Max., cujus jugi venerationi se 
totum semper dicaverat, in Academiae decus, quam in- 
credibili cura et flagrant! quodam amore constantissime 
prosecutus est, in memoriam primae institutionis quam 
gratissimo animo quotidie recolebat, capellam hanc im- 
pendio maximo exstruxit, perpetuis reditibus dotavit, 
precibus suis rite consecravit, sub hac dormitorium con- 
didit, huic tandem corpus concredidit. Illustre quidem 
hoc, sed minimum tamen ex monumentis quae reliquit. 



THREE SERMONS, 



PREACHED ON 



SEVERAL OCCASIONS. 



SERMON I". 



THE EXCELLENCY OF FORMS OF PRAYER, ESPECIALLY OF 
THE LORD'S PRAYER. 



ST. LUKE xi. 2. 
When ye pray, say, Our Father. 

IF the church should suffer in the fury of a dis 
tempered and distracted state, it is so far from 
wonder, that it were the greatest if it should not, as 



a This sermon is said to have 
been first printed in 1644, 4to. 
It was however published in the 
beginning of the last century in 
8vo. with the following title : 
' The Excellency of Forms of 
' Prayer, &c. A Sermon preach- 
' ed before the University of 
1 Cambridge, at St. Mary's, in 
' A. D. 1644. By John Pearson, 
' M. A. Fellow of King's Col- 
' lege, afterwards Lord Bishop 
' of Chester. Never before 
' printed. London, for Geo. Saw- 
' bridge, at the Three Golden 
' Flower -de-Luces in Little Rri- 
' tain, 1711." In the absence of 
any copy of the edition of 1644, 
it may be unsafe to speak po- 

PEARSON, VOL. II. 



sitively : but it seems plain from 
internal evidence that the sermon 
must have been preached before 
July i, 1643 on which day the 
assembly of divines at West 
minster held their first meeting ; 
as it speaks of their being " con- 
" vened" as an event shortly ex 
pected, but still future. It seems 
also otherwise improbable, that 
there should have been an op 
portunity allowed in the following 
year for a discourse so bold and 
loyal to have been delivered from 
the university pulpit. The par 
liament's Declaration placing the 
college receivers and delinquents' 
dues at the disposal of the Earl 
of Manchester, was issued on 



98 The Excellency of Forms of Prayer. SERM. i. 

being a vessel that hath hardly escaped shipwrecks 
even on the calmest seas. If those persons who serve 
at the altar should themselves be made a sacrifice, 
their enemies could raise no admiration in them, who 
know they do but follow that city of God, Jerusalem, 
even Jerusalem " that killed the prophets and stoned 
" them that were sent unto her." If their sacred 
functions should be irreverently invaded, and the min 
istry of reconciliation profaned by a promiscuous in 
trusion, the sin were great, though it were not new. 
Strange fire is as old as Nadab and Abihu ; and the 
lowest of the people have Jeroboam for their oldest 
patron b . If they should conspire to disrobe the spouse 
of Christ, to disinherit the church, and say, " Let us 
" take to ourselves the houses of God in possession ;" 
this is as old as Edom, and Moab, and Gebal, and Ama- 
lek c . Dionysius has taught them how to jeer off 
Jupiter's cloak, and the beard of Esculapius ; nay, 
some of ourselves, like statues of Victoria, seem ready 
to deliver them with our own hands d . If they should 
come closer yet, as the devil drew near to Job, and 
study to rob them of their learning too ; it hath been 
done before. Alas ! the apostate Julian would be their 
predecessor. Nay, if they should attempt it by arms, 

Jan. 6, 1643, 4 ; and about the b the oldest of the people have 

tenth of March following that Jeroboam for their patron, ed. 

process of ejectment began, 1711. 

which in a short time effectually c Ps. Ixxxiii. 

cleared the colleges of their roy- d Alluding to the little figures 

alist members. It is more likely, of Victory placed in the hand of 

as the tone of the discourse ancient statues, (Pausan. Eliac. 

would seem to indicate, that it v. xi.) or similarly represented 

was delivered when the hopes of on ancient imperial coins : 

the king's friends were high, rutilas Victoria pennas 

from the success which attended Explicat, et multis surgit formata 

his arms in May and June, metallis. 



The Excellency of Forms of Prayer. 99 

the Turks did as much long since in the eastern, and 
the Goths and Vandals in the western church. 

But that they should take away our prayers too, the 
proper weapons of our church, this is beyond all pre 
cedent. What ! are we such recusants, that we must 
be thus disarmed ? Or may it not be lawful to put up 
our petitions ? No, not to God ? What ! must we 
have an arbitrary service too? or is common prayer to 
be taken, as in the Hebrew dialect, for profane? Are 
they so highly offended with the name of priest, that 
they will take away our morning and evening sacrifice, 
and not leave us so much as " the calves of our lips ?" 
Our persons, I confess, may be obnoxious ; and gold 
and silver may be a sin. But the innocent prayers, 
what have they done? How have they offended man, 
when they have so often appeased God ? Or at what 
bar shall they be condemned, which have been daily 
admitted to the throne of grace ? Did the authors give 
their bodies to the fire, that their books should be 
burned ? Or were such reliques of martyrs ever dis 
allowed ? Did reverend Cranmer therefore first sacri 
fice his hand, because it had a part in the liturgy ? If 
nothing else, methinks Master Calvin's approbation 
should keep it from an utter abolition : or it must be a 
thorough reformation indeed, that must reform Geneva 
from superstition. 

But former liturgies have been erroneous ; and the 
prayers of our church may have some spice perhaps of 
malignity in them. The bishops had a hand in it. 
What think you, if the conjuring in the liturgy hath 
raised all these storms in the commonwealth? What 
say you, if praying for all that travel by land or by 
water hath brought so much ammunition from beyond 

H 2 



100 The Excellency of Forms of Prayer. SERM. i. 

seas e ? What, if the prayer to deliver the king from all 
his enemies were the cause of his separation from his 
great council ? Indeed, if this be true, there is some 
cause why our liturgy should be expunged. 

But that any should wrest from us the prayer of 
our Lord, works such a degree of admiration, as goes 
beyond belief. What Simeon would suffer his Saviour 
to be pulled out of his arms? What Gadarenes are 
these to strive to turn Him out of their coasts ? " Qui 
" dedit vivere, docuit et orare," saith St. Cyprian : His 
prayer ought to be as dear to us as our life. Wherefore 
did the Apostles ask Him, but that we might learn ? 
Why were they so ignorant, but that we might know ? 
For one of His disciples said unto Him, " Lord, teach 
" us to pray;" (verse 1.) " and He said unto them, 
" When ye pray, say, Our Father." 

In which words three things are observable : 

I. Indeterminatio temporis. [The general precept,] 
orav Trpoereu-xyo-Oe, " When ye pray." 

II. Determinatio orationis. [The prescription of a 
form of prayer,] Xe-yere, " say." 

III. Indimduatio deter minationis. [The particular 
form prescribed,] Ildrep w<*v, " Our Father." 



e It is well known, that the " a man of war for his Majesty, 

king was unprovided with mili- " hath taken a great ship of the 

tary stores of any kind, till a ship " Parliament's, not over-manned, 

sent by the queen from the " It may be wondered at that 

Netherlands first landed a small " this man sholild so infest those 

supply in the creek of Keyingham " seas ; but it is usual for pirates 

near Hull, July 2, 1642. From " or robbers, who have not been 

that time it seems that the Dutch " so well accommodated as to 

traders occasionally brought arms " have all the harbours in the 

to his party, and some of his " Netherlands at command." 

friends exerted themselves sue- Parliament Scout, (a rebel news- 

cessfully at sea. " We hear paper,) Dec. 1 1. 1644. 
" that one Allen, a Norfolk man, 



The Excellency of Forms of Prayer. 101 

I. In the Mosaical law the duty of prayer was not so 
absolutely and expressly commanded f ; there was no 
general precept, clearly obliging all the children of 
Israel to a petitionary invocation, expressly propounded 
in the covenant ; insomuch that the excellent industry 
of the Masters of the Jews, who have marshalled out 
of the law six hundred and thirteen distinct com 
mands, has not found out one for prayer ; and Abu- 
lensis, after all his laborious comments upon Moses, by 
which he puts as it were another veil upon his face, 
with a fond wariness concludes, that '* quasi nusquam 
u invenitur." Indeed the prophets, who were some 
what on the brighter side of the cloud, commanded 
men to call upon God, either aTroXi/rwy, absolutely, or 
with limitation of times and causes; but a constant 
and perpetual duty of prayer was not imposed by any 
known divine injunction, till under the Gospel. For 
the law once delivered, and understood only as the 
state of the people then required, did not evidently 
crave a special and perpetual aid from heaven for the 
performance of it; neither was there such a dispro 
portion between the promises and precepts, but that 
the obedience to the one might work with some 
modesty an expectation of the other. Besides, if 
the most fervent prayers had then been added to the 
most exact obedience, they could have wrought no 
absolute certainty of the legal promises, God having 
prepared a far greater than they generally expected, or 
He plainly propounded. But the height of that true 
and inherent sanctity, which we are called to under the 
Gospel, evidently requires the perpetual influence of 
heaven, the continual assistance of the Spirit of God, 

f Comp. Lect. in Act. Apost. i. 13. ii. 2. 



1 02 The Excellency of Forms of Prayer, SERM. i. 

And yet the infinite disproportion of our duty with the 
reward revealed now challengeth the supply of petitions 
even upon supposal of the most exact obedience. In 
deed the Jewish sacrifices were in a manner ceremonial 
or symbolical prayers. As Orpheus and Zoroaster used 
their suffumigations. Hence the Greek apa without 
change of a letter is made the Latin ara. So Christ is 

o 

our altar , as He is our Intercessor. 

Not that they prayed not under the law, or that 
they were not obliged on occasion. I know, invocation 
hath a more ancient origin, at least from the days of 
Enos h ; and can scarce be imagined younger than 
religion herself, being the most proper and natural act 
thereof, as schools observe. And therefore all the 
heathen sages exercised themselves therein, as Por- 
phyrius testifies of the Indian Brachmans ', the Persian 
Magi, and the Greek Theologi ; and the first authors 
of the Massalian heresy were Gentiles, as Epiphanius 
observes k . So did the Jews in succeeding ages, taught 
by frequent occasions and the examples of the prophets. 
In the temple they joined them with their sacrifice ; in 
their synagogues, with reading of the law ; whence 
their synagogues are also called by Philo, ra Kara 
Tro'Xet? Trpoa-evKTqpia '. And in their proseuchas, or 
oratories, which were as chapels of ease out of their 
cities, they used them alone. Besides these ordinary 
devotions, it is not improbable that the most eminent 

K Heb. xiii. 10. " ploro. Hanc precationem, ju- 

h Gen. iv. 26. " risjurandi religione adstricti, 

1 Xavier says of the Brahmans " submissa admodum voce ite- 

in his time, " Diem, quern nos " rant ssepius." Epist. i. v. 
dominicum appellamus, festum k Hser. Ixxx. i. Mao-o-aXmt/ol 

agitant. Quo die hanc unam 8e OVTOI xaXovvrai eppji/evo'^tvoi 

precationem identidem sua lin- Euxopciw. Vid. Petav. in loc. 
gua usurpant: Veneror te, Detis, ' De Vita Mosis, p. 685. d. ed. 

tuamque opem in perpetuum itn- Paris. 1640. 



The Excellency of Forms of Prayer. 103 

of their doctors, as they instructed their disciples in the 
knowledge of the law, so they prescribed or directed 
their prayers. For " solus Deus docere potuit, ut se 
" vellet orari m :" and therefore from whom we receive 
the revelation of the will of God, by them we cannot 
but desire to be taught to pray according to it. Thus 
St. John the Baptist taught his disciples; and the 
disciples of our Lord, some of whom had belonged to 
John before, desired as much of Him. 

" One of His disciples said unto Him, Lord, teach us 
** to pray, as John also taught his disciples." Which 
request as we cannot imagine it could be denied, so we 
cannot conceive any more than two ways to grant it ; 
either by forming a prayer for them, or by delivering 
them rules and directions how to frame one. Now our 
Lord takes the former way, not laying down any pre 
cepts, but delivering them a certain set form, a prayer 
of itself, and a pattern for others. Which is the second 
thing observable in the text : 

II. Determinatio orationis. He gives them, not a 
directory, but a form : He tells them, not how, but 
what, they are to say. " And He said unto them, 
" When ye pray, say, Our Father." 

Thus the sacerdotal benediction and the decimal 
profession were delivered in an express form n ; and 
the Psalms of David, of which St. Jerome hath ob 
served four to be entitled prayers, were a standing part 
of the Jewish liturgy. The seventy disciples, who 
were sent to preach the gospel, (Luke x.) were all to 
use one short benediction as it were before sermon. 
St. Paul concludes almost all his epistles with one 
form of prayer; yet I hope his spirit was of no bad 

m Tertullian, de Orat. c. 9. n Num. vi. 23 26. Deut xxvi. 

5io. 



104 The Excellency of Forms of Prayer. SERM. i. 

invention. Justin Martyr, one of the eldest sons of 
the primitive church, mentions their Koivas evicts, their 
common prayers ; and Tertullian hath left us the 
heads of their ordinary prayers for the heathen empe 
rors: " Vitam prolixam, imperium securum, domum 
" tutam, exercitus fortes, senatum fidelem, populum 
" probum, orbem quietum P." Thus they prayed for 
the persecutors of the church, more than some of us 
will do for the Defenders of the Faith. 

Constantine the Great, whose portraiture was stamp 
ed on his coin in a posture of prayer, had his evft-V/xou? 
ei^ay, prayers composed with study and premeditation. 

' crvv TOI$ TOV {3a<ri\eiov OIKOV irXrjpovcrLv 

saith Eusebius ^. " He duly said his set and 
" appointed prayers with his household." Some have 
thought the emperor our countryman. Certainly there 
cannot be a more proper description of our present 
Constantine r . Nay, besides, he penned a form of 

Apol. i. c. 85. be that for which he was ex- 
P Apol. c. 30. pelled from Cambridge, March 

1 De Vit. Constantini, iv. c. 27, 1645 : " I s it not a high 
15 et 17. " Constantine," says " favour vouchsafed us, that we 
the learned dissenter, James " have a king, who is, and is 
Pierce, " cannot be said to have " owned by God, for His ser- 

done this in imitation of the " vant ; and that not only po- 
church's prayers; since as he " testate, but pietate ; not only 
was not then baptized, he " the high- steward of God's 
could not have been ever pre- " household, and so His ser- 
sent at them." This may " vant by office, but the ser- 
serve as a specimen of the use " vant of his God in piety and 
which some persons make of " devotion ? Did England ever 
antiquity. Had the church no " know a prince more frequent, 
prayers for catechumens ? Or " more constant, more attentive 
does he mean that Eusebius tells " and devout in the worship of 
it as a proof of the paganism of " God ? We commend it in pri- 
Constantine ? " vate persons, and it is justly 
r Bp. R. Brownrigge, in his " commendable ; how much more 
second inauguration sermon for "in a king ? to keep his con- 
Charles I ; which, though a very " stant times for prayer, to bring 
inoffensive discourse, appears to " his children daily to the wor- 



The Excellency of Forms of Prayer. 



105 



prayer to be said by all his armies ; and it ended thus : 
Tov qfjierepov Bacr/Xea K-towTavrivov, TratSa? re avrov 
6eo<f)i\ei$, CTT} MKHTTOV wiv /3lov trtaov KCLI viKrjrriv <J>V\CLT- 
rea-Oai Trorvna/j-eOa. Give me leave to translate it, not 
only into our language, but into our affections and 
devotions also : " We beseech Thee, O Lord, to preserve 
" our king, and his royal issue amongst us, both safe 
" and victorious." Thus the first Christian monarch 
was zealous of the set prayers of the church ; and they 
that strike at one, will not spare the other. 

And yet such there be, who, instead of the buyers 
and sellers, would whip the very prayers out of the 
temple, turn them out of their house, with their new 
divinity sweeping out all good Christianity. All 
prayers must be new ; and lest they should continue, 
must be spent in the making, expire in the first breath, 
and pass away, as God once appeared, in a sound, for 
fear of idolatry. Otherwise their Christian liberty is 
enthralled, and the Spirit of God is fettered. 

What ! can the issue of these things be momentary, 
whose causes to be divided 8 are continual, and their 
effects eternal ? Are these words so truly eirea Trrepoev- 
ra, that they fly from their lips, never to return again ? 
What! is our memory profane, that, when we kneel 
unto God, we are bound to forget? Indeed Enos, who 
is first mentioned to call upon the name of God, is 



" ship of God, to teach them 
" betimes to know the God of 
" their father !" 

s The word " divided" seems 
to he here used in a learned 
sense, founded on the comments 
of the Fathers on the LXX version 
of Gen. iv. 7. St. Ambrose, De 



Orationem oportet non confu- 
sam esse, sed competent! di- 
visione distinctam. In omni 
enim re confusione melior est 
distinctio; multo magis in ora- 
tione atque oblatione, qua? nisi 
certas divisiones habeat, fit 
obscurior." See also St. Au- 



Cain et Abel, lib. ii. c. vi. 21. gustine, Civ. Dei, xv. c. vii. 



106 The Excellency of Forms of Prayer. SEKM. i. 

interpreted by Eusebius, eTrfrfaiuKav, forgetful e . But 
if we should conclude it from thence, our argument 
would be worse than his interpretation. What are 
these but distempers, which break out in such sudden 
fits, and abortive meditations, which are conceived and 
born together? 

But they object, " We know not what we should 
" pray for as we ought ; but the Spirit itself maketh 
"intercession for us ." It is true; so "no man can 
" say that Jesus is the Lord," i. e. make a right pro 
fession of the faith, " but by the Holy Ghost x ." 
What, shall we therefore have extemporary creeds too, 
and stand up and begin with " I believe," at a venture ? 
So should we quickly have two articles cut off. The 
descent into hell would be swallowed up immediately, 
and we should hear no more of the catholic church y. 
^aXw rw Hvev/j-ari, saith St. Paul ; " I will sing with 
" the Spirit." Were it not excellent music to hear 
them sing psalms extempore, and those who yet do but 
read to them in several corners, at length dictate by 
inspiration ? 

But this opinion is not altogether maintained ; it is 
so gross, it hath been of late refuted. It is lawful now 
to hear divine service, so it be not enjoined : a set form 
may be digested, so it be not commanded. This is a 
pure spirit of disobedience : the set form itself may be 
harmless ; add but a little obedience to it, and then it 
is heinous. They have hitherto denied man a power to 

t See Hieronym. Opp. Vallars. chism ; and the erroneous opin- 

tom. iii. p. 566, 647. ions on the former pointed out 

u Rom. viii. 26. in the admirably learned essay on 

* i Cor. xii. 3. art. v. in the Exposition of the 

y See the explanation of thee Creed, 
articles in the Assembly's Gate- 



The Excellency of Furms of Prayer. 107 

make any thing unlawful by prohibiting : and do they 
now grant him a power to make something unlawful by 
commanding ? Heretofore they have told us, that hu 
man laws cannot bind the conscience : now they dis 
tinguish all in a different character; to do what they 
command, they cannot ; but not to do, they can. Here 
is a new legislative power, which permits by forbidding, 
and forbids by commanding ; a strange sword of jus 
tice, that cuts with the back, and heals with the edge. 
They may as well say, that if our sovereign were a 
private man, they might lay down their arms; but, 
being he is their king, they cannot in conscience. By 
this we may see what strange divinity we are like to 
have, if the spiritual lords shall be divested of their 
jurisdictions, and the temporal possess their chairs. 

III. And so I pass to the third thing observable, 
indiriduatio deter minationis, the particular form here 
prescribed, the Pater Noster. " When ye pray, say, 
" Our Father, &c." 

Here some will scarce be persuaded it is a prayer at 
all, but a pattern only. A pattern I confess it is ; and 
so I understand St. Matthew's ourwy, and Tertullian's 
" Oratio legitima" in his Book De Fuga z ; but surely 
it is a prayer too. Otherwise our Saviour Christ should 
command us, when we pray, not to pray. For He said 
unto them, " When ye pray, say, Our Father." But 
they say, When ye say, Our Father, ye do not pray. 
Well, this being granted, their scrupulous conscience 
checks them still. A prayer it is in itself, they yield ; 
but not to us ; it is not lawful to use it as a prayer. 
What ! not lawful ? Is there any law against the Le 
gislator? It hath been innocent near sixteen hundred 

'' C. 2. " in legitima Oratioue, cum dicimus ad Patrem, Ne nos 
" inducas in tentationem &c." 



108 The Excellency of Forms of Prayer. SERM. i. 

years ; and is it now grown offensive ? Can the pretence 
of the Spirit thrust out that, " qua nulla spiritualior 
" oratio," as St. Cyprian thinks ? Or can we imagine, 
that that which was made by the Son to be presented 
to the Father, should be interrupted by the Holy 
Ghost ? In the primitive times the only question was, 
whether it were lawful to use any other beside it : now 
the judges are changed ; they are let free, and this 
alone is questioned. It was of late vehemently ob 
jected against our liturgy, that it omitted the last, 
though suspected clause a : now it is accused for ad 
mitting the rest. Before, it was a crime to want a 
piece : and now it is a greater to have it all. 

Aye, but we never read that the apostles used it. 
It is true, we never read that they baptized in the 
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This is the 
Socinians' argument for neglect of baptism. Nay, in 
this our schismatics are more inconsequential than they ; 
they using the negative argument only to exclude all 
necessity, these to enforce an unlawfulness. Now there 
is a large difference between unlawful, and unnecessary. 
Besides, though we read it not in scriptures, yet this 
we know, that the primitive church used the Lord's 
Prayer perpetually at the eucharist ; and this tradition 
was so constant, that St. Jerome doubts not to affirm 
that Christ so taught His disciples : " Sic docuit apo- 
*" stolos suos, ut quotidie, in corporis illius sacrificio, 
" credentes audeant loqui, Pater noster," saith he in the 
Third Adv. Pelag. c. 15. For the further illustration, 
give me leave to acquaint you with a piece of antiquity 

a It was one of the alterations " the Lord's Prayer, and always 

proposed by the divines who met " said by the minister." See 

at Abp. Williams's house in A Copy of the Proceedings #c. 

1641 , " that the doxology should Lund. 1641 . p. 8. 
" be always printed at the end of 



The Excellency of Forms of Prayer. 109 

in the infancy of the church. When any were con 
verted to Christianity, they first made a profession of 
their faith, and a promise to live according to it ; then 
they fasted and prayed for remission of their former 
sins ; which done, they were baptized ; and immediately 
after, being brought to the congregation, received the 
eucharist : as appears out of Justin Martyr's Apology. 
Upon which St. Jerome : " De baptismatis fonte sur- 
" gentes, et regenerati in Dominum Salvatorem, .... 
" statim in prima communione corporis Christi dicunt, 
" Dimitte nobis debita nostra." His meaning is, as 
soon as they were baptized, they received the com 
munion, and saying the Lord's Prayer according to 
custom, asked God forgiveness of their sins, though 
they were forgiven in baptism. And therefore it is a 
ridiculous custom in the Romish mass, that the deacon 
should say, " Libera nos a malo," and not the priest, 
lest he might be suspected to be guilty of some mortal 
sin. 

If then a perpetual and universal tradition of the 
catholic church hath any authority in respect of us, 
if a clear and express precept of Christ makes the 
thing commanded beyond dispute ; how can that be 
unlawful, than which nothing was at first more clearly 
delivered, nothing since more universally received of 
us ? But if they delight so in their negative argu 
mentations, I can help them with more, I believe. 
Never any of the Fathers said it was lawful. What is 
the reason ? They were better orators than so. It had 
been a cold expression to tell them that was lawful, 
which no man doubted to be divine. Who ever said, 
It is lawful to fear God, and no sin to believe in 
Christ ? 

Away with these scrupulous and contradictious 



110 The Excellency of Forms of Prayer. SERM. i. 

spirits. Let us make use of these words of our Ad 
vocate. " Agnoscat Pater Filii sui verba b ." God said 
once from heaven, " This is my beloved Son ; hear 
" Him." When we repeat this prayer, we might 
return these words again, " This is Thy beloved Son ; 
" hear Him." Who would refuse that petition, which 
was penned by Him, who was first to promote it as our 
Advocate, and after to answer it as our Judge c ? 

And thus have I done with my third and last thing 
observable, indimduatio determinationis, the Pater Nos- 
ter, " When ye pray, say, Our Father." But now I 
have done with my text, I seriously reflect upon my 
former discourse. To what end is all this ? To what 
purpose do I labour thus to decide these controversies? 
The Jews have been so wise as to defer their difficulties 
to the coming of Elias: and cannot we stay till the 
synod be convened ? What if the Carthaginian and 
Milevitan councils have determined for set forms d ? 
What if the council of Toledo enacted a day's repe 
tition of the Lord's Prayer e ? Alas ! they pretended but 
to one Holy Ghost among them all. We are like to 
have divers spirits in one. They were chosen but by 
the clergy. These shall be elected by a representative 
body of a whole kingdom. Besides, they never had 
any yet out of America. We shall have some of 
Columbus's discoveries, and of the spirit which moves 



t> Cyprian. Answer to lord Saye. Troubles 

c The Directory enjoins every and Trial, p. 480. 

minister to pray both before and e Can. Tolet. iv. 8. " Quisque 

after sermon for the Solemn ' sacerdotum vel subjacentium 

League and Covenant ; but only ' clericorum hanc orationem do- 

recommends the use of the Lord's ' minicam quotidie aut in publico 

Prayer among the other prayers. ' aut in privato officio prseteri- 

d Can. Carthag. iii. 23. Can. ' erit, ordinis sui honore pri- 

Milev. 1 2. See Abp. Laud's ' vetur." 



The Excellency of Forms of Prayer. Ill 

upon the Pacific waters f . Therefore, to conclude in a 
word, whosoever will not freely submit his judgment 
with all the obedience of faith to the determination of 
such a synod, he deserves no better, than to be 
counted a member of the catholic church ! 

f Abp. Laud, Troubles and New-England ministers. The 

Trial, c. xix. p. 208. describes a American lay-preachers are often 

great part, if not the greater part mentioned in the records of the 

of the Assembly, as made up of time. 
Brownists, Independents, or 



SERMON II." 



THE PATRIARCHAL FUNERAL: OR A SERMON PREACHED 

BEFORE THE RIGHT HONOURABLE GEORGE LORD 

BERKELEY, UPON THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER. 

A. D. 1C58. 



a The nobleman, on occasion 
of whose death the following 
sermon was preached, was 
George, 1 2th Lord Berkeley of 
Berkeley. He married Elizabeth, 
second daughter and co-heir of 
Sir Michael Stanhope of Sudburn 
in the county of Suffolk ; by 
whom he had issue, Charles, 
drowned in the passage to 
Dieppe, A. D. 1640; George, 
who succeeded him in his title, 
to whom the sermon is dedi 
cated ; and Elizabeth, married to 
Edward Coke, Esq. of Holkham, 
Norfolk, grandson of the great 
lawyer and chief justice, Sir 
Edward Coke. 

George, the i3th Lord Berke- 
ey, was advanced by King 
Charles II. in 1679, to the titles 
of Viscount Dursley, and Earl of 
Berkeley. He married Elizabeth, 
daughter of John Massingberd, 
Esq. merchant of London, a di 
rector of the East India com 
pany, and of the family of the 
Mas?ingberds of Gunby and 



Ormsby in the county of Lincoln. 
One of his daughters was The- 
ophila, married to Sir Kingsmill 
Lucy, Bart, of Broxbourne, 
Herts, and after his death to the 
excellent Robert Nelson, author 
of the " Companion to the Fes- 
" tivals and Fasts of the Church 
" of England." The Earl him 
self was a man of strict virtue 
and piety, and is said to have 
been the author of a scarce work, 
entitled, " Historical Applications 
" and Occasional Meditations 
" upon several subjects, by a 
" Person of Honour. 1670. 
" I2mo." to which some verses 
were prefixed, by the poet Wal 
ler. He is not to be confounded 
with Sir John Berkeley, created 
by Charles II. in his exile Lord 
Berkeley of Stratton, Somerset, 
1658 ; whose name, with that of 
his son, Sir Charles Berkeley, 
appears disadvantageously in 
Lord Clarendon's Life, in re 
ference to some court intrigues. 



TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE GEORGE, LORD BERKELEY, 

BARON OF BERKELEY, MOWBRAY, SEAGRAVE, 

AND BREOUSE. 

My Lord, 

I have been lately honoured by your lordship with a double 
command, one to preach, the other to publish, this sermon : 
of the first of which, though I might have been innocently 
ambitious, yet of the second I may be justly ashamed : partly, 
because the sermon itself is much unworthy of public view, 
especially upon an occasion of so great remark; partly, and 
more concerningly, in regard that having been so many years 
happy in the knowledge of your lordship, and as long obliged 
as known to your honour, I have not hitherto appeared with 
any thing worthy of your lordship's patronage. I shall 
therefore humbly crave the leave of making to myself this 
interpretation, that your honour did intend this command as 
a remembrance of my duty, that I may hereafter meditate 
something to demonstrate to whom I owe the encouragement 
of my studies. In the interim by this present discourse I 
shall only give a testimony how properly I have endeavoured 
the memory of your father, by obscuring his virtues, and your 
concernments, in nay expressions, from all persons who are 
strangers to your family, while I speak to them which were 
known unto you both, as to such as cannot but be most 
sensible, and bear a perpetual remembrance of them. How 
soever what is wanting in this funeral sermon, shall be 
supplied in my perpetual devotion, praying for an ever 
lasting succession of heavenly benedictions upon your honour, 
your honourable and most virtuous lady, and your most hope 
ful issue, as becometh 

Your honour's 
most obedient and devoted servant 

JOHN PEARSON. 

PEARSON, VOL. IL I 



THE 



PATRIARCHAL FUNERAL. 



GENESIS 1. 10. 
And he made a mourning for his father seven days. 

THERE are two great names concealed in this text, 
but expressed by the prophet David in a peculiar 
and eminent manner : " Thou hast with thine arm re- 
" deemed thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph b ." 
Great was the name of Abraham ; but all his sons were 
not accepted ; only Isaac was in the covenant. Great 
was the name of Isaac ; but his son Esau was rejected. 
Great then must the name of Jacob be, who had twelve 
sons, and all accepted. The whole people of God 
descended from him, and were called Israelites, and 
the sons of Jacob, as his by generation from his loins. 
One of these twelve was Joseph, and the rest did 
equally descend from him, and might be called his sons 
by preservation, from his care and power. Howsoever, 
he is exempted from the number of his brethren ; and, 
that he might be styled a father, two sons of his are 

b Ps. Ixxvii. 15. 



The Patriarchal Funeral. 115 

numbered with his father's sons, and ranked with the 
patriarchs. Thus were all the people of God " the 
" sons of Jacob and Joseph ;" and Joseph, while the 
son of Jacob, the father of the sons of Jacob. These 
are the two concealed in the text ; Jacob the father, 
and that father dead ; Joseph the son, and that a 
mourning son ; for " he made a mourning for his father 
*' seven days." 

These words contain a brief relation of a patriarchal 
funeral ; in which two general parts are presented to 
our view ; the solemnization of the obsequies ; and the 
continuation of the solemnities. In the description of 
the solemnization there are four particulars observable, 
the connexion : the person : the action : the occasion. 
The connexion, in the conjunctive particle " and :" the 
person understood in the following pronoun " he :" the 
action represented, what " he," that is Joseph, did, " he 
" made a mourning :" the occasion expressed, for whom 
he mourned, " for his father." The connexion of the 
text is double, in reference to the person, and in 
relation to the action. The connexion of the person, 
*' and he ;" the connexion of the action with the pre 
ceding actions of that person, " and he made a mourn- 
" ing." I shall begin with the connexion of the person, 
and in my whole discourse exactly prosecute the me 
thod of the text. 

When aged " Jacob yielded up the ghost, and was 
u gathered unto his people, the physicians embalmed 
*' Israel, and the Egyptians mourned for him threescore 
** and ten days c ." They were not as yet the apparent 
enemies of God ; they had their tears for Jacob, who 
afterwards would have drowned all his sons; they 

c Gen. xlix. 33. 1. 2, 3. 
I 2 



116 The Patriarchal Funeral. SERM. n, 

preserved and prolonged the days of his life ; and 
when those were cut off, they continued the days of 
his weeping. But there is a difference between a 
formal and a real sorrow, between a solemn and a 
serious grief, between a popular and a filial sadness. 
Wherefore Joseph is not contented with the Egyptian 
mourning ; he hath a nearer relation than those stran 
gers had, and therefore more of affection is expected 
from him ; his filial sympathy must go beyond their 
accustomed civility ; the Egyptians mourned, " and he 
" made a mourning for his father." This is the con 
nexion in respect of the person ; that of the action 
followeth. 

When Jacob was near the time of his dissolution, 
Joseph put his hand under his thigh, and sware unto 
him, that he would deal kindly and truly with him, 
that he would bury him in the burying- place of his 
fathers. When he gathered up his feet into his bed 
and died, " Joseph fell on his father's face, and wept 
" upon him, and kissed him d ," and so paid the first- 
fruits of a funeral with his eyes and with his lips. 
After this he commanded the physicians to follow with 
spices and embalm him, desirous to preserve that body 
to the utmost possibility from corruption, from which 
he had received his generation. Then he entreated 
and obtained leave from Pharaoh to perfonn his oath 
which he sware unto Jacob : he went up to the land of 
Canaan to take possession with his father s body, and 
laid him in the field which Abraham bought. " There 
" they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife ; there they 
" buried Isaac, and Rebekah his wife ; there Jacob 
41 buried Leah e ;" and there Joseph buried Jacob. 

d Gen. 1. i . c Gen. xlix. 3 1 . 



The Patriarchal Funeral. 117 

And having thus fulfilled all. the duties belonging to a 
son, there remained but this one, fitter to be performed 
than required, " he made a mourning for his father." 
This is the connexion of the action. 

The person or chief mourner then is Joseph ; he 
which once was dead in the thoughts of Jacob, and in 
the desires of his brethren, survives his father to attend 
his funeral and to preserve his brethren alive. His 
coming into Egypt cost aged Jacob many a tear ; and 
he must pass into Canaan to demonstrate his gratitude, 
and pay that debt unto his father there. This eminent 
person is proposed for an example unto all ages of the 
world : what he here performed, was a legal ceremony, 
he was a patriarch, and long before the law : he was a 
singular and signal type of Christ, and hath done no 
thing which may misbecome the most retired and sub 
limed Christian. 

And this will readily appear, if we join the action to 
the person. *' He made a mourning." I call it an action, 
which may as well be termed a passion : as a mourning, 
so a passion ; as he made it, a passionate action, or an 
active passion. The internal grief of his mind and 
sorrow of his heart as an inward passion of his soul was 
voluntarily raised within him by resolved and continued 
thoughts of his father's death ; and at the same time 
the expression of that grief was willingly poured forth, 
as what he understood did well become him. We are 
not only to bewail our sin, but all those miseries which 
proceed from them : and therefore tears were not only 
lent us to declare compunction, but also to express 
commiseration. We read our blessed Saviour twice 
did weep, once for the sins of Jerusalem, once for the 
death of Lazarus whom he loved. Two eyes nature 
bestowed upon us, though perfectly and distinctly we 



118 The Patriarchal Funeral. SERM. ir. 

can see but with one at once, and both are equally 
made the fountains of tears, as we are sinners for con 
trition, and as we are brethren for compassion. When 
the first martyr's blood was shed for the Christian 
faith, " devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and 
" made great lamentation over him f ;" such were the 
tears of the infant church. When Peter found Dorcas, 
a woman full of good works and alms deeds, dead, " all 
" the widows stood by him weeping s." Thus the first 
which died in Christianity were followed with solemn 
tears : and it was a wise observation made by the 
apostate Julian, that one of the means to convert so 
many heathen to our religion, was the care of the 
bodies, and the solemnities always used at the funerals 
of the dead. Thus far of the action, " he made a 
" mourning." 

The occasion of this sadness is expressed in a word, 
but must be considered in many more, as being the 
principal concernment both of the text and time. The 
mover of his passion, the object of his grief, the cause 
of his tears, was his father ; " and he made a mourning 
" for his father." This was so truly the occasion, that 
it was the only cause, that there can be no reason 
imaginable assigned why Joseph should mourn, but 
only because he had lost a father. Though he was aged 
to extremity, though he was holy unto eminency, 
though he was happy to eternity, though no way dis 
advantageous by his death to any, yet because dead, 
and that a father dead, " he made a mourning for 
" him." 

We usually say of ancient persons, that they have 
already one foot in the grave, and the rest of their life 

f Acts viii. 2. g Acts ix. 39. 



The Patriarchal Funeral. 119 

is nothing else but the bringing of these feet together. 
Why then should we weep for the death of aged 
persons, when it can be but the second part of their 
funeral ? that sorrow seems to be but useless, which 
is spent upon necessities, and that grief irrational 
which would create impossibilities. " The days of our 
" years are threescore years and ten, and if by reason 
" of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their 
" strength labour and sorrow V What reason then 
can we produce, that the life of a man whom we 
esteem, should be sorrow to himself, and his death be 
grief to us? Now Jacob gave this account of his age to 
Pharaoh when he came down to Egypt : " The days of 
" the years of t my pilgrimage are an hundred and 
" thirty years i ;" and he " lived in the land seventeen 
" years, so the whole age of Jacob was an hundred 
" forty and seven years." This extremity of age had 
fastened him to his bed, the perfect emblem and short 
forerunner of his^grave. " The eyes of Israel were 
" dim so that he could not see k ;" he was already in 
the shades of darkness. Nay, " the time drew nigh," 
saith Moses, " that Israel must die l ;" there was a 
natural necessity of his death, an apparent impossibility 
of longer life ; and yet this consideration is no excuse 
to Joseph, but " he made a mourning" for his aged 
father. 

Secondly, the death of the righteous is to be desired, 
rather than lamented: and it were a dishonour put 
upon religion to think a pious man less happy when 
dead, than when he lived. " Weep not for me" m was 



h Ps. xc. 10. ! Gen. xlvii. 29. 

Gen. xlvii. 9, 28. m Luke xxiii. 28. 

k Gen. xlviii. 10. 



120 The Patriarchal Funeral. SERM. n. 

the language of the immaculate Lamb when he went 
to a shameful and a painful death : and why should he, 
which yields up his soul with comfort, leave his body 
to be covered with so much sorrow ? Those which live 
in impiety and depart in their iniquity, they which 
have provoked the wrath of God, and go hence with 
that wrath abiding on them, as they could create 
nothing to their relations but sorrow in this life, so 
must they necessarily increase it at their death. But 
Jacob was a patriarch of eminent and constant piety, 
particularly and remarkably beloved of God, highly 
blessed by him, and powerfully blessing in his Name ; 
and yet when Jacob dieth, Joseph weepeth ; " and he 
w made a mourning" for his pious father. 

Thirdly, death is nothing else but a change of a 
short and temporary for an unalterable and eternal 
condition. From whence it followeth, that those which 
die in their sins, from thence begin to feel those 
torments which shall never cease : and therefore they 
leave behind them a sad occasion of grief and sorrow 
to such as are apprehensive of the pains they feel. If 
the rich man in the Gospel were so careful of his 
surviving brethren, and so concerned in their welfare ; 
if they had as well understood his sad and irreversible 
condition, what floods of tears would they have shed 
for him who called so earnestly for a drop of water to 
cool his tongue ! But as for such as pass from hence 
into a place of rest and joy, who change the miseries of 
this sinful world for the blessed presence of a good and 
gracious God; weeping at their departure may seem 
improper and unkind officiousness, as it were a sorrow 
for their happiness, and envy at their felicity. Now 
the soul of Jacob was certainly at rest, and Joseph 
sufficiently assured of his happiness. He knew that his. 



The Patriarchal Funeral 121 

father was heir to the same promise with Abraham : 
" for he looked for a city which hath foundations, 
" whose builder and maker is God n ;" he " died in 
" faith" and " embraced the promises ;" he " confessed 
" that he was a stranger on the earth, and that he 
" sought a better country, that is, an heavenly," and 
" therefore God had prepared for him a city," and he 
was in the bosom of Abraham, the place of felicity. 
But the happiness of his soul is no excuse to Joseph 
for the funeral-tears due at the interment of his body. 
" And he made a mourning" for his happy father. 

Fourthly, many persons expiring give too sad occa 
sions of sorrow to their relations left behind: they 
which depend upon them, whose subsistence liveth and 
dieth, and whose hopes are buried, with them, may go 
to their graves with unfeigned tears, lamenting not so 
much the departure of their friend as their own loss ; 
something they may weep for them and more for them 
selves. But the death of Jacob was not of any such 
condition ; there could no disadvantage arise from that 
to Joseph, no interest of his could suffer by it. He 
had already blessed all his sons, and Joseph principally ; 
there could be no more of heavenly favours expected 
from his prayers or prophecies. Had he died before he 
laid his hands upon Ephraim and Manasseh, had Joseph 
and his sons been absent, when he blessed the rest, he 
might have sadly mourned for the loss of his father, and 
of the benediction. If Esau lift up his voice and 
wept, because he was defeated of the blessing while 
Isaac lived, Joseph might well have made a mourning 
had he been prevented of the benediction by an un 
expected or a distant death. But Jacob blessed them, 

n Hebr. xi. 10, 13, 16. 



122 The Patriarchal Funeral. SERM. n. 

and with his blessing gave order for his burial, and with 
that blessing and that order died. And as his death 
was no way prejudicial to the spiritual, so was it not at 
all disadvantageous to the temporal condition of his 
son. He s uffed loss of no enjoyments by his father's 
death ; Jacob had lived long by the favour and the care 
of Joseph, his filial gratitude alone preserved his life ; 
but no such narrow thoughts abated the freeness of 
Joseph's sorrow. " And he made a mourning for his 
" father." 

If none of these considerations, which work so power 
fully upon other persons, did move this mourner to 
express such sorrow, what were the motives then which 
caused so deep a sense, what meditations wrought so 
powerfully on the heart of Joseph? I answer, they 
were but two, mortality, and paternity; the one sup 
posed, the other expressed in the text : Jacob was the 
father of Joseph, and that father dead, and therefore 
Joseph mourned for him. 

Mortality is a proper object to invite our pity, and 
privation of life alone sufficient to move compassion in 
the living. " Weep for the dead," saith the son of 
Sirach, " for he hath lost the light ." If for no other 
reason, yet because a man is dead, and by death deprived 
of those comforts which those that live enjoy; they 
which survive may providently bewail their future pri 
vation in his present loss. Thus every gravestone be 
speaks or expects a tear; as if those eyes which had 
not yet lost their sight were to pay the tribute of their 
waters to the dead sea. This fountain Nature never 
made in vain, nor always to be sealed up ; that heart is 
rock which suffers it never to break forth ; and be it 

Ecclus. xxii. ii. 



The Patriarchal Funeral. 123 

so, yet if the rod of Moses strike, an affliction sent 
from God shall force it. Let us therefore be ready 
with our sorrowful expressions, when we are invited by 
sad occasions, especially when a father, who may com 
mand them, calls for them, as that wise man did, " My 
" son, let tears fall down over the dead P." And if 
paternal authority demands them at the death of others, 
it is no filial duty which denies them to attend upon a 
father's funeral. Joseph, a man of a gracious and a 
tender heart, moved with common objects of com 
passion, had a vulgar sorrow arising from the consider 
ation of mortality. Joseph, a son full of high affection 
and of filial duty, was touched with a far more lively 
sense by the accession of paternity : " And he made a 
" mourning for his father :" he made a mourning for 
his father, which begat him, for his father, which loved 
him, for his father, which blessed him ; for his father, 
which had mourned for him ; for his father, which 
came down to die with him. 

First, " he made a mourning for his father," who 
begat him : had there been no other but that naked 
relation, it had carried with it a sufficient obligation. 
There is so great an union between the parent and the 
child, that it cannot break without a deep sensation. 
He which hath any grateful apprehension of his own 
life received, cannot choose but sadly resent the loss of 
that life which gave it. If the fear of the death of 
Croesus, by a natural miracle could untie the tongue of 
his son who never spake before ; that man must be 
miraculously unnatural, the flood-gates of whose eyes 
are not opened at his father's funeral, though he never 
wept before. The gifts of grace do not obliterate, but 

P Ecclus. xxxviii. 16. 



124 The Patriarchal Funeral. SERM. n. 

improve nature ; and it is a false persuasion of adoption, 
which teacheth us so far to become the sons of God, as 
to forget that we are the sons 'of men. Joseph, a person 
high in the esteem of Pharaoh, higher in the favour of 
God, great in the power of Egypt, greater in the power 
of the Spirit, yet he forgets not his filial relation, yet 
he cannot deny his natural obligation, but as a pious 
son he pays the last tribute of his duty to Jacob, " and 
" he made a mourning for his father" who begat him. 

Secondly, " He made a mourning for his father" 
who loved him. Love when in an equal commandeth 
love ; and this is so just, that fire doth not more natu 
rally create a flame. In this the similitude is so great, 
that there is no difference in the nature of the love 
produced and that which did produce it. But when it 
first beginneth in a superior person, the proper effect 
which it createth in an inferior is not of a single nature, 
but such a love as is mingled with duty and respect. 
The love of God to man challengeth love for us, but 
that of such a nature as cannot be demonstrated but 
by obedience ; and that of a father to his son is of the 
same condition, though not in the same proportion. 
The father loveth first with care and tenderness, with a 
proper and a single love ; the son returns it with an 
other colour, mingled with duty, blended with respect. 
Now Jacob had many children, and as an eminent 
example he loved them all : but among the rest there 
was one clearer and warmer flame ; for "he loved 
" Joseph more than all his children 1;" the offspring of 
Rachel, the son of his old age, the heir of his virtues, 
the corrector of his brethren, the beloved of God, had 
a greater share in Jacob's affection than the rest of his, 

<l Gen. xxxvii. 3. 



The Patriarchal Funeral 125 

issue. He did not so much prefer his wives before his 
handmaids, he did not so highly value Rachel before 
Leah, as he did esteem Joseph before the offspring of 
them all. This was the paternal love of Jacob, and 
this was answered with as high filial respect in Joseph ; 
which after death could not be otherwise expressed 
than in tears ; and therefore " he made a mourning for 
" his father" who loved him. 

Thirdly, " He made a mourning for his father" who 
had blessed him. Blessing is the sovereign act of God, 
and the power of benediction like the power of God. 
He delegateth this power unto his priests, who stand 
between God and man, and bless the sons of men in 
the name of God. He derives the same upon our 
natural parents, that children honouring them may 
expect his blessing upon their desires and prayers. 
And what greater favour could we ask of God, than 
that those persons who have the greatest natural 
affection towards us, should also have the greatest 
power to bless us ? Now when " the time " drew 
" nigh that Israel must die," when his body drew 
near to the earth, and his soul to heaven, when his 
desires were highest, and his words of greatest efficacy, 
" he called unto his sons, and blessed them, every one 
*' according to his blessing he blessed them 1 "." But as 
he " loved Joseph more than all his brethren," so he 
blessed him above them all : he made one tribe of 
every son and two of him : his affection shewed itself 
rhetorical in his benediction, saying " The blessings of 
" thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my 
" progenitors : unto the utmost bounds of the ever- 

r Gen. xlix. i, 48. 



126 The Patriarchal Funeral. SERM. n. 

" lasting hills, they shall be on the head of Joseph, and 
" on the crown of the head of him that was separate 
" from his brethren 8 ." Giving this benediction, Jacob 
dies ; receiving this blessing, Joseph survives, who can 
render no other retribution after his death, but care of 
his burial and tears at his funeral. And therefore " he 
" made a mourning for his father," who had blessed him. 
He made a mourning for his father, who had mourned 
for him. The parents' cares and fears are equal, and 
when any infelicity betides their children, their griefs 
are great ; and all these bear a proportion to their love. 
Now the love of Jacob to Joseph was transcendent, 
and being so, it raised as high an hatred in the hearts 
of his brethren ; by which he was, in their intention, 
and in his father's opinion, dead. And now the funeral 
is Joseph's, let us see how Jacob doth appear. " He 
" rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and 
" mourned for his son many days '." Here is a real 
demonstration upon a supposed death, and a serious 
mourning at a feigned funeral. Had his dearest son 
been dead, yet he might well take comfort in his 
numerous offspring, but he did not ; for " all his sons 
" and all his daughters rose up to comfort him ; but he 
" refused to be comforted : and he said, For I will go 
" down into the grave unto my son mourning ; thus his 
" father wept for him 11 ." Thus it pleased God to permit 
this happy deceit of envious brethren, this pious mistake 
of an affectionate father, not only for a great example of 
paternal love, but also to teach all sons to measure their 
griefs at their fathers' death by a consideration of those 
sorrows which their parents would have expressed, had 

8 Gen. xlix. 26. t Gen. xxxvii. 34. u Gen. xxxvii. 35. 



The Patriarchal Funeral. 127 

they died before them. Howsoever Joseph was but 
just in this : for " he made a mourning for his father," 
who had mourned for him. 

Lastly, he made a mourning for his father, who 
came down to die with him. It was the old expression 
of parents' comfort, that at their deaths they might 
have their children to close their eyes ; and it hath 
been equally the desire of children to be made happy 
on that occasion, in shewing the last testimony of their 
duty at their parents' death. Now Jacob, who upon 
the supposed death of Joseph had said, " I will go 
" down into the grave unto my son x ," upon the certain 
intelligence of his life and safety, resolveth to go down 
and die with him. For when he saw the wagons which 
Joseph sent, and his spirit revived, Israel said, " It is 
" enough ; Joseph my son is yet alive ; I will go and 
" see him before I die y :" and when Joseph first 
" presented himself unto him" in the land of Egypt, 
the first words which he spake were these, " Now let 
" me die, since I have seen thy face, because thou art 
" yet alive z ." Now he which said at first, " I will go 
" and see him before I die," and when he saw him 
said, " Now let me die," resolved nothing in that 
journey but to die with Joseph. " And he made a 
" mourning for his father/' who came to die with him. 

For all these reasons Joseph mourned ; for his 
father who begat him, remembering his natural ge 
neration ; for his father who loved him, not forgetting 
his singular affection ; for his father who had blessed 
him, considering his double benediction ; for his father 
who had mourned for him, meditating a pious re 
taliation; for his father who came down to die with 

* Gen. xxxvii. 35. T Gen. xlv. 27, 28. * Gen. xlvi. 30. 



128 The Patriarchal Funeral. SERM. H. 

him, embracing the opportunity of a dutiful expression. 
And thus I close up the first general part of the text, 
or the solemnization of the obsequies. 

The second general part of the same presents us 
with the continuation of the solemnity. Which min 
isters a double consideration, one as consisting of not 
many days, the other as determining how many days. 
" And he made a mourning for his father seven days." 

Immediately after Jacob's death in Egypt, forty days 
were fulfilled for his embalming, " and the Egyptians 
" mourned for him threescore and ten days." They 
which have no hope of a life to come, may extend their 
griefs for the loss of this, and equal the days of their 
mourning with the years of the life of man. But so 
tedious a funeral solemnity is a tacit profession of in 
fidelity. When Moses went up unto the mountain of 
Nebo, and died there, " the children of Israel wept for 
" him in the plains of Moab thirty days a ." The plains 
of Moab were nearer to the land of promise than 
Egypt was, and some light of the joys of the life to 
come was discovered under the law, and therefore more 
than one half of the Egyptian solemnity was cut off by 
the faith of the Israelites. But this patriarchal funeral 
was made in Canaan, the land of promise, the type of 
heaven : it was appointed by Joseph a blessed patriarch 
and a type of Christ : it continued some days to de 
clare his natural affection, but those not many, to 
express his religious expectation. Had it been ex 
tended longer, it had demonstrated more of duty, but 
less of faith, he had shewed himself more a son, but 
less a patriarch. But now he is become a great ex 
ample, in mourning some days, of filial duty; in 

a Deut. xxxiv. 8. 



The Patriarchal Funeral. 129 

mourning few days, of divinity. Which is our first 
consideration. 

The second leads us to the determinate number of 
the days, which are expressly seven. " And he made a 
" mourning for his father seven days." The Jews took 
special notice of this act of Joseph, and in the land of 
Canaan observed the number of these days ; " Seven 
" days do men mourn for him that is dead b ," saith the 
son of Sirach ; and though it be not unto us a law, 
yet it is a proper subject of our observation. 

It was afterwards one of the laws of Moses, " He 
" that toucheth the dead body of any man, shall be 
" unclean seven days c ." And therefore well did Jo 
seph teach the Israelites to mourn the same number of 
days, that with their tears of natural affection, they 
might mingle some thoughts of natural pollution. 

Again the number of seven is the number of rest ; 
" In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, 
" and all that in them is d ;" and " He rested on the 
" seventh day from all his works which he had made e ." 
Now Joseph knew that " there remaineth a rest to 
" the people of God ;" he was fully assured that as the 
days of the years of his father's pilgrimage were evil, 
so they ended in rest and happiness : that as sure as 
his body was past all weariness and pain, so his soul 
was placed above all possibility of grief or sorrow. A 
dove brought Noah word into the ark that " the waters 
" were on the face of the earth," and he stayed seven 
days, and then the dove sent forth returned, " and lo, 
*' in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off ; so Noah 
" knew that the waters were abated from off the 



b Ecclus. xxii. 12. d Exod. xx. n. c Num. xix. 1 1. 

e Gen. ii. 2. 

PEARSON, VOL. II. K 



130 The Patriarchal Funeral. SEKM. H. 

" earth f ." If we mourn for the death of any person 
departed, and the waters appear upon the face of man, 
yet after the seventh day when the olive-leaf is 
plucked, when we have considered the peace, and rest, 
and joys of the souls departed in the fear of God, 'tis 
time for the waters to abate, for mourning to cease. 

Thirdly, The number of seven is the number of 
holiness : as God rested on the seventh day, so " he 
" blessed and hallowed it ." Seven days Aaron and 
his sons the priests were consecrated, seven days an 
atonement was made, and the altar was sanctified. 
Seven days hath Joseph set apart for his father's 
funeral, to shew that mourning for the dead is some 
thing sacred, the tenth part of the Egyptian mourning, 
an act of piety, a part of religion. The Jews observed 
that the circumcision was deferred till the eighth day, 
that a sabbath might pass upon the child, and so 
sanctify it, before it was circumcised ; and Joseph 
appointeth seven days for mourning, one of which must 
necessarily be that day which God blessed and sanc 
tified, in the beginning, to procure a blessing upon 
that duty, and to sanctify his sorrow. 

Upon which seasonable consideration I shall take 
leave to conclude my meditations on the text, and 
apply myself to the present solemnity, which gave 
occasion to consider it : that I may make such use of 
the work of this holy day, as may sanctify the sorrow 
of it. 

And now, most honourable Sir, the Joseph of this 
time, the chief mourner of this day, be pleased to 
endeavour the sanctification of your mourning by these 
reflexive meditations, 

f Gen. viii. 9, 1 1. g Gen. ii. 3. 



The Patriarchal Funeral 131 

First, learn from hence to meditate upon your own 
mortality, and be now assured by this near and home 
example, that yourself shall die. This may seem but a 
cold monition, but a dull reflection ; every grave preach- 
eth that doctrine, and every skeleton readeth as good a 
lecture: when we come into the house of God, our 
feet will learn thus much, and the ground we tread 
upon will thus far instruct us. Tis true, the examples 
of our mortality are numerous, but they are not equally 
efficacious : the nearer our relations are to those which 
die, the more we are concerned in their death ; and 
there is none so near in his concernment as that of the 
father and the son. There is a difference between the 
language of the scriptures, and such a prophet as 
Nathan was. One tells us, that " all men are sinners," 
the other says, " Thou art the man h ." So common 
funerals tell us all men are mortal ; but that of a father 
speaketh not only plainly, but particularly, Thou art so. 
From his vivacity the son receiveth life, and in his 
death must read his own departure. It is possible to 
imagine an immortal family, and then the deaths of 
others concerned that not : but where the father is 
dead, there can be no pretence or thought of im 
mortality. Beside, there is something more than pro 
pinquity of nature in a father : Religion teacheth us 
that our days are otherwise bound up in our parents' 
lives. Remember '* the first commandment with pro- 
" mise, Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy 
" days may be long in the land * :" consider that you 
have lost in his death all further opportunity of im 
proving the hopes of that promise ; and that you stand 
now only, as to him, upon what comfort you have in 

h 2 Sam. xii. 7. > Eph. vi. 2. 

K 2 



132 The Patriarchal Funeral. SEBM. u. 

your former duty, and in your past obedience. Thus 
learn to fix a more immediate and more concerning 
meditation of your own mortality, upon the death of 
him in whose life yours was involved both by a natural 
and spiritual dependence. 

Secondly, reflect upon that love and entire affection 
which you have lost ; and could no otherwise be lost, 
but by losing him in whom it lived. Love is of that 
excellent nature, that it is esteemed by the best of 
men, and accepted from the meanest persons ; what 
then is the affection of a father ! what is the purity of 
that fire which God and Nature kindles in the breast 
of man ! what were the flames which ever burnt upon 
the altar of your father's heart, who never hated any 
man ! See but the nature of paternal love in David, 
who, when Absalom, his son, but a most rebellious son, 
openly sought his life and crown, and died in that un 
natural attempt, " went up into his chamber and wept, 
" and as he went, thus he said, O my son Absalom, 
" my son, my son Absalom ; would God I had died for 
" thee, O Absalom my son, my son." Measure by this 
example the affection you have so lately lost, who never 
gave any offence as Absalom did, and yet had in your 
father's eye all the reasons of love which Absalom 
could have. Know then you make a mourning as 
Joseph did, for a father that loved you : remember 
that the love of Jacob was divided between twelve 
sons, and therefore, though it was high, it could not be 
whole and entire to Joseph, as for many years your 
father's hath been unto you. 

Thirdly, I speak not this out of design to renew or 
advance your grief, to tell you what you have lost 
alone; but I propound this privation, that I may con 
trive it for your imitation, endeavouring to stir up the 






The Patriarchal Funeral 183 

same fire, and to kindle the same affection in yourself, 
who now are wholly to be considered in the same 
relation. What you were to him, others are now to 
you ; and what he was to you, you are now wholly 
unto them. Before, your natural affection was partly 
taken up with duty, respect, honour, and obedience, 
due to a father from a son ; it is now taken off from 
those expressions, as to him, that it may descend the 
more entire upon those which come from you, as you 
from him. Thus far you have been the Joseph of the 
text, be now the Jacob ; that those two great names 
may be concealed not only in the text, but in your 
breast. Thus far you have been the better part of 
Absalom, learn now to be the David ; that we may 
truly say, that tender affection, that paternal love, died 
not with your father, but survives in you, to your and 
his posterity. 

Fourthly, I desire you to look not only upon that 
w T hich you have lost, but also upon that which he hath 
left behind him. Vulgar and common persons, as they 
carry nothing out of this world, so they leave nothing 
in it: they receive no eminency in their birth, they 
acquire none in their life, they have none when they 
die, they leave none at their death. But honourable 
persons, as they die like common men, so that only 
dieth with them which was common unto all degrees of 
men ; their singular respects, the privileges of their 
greatness, their honours survive them, and descend unto 
their heirs with their inheritance. Give me leave then 
yet to speak unto you as to the heir of your father's 
honours: consider what the nature and design of honours 
are ; remember they were at first graciously conferred 
as a reward of the virtues of your ancestors, and were 
as wisely continued upon a presumption, and as an 



134 The Patriarchal Funeral. SERM. n. 

encouragement, of the same virtues in their successors. 
Your honour knows how long the greatness of your 
family hath been preserved: acknowledge first the 
vigilant providence and infinite goodness of God in the 
preservation of it, while so many glorious titles have 
been lost, so many noble families cut off. Next, study 
to preserve and advance it further by the exercise of 
those virtues upon which it was first built, and hath 
been since continued ; endeavour to uphold not only 
your own, but the very name of honour in this age, in 
which partly the want of such virtues as are necessary 
to support it, partly the weakness of that power which 
first gave life unto it, partly the unreasonableness of 
foolish men who endeavour to cast a disesteem upon it, 
have too much eclipsed the glory of it. 

Lastly, as I have advised you, with the son of Sirach, 
to " let tears fall upon the dead, and to use lamentation 
" as he is worthy," so I shall conclude with his follow 
ing advice, when that is done, " then comfort thyself 
" for thy heaviness k :" that is, not only be comforted 
after sorrow, that consolation may succeed your grief ; 
this is the common revolution of the world : not only 
be comforted in lieu of your sorrow, that consolation 
may recompense your griefs ; that were but a vulgar 
compensation : but take comfort in your sorrow, and 
rejoice in yourself, that you have been so happy as to 
be truly sad. There is so much deceitfulness in the 
heart of man, so much hypocrisy in funeral mourning, 
that you may bless God for your own assurance of the 
sincerity of your natural affection, and religious respect 
for your parents, and take delight in a just expectation, 
that it will be rewarded by the future respect of your 

k Ecclus. xxxviii. \6, 17. 



The Patriarchal Funeral. 135 

children. So having performed the duty of Joseph, 
who made a mourning for his father, you may expect 
the blessing of Joseph given by the mouth of Jacob, 
for whom he mourned. *' Joseph is a fruitful bough, 
" even a fruitful bough by a well, whose branches run 
" over the wall 1 ." That this benediction may be your 
honour's portion, shall be my constant prayer, " By the 
" God of thy father who shall help thee, and by the 
" Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of 
" heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, 
" blessings of the breasts and of the womb." Amen. 
Amen. 

1 Gen. xlix. 22. 



SERMON III. 

A SERMON PREACHED NOVEMBER V. MDCLXXIII. AT THE 

ABBEY-CHURCH IN WESTMINSTER, BY JOHN, LORD 

BISHOP OF CHESTER. 



PSALM cxi. 4. 
He hath made His wonderful works to be remembered. 

THIS psalm begins with an hallelujaL, and wholly 
consisteth of praise and thanksgiving ; in which 
the people of God express a just resentment and 
grateful acknowledgment of the chiefest mercies re 
ceived by their fathers, referring them all to the good 
ness of God, and jointly and publicly magnifying His 
name, as if it were previous to the " great voice of 
" much people in heaven a " heard by St. John. The 
words are so indited by the Spirit, so penned by the 
prophet, that they may be a perpetual rule and direction 
in all ages to the Church, guided by the same provi 
dence, protected by the same power, to have the like 
sense, and tender the same praise to Him whose 
" hand is not shortened at all b ." 

a Rev. xiv. j. h Isai. 1. 2, 



A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. 137 

This duty is here taught us in such a manner as may 
render it most proper for us to offer, most acceptable to 
Him to whom it is to be offered. The expressions of 
the Psalmist sufficiently inform us, that it must be un 
feigned and real, sincere and integral, without any 
intervening doubts of His benign and immediate in 
fluence, without mingling thoughts or imaginations of 
any other assistance, ascribing to Him the whole 
deliverance, rendering to Him the whole " glory due 
" unto His Name c ," that He " alone may be exalted d :" 
there is nothing less than this intimated in the first 
address, " I will praise the Lord with my whole heart e ." 
The same must also be public and united, universal and 
illimited, with a general consent and holy kind of con- 
spiration ; that the praise to be rendered may bear 
some show of proportion to the mercy received, and as 
the blessing, so the return may be, without exception, 
publicly performed " in the assembly of the upright, 
" and in the congregation f ." 

The duty thus taught and described is next urged 
and enforced by expressing a reason, which hath a 
natural tendency to excite our performance, or rather 
to constrain us. For " the works of the Lord are 
" greats," His work is honourable and glorious ; and 
" His righteousness endureth for ever h ." Whereby he 
sheweth, that in the extraordinary works of God 
wrought for the benefit of His people, the attributes of 
the divine nature manifestly appear : as His wisdom in 
contriving them, His power in effecting them, His 
goodness in vouchsafing them, His justice in denying 
them to others, His mercy in conferring or confining 



c Psalm xxix. 2. d Isai. ii. n. e Ver. i. f Ver. i. 

g Ver. 2. h Ver. 3. 



138 A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. SERM. HI. 

them to us ; and at the same time informeth us, that 
our praise consisteth in the sole acknowledgment of 
these attributes. For He, whose " glorious Name is 
" exalted above all blessing and praise 1 ," cannot receive 
glory from us : "our goodness extendeth not to Him k :" 
He is only glorified by the manifestation of Himself, 
with our acknowledgment and declaration of the glorious 
excellencies which are in Him, and the emanations 
proceeding from them. 

This general reason is followed by a more immediate, 
more concerning, and convincing provocation to the 
same duty; in that He which hath done so great 
things for our fathers and promised the like to us, 
hath also revealed the counsel of His will, and His 
design in the doing of them, both for our benefit and 
His own honour : that there might be not only a 
sufficient reason to move and persuade us, but also an 
express signification of His will to determine and 
oblige us unto a perpetual and never-failing comme 
moration of His goodness. And the revelation of this 
design of God is clearly delivered in the words of my 
text, " He hath made His wonderful works to be 
" remembered." 

I shall not trouble you with any division of my text, 
but only raise this observation from it which is naturally 
contained in it : Where God hath wrought any signal 
work for any people or nation, He justly expecteih and 
requireth a public and perpetual acknowledgment of it. 
The truth of this indubitable observation, as it is useful 
for many purposes, so it is evident by innumerable 
instances ; three of which are glanced at in this short 
Psalm. First, " He sent redemption unto His people 1 ;" 

Neh. ix. 5. k Psalm xvi. 2. ' Ver. 9 



A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. 139 

that is, He sent Moses and Aaron unto the Israelites, 
by whose hand he brought them out of the land of 
Egypt : and certainly He made that wonderful work to 
be remembered. For they obtained their dimission by 
the intervention of a destroying angel, while the Egypt 
ians perished and they were preserved : upon which 
the feast of the Passover was instituted, and with this 
remark : " This day shall be to you for a memorial : 
" and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout 
" your generations : ye shall keep it a feast by an 
" ordinance for ever/' Upon their coming forth 
from thence, the law of the sabbath was fixed to a 
certain day in reference to the same deliverance with 
the like intimation. " Remember that thou wast a 
" servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy 
" God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand 
" and by a stretched out arm : therefore the Lord thy 
'* God hath commanded thee to keep the sabbath- 
" day"." 

Secondly, " He hath given meat unto them that 
" fear Him ." That is, probably, He fed them mira 
culously, when they cried unto Him in the wilderness ; 
He gave them manna, even bread from heaven, but 
with this command : " Fill an omer of it to be kept 
" for your generations, that they may see the bread 
" wherewith I have fed you in the wilderness P." And 
this wonderful work was made to be remembered not 
only in itself, but in its signification. For He, which 
said, " I am the bread which came down from heaven V 
when He was by His death to deliver us from the 
wrath of God, and to make a way open for us to eternal 
life, instituted the blessed sacrament to this end, that 

m Exod. xii. 14. n Deut. v. 15. Ver. 5. P Exod. 
xvi. 32. <1 John vi. 41. 



140 A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. SERM. m. 

" as often as we eat that bread and drink that cup, we 
" should shew the Lord's death till He come." 

Thirdly, "He gave them the heritage of the heathen 1 ";" 
that is, when the sins of the Amorites were full, He 
drove out them and their neighbouring nations, that He 
might place His peculiar people in the promised land 
of Canaan. He magnified Joshua, as he had done 
Moses, in the sight of all Israel ; He cut off the waters 
of Jordan, that the ark of the covenant might pass 
before them, and the people follow that, to take pos 
session of the land. And lest the memory of such a 
wonderful work should perish, He caused " twelve 
" stones taken out of the midst of Jordan, out of the 
" place where the priests' feet stood firm," to be laid 
in Gilgal, " for a memorial to the children of Israel for 
" ever 8 ." 

Upon these and the like instances, founded in the 
express will and revelation of God, delivered in the 
writings of Moses and the prophets, preserved in the 
public monuments and sacred archives of the sanctuary, 
the Church of God in after ages followed the same 
rule, and without any scruple put upon themselves the 
same obligation. For having a due apprehension of 
the great equity and justice of the thing itself required, 
whensoever the like goodness of God was manifested to 
them, though His will was not expressly revealed when 
His promises were fulfilled, though the prophecies 
ceased, they thought it necessary to oblige themselves 
and their posterity to the duty; as knowing that 
thankfulness is a necessary virtue by the eternal law of 
nature, and that the design of God, who changeth not, 
could not but be the same for His glory, whensoever 

r John vi. 6. * Joshua iv. 3, 7. 



A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. 141 

He made the same demonstration of His mercy. Thus 
the Jews in their dispersion, being saved from a national 
destruction, of themselves instituted the feast of Purim : 
" they ordained and took upon them, and upon their 
" seed, so that it should not fail, that they would keep 
" these two days every year ; and that these days should 
" be remembered and kept throughout every generation, 
" every family, every province, and every city ; that 
" these days of Purim should not fail from among the 
" Jews, nor the memorial of them perish from their 
" seed*." 

It is easy to derive and justify a doctrine from so 
many holy examples, all beyond exception, all the 
safest patterns for our imitation. It is easy to improve 
it, if we will attend not only to the truth, but also to 
the reasons and the use of it. And great reasons there 
are, whether we consider the benefit received or the 
duty required. First, in reference to any signal be 
nefit, any extraordinary mercy received, it is necessary 
we should have a true sense and firm persuasion of the 
work of God in it ; that we may learn to depend upon 
His Providence, which we find so vigilant over us, so 
beneficial to us ; that we may attribute nothing to 
ourselves, or sacrifice to our own nets; that we may 
discern His hand in His own work, and say with the 
prophet, " I will praise Thy name for ever, because 
" Thou hast done it u ;" that we may speak as un- 
feignedly, as emphatically, " To Thee, O Lord, do we 
" give thanks, to Thee do we give thanks x ." 

Secondly, this design of God teacheth man to make 
a true estimate, and set a value upon the benefit 
received as coming from His hand. How great soever 

Esth. ix. 27. 28. u Ps. Hi. 9. * Ps. Ixxv. i . 



142 A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. SERM. in. 

any temporal deliverance may be, which beareth pro 
portion with the evil or danger escaped, it can never be 
so great in itself as in the consideration of the De 
liverer. No enjoyment on earth can equal this as 
surance, that the Preserver of men careth for us, that 
the Lord taketh pleasure in His people. We ought 
not to value so much any preservation as His favour, 
who preserveth us ; because, " His loving kindness is 
" better than life y." 

Again, in relation to the duty of a grateful remem 
brance and suitable return of praise and thanksgiving, 
this design of God ought to be embraced with all 
comfort and cheerfulness. For what greater honour 
can man receive, than that God should desire to be 
honoured by him ? What greater advantage can we 
have, than that He should therefore bless us, that He 
may receive praise from us, and purchase His glory by 
the expence of His goodness ? If God, who enjoyed 
Himself alone from eternity, hath made all things for 
the praise of His glory ; if He hath designed to bless 
us, that we may glorify Him, and makes so advan 
tageous an interpretation of the return of our thanks ; 
if He hath thus " made His wonderful works to be 
" remembered ;" nothing but a wretched ingratitude 
can deprive us of them. 

Lastly, the equity and excellency of the duty enforce 
the obligation. Here is not any thing required, but 
what may be justly challenged, what cannot be with 
any pretence denied. There is a moral obligation 
between men, to " render to every man his due, 
" honour to whom honour z :" and this divine acknow 
ledgment is required upon no other terms, " Give unto 

y Ps. Ixiii. 3. z Rom. xiii. 7. 



A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. 143 

" the Lord the praise due unto His name a ." It is 
required in a due proportion, " Praise Him according 
" to His excellent greatness b ," according to the ma 
nifestation of it. This is the exercise of the blessed 
saints and angels in the nearest view of His perfections: 
the language of heaven is " Alleluia ;" and there is 
nothing more heavenly upon earth. For " it is good to 
" sing praises unto our God ; for it is pleasant, and 
" praise is comely c ." " O that men would therefore 
" praise the Lord for His goodness, and for His won- 
" derful works to the children of men d ." 

I am willing to suppose we may be in some measure . 
by this brief discourse persuaded, that if this nation 
hath received any signal mercy as upon this day, we 
are some way obliged to remember, to acknowledge, to 
give thanks for it. If we be sensible of any extra 
ordinary manifestation of the goodness of God towards 
us, I hope we shall not be so singular as to desert 
all the examples of the people of God in former 
ages. 

And as to the certainty of the mercy, I think we 
may safely say with the prophet, " O God, Thou hast 
" taught us from our youth, and hitherto have we de- 
" clared Thy wondrous works e ." We have been all 
brought up in this persuasion : hitherto we have 
thought the mercy great, and the duty necessary. 
Certainly we may without vanity say, " We have 
" heard with our ears, and our fathers have told us of 
" the great works which God wrought for us in their 
" days f ." Hitherto we have believed them, and praised 



a Ps. xxix. 2. *> Ps. cl. 2. c Ps. cxlvii. i. d Ps. cvii. 8. 
Ps Ixxi. 8. t Ps. xliv. i. 



144 A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. SBRM. HI. 

Him. But if there be any which speak so much of 
our forefathers, that we may give no credit to our 
fathers ; if they teach us that our eyes and our hands 
daily deceive us, and therefore we must take heed lest 
we believe what we have heard with our ears ; if in 
that which we take to be so grand a conspiracy there 
was nothing of substance, but only the species of a 
treason ; though the doctrine you have heard be good 
to other purposes, yet as to this day's assembly it will 
signify little. 

Being therefore the new apologists for those Popish 
conspirators have invented those shifts and excuses for 
. them, which they themselves, though great masters in 
that Roman art, could never pretend to ; it will be 
necessary now to shew how this doctrine is applicable 
to this nation, how the text agreeth with the day. 
" God hath made His wonderful works to be remem- 
" bered," saith the prophet : this is the rule. The 
work of this day was " His wonderful work." The 
work of this day is never to be forgotten : this I take 
to be our case. We must acknowledge the first ; or 
we are most stupid and insensible. We must perform 
the second ; or we shall be most unworthy and un 
grateful. 

First, the work of this day was " His wonderful 
" work." The providence of God is concerned in all 
events, but is most conspicuous in His greatest mer 
cies ; the mercy manifesting His goodness, the great 
ness His power. " One sparrow shall not fall to the 
" ground without our Father," saith our blessed Sa 
viour; and can we believe that thousands of men 
should in that manner be preserved from destruction 
without His gracious and fatherly concurrence ? How 
low soever their opinion of heretics be, as they are 



A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. 145 

pleased to call them, can we think so many persons 
designed to slaughter were not " of more value than 
" many sparrows & ?" " Touch not mine anointed V is 
the voice of God : shall the king and the royal family, 
shall the nobles and judges of the land, shall the church 
and people of God, shall all whose lives are precious in 
His sight, be saved at once from utter destruction by 
any other hand than His? 

Certainly either the design or the deliverance was 
from God ; except we place Him, as Epicurus did, 
without the world, and wholly unconcerned in it. But 
that [design] was too black, too horrid, too impious, to 
be ascribed to any but to the grand enemy of God and 
man, " the spirit that worketh in the children of dis- 
" obedience '." The deliverance therefore was from 
Him from whom he fell, and by whom, though he con 
tinue " the prince of the power of the air k ," he is still 
" reserved in everlasting chains." As the machination 
of so much mischief to mankind bewrays the inveterate 
enmity of him who incessantly " seeketh whom he may 
" devour ;" so the prevention of so much cruelty is a 
sufficient demonstration of God's philanthropy. 

Though many other arguments might be used to 
demonstrate that this was the work, the " wonderful 
" work" of God, yet I shall make use only of one 
more, drawn from the words of God, and those very 
remarkable : " Behold, I will proceed to do a mar- 
" vellous work among this people, even a marvellous 
" work and a wonder : for the wisdom of their wise 
" men shall perish, and the understanding of their 
" prudent men shall be hid. Woe unto them that 
" seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and 

8 Matt. x. 29, 31. h Ps. cv. 15. * Eph. ii. 2. k Jude 6. 

PEARSON, VOL. II. L 



146 A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. SERM. HI. 

" their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth 
" us ? and who knoweth us ? Surely your turning of 
" things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's 
clay V 

Now if this be God's proceeding to His marvellous 
works, as He himself assureth us, it was never more 
evident than in the detection and defeat of this con 
spiracy. For never any sought so deep to hide their 
counsel : never any work was so in the dark. I speak 
not of the secret contrivance of the mischief in a cellar, 
but of their horrid secrecy and combination under the 
seal of sacramental confession ; which they profess to 
be so sacred with them, that not for the saving of a 
whole nation from the greatest mischief imaginable it 
may be violated. For, as they say, all men are com 
manded by the law of God to confess their sins to a 
priest ; and therefore the priest by the same law is 
obliged in no case to reveal them. For certainly God 
never intended to impose so hard a necessity on a 
sinner, as necessarily to lose one of the two, either his 
temporal or his eternal life ; his temporal, if he confess; 
his eternal, if he do not. Now if it were lawful for 
the priest in any case to reveal the confession, and not 
lawful for the sinner not to confess, he could not obtain 
eternal, without manifest danger of his temporal, life. 
O the subtilty of the doctrine ! the nicety of the prac 
tice ! O the great Roman asylum ! the happy security, 
in the pretence of penance, to impenitent wretches ! 
Here they may freely open their tender consciences, 
and by a safe consultation receive advice in the worst 
of their designs, for the advancement of the Gospel, and 
the propagation of the faith. For they have of late so 

1 Isai. xxix. 14, 15, 16. 



A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. 1 47 

fortified this castle, that it is become impregnable, 
though the foundation of it be laid on a tradition of 
their own, wholly unknown, as they have acknow 
ledged, to the vast number of the Eastern Churches. 

But if we grant the sacredness of confession, and the 
duty of secrecy in the confessor, which I shall not 
deny ; yet reason (which can judge what designs are 
fit to be kept secret, and what not) will teach all men, 
and some of their divines have formerly taught, that a 
private secret ought to be revealed for a great and' 
public good, for the prevention of a general evil, the 
confessor keeping the person confessing as close and 
safe as he may. And if this doctrine had been ob 
served, our danger could not have long continued, 
which consisted in the mischief of the design, not in 
the number or power of the persons engaged, and 
consequently had vanished as soon as it was disclosed. 
But they were sufficiently fortified against this truth. 
For, that a private secret must yield to a great and 
public good, holds only, they say, in those countries 
where the prince is a catholic, who believes the great 
religion of private and sacramental confession, and 
bears a great reverence unto it. And that too, when 
that catholic prince is so pious and religious, that it 
may be rationally presumed that he will by no means 
urge the confessor with dangerous or troublesome in 
terrogations, or in the least desire the persons of the 
traitors. Thus, upon an unjust supposal that our king 
was not a catholic, and consequently not a Christian, 
both he and his kingdom were wholly excluded from 
the benefit of universal reason and the doctrine of their 
most sober divines; and so their most pernicious 
" counsel lay still in the deep," wrapt up in the con 
science of the priest, who had been taught that lie 

L 2 



148 A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. SERM. in. 

knew it not as man but as God, and that it was not a 
natural or civil, but a supernatural secret. 

Again, it was very unreasonable to pretend the 
sacred power of the seal to keep the secrecy of this 
horrid conspiracy ; because there was not any con 
fession made of a sin committed and repented of, 
(which only hath a proper tendency to absolution,) but 
only of a crime intended, and of a present resolution 
afterwards to commit it ; which is not to be esteemed 
under penance at all, (except there can be penitence 
where there is no penitent or pretender to be such,) 
neither is it capable of absolution or any benefit of 
confession, being it is not in itself confession, but 
rather consultation, and that the worst imaginable, 
including a resolute intention to commit the greatest 
crime. In this, many of their doctors agree; and a 
bishop of Rome hath given a full and clear resolution 
in the point. But in the greatest danger we could 
receive no benefit here, a new distinction making up 
the breach. For we must understand, that though it 
were not a formal, yet it was a virtual confession ; 
though it were but a consultation, yet it had some 
reference to a sacramental confession, either already 
made, or in probability to be made hereafter ; by virtue 
of which reference it was to be under the same secrecy, 
and to have the benefit of the same seal, being under 
it either directly or indirectly. Thus that grand con 
spiracy was consigned to take its best opportunity ; as 
needing no repentance but in case of a failure or 
non-performance. And so this " work" was still " in 
" the dark." 

Moreover, we might conceive ourselves safe from 
such a machination of any Christians by that divine 
determination, " We must not do evil, that good may 



A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. 149 

" come of it." For if " their damnation were just," 
who '* slanderously reported" of St. Paul, that he said, 
" Let us do evil, that good may come ;" who could 
imagine that in any case of conscience this should be 
admitted ? And indeed a great scruple arose even in 
the minds of the most confident assassinates m , whether 
the nocent and the innocent might be destroyed and 
perish together. " That be far from thee to do after 
" this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked ; 
*' and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that 
" be far from thee n :" (though all ought to have been 
accounted innocent in respect of them who had no 
authority to make such a discrimination, or to condemn 
and execute justice upon either :) yet the sacred 
oracle could determine, that if the good to be expected 
were greater than the evil which was to be executed ; 
if the destruction of the innocent might be compen 
sated by the advantage which followed ; then it was 
not only evidently lawful, but, so far as the good 
exceeded the evil, meritorious. And now, let the evil 
be never so great, they were sure in the opinion of 
those whom they consulted, the propagation of the 
Roman faith, the advancement of the catholic cause, 
the restitution of the Papal jurisdiction was the great 
est good imaginable, to which the ruin of the nocent or 
the innocent could bear no proportion. 

All this was " sought in the deep to hide their 
" counsel :" all this was wrought " in the dark ;" and 



m Assassins : For I shall never ask thee aught 

But one thing more ; again, 

Jocasta told me thou wert by the What was the number of the 

chariot, assassinates ? 

When the old king was slain. Dryden, (Edipus. 

Speak, I conjure thee, n Gen. xviii. 25. 



150 A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. SEBM. in. 

they said often among themselves, " Who seeth it ? 
" who knoweth it ?" Wherefore, if, notwithstanding all 
this contrivance of secrecy to hide their counsel, the 
horrid conspiracy was revealed, the snare discovered, 
and " their turning of things upside down esteemed as 
" the potter's clay ;" God did then " proceed to do a 
" marvellous work" for this people and nation, " even 
" a marvellous work and a wonder." " This is that 
" which the Lord hath done," and it were the greatest 
wonder if it were not " marvellous in our eyes." 
Which is the first part of our case. 

Secondly, The wonderful work of this day is never 
to be forgotten. " God hath saved our lives by a great 
" deliverance ," as Joseph said ; and can we ever be 
ungrateful to Him who hath given us " such a deliver- 
" ance as this P," as Ezra speaks ? What can we ever 
expect to make us mindful, if upon such a deliverance 
as this we prove forgetful ? The text teacheth us that 
it is the design of Him who wrought it, that we should 
remember it; and shall we fulfil the design of our 
enemies, whom He defeated ? Let them deny it, who 
may be ashamed of the intended cruelty ; let not us 
forget it, who ought to rejoice in the mercy ; lest we 
be unmindful of Him whose the mercy was, and for 
which He expecteth to be honoured by us. God 
made the memory of His wonderful works to be part 
of the religion of His ancient people; such were the 
Passover and the Sabbath : let us think it part of our 
religion to remember this wonderful work. Let this 
day " never fail from among us, nor the memorial of it 
" perish from our seed." May we never live to see 
those times, in which the memory of this day shall be 

Gen. xlv. 7. P Ezra ix. 13. 



A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. 151 

blotted out, or rather cast out with indignation : may 
we never hear of such an act of oblivion. 

Nor is it our duty only to desire, but also to en 
deavour the perpetuity of this recognition : and con 
sequently to use the just and proper means to per 
petuate it. It was our religion, the settled religion of 
the Church of England, which was then aimed at ; 
and nothing will preserve the due memory of this day, 
but the preservation of that. Nothing but that 
procured the enmity; nothing but that obtained the 
mercy. We know no other reason why men of the 
same nation, but of a different persuasion in matters 
of religion, should so combine against us ; we are 
conscious of no other 'motive on our part to incline 
the infinite goodness of God to be so propitious to us ; 
nor can any other consideration without this set a 
sufficient value upon the mercy received. Let us 
therefore " earnestly contend for the faith, which was 
*' once delivered unto the saints * :" let us keep that 
which was then preserved, if we expect the generations 
to come should praise the Lord for this deliverance. 
The persons are now dead, whose lives were then pre 
served : if we suffer the same religion to perish, which 
was then so signally owned, there will be little left for 
which the memory should be continued. Thus let us 
endeavour to perpetuate the memorial of this day, as 
the most just and innocent revenge. 

But these things are in the hand of God, that God 
who saved our late sovereign alive upon this day, and 
suffered him to be cruelly murthered upon another. 
When I consider the present condition of our church 
and nation, and fear that our sins begin to be full ; I 

I Jude 3. 



152 A Sermon on Ps. cxi. 4. SEKM. HI. 

cannot but think the enemies of our religion, the 
papal emissaries, have now much an easier way to de 
stroy it. They shall not need to seek so far into the 
deep, or to lay so vast a work in the dark. But then 
I cannot choose but remember those words which I read 
so frequently in the scriptures, " God save the king : 
" God save the king 1 "." God save him from the open 
rebellion of the schismatical party, the ruin of his 
father. God save him from the secret machinations of 
the papal faction, the danger of his grandfather. " God 
" save the king ;" and let all the people say, Amen. 

r 2 Sam. xvi. 16, &c. 



CHRIST'S BIRTH NOT MISTIMED: 



OR 

A CLEAR REFUTATION OF A RESOLUTION TO A QUESTION 
ABOUT THE TIME OF CHRIST'S NATIVITY, 

BY R. S. 

PRETENDING TO EVIDENCE BY SCRIPTURE THAT JESUS CHRIST 
WAS NOT BORN IN DECEMBER. 
A.D. 1649. 

AMONGST the rest of the pamphlets, there came 
forth this week a Resolution to a Question made 
by the Lord Carew, touching the true time of the Birth 
of Christ, framed by way of a letter, and subscribed 
R. S. a What operation this resolution may have in 



a The tract by R. S. has been 
reprinted in the Phoenix, vol. i. 
See also Hammond's Works, vol. 
i. p. 656. KIDD. The same argu 
ment seems to have been publicly 
proposed a few years earlier ; for 
it was in 1644 that the Parliament 
put forth an Ordinance for abo 
lishing Christmas Day, and one 
of the journals in their interest 
contains the following notice of 
it : " Wednesday the 24th (q. 
' 25th) of December was kept as a 
' Fast, though formerly as the 
1 supposed day of our Saviour's 
' Nativity ; though it is evident 
' he was born towards the end of 
' September or the beginning 



" of October, &c." Parliament 
Scout, No. 77. It seems to have 
been criminal to observe the day 
with any religious solemnity du 
ring the whole time of Cromwell's 
usurpation. See Evelyn's Journal, 
Dec. 25, 1658. The controversy 
however was occasionally renewed 
in pamphlets during the greater 
part of this period. (See Cata 
logue of the Brit. Museum. Athen. 
Oxon. Life of Selden, &c.) And 
its ghost was not so far laid at 
the Restoration, but that it served 
Baxter at the Savoy Conference 
with one of his grievances against 
the Book of Common Praver. 



154 Christ's Birth not Mistimed. 

these unsettled times, I know not : but being it 
pretends so far to the scriptures, I may have leave to 
fear it may have some influence on the minds of such 
as are not well affected to the resolves of the primitive 
times, who being already too forward to deny all 
obedience to their mother Church, where she cannot 
evidence her commands, expressly and particularly, out 
of the Word of God, will be greedy of an occasion or 
pretence to desert her in that, which may in any way 
seem contrary to it. To prevent any such consequence 
I have sent this Refutation after R. S.'s Resolution, 
not doubting but it will clearly shew the invalidity of 
whatsoever he hath endeavoured to bring for the con 
firmation of his novel assertion. 

To the first section, or preface, I answer nothing; 
because it is only an address, and pretends not to any 
part of the proof. 

Of the second section, the title is this, " The true 
'* Time of Christ's Nativity evidenced." In this I 
desire to join issue, and deny that any evidence of 
Christ's nativity is to be found in this section ; which is 
the body of his Resolution. This argument runs thus ; 
The conception of John the Baptist was in the month 
of June : therefore the conception of Christ, (not the 
birth,) was in the tenth month, the sixth month after 
June. 

The consequence I acknowledge without any further 
dispute, and therefore shall not at all question the 
proof. If John the Baptist can be proved out of 
scripture to have been conceived in June, I will not 
deny but our Saviour was conceived, and consequently 
will confess that He was not born, in December. 

But the antecedent is in no wise to be admitted: 
wherefore I absolutely deny that it can be proved out 



Christ'* Birth not Mistimed. 155 

of scripture, that John Baptist was conceived in June. 
And therefore to your argument, contained in the 
second part of the second section, which endeavours to 
prove the antecedent, I answer thus : 

The argument, so much of it as is taken out of 
scripture, is no more than this : 

The course of Abiah was the eighth course. 1 Chron. 

xxiv. 10. 

Zacharias was of the course of Abiah. Luke i. 5. 
After the course of Abiah, John Baptist was con 
ceived. Luke i. 26. 
Nisan, or Abib, was the first month of the year. 

Exod. xii. 2. xiii. 4. Esth. Hi. 7- 
Now if all these propositions, taken out of these 
several places of scripture, be reduced into form, the 
argument will run thus: 

The course of Abiah was the eighth course of priests. 

1 Chron. xxiv. 

Zacharias was of the course of Abiah. Luke i. 
Ergo, Zacharias was of the eighth course of the 

priests. 

This syllogism I acknowledge to be very good, and 
therefore shall take the conclusion for a truth : only 
this I must have leave to put in by the way : If the 
course remained in the same order in the days of 
Herod, in which they were instituted by King David. 
For, being this cannot be proved out of the scripture, 
and being possible that in so long time, and so many 
confusions, the order might be altered: therefore, though 
the premises be both in the scripture, yet the conclusion 
is not altogether of scripture authority. 

But being Josephus hath witnessed, that the order 
was not altered, I admit the conclusion as a truth ; 
which being admitted, the next syllogism will be this 



156 Christ's Birth not Mistimed. 

The course of Zachariah was the eighth course of 
the priests. 

John the Baptist was conceived at the end of the 
course of Zachariah. Luke i. 

Ergo, John the Baptist was conceived at the end of 
the eighth course of the priests. 

This syllogism I likewise admit ; but being this has 
not yet made an end of the question, we must thus 
proceed : 

The end of the eighth course was in June. 

John the Baptist was conceived at the end of the 
eighth course of the priests. 

Ergo, John the Baptist was conceived in June. 

Without this syllogism it is evident that the question 
is not proved at all; and by this syllogism, if it be 
good, it is as evident, and I do freely acknowledge, 
that the question is by the resolver fully proved. But 
to this I answer : 

The minor, or second proposition, I acknowledge, as 
being the conclusion of the former syllogism, which I 
before admitted. But the former proposition, or major, 
I absolutely deny to be formally or virtually contained 
in the scriptures, and consequently I affirm the con 
clusion not to be proved by this argument out of 
scripture. 

All the scripture, which is brought by the resolver 
to prove the major, are two places out of Exodus, from 
which it is truly collected, that Nisan, or Abib, was 
the first month of the year : so that his argument runs 
thus: 

Nisan, or Abib, was the first month of the year. 
Ex. xii. 2. xiii. 4. 

Ergo, the end of the eighth course of the priests, was 
in June. 



Christ's Birth not Mistimed. 157 

This is all which he brings out of the scripture to 
prove this proposition, and every one sees that of itself 
this proves it not. Therefore the resolver, in his dis 
course, hath not proved out of the scriptures that John 
the Baptist was conceived in June, which he undertook 
to prove. 

But though he have not proved his assertion out of 
the scriptures, yet I must confess he addeth that of his 
own, without any authority of scripture, or any other 
author, which if it were in the scripture might prove 
his assertion to be of scripture truth, and of divine 
authority ; or if it were in any other good authors, 
might make probable, according to the authority of the 
author. 

Now that which thus he adds, or I said of his own, 
consists of these two particulars : 

1. That the first course began always at the begin 
ning of the first month of the year : 

2. That each course continued a fortnight, and so 
the twenty-four courses made up a full complete year ; 
and consequently, that the end of the eighth course 
was at the end of the fourth month, which was June. 

But this addition of the Resolver is not only not to 
be found in the word of God, or in any other author of 
any antiquity, as I presume ; but is in itself considered 
apparently false, for twelve fortnights do not make an 
Hebrew year, nor two fortnights an Hebrew month. 
Suppose then that the course of Jehoiarib, or the first 
course, should be the first day of Abib, and that day 
fortnight to the fifteenth day of Abib the second course, 
and so successively to the end of the twenty-four 
courses, it is evident that all the courses would be gone 
over in 336 days, for 14 times 24 make precisely 336. 
But even in the lunar year of the Hebrews, without 



158 Christ's Birth not Mistimed. 

any intercalation, there are contained no less than 354 
days ; so that of necessity there must be 18 days left at 
the end of the year without any course of priests, and 
consequently the daily sacrifice must cease, for the 
constant performance of which these courses were insti 
tuted, which of itself is most false ; or the first course 
must then begin again, which is most contradictory to 
the first part of the resolver's addition, viz. That the 
first course always begins with the first day of the first 
month. 

But the truth is, these parts of the Resolver's addition 
do not only, taken jointly together, include a manifest 
repugnancy, which proves but one of them false, but 
each of them severally is not only destitute of any 
proof in the Holy Writ, or other good authority ; but 
will appear by itself to be false, by as good authority as 
can possibly in such a case be had. 

Josephus, a learned Jew, who was himself a priest, 
and one of the course of Jehoiarib, the only man upon 
whose authority the continuation of the order in the 
courses from Solomon's institution to the destruction 
of the second temple rests, (without which the very first 
part of the Resolver's argument signifies nothing,) this 
Josephus, I say, tells us plainly, that David instituted 
these courses of the priest, not for a fortnight together, 
but a week. His words are these in the xivth chapter 
of the viith book of the Jewish Antiquities. AieVa^e re 
niav TTdTpiav StaKoveiarOai T> 0ew eVt fnu.epa.i9 OKTW O.TTO 
<ra/3/3arov e-jri (rdfifiaTov' i. e. " David appointed one 
" family in its course to minister unto the Lord for 
" eight days, from sabbath to sabbath." He calls 
indeed the space of time allotted to each course eight 
days, reckoning according to their manner both the 
day they began, and the day they ended their service ; 



Christ's Birth not Mistimed. 159 

which is evident by the words that immediately follow 
them, " from sabbath to sabbath." And therefore it is 
said, Luke ii. 21, " When eight days were accomplished 
" for the circumcision of the child, his name was called 
" Jesus ;" whereas He was circumcised on the eighth 
day, and so there were but seven complete days from 
His Nativity to His circumcision. So the courses of 
the priests are said to minister eight days, whereas 
they began their service on the sabbath, and ended the 
same time of the day the next sabbath, which is but 
the space of seven complete days. Which is most 
evident out of a book of theirs extant, called 
rvnE^E "1QD Sepher Maamadoth : i.e. the Book of 
their services, or their Liturgy ; which is divided into 
seven parts, containing the service of the seven days. 
The courses then were not for a fortnight, but for a 
week, as Theophylact upon St. Luke hath well observed, 
saying, 'O ZoXo/uwv TOV vaov reXeo-a? KaTecmjo-e /ecu e(f)rifj.e- 
jota?, o CCTTIV, e/3<Jo,ua<W i. e. " Solomon, when he had 
" finished the Temple, appointed also the courses, that 
" is to say, the weeks." 

And this may be further evidenced yet out of the 
Word of God ; for at the same time that the priests 
were divided into twenty-four courses, the Levites 
were divided so likewise, for their attendance on the 
priests. 1 Chron. xxiii. 6. of which Josephus speaks 
very expressly, ibid. 'E7ro/7<re Se KOI TW AevtnSos (frvXtjs 
eiKO(ri pep*} KO.I T<r(rapa t /ecu K\qpaxrafj.eva)v /caret TOV avrov 
ave(3r](rav TpOTrov rats TWV lepewv efa/uLepiaiv e-Trt t]/ui<lpai$ 
oKTta' i. e. " David divided also the tribe of Levi into 
" twenty- four parts, who by lot kept these courses for 
" eight days after the manner of the courses of the 
" priests." The Levites then were divided after the 
same manner with the priests, and kept the same 



160 Christ's Birth not Mistimed. 

courses. But the Levites' courses were but weekly, as 
appears 1 Chron. ix. 25. " And their brethren, (viz. 
" the Levites) which were in the villages, were to come 
" after seven days from time to time with them." 
Therefore the courses of the priests were weekly. And 
this week began always on the sabbath-day, as appears 
by the words of JosephuS, a-n-o o-a/3|8arou ex* <ra/3/3aroj/, 
and out of Sepher Maamadoth, in which are these 
words: NTPH ICrtEtt ^nnN rO"Q lOWl i. e. " And 
" on the sabbath-day they added one benediction to the 
" course that went off." 

Now being every course began on the sabbath-day, 
and the first day of the month began on any day of the 
week as well as the sabbath, and being all these weekly 
courses were completed in one hundred and sixty-eight 
days, (for seven times twenty-four make so many,) and 
then to begin again, that there might be no intermission 
of the service of God ; therefore the first course could 
not be tied to the beginning of any month, much less 
to the beginning of the year. The truth of all which 
any man must at first of necessity confess, who has but 
observed how exact the Jews were in keeping these 
courses, and how loose in the observation of their 
months and years. 

By all which it is clearly demonstrated, as far as 
matters of this nature are capable of demonstration, 
that the several courses of the priests instituted by 
David did not continue for a fortnight together. Nei 
ther did the first course of Jehoiarib always begin with 
the first month Nisan or Abib. Without which pro 
positions granted to be true, as they are most certainly 
false, all which the Resolver brings out of the scripture 
doth not prove any such thing as that John Baptist 
was conceived in June. 



Christ's Birth not Mistimed. 161 

From hence I conclude, that the Resolver's argument 
doth not prove that our Saviour was conceived in 
December ; because the antecedent of the argument 
is not proved ; viz. that John Baptist was conceived in 
June. 

To the third section by way of postscript, in which 
he endeavoureth to shew that " St. Chrysostom was 
" the occasion of this error, who supposed Zachary to 
*' be the high priest," I answer : That St. Chrysostom 
did think Zachary was the high priest, is true; and 
that that opinion of St. Chrysostom is false, I confess. 
But that that opinion was the occasion of observing 
the 25th day of December for Christ's nativity, I 
absolutely deny : and this the Resolver doth not, can 
not prove. For, 

That which was observed before St. Chrysostom's 
time could not be occasioned by any opinion of 
St. Chrysostom. 

But the observation of the 25th of December for 
the nativity of our Saviour was before St. Chrys 
ostom's time. 

Therefore the observation of the 25th of December 

for the nativity was not occasioned by any opinion 

of St. Chrysostom ; and consequently not by that 

opinion of his, that Zachary was the high priest. 

The major is without all question true. The minor 

is as certain out of antiquity. But I shall only prove 

it by St. Chrysostom's own testimony, who in a sermon 

preached upon this day at Antioch b , declares, that he 

t> Horn, in Diem Natal. Jesu Zacharias to be the high priest. 

Christi, torn. v. p. 466. ed. Due. See also his Homily Ixxix on St. 

ii. p. 354. ed. Bened. It is in Matthew, p. 761. ed. Ben. and 

this Homily that St. Chrysostom the note in Mr. Field's recent 

speaks as if he had considered edition, vol. iii. p. 1 59. 

PEARSON, VOL. II. M 



Christ's Birth not Mistimed. 

was not the author, nor the occasion, of the celebration 
of it ; but that he received it from the church of Rome, 
who by an ancient tradition had long 1 observed it. 

His words are these : 'AXXa a/coue, KOI /*v aTr/o-ret, ori 
jrapa TUIV a.Kpi(3a>$ raura eiSoTwv, KOI Ttjv Tr6\iv eKeivrjv 
OIKOVVTCW, Trapei\rj<f>a/Ji.ev Ttjv riftepav' i. e. " But hear and 

" believe, that we have received this day, (25th of 
" December,) from those which have exact knowledge 
" of these things, and inhabit that city," namely, Rome, 
where the Censual Tables were extant, in which our 
Saviour's nativity was described. O< jap CKCI 
(3ovT9, avwOev KOI CK TraXam? TrapaSoa-euts avrrjv 
XowTey, aiVoJ vuv avrtjs fjfJLiv Trjv yvutcriv SieTre/n 
" For they which live there, having a long- while by an 
" ancient tradition celebrated this day, have now at 
" last transmitted the knowledge of it to us." Thus 
the Eastern Church, and particularly St. Chrysostom, 
received this day from the Western Church ; and 
consequently St. Chrysostom by his error was no 
occasion of the celebration of the 25th day of De 
cember. "OTrep e&ei Set^ai. 



c Compare the Second Concio practice of the Western Church 

ad Clerum, now first published, may be found in St. Augustin, 

vol. ii. of this edition. A testi- De Trin. iv. c. v. 9. 
mony to the received belief and 



TRACTS RELATING TO THE SAVOY 
CONFERENCE. 



I. NO NECESSITY OF REFORMATION OF THE PUBLIC DOC- 

TRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

II. ANSWER TO DR. BURGES'S WORD BY WAY OF POST- 
SCRIPT. 

III. A LETTER AGAINST PROMISCUOUS ORDINATIONS. 



51 2 



NO NECESSITY OF REFORMATION OF THE PUBLIC 

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

BY JOHN PEARSON, D. D. A. D. I860 a. 

WHEREAS there hath lately come forth a book, 
endeavouring to give " Reasons shewing the 
** Necessity of Reformation of the Public Doctrine, 
" offered to the Consideration of the Parliament, by 
" divers Ministers of sundry Counties in England b ;" 
being I have hitherto constantly believed the public 
doctrine of our Church to be true and orthodox, and 
have often blessed God for continuing me in the faith 
professed amongst us since the Reformation, I did 



a Reprinted in Bibliotheca " For we can do nothing against 

Scriptorum Ecclesiae Anglicanae, " the truth, but for the truth. 

with a Preface by Dr. Hickes. " London, printed by Ja. Cottrel, 

Lond. 1709. p. 336. " dwelling on Addle Hill. 1660." 

b The full title of the book or Two editions, the second " re 
tract is, " Reasons shewing the " vised and enlarged." The 
' Necessity of Reformation of author of this tract, notwith- 
' the Public i. Doctrine, 2. Wo r- standing the pretence in the 
' ship, 3. Rites and Ceremonies, title, is said to have been one 
1 4. Church-Government, and person, viz. Dr. Cornelius Bur- 
' Discipline, reputed to be (but ges ; (see Ant. Wood, Athen. 
' indeed not) established by Oxon. in vit. Burges, vol. iii. c. 
' Law. Humbly offered to the 681. ed. Bliss.) the same who 
' serious Consideration of this wrote the " Word by way of 
' present Parliament. By divers " Postscript," to which the fol- 
' Ministers of sundry Counties lowing tract is a reply. 
4 in England. 2 Cor. xiii. 8. 



166 No Necessity of Reformation. 

resolve to examine impartially, at my first leisure, the 
reasons pretending to shew the necessity of reforming 
that doctrine. 

Perusing that part of the book, which treateth of 
this subject, with some diligence, I found not any one 
reason which could in the least persuade me, that there 
is any such necessity of reformation of the public doc 
trine of our church ; and consequently did resolve, not 
withstanding what is yet brought to the contrary, to 
continue in the faith which I have hitherto professed, 
and not to repent of my subscription to the Articles of 
the Church of England. 

After this private satisfaction of mine own con 
science, entering into a further consideration, that it is 
an undoubted disparagement of any doctrine to be in a 
necessity of being reformed, and fearing lest some, if 
not of the parliament, to whose consideration the 
reasons are offered, yet of the people, for whose in 
struction they are published, might hereby conceive 
some sinister opinion of the doctrine of our church, I 
thought it not unfit to give a public account of my 
private thoughts concerning this particular. 

But, lest any man may imagine that this writing of 
one Minister's against others might hinder that union 
of all parties, which, as at all times, so especially at 
this, is to be wished and embraced, I shall begin with 
this unfeigned profession, that I do heartily and earn 
estly desire a full compliance, concurrence and union, 
with such persons as those ministers who offer the 
" Reasons" profess themselves to be ; that is to say, 
such as truly and unfeignedly will make good those 
words, " It is far from our thoughts to oppose or dis- 
" parage orthodox doctrine, a well composed liturgy, 
" rites for decency and order, ordination of ministers, 



No Necessity of Reformation. 1 67 

*' apostolical episcopacy, or due rules of discipline. We 
" are for all these with truth, and against rigid iinpo- 
" sitions which may debar a Christian of any liberty 
" allowed him by Christ ." 

And lest this publication might any way become, or 
be thought guilty of hindering or retarding that so 
much expected and desired union, I have resolved to 
use my pen with such brotherly temper and Christian 
moderation, as that there come not from me any pro 
vocation, or the least reflection either upon their persons, 
their parties, or persuasions ; applying myself wholly 
and solely to a due examination and orderly discussion 
of their " Reasons," weighing and trying whether they 
have in them any force to infer the pretended con 
clusion, and in case they prove not of that validity, 
discovering and declaring the insufficiency and weakness 
of them. 

Now the proposition or conclusion propounded and 
to be proved by them, according to the title of their 
book, and front of the first part, is this; There is a 
Necessity of the Reformation of the Public Doctrine of 
the Church of England. This proposition I confess to 
be the opinion of some men ; for it is the tenet of the 
Church of Rome, and I am assured that there is not one 
papist who doth not resolutely maintain it : but that it 
is, or ever was, since the Reformation of the Church and 
Confirmation of the Articles, the opinion of the " mi- 

c These are the first words of " Jurisdiction of Bishops claimed 

an address "To the right Honour- " before 17 Car. i. nor so much 

" able the Lords and Commons " as their being as bishops sith- 

" assembled in Parliament," pre- " ence ; nor those canons so 

fixed to the ' Reasons.' In this " much contended for," are indeed 

Address they say their object is established by law. 2. That none 

to prove two things, I. "That of them, as they now stand, ought 

" neither the Articles, Book of to be confirmed. 
" Common -Prayer, Ordination, 



168 No Necessity of Reformation. 

" nisters of sundry counties in England," still professing 
themselves ministers of the Church of England, I never 
yet understood. 

To this proposition they have added an appendage in 
these words, " Reputed to be (but indeed not) established 
" by law." Which addition must be considered in the 
laying clown or fixing the conclusion, to avoid all manner 
of misconception. In order whereunto, in the first 
place, I shall lay down this assertion : Whether the 
public doctrine be established indeed by law, or whether 
it be reputed only to be established, there is no neces 
sity of the reformation of it. And the reason of this 
assertion in relation to the appendage or addition is 
clear ; because the adding of these words " established" 
or " reputed" can have no influence at all upon the 
reformation of the doctrine. For if the public doc 
trine be indeed established by law, as it is reputed, the 
establishment by law cannot put it into a necessity of 
reformation ; because no doctrine can be the worse by a 
legal establishment: if the public doctrine be only 
reputed to be established by law, and be indeed not 
established, the non-establishment may put it in need 
of a confirmation, but can put upon it no necessity of 
reformation: because the truth of the doctrines of 
religion dependeth not upon the legal establishment. 

There is therefore a necessity of distinguishing these 
two conceptions of reformation and confirmation of the 
public doctrine. They are not more industriously con 
founded in their treatise, than they must be carefully 
distinguished in our answer. Wherefore I shall make 
my opposition distinct, and deliver it in two conclusions, 
the one opposed to the pretended necessity of refor 
mation, the other to the objected want of confirmation. 
Of the first I shall speak resolvedly as a divine, to whom 



No Necessity of Reformation. 169 

it properly appertains to speak of theological doctrines, 
and shall take the leave earnestly to contend for the 
faith of the Church ; of the other I shall speak with all 
reverence and submission to the learned in the laws, 
who understand the force of them better than I can 
with any modesty pretend to do. 

(I.) Our first conclusion then is this; There is no 
necessity of a reformation of the public doctrine of the 
Church of England. This I here present by way of 
negation, opposing it to their affirmation, not designing 
here to prove it, but only to vindicate the truth of it 
from their objections, and to shew the invalidity of 
their reasons. 

They begin to lay the foundations of their reasons 
thus. " The public doctrine of the Church of England, 
" as it is commonly received and insisted on, is said to 
" be contained in the Thirty-nine Articles, &c. d " Where 
it is to be observed, first, that it is not said, All the 
public doctrine of the Church is contained in the thirty- 
nine Articles : secondly, that whatsoever public doc 
trine of the church is not contained in the Thirty-nine 
Articles is not so much as pretended to be in a necessity 
of reformation. So that if there be any public doctrine 
not contained in the Articles, as I conceive they will 
confess there is, that doctrine is not only clear from all 
their exceptions, but will serve also to invalidate some 
thing of them when they are brought against the rest. 

Their reasons framed against the public doctrine 
contained in the Articles are laid upon two foundations, 
upon the doubtfulness and the defectiveness of it : more 
reasons of a necessity of reformation they pretend not 
to. For thus they assume, " But those Articles are 

d This is the first sentence of the Tract itself. 



170 No Necessity of Reformation. 

" both doubtful and defective e ." First they endeavour 
to prove them doubtful at large ; and when they have 
done with the doubtfulness, they proceed immediately 
to the defectiveness, which having handled much more 
br efly they conclude their treatise of doctrine. 

As to their reason grounded on their first foundation, 
it must run thus : Whatsoever is doubtful is necessarily 
to be reformed. But the doctrine contained in the 
Thirty-nine Articles is doubtful. Therefore the doctrine 
contained in the Thirty-nine Articles is necessarily to 
be reformed. The major .proposition is not by them 
expressed ; neither is there any thing offered for the 
proof or credit of it : and yet in some sense it may 
certainly be denied. But that is not so material. The 
very minor proposition, upon which the reason mainly 
depends, hath no formal proof annexed to it. ^For 
instead of proving the doubtfulness of the doctrine con 
tained in them, (which can be the only pretence in this 
case of a necessity of reformation of doctrine,) the 
doubtfulness of the confirmation of the Articles is only 
insisted upon in the two first paragraphs : the decla 
ration of his majesty, 10 Caroli, is rehearsed in the 
third paragraph^: the sad consequences of the con- 



e Reasons, &c. p. r. " shall have cure, with decla- 

f Reasons &c. p. i, 2. The " ration of his unfeigned assent 

Tract after premising that the " thereunto, within two months 

Articles " are taken to be ratified " after his induction, &c. upon 

" and confirmed by Act of Par- " default hereof, to be, ipso facto, 

" liament, 13 Eliz. c. 12. which " immediately deprived," c... 

" Act provideth that ' no person goes on to say as before quoted 

" shall be admitted to any bene- by Bp. Pearson: " But these 

" fice with cure, except he shall " articles are both doubtful, and 

" first have subscribed the said " defective ;" and proceeds to the 

' Articles in presence of the paragraphs here commented upon, 

" Ordinary, and publicly read in proof of the assertion : 
" the same in the parish church " I. Doubtful. 
" of that benefice whereof he " i. Because it appears not. 



No Necessity of Reformation. 



171 



tinuation and confirmation of that declaration are urged 
by seven several reasons: an objection foreseen pre 
scribing a cure by taking away that declaration is 
answered in two paragraphs : and more than this is not 
produced to prove that the doctrine contained in the 
Thirty-nine Articles is doubtful. 

To this I answer in general. Though the Articles 
had not been confirmed by parliament; though the 
declaration, 10 Caroli, prefixed to the Articles were of 
evil consequence; though the taking away of that 
declaration would not give satisfaction, if the ministers 



that they were all or any of 

them confirmed by Parliament 

in the 13 Eliz. forasmuch as 

they are not therein expressly 

inserted, nor so much as their 

number; but only the title-page 

of them mentioned. Nor is it 

known where the original is 

enrolled. 

" 2. Of those thirty-nine Ar 
ticles there were thirty-six of 

them (sic) set forth (yet not 

ratified by Parliament) in Edw. 

VI. his reign : the other were 

added by Convocation in aim. 

1562. 

"3. In the books of Articles 

now printed, and ever since 

to Caroli I. there is a decla 
ration that his late majesty 

prefixed t hereunto, by the ad vice 

and procurement of the then 
' bishops, (after Arminianism 
1 began to perk, and to be openly 
1 preached by the rising party,) 

to this effect, viz. i . That those 
' Articles contain the true doc 
trine of the Church of England, 

agreeable to God's word : all 
: therefore are required to con- 

* " This shews who did pen it." Marginal note. Meaning Ahp. Laud. 



tinue in the uniform profession 
thereof; and the least difference 
from them prohibited. 2. That 
the bishops and clergy from 
time to time in convocation, 
upon their humble desire, should 
have license under the Broad 
Seal*, to deliberate of, and to 
do such things, as being made 
plain by them, and assented 
unto by his majesty, shall con 
cern the settled continuance of 
the said doctrine (as well as 
discipline) then established ; 
from which no varying, or de 
parting in the least degree, 
should be endured. 3. That all 
curious search, and disputes, 
touching any points contained 
therein, be laid aside, and shut 
up in God's promises, as gene 
rally set forth, and in the general 
meaning of these Articles. And, 
that no man shall either print 
or preach, to draw any Article 
aside any way, nor put his own 
sense or comment upon it, but 
shall take it in the literal and 
grammatical sense." 



172 No Necessity of Reformation. 

be still tied to subscription ; yet it followeth not from 
any or from all of these that the doctrine contained in 
the Thirty-nine Articles is doubtful. For the certainty 
of the doctrine dependeth neither upon the confirmation 
of parliament, nor the declaration of the king. The 
doctrine contained in the Articles was agreed upon, 
declared, and set forth, some years before the act of 
parliament of the 13 Eliz., many years before the 
declaration of King Charles of blessed memory. If the 
doctrine were doubtful after the act and declaration, it 
was doubtful before ; if it were not doubtful before, it 
cannot be doubtful after ; because it is the same doc 
trine both before and after, and neither the act nor the 
declaration is any part of the doctrine or Articles. 
Here is no pretence of any doubtfulness in the Articles 
in themselves, antecedent to the act and declaration, 
and independent of them. But unless they prove the 
public doctrine itself to be doubtful in itself, they 
bring nothing at all to prove a necessity of a refor 
mation of it. 

(2.) According to the foundation of the second reason 
grounded upon the defectiveness of the Articles, their 
argument must run thus : Whatsoever is defective is 
in a necessity of being reformed : The doctrine con 
tained in the Thirty-nine Articles is defective : There 
fore the doctrine contained in the Thirty-nine Articles 
is in a necessity of being reformed. 

To which I answer, that they have not expressed 
the major proposition, much less have they brought any 
reason to shew the truth of it ; and that it is, in the 
sense in which they understand it, untrue, is most 
certain. For it is not necessary to reform any one 
or more doctrines, only for this reason, because they 
are not all doctrines. Nor is any thing in itself 



No Necessity of Reformation. 173 

therefore false or evil, because there is something else 
beside it true or good. Their argument is the same 
with this : That to which any thing may be added must 
be reformed : But to the public doctrine of the Church 
something may be added : Therefore that doctrine 
which is professed must be reformed. They may as 
well infer a necessity of reforming the Gospel of St. 
Matthew, because there may be something added to 
the relations contained in it out of the relations con 
tained in the other Gospels : and thus every evangelical 
harmony would be a reformation of each evangelist. 
There is a large difference between addition and refor 
mation. A defect supposes the necessity of one, not of 
the other. Were therefore that proved by them which 
is expressed, it would no way infer the conclusion, be 
cause that is not proved which is implied for the 
illation of it, and without which the conclusion cannot 
follow. For if it be not necessary that whatsoever is 
defective should be reformed, then he which proves 
only that any doctrine is defective by want of addition 
of other doctrines to it, doth not prove that the doctrine 
to which the addition should be made, must of necessity 
be reformed. 

If therefore I should answer no more than this to 
either of their arguments, what hath been already said 
were sufficient to shew, that there is no reason produced 
in that book which doth or can prove the necessity of a 
reformation of the doctrine of the Church of England. 
But to give yet fuller satisfaction, and to leave nothing 
unanswered which hath the least appearance of oppo 
sition ; I shall endeavour to occur to all particulars 
which may seem to infer the doubtfulness of the doc 
trine, or the defect of the Articles ; omitting nothing 



174 



No Necessity of Reformation. 



which can be brought out of that discourse to prove 
either. 

In relation to the first, it is most certain that the 
two former paragraphs concern only the legal establish 
ment, and therefore shall be considered and refuted in 
my second general conclusion. The third paragraph 
only reciteth part of the declaration of 10 Caroli I. 
prefixed to the Articles, and that is there recited only 
to shew the inconveniences supposed to flow from it. 
As yet therefore there is nothing brought to shew the 
doubtfulness of the doctrine : and if there shall appear 
to be any thing, it must be contained in the seven sad 
consequences, as they call them, which are mainly and 
directly intended against the declaration of that pious 
king and blessed martyr, but obliquely strike at the 
Articles themselves and the doctrine contained in them. 
Whatsoever therefore is contained in them to that 
purpose I shall examine, and clearly shew that it is of 
no validity to prove the doubtfulness of the public 
doctrine. 

The first " sad consequence ,'* as they call it, speaks 



Reasons, &c. p. 2. " If this 
declaration be still continued 
and confirmed, then all these 
sad consequences must needs 
follow : 

" i. That no minister shall 
have so much liberty to inter 
pret any one of those Articles, 
as is not only allowed, but 
required of him in his ordi 
nation, to expound the word 
of God itself. But this is a 
notorious truth, that after that 
declaration was printed and 
' published, as also a proclama- 
' tion to the same effect issued, 



those of the prelatical party 
had their spies every where to 
see who durst to preach a word 
against any Arminian tenet ; 
or to explain any one Article, 
as not making for, but against 
any of those opinions. If any 
were found to do so, he was 
sure to be con vented, for breach 
of the king's declaration and 
proclamation ; yea, some have 
been brought into the High 
Commission Court for this very 
cause : while in the mean time 
that other party took liberty 
to vent and preach up those 






No Necessity of Reformation. 175 

only of barring the ministers from liberty to interpret 
the Articles, which is certainly far from proving the 
doubtfulness of them : for the interpretation may be 
prohibited as need less, because of the certainty, evidence, 
and perspicuity of the doctrine. As for the " notorious 
** truth" mentioned by them, whether it be a truth, or 
whether it be notorious, it is equally unconcerned in 
this proof, and may prove the doubtfulness of the 
public doctrine as much if it be false. 

The second " sad consequence" presenteth nothing 
but the same complaint of want of liberty to expound 
the Articles applied to a certain particular doctrine con 
tained in the sixteenth Article, which is, " Not every 
" deadly sin willingly committed after baptism is sin 
" against the Holy Ghost h ." Now certainly this is in 
itself a most sound, certain, infallible, plain, and per 
spicuous doctrine, and being so, the want of liberty to 
interpret one term of it, " deadly sin," cannot render it 
doubtful. For interpret it which way you will, either 
say all sins are deadly, or say all sins are not deadly, it 
will be equally true, that " every deadly sin is not the 
" sin against the Holy Ghost." In the like manner, 

" points without control. Which " trary to the Popish distinction 

" no Anti-Arminians durst call " of sins into mortal and venial. 

" into question ; for that the then "Nor may we presume to ex- 

" bishops of greatest power (who " plain the next part of that 

" might by that declaration ob- ' Article, viz. * After we have 

" tain license to explain all things ' received the Holy Ghost, 

" as they thought fit) favoured ' &c,' which clause Bp. Mon- 

" those advocates of Arminianism, ' tacute, and after him others, 

" and must have been their judges, ' allege to prove falling from 

" if they had been complained of." "grace; and thereby pretend 

h Reasons &c. p. 3. " That " that this is the doctrine of the 

"where, in Art. 16. it is said " Church of England: which is 

" ' Not every deadly sin &c.' we " contrary not only to Art. 17. 

" may not dare to open the na- " but to i Joh. iii. 9. i Pet. 

"ture of deadly sin ; nor to say " i. 5." 
"that all sins are deadly, con- 



176 No Necessity of Reformation. 

whether we may fall from grace totally and finally, or 
whether we cannot fall from grace totally and finally, 
which hath been a great doubt ; without any question, 
" After we have received the Holy Ghost we may 
" depart from grace given ;" of that there hath never 
been any question. And so this exception in no way 
infers the doubtfulness of the doctrine, but rather gives 
a testimony of the great wisdom and moderation of 
the Church, which in points doubtful and contro 
verted hath propounded only that which with no 
sober man can be matter of doubt or subject of con 
troversy. 

The third " sad consequence *" addeth nothing to 
the former objection, but only a new particular of the 
twentieth article, in which their liberty of interpretation 
is abridged : whereas the article itself takes away no 
such liberty ; neither doth it become the more doubt 
ful by any such liberty being taken away by virtue of 
His Majesty's declaration. For whether the Church be 
taken for the Church Catholic, or whether it be taken 
for the Church of England, it is most certainly and un 
doubtedly true, that " the Church hath power to decree 
" rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of 
" faith :" which is the first doctrine contained in the 
twentieth article. And in the same manner, whether 
it doth happen that the Church should ordain ought 
contrary to God's word, or expound one place of 
scripture repugnant to another k , or whether this do or 

i Reasons &c. p. 3. " That it " of England is ; what rites or 

" being said, Art. 20. ' The " ceremonies it may ordain : or 

" Church hath power &c.' we " how far her authority extend- 

" may not inquire what is meant ' eth in controversies of faith." 
" by the Church, whether the k Ibid. " And if she do hap- 

" Church Catholic ; or of En- " pen to ordain aught contrary 

"gland: nor what the Church "to God's Word, or expound 



No Necessity of Reformation. 1 77 

shall never happen : yet it is a doctrine most undoubt 
edly certain, that " it is not lawful for the Church to 
" ordain any thing that is contrary to God's word 
" written, neither may it so expound one place of 
" scripture, that it be repugnant to another." Which 
is the second doctrinal proposition, propounded in the 
twentieth Article ; and that, howsoever they would en 
deavour to interpret it, most indubitable. 

The fourth " sad consequence" presenteth the same 
objection of want of liberty to expound the thirty- 
fourth Article ; which is therefore insisted upon, because 
they conceive they have found " a strange expression 1 " 
in it, and they cannot understand " how a tradition may 
" be said to be ordained." This is the first objection 
brought by them against any part of the doctrine con 
tained in any Article ; neither is the objection properly 
against the matter, but only the manner of speech. 
And yet they were forced to mutilate the Article, 



" &c. or to enforce any thing to " will be too late to dispute 

" be believed for necessity of sal- " them, or to vary from them in 

" vation, that is beside the word ; " the least degree, under any 

"no man may question it; but "pretence whatsoever." Just 

" we must (if a convocation once before in complaining of want of 

" declare for it) assent and sub- liberty to expound this Article, 

" scribe unto it in the literal and the authors say, " we must not 

" grammatical sense of it ; or be " curiously search what is here 

" deprived of all ecclesiastical " meant by traditions ; whether 

" promotions." " the traditions of the Church of 

1 Reasons, &c. p. 3. " If power " Rome, or of any other Church." 

" be given to the bishops and This is only malicious, and pass. 

" clergy in convocation, when ed over, like many such indica- 

" and so often as they shall de- tions in the tract, by Bp. Pear- 

" sire it, to ordain any more tra- son. But perhaps he has not 

" (lit ions, (which seems to be a answered another question, whe- 

" strange expression,) &c ther the traditions meant by the 

" all ministers must subscribe Article are " distinct from cere- 

" thereunto, before they know " monies, or the same with 

" what they be, yea, before they " them :" though it appears he 

" be ordained : after which it considers them as distinct. 

PEARSON, VOL. II. X 



178 No Necessity of Reformation. 

before they could raise this objection against it. For 
thus they print the words, " Whosoever doth openly 
" break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, 
" which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be 
" ordained by common authority, ought to be rebuked 
" openly ;" and so they join the word " ordained'' both 
to " ceremonies" and " traditions :" whereas the Article 
speaks plainly and distinctly thus, " and be ordained 
" and approved by common authority," that is to say 
respectively, the ceremonies " ordained," and the tra 
ditions " approved." Thus if they please to take the 
Article entire, they will be so far from shewing the doc 
trine doubtful, that they will not be able to find in it 
so much as " a strange expression." 

The fifth " sad consequence'' seemeth much more to 
the purpose than the former ; for here they endeavour 
to prove more than they undertook. The design pro 
pounded was to shew the doctrine doubtful ; here they 
undertake to prove it false. The Article accused is the 
thirty-fifth ; and the accusation is, that it teacheth 
" the Books of Homilies to contain a godly and whole- 
" some doctrine, and necessary for these times ;" from 
whence they say it will necessarily follow, that he who 
subscribeth this Article " must subscribe to false doc- 
" trines or assertions m ." That therefore which the 
Article saith is " godly, wholesome, and necessary," they 
say is " false." The false doctrines charged upon the 
homilies are two. The first is pretended to be taken 
out of Horn. ii. " Of the Place and Time of Prayer." 
That homily therefore is charged with false doctrine. 
To which I answer that the second part of the homily 
" Of the Place and Time of Prayer," containeth in it 

m Reasons, &c. p. 4. 



No Necessity of Reformation. 17J) 

these two doctrines. 1. Christians ought to be zealous 
and desirous to come to church. 2. God is grieved 
with them who despise or little regard to come to 
church on the day set apart for God's worship. In 
reference to each of these the Article says very true, 
that this homily contains a godly and wholesome doc 
trine, and necessary for these times : and I can assure 
him, whosoever subscribeth it, shall subscribe in this 
to no false doctrine or assertion. The words which 
they affix to this homily, and in regard of which they 
charge it with falsehood, are these; " Pluralities of 
" wives was by special prerogative suffered in the 
" fathers of the old Testament, not for satisfying their 
" carnal and fleshly lusts &c n ." But it were very 



n Reasons, &c. p. 4. " Take 
instance in but one or two 
particulars for brevity's sake. 
" Horn. ii. Of the Place and 
Time of Prayer, p. 147. ' Plu 
ralities of wives was by special 
prerogative suffered in the fa 
thers of the Old Testament 
not for satisfying their carnal 
and fleshly lusts ; but to have 
many children, because every 
one of them hoped that that 
blessed seed which God pro 
mised .... might come and 
be born of his stock and kin 
dred.' As if all did not know 
out of what tribe Christ was to 
issue ! 

" Horn. 2. of Alms. p. 160. 
' The same lesson doth the 
Holy Ghost teach us in sundry 
places of Scripture, saying, 
Mercifulness and almsgiving 
purgeth from all sins, deliver- 
eth from death, and suffereth 
not the soul to come into dark 
ness.' For this is alleged 



Tobit iv. 10. Then there is 
added, ' The wise Preacher, 
the son of Sirach, confirmeth 
the same when he saith, That 
as water quencheth burning 
fire, even so mercy and alms 
resisteth and reconcileth sins.' 
Excellent sense ! For this Ec- 
clus. v. is quoted in the mar- 
gent. But it is cap. iii. 30. 
where the words in the new 
translation are ' alms maketh 
an atonement for sins.' Of 
which words however a chari 
table construction may be wire 
drawn, yet those expressions 
' The same lesson &c.' evi 
dently admit of these two gross 
'" errors, i. That the book of 
" Tobit is to be taken for Holy 
" Scripture. 2. That it was in- 
" dited by the Holy Ghost. The 
" former of these is contrary to 
" Art. 6. in which .... the 
" book of Tobit is numbered 
" among the Apocryphals, which 
" the Article saith, out of 

N2 



180 No Necessity of Reformation. 

strange if these words should be produced in the 
homily to prove the necessity of a place and time for 
prayer : certainly the Church would set no such ex 
ample to extravagant preaching. Indeed there are no 
such words in that homily ; and the mistake is so plain, 
that I cannot see how divers ministers in sundry coun 
ties could possibly concur in it. 

But though the words objected be not found in that 
homily by them mentioned, yet they may be in an 
other ; and so I confess they are, and that in the page 
by them cited ; which makes the mistake the more 
remarkable. But the homily in which they are found, 
is " An information for them which take offence at 
" certain places of the holy scripture ;" and the only 
doctrine which that homily undertaketh to defend is 
that " the people ought to read the scriptures ;" which 
in itself is plain and true, and so of no ambiguity. 
Now the objection made there to this doctrine was, 
that the people by reading the scriptures were led into 
divers mistakes ; and the homilist, in answer to this 
objection endeavours to prevent misinterpretations of 
some scriptures, particularly such as taught that the 
godly fathers had many wives and concubines : the 
words then objected are but an exposition of the cus 
tom of the patriarchs in answer to an objection raised 
against the doctrine propounded and asserted ; and 

' Hierom, the Church doth not ' quoted, Basilicon Doron : ' As 

' apply to establish doctrines ; ' to the Apocryphal books, I 

' yet this Horn, applies these ' omit them, because I am no 

' Apocryphal passages to con- ' Papist : and indeed some of 

' firm the doctrine of Almsdeeds. ' them are no way like the dite- 

' And as touching the Holy ' ment of the Spirit of God.' " 

' Ghost's teaching, .... this They refer again to the pas- 

' is denied by all, who receive sage in Tobit, at p. 20. of their 

' not those books as canonical.' tract, adding " What need then 

' For witness king James is " the blood of Christ ?" 



No Necessity of Reformation. 181 

therefore though the reason of the exposition were not 
proper, the doctrine is never the less true, never the 
more doubtful ; and so long as that is true, as certainly 
this doctrine, " the people ought to read the scrip 
tures," is most true, the Article bindeth to no false 
doctrine in reference to this homily, when it saith it 
** containetli a godly and wholesome doctrine, and ne- 
u cessary for these times." 

The second objection is taken out of the homily of 
Almsdeeds, the second part. The design of which 
part of the homily is to shew, how profitable it is for 
a man to exercise himself in almsdeeds; and parti 
cularly it proveth that " to be merciful and charitable 
" is a means to keep a soul clean in the sight of God." 
Which part of the doctrine is grounded there on Luke 
xi. 41. Give alms of such things as you have, and behold 
all things are clean unto you : and being thus stated and 
confirmed, for a further illustration or enlargement the 
homily proceedeth to accumulate authorities : in which 
accumulation if any prove improper, it cannot make the 
doctrine felse or doubtful : and that is still plainly 
true which the Article holds forth, even in reference to 
the Homily of Almsdeeds, that it containeth a godly 
and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times. 

The sixth " sad consequence P" presenteth " the 
" queen's majesty as having the chief power in the 
" realm of England," and raiseth a strong doubt whe 
ther the thirty-seventh Article intend any power to any 
other person beside queen Elizabeth. But certainly 

Comp. Abp. Laud's Trou- " nister," they say, " must be 

bles and Trial, p. 312, 390- " deprived, if he alter any word, 

P Reasons, p. 4. The verbal " or shall not take it in the sense 

quibble is sufficiently seen in the " of the very letter." 
text of Bp. Pearson. " The mi- 



No Necessity of Reformation. 

the king's majesty hath the same power in his do 
minions that the queen's majesty had in her domi 
nions; there is no difference in reference to the sex, 
or if there were, it is not probable that the weaker sex 
should have the stronger power. The Article hath ex 
press reference to the queen's injunctions, set forth in 
the year 1559, and those injunctions take particular care, 
that ** no other duty, allegiance, or bond should be 
" required to the queen, than was acknowledged to be 
" due to the most noble kings of famous memory, king 
" Henry the eight, her majesty's father, or king Ed- 
" ward the sixt, her majesty's brother." The words of 
the Article itself sufficiently declare that the doctrine 
contained in it concerneth all the kings as kings. The 
title in general is " Of the Civil Magistrates," and the 
words run thus, " Where we attribute to the queen's 
" majesty the chief government, we give not to our 
" princes &c." shewing that what they gave to her, 
they gave to all the kings of England. Which will 
appear more plainly out of the first Latin copy printed 
in the time of queen Elizabeth, in the year 1563, read 
and approved by the queen, the words whereof are 
these, " Cum regiiw majestati summam gubernationem 
*' tribuimus, quibus titulis mtelligimus animos quorun- 
" dam calumniatorum offendi, non damus regibus 
" nostris aut verbi Dei aut sacramentoram adminis- 
" trationem, &c." Being therefore the Article expressly 
mentioneth and concerneth the kings of England, the 
mention of the queen's majesty in the Article can make 
the doctrine no more doubtful, than it doth oiar alle 
giance in that oath which was made 1 Eliz. where the 
heirs and successors of the queen are to appoint who 
shall accept the oath, th words of which are that " the 
" queen's highness is the only supreme governour of 



No Necessity of Reformation. 183 

" this realm." But I hope the heirs and successors of 
queen Elizabeth did never appoint that oath to be 
taken in the name of " the queen's highness," but in 
their own. I therefore earnestly desire not only that 
sundry ministers of divers counties, but that all the 
ministers of all the counties in England would ac 
knowledge and confess that it is the undoubted doc 
trine of our Church, that to the kings of England, their 
heirs and successors, " the chief government of all 
" estates, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all 
" causes doth appertain," as the thirty-seventh Article 
expresseth it. 

The last " sad consequence 1" doth no way touch the 
present Articles, and consequently doth not prove them 
doubtful, but only suggesteth fears and jealousies, that 
if the king's declaration should be continued, " we 
" should have no settled or fixed doctrine of the Church 
" of England at all." It seemeth very strange to me 
that king Charles of blessed memory should be sus 
pected of unsettling the Church, who died rather than 
he would^ make any alteration in it ; and left this as a 
maxim to his son, that " his fixation in matters of re- 
* ligion will not be more necessary for his soul's than 
" his kingdom's peace r ." It were very strange if his 
declaration should threaten any alteration in the doc 
trine of the Church, when those very words, which 
they cite out of it as a cause of their fears, give the 
greatest assurance imaginable of the continuance and 
perpetuity of that which is already settled. For these 
are the express words so much feared and impugned by 

q Reasons, p. 5 . The complaint "what sense they please upon 

made is that by virtue of the " the doctrine established." 
declaration " the bishops and r Eikon Basil, c. 27. 
*' clergy in convocation may put 



184 No Necessity of Reformation. 

them: " The bishops and clergy, from time to time, in 
** convocation, upon their humble desire shall have 
" licence under our broad seal, to deliberate of and to 
" do all such things, as being made plain by them and 
" assented to by us, shall concern the settled conti- 
" nuance of the doctrine and discipline of the Church 
" of England now established ; from which we will not 
" endure any varying or departing in 'the least degree." 
What can be a greater assurance of a settled and a 
fixed doctrine in the Church ? what words can more 
satisfactorily prevent all alterations of the public pro 
fession of faith ? The whole power promised to the 
bishops was only for " the settled continuance of the 
" doctrine and discipline then established ;" the doc 
trine then established is acknowledged by the same 
declaration to be that which is contained in the arti 
cles : the bishops then were never to have any power 
from the king to make any alteration in the doctrine of 
the Articles : and if any^should suspect the bishops had 
a design, or would ever attempt to alter the doctrine in 
any particular, we were sufficiently assured they should 
never have power to effect it, by the word of a king, 
who said of the doctrine established, " from which we 
" will not endure any varying or departing in the least 
" degree.*' 

Thus have I dispatched the seven " sad conse- 
" quences," so far as they have in them any the least 
show of proof of the doubtfulness of the public doc 
trine. For the rest of this part of the discourse pre 
tending to prove the public doctrine doubtful, it con- 
sisteth in an answer to an objection, which answer of 
itself makes clearly unnecessary and of none effect all 
which hath been said by them against the declaration 
of the king of blessed memory. The objection is, " The 






No Necessity of Reformation. 185 

" king's declaration is no law, and may be taken away.' 
The answer which they give is, " that this will signify 
" nothing, if ministers be still tied to subscription." If 
this be true, to what purpose were those " sad conse- 
" quences" drawn from the king's declaration ? For if 
the taking it away will signify nothing of good, then 
the continuing of it can signify nothing of evil ; for if 
it did, the removing of that evil would be good. 

The rest of that answer is spent in arguing against 
the judgment of two eminent lawyers 8 , which because 
it hath no relation to the doubtfulness of the doctrine, 
I may very well omit, and conclude with them, *' Tims 
" much of the doubtfulness of the Articles ;" which 
they have much pretended, no way proved, scarce 
endeavoured. 

As for the second part of their charge, the defective- 
ness of the public doctrine, they endeavour to prove it 
by three several arguments. The first is brought from 
the sixth Article, the only Article of all the thirty-nine, 
accused by them of defect in itself. Their objection is 
this, " The Article is defective in not enumerating all 
" the books of the New Testament." And my answer 



8 Sir Edw. Coke quoting " the inconvenience and mischief 

Wray, Ch. Justice, on the case " of subscribing them :" viz. 

of Smith, who subscribed the that subscribing without a reser- 

Articles with the addition " so vation attributes infallibility to 

" far forth as the same were the Articles, making them equal 

" agreeable to the word of God," to scripture ; that it is a snare to 

that a subscription with such re- young persons, " of whom it is 

servation was not valid. Inst. iv. " for the most part required ;" 

47. and that it allows " no just liberty 

After citing Coke's view of the "to tender consciences." An- 

law, they infer that " this shews other reason, oddly mixed up with 

"a necessity of repealing that these, viz. that " There is no more 

" branch of the Act as far as " necessity &c." is noticed by Bp. 

" concerns subscription," and go Pearson infr. 
on to give several reasons proving 



186 No Necessity of Reformation. 

is plainly this, though the Article do not enumerate all 
or any of the books of the New Testament, yet the 
doctrine of this Article is not defective ; and my reason 
is, because the Article describes them as well as if it 
did enumerate them, so that any man may rest as much 
satisfied with the description as with the enumeration. 
As for example, the Council of Trent doth enumerate 
all the books of the New Testament by name, Sess. 4. 
the Church of England, not following that Council, 
expresseth herself otherwise, saying, " All the books of 
" the New Testament, as they are commonly received, 
" we do receive and account them canonical." Now 
all the books named in the Council of Trent, are 
commonly received, or they are not : if they be not 
commonly received, then I confess the Article may be 
thought defective ; but this I suppose our brethren will 
not say, or if they do, it is a known untruth : if they 
be all commonly received, then hath our Article left 
none out in her description more than they have in 
their enumeration. If they did or could name any one 
book, which they could prove to belong to the New 
Testament, and yet is not commonly received, then, 
they might charge the Article with defect, for it would 
want that book so named and yet not received. But 
if they can name no book of the New Testament which 
is not commonly received, then the Article containeth 
every book of the New Testament which can be named ; 
and if it contain all that can be named, it must contain 
all that can be enumerated, and consequently it cannot 
be defective in the not enumerating. Wherefore I 
entreat our brethren the ministers of sundry counties* 
that they will not prefer the Council of Trent before 
the Articles of our Church, where nothing material can 
be objected to either. 



No Necessity of Reformation. 187 

As for the doubts which have been in the Church of 
the Epistles of St. James, and^the second of St. Peter, 
they make nothing against this description : for though 
they have been doubted of, yet they are now commonly 
received, and the Article embraceth all " as they are 
" commonly received," referring to the time in which 
the Articles were penned, not to the age before Eu- 
sebius wrote the History of the Church, and the differ 
ences about the scriptures. Now at this time the 
Church of Rome had declared and enumerated all the 
canonical books of the New Testament, the Church of 
England upon the Reformation did no way differ from 
the Church of Rome in this particular, but had in its 
practice received and used all the same books, and 
therefore needed no other way to denote them than by 
" the books of the New Testament commonly received." 
Where there was a difference between our Church and 
theirs, there, to make good the Reformation, it was 
necessary to enumerate the books, because the differ 
ence could not be otherwise known ; and therefore we 
have in reference to the Old Testament a catalogue of 
the canonical books, and another of the apocryphal; 
but where there was difference neither with them nor 
among ourselves, there such an expression as might 
acknowledge the consent, and no way prejudice the 
truth, was thought most proper. In the Article made 
in the time of king Edward VI. in the year 1552, 
printed by Richard Grafton, 1553, there was neither 
description nor enumeration of any books of the holy 
scriptures: and therefore it is hard measure that the 
Church, in the days of queen Elizabeth 1562, adding 
an enumeration of the books of the Old Testament, 
and a description of those of the New, for the supply 
ing of a supposed defect, should be accused as defective. 



188 



No Necessity of Reformation. 



The second argument to prove the effectiveness of 
the public doctrine is, that " there are no Articles for 
" discovering and condemning sundry points of popery*." 
To which my answer is, that if they mean no more 
than that which will discover a man to be a papist, 
there is abundantly sufficient contained in the Articles 
to discover any man. For we may assure ourselves the 
Church of Rome will admit no man to their society, 
who shall be ready to subscribe our Articles. This 
therefore, as to such a discovery, can be no real defect, 
because we can need no more than what is enough. 

But if the Articles did want some doctrines for the 
discovery of popery (which they do not,) yet those 
which our brethren mention cannot be wanted for that 
purpose. They signify a defect of such tenets as are 



* " There are no Articles for 
discovering and condemning 
sundry points of popery in doc 
trine, which, being first the 
tenets of Arminius, the first 
protestant writer, that was not 
a professed Lutheran, that ever 
openly maintained them, are 
too commonly sucked in, and 
cried up by some as the doctrine 
of the Church of England, 
which since the Reformation 
never owned them ; but are all 
maintained by Bellarmine, and 
generally by all Franciscans 
and Jesuits ; but confuted by 
all approved writers of the 
protestant reformed party, that 
havewritten against Bellarmine 
and others of that crew : as 
likewise by the learned Whit- 
gift, Whitaker, Junius, Zan- 
chius, Parseus, Chamier, Dr. 
Prideaux, and many others. 
" The learned K. James also 
took so much notice of, and 



distaste at those Arminian po 
pish opinions touching predes 
tination abused, universal re 
demption, universal grace, the 
manner of conversion, and fall 
ing from grace ; that his ma 
jesty was the chief procurer 
and promoter of the late synod 
of Dort, to which he sent bp. 
Carlton &c. ... to assist in that 
synod; whose judgmentstouch- 
ing all those points were given 
in to the said council, subscribed 
with their hands, and afterwards 
published. Agreeable where - 
unto in the main, hath the late 
assembly of divines sitting at 
Westminster declared their 
judgments in the confession of 
faith, afterwards ratified by both 
Houses of the late long Par 
liament : for which reason is 
that assembly so much slighted, 
reviled, and opposed. " Reasons, 
&c. p. 7. 



No Necessity of Reformation. 189 

opposite to those of Arminius, and think that they, if 
they were settled, would discover popery. Whereas it 
is most evident that the denial of the doctrines contrary 
to those of Arminius is no good or sound way to dis 
cover a papist. If the Church of England had found 
out no other way to discover a Romanist, than the 
denying of Arminianism, there would suddenly be 
popish priests enow to possess mine and all your bene 
fices. I look upon the Dominican friars to be as great 
enemies of Arminianism as I or you are, and yet to 
be as much papists as any are. I suppose no man 
thinks a Predeterminant or a Jansenian to be inclining 
to an Arminian, and yet it is probable that the major 
part of papists are of those opinions. I therefore con 
clude, as a most evident and infallible truth, that the 
Articles are not defective in the way of discovering 
popery or papists, for that reason only, because they 
have not sufficiently expressed themselves against Ar 
minianism. 

The third argument endeavouring to prove the 
defectiveness of the public doctrine is an enumeration 
of several common- places in divinity, not comprehended 
in the Articles". For so they argue, " Those Articles 
" contain nothing of the creation, of providence, fall of 
" man, &c." and these they urge thus, " All which the 
" scripture teacheth, and that as necessary ; as appears 
" by the comprising most of them in the Apostles' 
" Creed." To which I answer, That this argument 
containeth in it two objections, neither of which can be 
made good ; and yet if both were true, they could not 

u Reasons, ibid. " The late pertinent proofs of scripture. 

" assembly of divines" are much " But all proofs are wanting in 

commended for having taken so " the Thirty-nine Articles : no 

much pains to supply these defects, "text being produced to make 

clearing and explaining and adding " out one of them." 



1 90 No Necessity of Reformation. 

prove that which they intend. The first part of the 
argument asserts, that the Articles contain nothing of 
the creation, providence, and the rest of the doctrines 
enumerated, at least twenty in number. Which is a 
manifest untruth : for it cannot be said that the Ar 
ticles contain nothing of the creation, when the first 
Article teacheth us that God is " the maker of all 
" things visible and invisible." How can it be true 
that the creation is comprised in the Apostles' Creed, 
as they say, and not in the Articles, when the words of 
the Article speak as expressly of it as the Creed ? It 
cannot be said the Articles contain " nothing of the 
" fall of man," when the tenth Article begins thus, 
" The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such," 
and then goeth on to express the condition of man 
fallen. It cannot be said that the Articles contain 
" nothing of sin, or the punishment of sin," when the 
ninth Article giveth a full description of original sin, 
which is itself a sin, and the fountain of all other sins ; 
when the fifteenth Article sheweth " Christ alone to be 
" without sin," and sin to be in every one beside him : 
when the sixteenth Article treateth of the nature of 
" sin after baptism :" when the second homily (whose 
doctrine is approved by the Articles) treateth at large 
of the misery of all mankind, and of his condemnation 
to death everlasting by his own sin. It cannot be said 
that the Articles contain " nothing of effectual calling," 
when the seventeenth Article treating of predestination 
to life, hath these words, " Wherefore they which be 
endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called 
" according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in 
" due season, they through grace obey the calling, they 
" be justified freely, they be made sons of God by 
" adoption, &c." Certainly this is an effectual calling, 



No Necessity of Reformation. 191 

and that with something of adoption. It cannot be 
said that the Articles " contain nothing of faith," when 
the fourth homily, (the doctrine whereof is confirmed by 
the Articles,) treateth solely thereof, according to the 
title, " A short declaration of the true, lively, and 
" Christian faith." Much less can it be said they 
" contain nothing of repentance," when the nineteenth 
homily entitled " Of Repentance," is expressly named, 
Article xxxv. and the doctrine acknowledged, which 
homily treateth largely of that subject in three parts. 
It cannot be said the Articles u contain nothing of the 
' law," when the seventh Article speaketh of the state 
of those which lived under the law, of the cessation of 
the ceremonial and judicial law, and the continued 
obligation of the moral law. From these and others 
which I might yet mention, it appeareth that it is not 
justly charged upon the Articles, that they contain 
nothing of the doctrines enumerated. 

As for the other part pretending a necessity of add 
ing or inserting those doctrines or heads of divinity, 
because taught, as they say, by the scriptures as neces 
sary, which they prove only thus, because, as they say, 
" it appears by the comprising most of them in the 
" Apostles' Creed." To this I answer, First, that it 
cannot possibly appear thereby. For, granting that 
most of them were comprised in the Apostles' Creed ; 
granting that whatsoever is comprised in the Apostles' 
Creed is taught by the scriptures as necessary ; yet it 
no way followeth that the other heads or common 
places not comprised in the Creed are taught by the 
scriptures as necessary. For no doctrine in the Creed 
can transfer the necessity of it to another, which is not 
in the Creed ; or, if it can, it must be by a necessary 
consequence from it or dependence on it. But if any 



192 No Necessity of Reformation. 

one should argue thus, The doctrine of creation is com 
prised in the Creed, from whence it is esteemed as 
necessary; therefore the doctrine of liberty of conscience, 
which is not contained in the Creed, must be equally 
esteemed as necessary : The doctrines of the resur 
rection and the last judgment are necessary, as contained 
in the Creed ; therefore the doctrines of marriage and 
church-discipline are necessary, which are not contained 
in it : I say, if any one should argue thus, a man with 
modesty might deny the consequence. If therefore 
most of the doctrines mentioned were comprised in the 
Apostles' Creed, yet it folio weth not that all the rest 
were necessary. 

Secondly I answer by a flat denial. The most of 
these doctrines mentioned are not comprised in the 
Apostles' Creed. Which thus I make good. The 
doctrines mentioned as not at all contained in the 
Articles are these. 1. Creation. 2. Providence. 3. Fall 
of man. 4. Sin. 5. Punishment of sin. 6. God's 
covenants. 7. Effectual calling. 8. Adoption. 9- Sanc- 
tification. 10. Faith. 11. Repentance. 12. Perse 
verance. 13. Law of God. 14. Christian liberty, and 
liberty of conscience. 15. Sabbath or Lord's day. 
16. Marriage and divorce. 17. Communion of Saints. 
18. Church government and discipline. 19- Resurrec 
tion. 20. The last judgment. Which are in number 
twenty at the least. But the most part of these are 
not comprised in the Apostles' Creed, except four or 
five be the most part of twenty. 

I answer thirdly, that it seems to me a very strange 
objection, to say that most of these doctrines are com 
prised in the Apostles' Creed, and nothing of them 
contained in the Articles; when the Apostles' Creed 
itself is contained in the Articles, and two creeds more, 



No Necessity of Reformation. 

which have been generally looked upon as the expo 
sitions of that Creed. For these are the words of the 
eighth Article, " The three Creeds, Nice Creed, Atha- 
" nasius's Creed, and that which is commonly called 
" the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received 
" and believed." 

Being then several of those doctrines are contained in 
the Articles; being they are no otherwise proved to be 
necessary than because they are comprised in the Creed ; 
being far the major part of them are not to be found 
in the Creed ; being all which are in the Creed must 
be in the Articles which contain the Creed itself; I 
therefore conclude, the third argument doth no way 
prove that the Articles are defective. 

Again, being that there are no more than these 
three arguments brought to evince the defectiveness, 
and all these are answered ; being I have formerly 
shewed the invalidity of those which pretended to 
prove the doubtfulness of our doctrine ; being there is 
no other topic used beside these two of the doubtful 
ness and defectiveness of the Articles, to prove the 
necessity of a reformation, I therefore stick to my first 
conclusion, There is no necessity of a reformation of 
the public doctrine of the Church of England. 

Having thus vindicated the doctrine in itself, we 
shall now consider by what authority it is established : 
having shewed that it wanteth not any reformation, we 
will inquire whether it stand in need of any confirma 
tion. Certain it is, that the public doctrine of the 
Church of England is reputed to be established by law ; 
but divers ministers of sundry counties tell us, that 
though it be reputed, yet indeed it is not so esta 
blished. 

To make way for as clear a determination of this 

PEARSON, VOL. H. O 



194- No Necessity of Reformation. 

question as I can, I shall shew all the ways by which 
the Articles of our Church have been confirmed, and 
then consider upon the whole whether it amount to a 
legal confirmation or no. 

The first Articles of Religion framed since the refor 
mation were made in the reign of Edward VI. in the 
year 1552 ; the authority which they had was from the 
king, and from the clergy. This appeareth by the 
English edition, set forth by John Day, with this title, 
" Articles agreed upon in the convocation, and pub- 
" lished by the king's majesty ;" and more fully by the 
Latin edition, set forth by Renold Wolfe, with this 
title, "Articuli de quibus in Synodo Londinensi, Anno 
" Dom. MDLII. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem 
" et consensum verse religionis firmandum inter episco- 
" pos et alios eruditos viros convenerat. Regia autho- 
" ritate in lucem editi." Which is also prefixed in John 
Day's English edition before the Catechism, published 
at the same time with the Articles, and in the English 
edition of Richard Grafton set forth by itself; all 
which were printed in the same year, viz. 1553. Thus 
far they went in the beginning of the reformation ; and 
this was the authority which those Articles had ; and 
that might be sufficient, if no more were thought 
necessary. 

The same Articles of Religion, with some alterations, 
in the reviviscency of the reformation, in the days of 
queen Elizabeth, were again ratified by the authority 
of the queen, and of the clergy, as appeareth by the 
English edition, set forth by Richard Jugge and John 
Cawood, whose title is this : " Articles whereupon it 
" was agreed by the archbishops and bishops of both 
" the provinces, and the whole clergy in the convoca- 
" tion holden at London, in the year of our Lord God 



A r o Necessity of Reformation. 195 

" M.D.LXII. according to the computation of the 
" Church of England, for the avoiding of the diversities 
" of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching 
" true religion. Put forth by the queen's authority." A 
Latin title to the same effect is prefixed to the same 
Articles of the Latin edition by Renold Wolfe, with this 
addition concerning the queen's authority at the conclu 
sion. " Quibus omnibus Articulis serenissima princeps 
" Elizabeth, Dei gratia Angliae, Franciae et Hiberniae 
" regina, fidei defensor, &c. perseipsam diligenter prius 
" lectis et examinatis regium suum assensum praebuit." 
Thus did they continue for above eight years, as they 
conceived, sufficiently confirmed and established. 

The Articles thus established in the year 1562. M r ere 
again ratified and confirmed in the year 1571, as 
appeareth by two English editions both set forth the 
same year by Richard Jugge and John Cawood, with 
the same title before mentioned, and with this ratifi 
cation added at the conclusion : "This book of Articles 
" before rehearsed is again approved and allowed to be 
" holden and executed within the realm, by the assent 
" and consent of our soveraigne lady Elizabeth by the 
" grace of God of England, France, and Ireland queen, 
" defender of the faith, &.c. Which Articles were dili- 
" gently read and confirmed again by the subscription 
" of the hands of the archbishops and bishops of the 
" upper house, and by the subscription of the whole 
" clergy in the nether house, in their convocation, in 
" the year of our Lord God, 1571." The same title 
and ratification were printed with the Articles the 
same year in Latin by John Day. Thus were the 
Articles again established by the authority of the 
queen and the subscription of the whole clergy in 
convocation. 

o 2 



196 No Necessity of Reformation. 

But all these confirmations, though greater were 
never had before in matters of Articles of the Church, 
did notwithstanding not amount unto a full and 
formal law, till it was thought fit that not only the 
archbishops and bishops, and the clergy convened in 
the convocation should subscribe them, but that the 
same subscription should be required of all the minis 
ters in all places of the kingdom, and then these 
Articles were confirmed by a complete law, that is, 
an act of parliament made in the same year 1571 by 
the consent of the queen, lords spiritual and temporal, 
and the commons of England, 13 Eliz, cap. 20. From 
whence my second conclusion in reference to the con 
firmation of the public doctrine is this : The Articles of 
Religion of the Church of England are established by 
the law of England. Against this conclusion, so plain 
and evident, our brethren the ministers of sundry coun 
ties have made some objections, but very short, con 
tained in their two first paragraphs, the first of which 
is this : " It appears not that they were all or any of 
" them confirmed by parliament in the 13th of Eliz. 
" forasmuch as they are not therein expressly inserted, 
" nor so much as their number, but only the titlepage 
" of them mentioned. Nor is it known where the 
" original is enrolled." For the assertion itself con 
tained in the first words of this paragraph, " It appears 
" not that all or any of them were confirmed by par- 
" liament in the 13th of Eliz.," I shall evince the con 
trary, first, ad homines, proving out of their own words 
that they were confirmed, which, against them, is suffi 
cient. In their answer to the objection that the king's 
declaration may be laid aside, they urge that " there is a 
*' necessity of repealing that branch of the act so far as it 
' concerneth subscription." But there can be no neces- 



No Necessity of Reformation. 1 97 

sity to repeal that branch of the act, if neither all nor 
any of the Articles be confirmed by that act ; for the 
subscription required by that act is expressed to be " a 
subscription to the said Articles," and no other. Again, 
they argue thus against the subscription : " There is no 
" more necessity for ministers to subscribe those Articles 
" which that act confirms, than there is for others to 
" subscribe to all other acts of parliament which do 
" concern them." In which words they plainly confess 
that the act confirms the Articles : and certainly 
whatsoever is confirmed by an act of parliament is 
established by law. Again, these are their plain and 
formal words : " The statute doth require belief of every 
" one of these Articles, when it enjoins not only sub- 
" scription, but an assent unto them, punishing all with 
" deprivation that shall affirm and maintain any doc- 
" trine repugnant to them." Now if it be true that 
" the statute doth require belief of every one of these 
" Articles," how can it be also true that neither all nor 
any of them is confirmed by that statute ? These two 
assertions are so different and contradictory, that they 
may well be penned " in sundry counties," as well as 
" by divers ministers." 

Secondly, that the Articles were confirmed by the act 
of the 13th of Eliz. will thus appear. The act begins 
thus, " That the churches of the queen's majesty's domi- 
" nions may be served with pastors of sound religion, be 
" it enacted by the authority of this present parliament," 
&c. Either therefore something is established concern 
ing religion in that act, or nothing. If you say, nothing, 
then first you charge the parliament with folly, to make 
an act for establishing nothing: secondly, you make 
their determinations no way correspondent to their in- 



198 No Necessity of Reformation. 

tentions : for they make this act to the intent " that 
"the churches might be served with pastors of sound 
" religion," whereas the act itself, you say, establisheth 
no religion. If the act did establish something in 
religion, then it either established the Articles, or 
something beside the Articles. But it is most plain 
that it established nothing in religion beside the Arti 
cles : therefore it must be at last confessed that it 
established the Articles. 

Thirdly, Those which are learned in the laws are 
certainly the best interpreters of the law, and know 
best what things are established by law, and what not. 
Amongst them the memory of Sir Edward Coke with 
me is most precious, in relation to himself while he 
lived, and to his sons since his death, and his authority 
great with all. He therefore speaks in this manner, in 
the fourth part of his Institutes, cap. 74 : " Subscription 
" required by the clergy is twofold ; one by force both 
" of an act of parliament confirming and establishing 
" the Thirty-nine Articles of religion agreed upon at a 
" convocation of the Church of England, and ratified by 
" queen Elizabeth under the great seal of England." 
In the opinion therefore and language of that learned 
chief justice, the act of parliament doth confirm and 
establish the Thirty-nine Articles : and those words I 
oppose to theirs, " It appears not that they were all or 
" any of them confirmed by act of parliament." 

Let us now consider the reasons inducing them to 
deny this legal confirmation ; which seem in the fore- 
cited paragraph to be two. First, " forasmuch as they 
" are not therein expressly inserted, nor so much as 
" their number, but only the titlepage of them men- 
" tioned." To which I answer, first, that this is the 



No Necessity of Reformation. 199 

same argument which you used against the Articles 
for not enumerating the books of the New Testament ; 
only here it is much weaker : for there it would have 
satisfied you if the names of the books of the New 
Testament had been enumerated, though the whole 
New Testament had not been inserted in the Article ; 
but here nothing can satisfy but an express insertion of 
all which is to be allowed. Secondly, I answer, that 
it is not material what is actually inserted to conclude 
what is actually to be performed. The title of the 
Articles is inserted, and yet neither the " sound reli- 
" gion" designed in the preamble, nor the subscription 
urged in the body of the act, hath any reference to the 
title : for there is neither any religion contained in the 
title, nor any subscription required to it. But the Ar 
ticles, which are not inserted, are affirmed by the act, 
to concern " the confession of the true Christian faith," 
and the assent and subscription are required to them, 
not to the title : deprivation is denounced to all which 
shall " affirm any doctrine directly contrary or repug- 
" nant to any of the said Articles," not to the title. 
We must not therefore look unto what is inserted, but 
what is intended, in the act. If any ministers had 
pleaded before the lord chief justice Wray or Coke, 
that they were ready to subscribe to the title of the 
book of Articles expressed in the statute, but not to 
the Articles contained in the book, because they were 
not expressed in the act, certainly they would have 
fared as ill as he who subscribed them with a con 
dition. 

As for the number of them, it is no way material, 
because though now they are known under the names 
and number of Thirty-nine, yet then they were not so 
generally called. The Articles of Edward VI. were of 



200 No Necessity of Reformation, 

another number, and those which were agreed upon, 
1562, had no number affixed to them, neither in the 
English nor Latin edition. They were not therefore 
then so well known by their number as by their title ; 
and the act, while it rehearseth the title, confirmeth 
the book which was so entitled. 

Their second reason, upon which they deny this 
legal confirmation, is delivered in these words : " Nei- 
" ther is it known where the original is enrolled." To 

O 

which I answer, first, that if the original copy of the 
Articles had never been enrolled, yet the Articles 
themselves had never been the less confirmed : and my 
reason is, because the act taketh no notice of the Arti 
cles as they were at first written, but as they were at 
that time printed. For thus the act speaks : " That the 
" churches of the queen's majesty's dominions may be 
" served with pastors of sound religion, be it enacted 
" by the authority of this present parliament that every 
" person under the degree of a bishop .... shall de- 
" clare his assent and subscribe to all the Articles of 
" Religion, which only concern the confession of the 
" true Christian faith, and the doctrine of the sacra- 
" ments, comprised in a book imprinted, entitled 
" ARTICLES, whereupon it was agreed by the archbi- 
" shops and bishops of both provinces and the whole cler- 
" gy in the convocation holden at London in the year of 
" our Lord God 1562, according to the computation of 
" the Church of England, for the avoiding of the di- 
" versities of opinions, and for the establishing of con- 
" sent touching true religion, put forth by the queen's 
* 4 authority." These Articles were agreed upon in the 
year 1562, and then printed with this very title, before 
by us transcribed out of that edition. In the year 
1571 those Articles were reprinted ; and then this act 



No Necessity of Reformation. 201 

was published : whether therefore, the original were en 
rolled or not enrolled, the Articles comprised in the book 
imprinted, and so entitled, were confirmed by the statute. 
I answer, secondly, that the enrolment of the original 
is not so obscure as they pretend. We know that 
there was an original enrolled ; we can tell them how 
many pages that original consisted of, even determi- 
nately nineteen ; we can assure them that this was 
deposited with Matthew archbishop of Canterbury ; we 
can tell them the day when it was done, viz. the fifth 
day of February in the year 1562. All which appear- 
eth by the postscript printed with the Articles in Latin 
in the year 1563. by Renold Wolfe the queen's printer. 
The words are these, " Hos Articulos fidei Christianas, 
" continentes in universum novendecim paginas in au- 
" tographo, quod asservatur apud revereudissimum in 
" Christo patrem, dominum Matthaeum Cantuariensem 
" archiepiscopuin, totius Angliae primatem et metropo- 
" litanum, archiepiscopi et episcopi utriusque provinciae 
" regni Angliae, in sacra provinciali synodo legitime 
" congregati, unanimi assensu recipiunt et profitentur, 
" et ut veros atque orthodoxos manuum suarum sub- 
" scriptionibus approbant, vicesimo nono die mensis 
*' Januarii, anno Domini, secundum computationem 
" Ecclesiae Anglicanae, millesimo quingentesimo sexa- 
*' gesimo secundo : universusque clerus inferioris domus 
" eosdem etiam unanimiter et recepit et professus est, 
" ut ex manuum suarum subscriptionibus patet, quas 
" obtulit et deposuit apud eundem reverendissimum 
" quinto die Februarii anno prsedicto." The late Arch 
bishop" giveth testimony to the same in his Speech 
delivered in the Star-chamber June 14, 1637- His 
words are these, p. 69 : "I sent to the public records 
8 Abp. Laud. ed. 1637. 410. 



No Necessity of Reformation. 

" in my office, and here under my officer's hand, who is 
" a public notary, is returned me the twentieth Article, 
" with this affirmative clause in it : and there is also 
" the whole body of the Articles to be seen." To those 
therefore which know the public records, (unknown 
perhaps to the ministers of sundry counties,) it is known 
where the original is preserved. And this I conceive a 
sufficient answer to their first paragraph. 

Their second paragraph to the same purpose is this : 
" Of the Thirty-nine there were thirty-six of them set 
" forth (yet not ratified by parliament), the other were 
" added by the convocation in an. 1562." 

As for the parenthesis in this paragraph, signifying 
that the Articles made in king Edward VI.'s time 
were not ratified by parliament, it no way opposeth them 
who think our Articles established by law : because no 
man imagines that our Articles were under the consi 
deration of any parliament in the days of Edward VI. 

The other words of that paragraph are something 
doubtfully penned, and seem to be capable of two 
senses. First, that in the time of Edward VI. there 
were but thirty-six Articles set forth. If this be the 
sense of their words, they are not true. For the Ar 
ticles agreed upon in the year 1552, and set forth in 
the year 1553, that is to say, the Articles in king 
Edward's reign, if you look upon those which were 
printed by Renold Wolfe in Latin, or John Day in 
English, you will find forty-two heads or contents with 
out figures; if you look into the edition of Richard 
Grafton, you will find not only the contents, but the 
numbers affixed to each Article to amount to forty-two. 
It is not therefore true that in the time of Edward VI. 
there were but thirty-six Articles set forth. 

The second sense of the words of that paragraph may 



No Necessity of Reformation. 203 

be this, that, of those Thirty-nine Articles set forth in 
the days of queen Elizabeth, there were thirty-six set 
forth in the reign of Edward VI. And in this sense 
the words are not true. For the fifth Article, " Of the 
" Holy Ghost," the twelfth Article, " Of good works," 
the twenty-ninth, " Of the wicked which eat not the 
" body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper," and 
the thirtieth, " Of both kinds," these four are not to 
be found in the Articles set forth in the reign of Edward 
VI. And if four of the Thirty-nine be not to be found, 
there cannot be thirty-six of the same thirty-nine. 
Wherefore I conclude, that I can find no sense in which 
those words are true, that *' of those Thirty-nine Ar- 
" tides there were thirty-six of them set forth in 
" Edward VI.'s reign." 

Now being this is all which is objected by them 
against the legal establishment of the Articles, being 
an act of parliament hath propounded the same Articles, 
as " a confession of the true Christian faith and sound 
" religion," and acknowledgeth any doctrine contrary 
to the said Articles to be " untrue doctrine," and upon 
this acknowledgment and public declaration of the 
truth of the faith and soundness of the religion, hath 
required all ministers to declare their unfeigned assent 
to the same, upon pain of being deprived ipso facto, I 
conclude that the Articles of the Church of England 
are confirmed by the law of England. 

And thus having answered all the objections endea 
vouring to prove a necessity of reformation, or confir 
mation, of the public doctrine of our Church, I earnestly 
entreat all these my brethren in sundry counties to 
advise with the more sober counsels of those of our 
brethren, who have lately declared " that they take it 



204 



No Necessity of Reformation. 



" for granted that there is no difference between us in 
" matter of doctrine 3 ." 

I should have gone on to the like examination and 
discussion of the other parts of that book concerning 
worship, ceremonies, and church government : but the 
reader will judge of the rest by this b ; and at the present 
I shairforbear to interpose my private judgment further, 
understanding his majesty, out of his most princely 
care of the Church and desire of unity, intendeth to 
declare his gracious pleasure in divers particular con 
cessions for the satisfaction of all sober minds. 



a Baxter, in*his"sermon before 
the parliament, April 30, 1660, 
had used words like these : whence 
the episcopal divines seem to have 
entertained hopes of his conform 
ing. See his Life, ii. 2 i 8. 

b The other three divisions fill 
the largest part of the book, ex 
tending from p. 8, to p. 63. But, 
as Pearson says, the reader may 
judge of the rest by this. It is a 



kind of digest of the Puritan 
libels against the prayer-book, 
ceremonies, and episcopal regimen 
of the Church of England. It 
has been partially noticed in the 
memoir prefixed ; and further de 
tails would only have been neces 
sary, had Bp. Pearson fulfilled his 
intention, mentioned in the close 
of the succeeding tract, of giving 
an answer to the remainder. 



ANSWER TO DR. CORNELIUS BURGES *. 

AN ANSWER TO DR. BURGES'S WORD BY WAY OF POSTSCRIPT. 

IN VINDICATION OF, NO NECESSITY OF REFORMATION 

OF THE PUBLIC DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF 

ENGLAND. BY JOHN PEARSON, D. D. 1660. 



Sir, 

You are pleased to begin with me thus, " Although 
" your tract be of another subject, which wise and 
" learned men hold unworthy of answer ; yet, finding a 
" little waste paper at the end of this treatise, I am 
" content to fill it up with a few words touching your 
" No Necessity fyc. t to save further labour about it in 
" another way. You are pleased, under the guise of a 
" brotherly temper and Christian moderation, to make 
" sport with the authors of the Reasons of a Necessity 
" of Reformation of the Public Doctrine c. Wherein 
" you set up shaw-fowls of your own, calling them ours, 
" and then shoot at them as you list ; which you call 
" answers to us. But he that judiciously compareth 
" both, cannot but hold him a weak man, that shall 
" foul so much paper as to give a particular reply to all 

* Burges's Word by Way of " ate or purchase the Cathedral 

Postscript to Dr. Pearson, was " Lands." His preface is dated 

published as an epilogue to his Aug. 25, 1660. 
" No Sacrilege nor Sin to alien- 



206 Answer to Dr. Burges. 

" your outleaps and fictions ; which deserve neglect 
" rather than punctual replications. Therefore at pre- 
" sent take these generals, till you more rationally make 
" out your particulars." 

To which I answer, that I am resolved to proceed 
with a brotherly temper and Christian moderation, as 
being not at all discouraged with any misinterpretation 
of such real inclinations ; and lest I should seem to set 
up shaw-fowls of my own, as I am accused, (how de 
servedly let the reader judge,) I shall represent your 
words as they lie in your postscript, and so subjoin my 
answer to them. 

Your reply you return by way of generals ; the first 
of which is thus printed : 

" We place not the necessity of reformation in the 
" not establishing the doctrine of our Church by law ; 
" but our work is to shew, 1. That there is no neces- 
" sity of subscription by virtue of the act of 13 Eliz. 
" 12, because that thereby those Articles now urged do 
" not appear to be by that law established. 2. That, as 
" they now stand, and as now worded, they ought not 
" to be established, until they be reformed. But you 
" make us speak that we never so much as dreamt of, 
" nor ever mentioned in our Reasons ; and so you 
*' fight only with your own shadow. Let them part 
" you that have a mind to it ; we have other business 
" to do." 

To the first words of this paragraph, " We place not 
" the necessity of reformation in the not establishing 
" the doctrine of our Church by law," I answer, it is 
well you do not : it seemeth my treatise hath prevailed 
something with you ; for in your former book you did 
place the necessity of reformation of the public doc 
trine of the Church in the non-establishment by law. 



Answer to Dr. Surges. 207 

The truth of which thus I prove, in what you did place 
the doubtfulness of the Articles, in that you did place 
the necessity of reformation. This is a clear propo 
sition. For having first propounded reasons, shewing the 
necessity of reformation of doctrine, you argue thus : 
" The doctrine is said to be contained in the Thirty- 
" nine Articles, &c. But those Articles are both 
" doubtful and defective." Therefore you did place 
the necessity of reformation in the doubtfulness of the 
Articles. Neither can you with any reason deny you 
did so, because in the next paragraph of this postscript 
your own words are these : " We argue a necessity of 
" reformation, 1. from the doubtfulness, 2. from the 
" defect of the Thirty-nine Articles." Now I subsume, 
in the non-establishment by law you did place the 
doubtfulness of the Articles. This is also a clear pro 
position. For thus you proceeded in your argument : 
" 1. Doubtful, because it appears not that they were 
" all or any of them confirmed by parliament in the 
" 13th of Eliz." From these two propositions as pre 
mises necessarily followeth this conclusion : in the non- 
establishment by law you did place the necessity of 
reformation. Since therefore my treatise, you profess 
not to place the necessity of reformation in that in 
which before you placed it: and before I have done 
treating of this subject, I shall not despair of per 
suading you to place the necessity of this reformation 
nowhere. 

To the next words of this paragraph, " But our work 
" is to shew, first, that there is no necessity of sub- 
" scription by virtue of the act of 13 Eliz. 12, because 
" that thereby those Articles now urged do not appear 
" to be by that law established ;" I answer, your 
proposal was, There is a necessity of reformation. Your 



208 4ns wer to Dr. Bufges. 

work, you say, is, to shew that there is no necessity of 
subscription. Therefore your proposal is one thing, and 
your work is another. Whereas one would imagine, 
that the work of him who writes should be to shew 
that which he professeth to write of. You pretend to 
give reasons of necessity of reformation, and you labour 
to prove that there is no necessity of subscription. And 
yet the reason you render of no necessity of subscrip 
tion is, " because the Articles do not appear to be 
" established by law ;" while you say yourself, you do 
not place the necessity of reformation in their non- 
establishment by law. What agreement is this ? 

To the next words of the same paragraph, " As they 
" now stand, and as now worded, they ought not to be 
" established until they be reformed ;" I answer, first, 
that this present standing and wording of the Articles 
is new language, not heard of in your former discourse; 
by which it appears that you have a mind to alter your 
way of reasoning against them ; as you had need, your 
first having so ill success. Secondly, that the present 
standing and wording of the Articles I look upon as 
that which is in no way subject to reprehension : for 
that very standing and wording, which you particularly 
oppose, shew the Articles to be the same which were 
agreed upon in the convocation in 1562, to which the 
subscription was required and enacted by a law, as I 
have already proved. Thirdly, whereas you say " they 
" ought not to be established ;" if you mean any new 
establishment, they need it not, because they are esta 
blished by an act of parliament in full force, accord 
ing to an agreement made by a full and legal con 
vocation ; and a greater establishment than this is not 
to be had in this Church or kingdom : if you mean a 
continuation of establishment, that they ought no 



Answer to Dr. Surges. 209 

longer to stand established ; you do in some sense 
oppose yourself to the whole clergy. For, as Sir 
Edward Coke writes, in his fourth Inst. cap. 74. " In 
" domo convocationis, the whole clergy of either pro- 
*' vince are present either in person or representation." 
And not only to the clergy, but the whole realm. For, 
as the same learned lord chief justice teacheth us in 
his fourth Inst. cap. 1. " The court of parliament con- 
" sisteth of the king's majesty, sitting there as in 
" his royal politic capacity, and of the three estates of 
" the realm :" one of which, he saith, " representeth all 
** the commons of the whole realm." 

As for the remainder of the paragraph, I deny that 
I make you speak any thing which you never men 
tioned in your reasons ; and whensoever you shall pro 
duce any such particular, I will make my denial good. 

Your second general is this: " We argue a 
'* necessity of reformation, 1. from the doubtfulness, 
" 2. from the defect of the Thirty-nine Articles But 
" you will needs have us to speak in a sense contrary 
" to our meaning. We doubt not of the doctrines 
" themselves, rightly explained ; but of the words 
" wherein they are set forth. For the words, which 
" should be clear, being ambiguous, are capable of 
" more senses than one ; and so may be and are wrested 
*' to patronise errors. Therefore they ought to be re- 
" formed by such an orthodox explanation, as may 
" distinctly and positively express the true sense of the 
" Church ; and not left so homonymous and equivocal 
" as to countenance those errors, which we believe the 
** Church of England disclaimeth." 

To the first part of which paragraph, I answer, that 
you did so argue, 1 confess ; that you made good any 
argument, I deny. And that I would have you speak 

PEARSON, VOL. II. P 



210 Answer to Dr. Surges. 

in a sense contrary to your meaning, I also deny ; if 
you mean what you say. To urge a necessity of refor 
mation of doctrine, in regard of the doubtfulness, and 
at the same time to say, we doubt not of the doctrines, 
seemeth to me very strange ; not to doubt of that 
which we declare doubtful, or to declare that doubtful 
of which we doubt not, being equally unreasonable. 

As for your way of salving the contradiction, " we 
" doubt not of the doctrines themselves, rightly ex- 
" plained ; but of the words wherein they are set 
" forth ;" I shall earnestly contend and evidently shew, 
that it will no way salve it. For if you doubt of 
the words, wherein the doctrine is set forth, you must 
doubt what is that doctrine which is set forth in the 
words. And the reason is plain ; because the doctrine, 
which is set forth in the words, is nothing else but the 
meaning of the words in which it is set forth. When 
you say you doubt of the words, it is not a doubt 
whether such words be in the Article or no, but 
whether the words have this or that sense, as they 
stand in the Article. If this or that sense make no 
variation in the doctrine, then the doubt of the sense is 
no way material ; if this or that sense make a variation 
in the doctrine, then a doubt of the sense must be a 
doubt of doctrine. In vain therefore do you pretend 
" not to doubt of the doctrines themselves rightly 
" explained," while you profess " to doubt of the words 
" wherein they are set forth :" because, while you 
doubt of the true meaning of the words, you must also 
doubt whether they be rightly explained. For the 
true meaning of the words, and the right explaining, 
is the same thing. Either therefore say, you doubt 
not of the doctrines, and doubt not of the words ; 
or else say, you doubt of the words, and doubt what 



Answer to Dr. Burqes. 21 1 

are the doctrines. For to say you doubt of the one, 
and doubt not of the other, is a contradiction ; unless 
you could find in the Articles doctrines without words. 

The next words of the paragraph are very far from 
any truth in their assertion, and farther, if it be pos 
sible, in their collection. For the first, you say, " the 
" words are very ambiguous, and capable of more 
" senses than one :" and I say, it is to be believed, that 
there are not so many words in any, nor so many doc 
trinal assertions in the world, which are not as am 
biguous and capable of as many senses as they are. 
For the second, you say, " the words may be and are 
" wrested to patronise errors :" and I say, so are the 
words of the scripture, or else the Apostle speaketh not 
truth. 

But when you follow with your earnestness of refor 
mation, you clearly discover the weakness of your argu 
mentation in these words : " Therefore they ought to be 
" reformed by such an orthodox explanation." For there 
may be an explanation of that, and that explanation or 
thodox, which cannot be reformed. I hope you think not 
of reforming the scriptures ; and yet I hope, if you have 
an occasion to explain them, you will do it orthodox ly. 
If therefore you have occasion to give an orthodox 
explication of an Article, do not imagine that you have 
a necessity to reform it. The possibility of being 
wrested to patronise errors toucheth no more the words 
of the Articles, than the word of God ; which we are 
assured the ignorant and unstable may wrest ; and we 
are not assured that any other can wrest the words 
of the Articles, but such as can wrest the word of God. 

As for the last words of this paragraph, touching 
errors, " which you believe the Church of England dis- 
" claimeth ;" I confess, I know not how well to answer 

P2 



Answer to Dr. Burges. 

them, for this reason, and no other; because I know 
not what you believe. Neither can I imagine that 
you will believe either Church or parliament, when you 
deny any sacrilege of things not required by God by 
express command, or given by his special warrant, in 
your address to this parliament, which hath unanimously 
declared sacrilege in the taking away the utensils of 
the Church ; which you can never prove were expressly 
commanded by God, or given by his special warrant. 

Your third general, if I may so call it, is this : " In 
" our particular instances of defects in the Thirty-nine 
" Articles, we deny not any truths contained in them : 
" but only shew that misconstructions are or may be 
" made of them, as now they be worded. Therefore 
'* our purpose is, not to press the rejecting of them, as 
" to the matter, but only as to the expressions, which 
" we desire may be reformed by amending of them." 

To which I answer, that, as often as I read this 
paragraph, I might question myself, whether I under 
stand any thing of this controversy or no. When I 
consider the matter of it, I am so kind to myself as 
to imagine I understand it. When I consider the 
author, I am so kind to you as to suspect myself to be 
mistaken. For if I be not, there is not only no truth, 
but no sense in it. For what do these words signify, 
" In our particular instances of defects in the Thirty- 
" nine Articles, we deny not any truths contained in 
" them ?" Is it possible to deny any truths contained in 
the Articles, by any particular instances of defects in 
the Articles ? Is a defect any thing else than a nega 
tion of something which you conceive should be in 
them ? And can a supposed negation of that which 
should be in them cause a falsity of that which is 
really in them ? In brief, I absolutely deny, that, by 



Answer to Dr. Burges. 213 

any particular instances of defects, you have shewn, 
or can shew any misconstructions in the Articles, as 
now they be worded. And if by such defects you 
cannot shew such misconstructions, you cannot with 
any reason, upon the same defects, press the rejecting 
of the Articles as to the expressions. For example* 
you say the Articles contain nothing of the doctrine of 
the creation : and this you urge as a defect. Now T 
ask, what misconstruction can you shew in any Article 
by virtue of this supposed defect ? Or what expression 
can therefore render any Article fit to be rejected for 
this reason only, because it containeth nothing of the 
Creation ? If there be no other misconstructions in the 
Articles, than what arise from that which is not in the 
Articles ; if there be no other expressions, as now they 
are worded, to be rejected, but such as are not con 
tained in them, we may safely pronounce the Articles, 
in and of themselves, to be in no great danger of mis 
constructions, and to contain in them no rejectable 
expressions. 

Your fourth general is this : '* Whereas we assert 
" that many necessary doctrines are wanting in those 
" Thirty-nine Articles, we intend not therefore to reject 
" any of the Articles themselves, so far as they concur 
" with the holy scriptures ; but the reformation we 
" desire in this particular is only an addition of those 
** necessary truths, duly set forth and explained, as may 
" make the public doctrine of our Church complete, 
" before subscription to those few ; as if they were all 
" which our Church will own. Here we say again, 
" that a necessary addition is properly a reformation of 
'* that which is defective, to make it perfect." 

To which I answer, that while you say ** you intend 
" not to reject any of the Articles, so far as they concur 



Answer to Dr. Surges. 

" with the holy scriptures," you might have said as 
much of other things, no way so much concerning as 
the public doctrine. The question is, whether you do 
believe the Articles to concur with the holy scriptures ; 
and when you give your unfeigned assent, you are sup 
posed to acknowledge so much. You know what was 
resolved by all the judges of England, that he who sub 
scribed the Thirty-nine Articles with this addition, *' so 
*' far as the same are agreeable to the word of God," 
might by his own private opinion take some of them to 
be against the word of God. While therefore you 
make that profession only, that you intend not to reject 
them with that limitation, you may at the same time 
intend to reject any of them, because you may at the 
same time believe that they concur not with the scrip 
tures. 

The reformation you desire " is only an addition :" 
and I say, that whatsoever is only an addition, is not a 
reformation. For wheresoever there is a reformation, 
something must be reformed. But where there is only 
an addition, there is nothing reformed. For if any 
thing were thereby reformed, it must either be that 
which is added, or that to which it is added. But 
neither that which is added is at all reformed by only 
being added ; neither is that to which it is added at all 
reformed by the sole adding of something to it, which 
hath no other operation on it to which it is added. 

Whereas you speak of " making the public doctrine 
" of our Church complete, before subscription to those 
" few, as if they were all which our Church will own :" 
so far as I understand your words, (for to say the truth, 
what coherence you intend those words, " before sub- 
" scription to those few," I do not apprehend,) you 
seem to mistake the subject of the question, that is, 



Answer to Dr. Burges. 215 

the nature of the book of Articles, and the design of 
the Church in agreeing upon them, and subscribing 
to them. For the book of Articles is not, nor is pre 
tended to be, a complete body of divinity, or a com 
prehension and explication of all Christian doctrines 
necessary to be taught ; but an enumeration of some 
truths, which upon and since the reformation have 
been denied by some persons ; who upon their denial 
are thought unfit to have any cure of souls in this 
Church or realm ; because they might by their opinions 
either infect their flock with error, or else disturb the 
Church with schism, or the realm with sedition. This 
appeareth by the title of the first Articles, agreed upon 
in the year 1552, " for the avoiding of controversy in 
** opinions, and the establishment of a godly concord 
*' in certain matters of religion." If therefore some 
necessary doctrine of religion, in which all agree, or 
some other doctrine, in which an explicit consent or 
agreement in all the pastors of the Church is not neces 
sary, be not contained in the Articles; it doth render 
them no way defective; because they cannot be said 
thereby to want any thing for which they were intended. 
When therefore you say again, that " a necessary 
" addition is properly a reformation," first I deny your 
addition to be necessary ; and then I say again, that 
such an addition to the Articles would be no more a 
reformation of the Articles, than the book of Exodus 
is a reformation of Genesis, than Joshua a reformation 
of the books of Moses, than the addition of the Judges 
was a reformation of Joshua; or the addition of St. 
John's Gospel, the reformation of St. Matthew's. 

Your fifth general folio weth thus : " Whereas you 
" struggle to prove, that the Thirty-nine Articles do 
" include many, if not all, of those doctrines, which we 



216 Answer to Dr. Burges. 

" hold needful to be added : we admit that some of 
" them are touched upon by name, but not explained 
" as the nature of the things requireth, and as those 
" points be which are the subjects of the Thirty-nine 
" Articles. If then the naming them, on the bye, be 
" enough to prove that there is no need of more, then 
" the bare naming of the titles of the Thirty-nine 
" Articles had been sufficient, without the body of the 
" Articles themselves ; or else those other doctrines 
" which are but named, ought to be explained as well 
" as the other : or, no subscription to be urged but only 
" to the holy scriptures themselves, which are infallible, 
" and contain all doctrines necessary to salvation. To 
" what purpose then is that assertion, that the Creed 
" being mentioned in the Articles, there is no need of 
" adding more Articles, because they are comprehended 
" within the Creed, or named in the Thirty-nine Ar- 
" tides ?" 

To which I answer, that, when you say you admit 
that " some of the doctrines are touched upon by 
*' name," and " not explained as the nature of the things 
" requireth ;" you deny that which is true, and admit 
that which is false. For those doctrines, which I 
instanced in, saying and proving that it was not true 
which you asserted of them, viz. that the Articles 
contain nothing of them, are not touched upon by name, 
but expressed in the nature of them. The first Article 
I affirmed to contain something of the Creation ; but it 
does not touch upon the name. The seventeenth 
Article I affirmed to contain something of Effectual 
Calling ; in which the name is not mentioned, but the 
nature of it delivered. The thirty-fifth Article I 
affirmed to contain something of Faith and Repentance ; 
which doth not so much as touch upon the name of 



Answer to Dr. Burges. 217 

either, but confirmeth the Homilies which treat fully 
of the nature of each. Whereas you say, they are 
** touched upon by name, but not explained, as those 
" doctrines be which are the subjects of the Thirty-nine 
" Articles," this is also untrue in the doctrine of Sin ; 
for that which I alleged was the very subject of three 
Articles, the ninth, fifteenth, and sixteenth, and one 
Homily ; and as untrue in the doctrine of the Law ; for 
that which I alleged was not the name of the Law, but 
the whole subject of the seventh Article. All your 
discourse therefore which followeth being grounded 
upon the bare naming of those doctrines, must neces 
sarily prove inconsequential ; because the bare naming 
of them, upon which it was grounded, is a fiction. 

To the latter part of the paragraph, where you ask 
that question, " to what purpose is that assertion, that, 
** the Creed being mentioned in the Articles, there is 
" no need of adding more Articles ?" I answer, it is 
far more proper for me to ask, to what purpose is that 
question ? for there was no such assertion delivered by 
me. All which I spake was only to shew the incon 
sequence of your discourse, who, undertaking to prove 
that the Articles contained nothing of twenty neces 
sary doctrines, argued them all to be necessary, because 
most of them were comprised in the Creed ; (which 
you know is certainly false;) and from thence, and 
upon no other ground, endeavoured to infer your con 
clusion, that the Articles contained nothing of those 
doctrines, when you know that they contain the Creed. 
You cannot therefore justly charge me with any such 
assertion, when of that discourse I only said that it 
seemed to me a very strange objection ; and so I may 
say it seemeth still. Make not therefore any assertions 
for me ; but free your own argumentation first from 



218 Answer to Dr. Burges. 

those untruths with which I charged it. Endeavour to 
shew that the most part of the twenty doctrines men 
tioned by you are comprised in the Creed ; which I 
absolutely deny. Prove if you can, that, because some 
of them are comprised in the Creed, therefore for that 
reason, (for no other is mentioned,) all the rest must be 
acknowledged to be necessary; which I also deny. 
Shew, that, being comprised in the Creed, the Articles 
comprehending the Creed and the expositions of the 
Creed contain nothing of them; which I thirdly deny. 
And when you have proved them, I will give you leave 
to fix what assertion you please upon me. 

Your sixth general folio we th : " As for your many 
% ' quibbles and retortions, all built upon these sandy 
" foundations, I shall value them no more than you 
** value us. Only that mistake of the Homily in point 
" of title may be pardoned, when yourself confess the 
" words themselves. We were far from our books, 
" and so might mistake the title of the Homily. But 
** so long as we have not falsified the matter, which you 
" dare not to justify, but acknowledge not to be pro- 
" per, and which we affirm to be absurd and false, we 
"leave it to all to judge whether that be a godly and 
" wholesome doctrine, necessary for these times. And if 
" it be not, then whether there be not a necessity of 
" reforming the thirty-fifth Article, as to that point of 
" the Homilies." 

For my " quibbles," and those " many," I shall not 
desire you to " value" them ; but I entreat you to shew 
them. I beseech you, be plain with me ; declare what 
they are, and shame me with them. For the " retor- 
" tions," if you mean by them my answers, I could 
wish you would value them so far as to give them a 
civil reply ; howsoever, T am resolved so far to value 



Answer to Dr. Burges. 219 

you and your writings. The mistake of the Homily in 
point of title is easily pardoned ; the rather, because it 
is the least of your mistakes. For even in this parti 
cular, though you have not falsified the matter, that is, 
the words produced, yet you have mistaken the argu 
ment : and though I have plainly shewn your mistake, 
you refused to rectify it. I did clearly distinguish 
between the doctrines delivered in the Articles, and 
the illustrations of them. I did shew that the thirty- 
fifth Article did bind us to the acknowledgment of the 
one, and doth not require us to maintain the other. I 
did make it appear, that your objections did no way 
touch the doctrine of the Homilies, but were only 
against some expressions in the illustrations or accu 
mulated authorities. When I had shewn all this, you 
vouchsafe no answer to it, but " leave it to all to 
" judge :" and I make no doubt but the judgment is 
easy ; for it is no more than this, that the people ought 
to read the scriptures is a godly and wholesome doc 
trine. This is the only doctrine of one of the Homilies 
accused. That it is profitable for a man to exercise 
himself in almsdeeds, is a godly and wholesome doc 
trine. This is the only doctrine of the other Homily 
accused. The Articles speak of nothing else but the 
doctrine of the Homilies ; therefore there appeareth no 
necessity of reforming the thirty-fifth Article as to that 
part of the Homilies. 

Your seventh general is this : " As touching the 
" regal supremacy, we own and will assert it as far as 
" you do or dare. Only we had reason to take notice 
" of the improper expression in the thirty-seventh 
" Article, that the queen's majesty hath the supreme 
" pmver. For if the Declaration fathered on the late 



220 Answer to Dr. Surges. 

" king and prefixed to the Articles, had so much power 
" with his printer, that he durst not to alter the word 
" queen into king, even in the year 1642 ; and those Ar- 
" tides must be read verbatim, without alteration or 
" explanation ; then we say again there is a necessity 
*' of reforming that Article in the expression of it, and 
*' not to talk at random what was indeed the meaning ; 
" unless we may have leave when we read it, regia 
" declarations non obstante, to declare the sense, which 
" the declaration alloweth us not to do." 

Your resolution to assert the regal supremacy I am 
glad to hear ; but how the expression in the thirty- 
seventh Article should be improper, I cannot under 
stand. The Article was made in the year 1562 ; the 
subscription is required to the Article made in that 
year by the act of 13 Eliz. The expression which you 
call improper, is, " the queen's majesty hath the su- 
" preme power :'' and is this improper in an Article 
acknowledged to be made in that year ? Was there not 
then a queen, which had the supreme power, that is 
to say, a queen regnant? 

As for your expression of " the Declaration fathered 
" on the late king," it seemeth to me much more 
improper. I believe you cannot prove but that De 
claration was his own, as much as any other decla 
ration was his or any king's. And for a subject to 
speak so of his king, or to judge and declare what 
Declaration is his, and what is not, is certainly at least 
very improper. That pious king and blessed martyr 
was too often thus used, but never, that I know, by any 
that professed themselves so daring to assert his regal 
supremacy as you do. His Declarations were denied to 
be his, though asserted, framed, penned by himself. 



Answer to Dr. Burges. 221 

His book denied to be his, though none could pen it 
but himself. He was denied to have declared what he 
did constantly profess, to have written what he wrote, 
to have spoken what he spake; and at last sure some 
will deny him to have suffered what he endured b . 

But as to that conceit of yours, that this Declaration 
had so much power with the printer, that "he durst 
" not to alter the word queen into king, even in the 
" year 1642," it seems to me so strange, that I cannot 
imagine that you ever considered it when you wrote it. 
You are so angry with the Declaration, that it must be 
guilty of every thing. The Articles were several times 
printed after the death of queen Elizabeth, and before 
the Declaration of Charles I ; and in them you will not 
find the word queen turned into the word king ; and, I 
pray you, what power had the king's Declaration with the 
printer then ? They were printed by Robert Norton, 
1612; by Bonham Norton and John Bill, 1624. Both 
editions have the words as they were in the queen's 
time ; and yet there was no Declaration then to enforce 
them not to alter the words. Do you imagine that 
the printers had any power to alter the words of the 
Articles of the Church, if there were no Declaration to 
preserve them entire ? Assure yourself, it was not the 
power of the king's Declaration, but the duty of the 
printer, which caused him not to vary from his copy ; 
from which none of the printers from the death of the 



b Monday, Aug. 13, 1660. A " sovereign king Charles I. were 
proclamation by the king was " solemnly burnt at the Sessions- 
issued for suppressing Milton's " House in the Old Bailey, by 
Iconoclastes, and Defensio con- " the hand of the common hang- 
tra Salmasium. " Several co- " man." Public Intelligencer, 
" pies of these infamous books Aug. 27, 1660. Kennett's Re- 
" in justification of the horrid gister, p. 230, 239. 
" murder of our late glorious 



Answer to Dr. Burges. 

queen did ever vary, and that for the same cause. I 
beseech you therefore, Sir, acknowledge the Declaration 
to be the king's, as Mr. Burton did ; and say not that 
it was fathered upon that blessed martyr, which Mr. 
Burton himself would not endure c . And when you 
have acknowledged that the Declaration was the king's, 
acknowledge also that it was not the cause of the con 
tinuation of the words of the Articles. Because those 
words were constantly continued without that Declara 
tion ; and, which is more, the Declaration itself gives 
not any command expressly for the words, but only for 
the literal and grammatical sense. 

And now the printer hath done his part to print 
" the queen's majesty," according to his copy, the in 
cumbent, without any other act of parliament for 
alteration of those words, or without an annulling of 
the king's Declaration, may read " the king's majesty," 
and not thereby be in danger of any law : and the 
reason is clear, because the king's majesty and the 
queen's majesty, (speaking of a queen regnant, as the 
Article speaketh,) is the same thing in the law. For 
you may be pleased to take notice what was declared 
by the second parliament 1 Mariae, cap. 1. "Be it 
" declared and enacted by the authority of this present 
" parliament, that the laws of this realm is and ever 
" hath bin, and ought to be understand, that the 
" kingly or regal office of this realm, and all dignities, 
" prerogatives, royal power, preheminences, priviledges, 
" authorities and jurisdictions thereunto annexed, united 
" or belonging, being invested either in male or female, 
" are, and be, and ought to be, as fully, wholly, abso- 

c It would seem that Burges Burton published his bitter ser- 
incurred the censure of Bp. Jux- mon for the fifth of November, 
on in the same year in which See Collier, vol. II. p. 771. 



Answer to Dr. Surges. 228 

" lutely and entirely, deemed, judged, accepted, in- 
" vested, and taken in the one as in the other, &c." 
And therefore Sir Edward Coke, in his commentaries 
upon the statute of 25 Edw. III. de Proditionibus, 
making it treason to imagine the death of our lord the 
king, saith, that "a queen regnant is within these 
** words Nostre Seignior le Roy ; for she hath the 
" office of a king." And whereas the same statute 
maketh it treason to imagine the death of the king's 
eldest son and heir, he saith, that " the eldest son and 
" heir of a queen regnant is within this law." Being 
then the law maketh no distinction between a king 
and queen regnant ; being it looketh not upon the sex, 
which may be different, but upon the office which is 
wholly the same in either sex ; being the doctrine of 
the Church is wholly agreeable with the law of the land 
in this particular ; therefore there needeth no reforma 
tion in this case. Because, whatsoever assertion is set 
forth concerning the sovereign power, if it be spoken 
in the life of a queen and in the title of a queen, it may 
be also spoken in the life of a king, in the title of a 
king. If it be asserted in the lifetime of a king under 
the title of a king, it may be spoken in the life of a 
queen under the title of a queen ; and that without 
any fear of the breach of any law of the land or doc 
trine of the Church. Assure yourself therefore, that, 
notwithstanding the act of the 13th of Eliz., and not 
withstanding the Declaration of Charles I., you may yet 
read in the Articles "the king's majesty," and there 
is no necessity of an act of parliament to make or 
justify that alteration. 

Your last paragraph is this : " As concerning the 
" law part, though you strain hard, yet I hold it not 
" worth one line of reply, till you have answered the 



224 Answer to Dr. Surges. 

" four queries propounded in page 61 and 62 of our 
" book. Not that I would waive ought which deserv- 
" eth answer; but to spare labour, where it would be, 
" in the judgment of wise men, ridiculous to bestow 
" it. This is spoken in love to the truth, and to your- 
" self also, by 

" Your servant, (and brother, if you please,) 
"C.BURGES." 

To which I answer, first, that, till you answer that 
law-part, T shall take it to be unanswerable, as, to use 
your language, " many wise and learned men do." Se 
condly, the condition required by you is very strange, 
that you will not answer my discourse, till I have an 
swered those four queries ; when one of the four hath 
no kind of relation to the Articles, and the ground of 
another concerns them not. But that, if it be possible, 
I may obtain a serious reply from you to what I have 
delivered concerning the legal confirmation of our 
public doctrine, I will here punctually answer to the 
queries, so far as they concern the Articles, which are 
now in question ; and do further promise, that I will 
answer the rest of the same queries, so far as they con 
cern any other subject, when I come to treat of that 
subject, which they concern. 

Your first query as to the Articles runs thus: p. 61. 
" Whether, if there be any thing of substance altered 
" in, or added to, the Articles, and those alterations not 
" expressly mentioned and confirmed by parliament, 
" this doth not make those Articles to be void in law, 
" if pleaded in law ? The ground of this query is the 
" act of the 13th of Eliz." This is the query, and the 
ground ; but how that act should be produced as the 
ground of the query, 1 cannot see. The act relateth to 



Answer to Dr. Surges. 225 

the subscription of the Articles. The ground of the 
query is a supposed alteration of the Articles : for if 
the Articles were not altered, to what purpose is the 
query? And certainly alteration and subscription are 
two several things. It is required by the law, that 
every person admitted to a benefice with cure do 
declare his assent unto all the Articles comprised in a 
book imprinted with a certain title. If those Articles 
so comprised be pleaded in law, they can be no way 
voided in law. If any other Articles should be pleaded 
in the place of them, such articles so pleaded, I con 
ceive, might be voided ; but that would be little to 
your purpose, because the true Articles, meant by the 
law, might still be pleaded. If a man should read the 
old true Articles, and should be accused for not reading 
articles since set forth with additions or substantial 
alterations, I make no question but the plea would be 
void. But if he should be required without law to 
read a book with alterations, and should omit to read a 
book, which hath no substantial alterations, and is re 
quired by law, I suppose the statute would be of force 
against him. But howsoever, I do absolutely deny, that 
there is any substantial alteration of, or addition to, 
those Articles mentioned in the act of 13 Eliz., and do 
assert that the Articles, to which the late king's 
declaration was affixed, are the same with them in 
number, nature, substance, words : as I am assured, 
having myself diligently collated them with an addition 
of the Articles printed by Richard Jugge and John 
Cawood, Printers to the Queen's Majesty, in Anno 
Domini 1571. Being therefore the Articles enjoined 
to be read by law have received no alteration, I answer 
your query, that they cannot be voided in law, if 
pleaded in law. 

PEARSON, VOL. II. Q 



226 Answer to J)r. Surges. 

The second query, having only reference in itself to 
the alterations which I have denied, and having no 
reference in the ground to the Articles at all, can 
require no further answer here, where the Articles only 
are concerned d . 

The third query is, " If any man be indicted or sued 
" at law upon the statute of 13 Eliz. for not reading 
" the Articles of 1562, and the defendant plead not 
*' guilty, and deny these Articles to be those confirmed 
" by that law, till the plaintiff prove them to be of 
" record ; whether is not the plaintiff bound to prove 
" that, and in the mean time the defendant not punish- 
" able by that statute ? the grounds of this query are, 
" first, that there are no records of these to be found ; 
" secondly, the book hath been several times altered 
" since that act ; and thirdly, many punished upon the 
" said act, because that book hath been generally re- 
" ceived and used as established by law." There are 
so many mistakes in this query, and in these several 
grounds, that it will be very difficult to shew them all. 
First, the supposition of the query is incongruous, as 
implying that which is contrary to the proceedings in 
this case. For if any person, inducted into a benefice, 
do neglect or refuse to read the Articles according to 
the statute of 13 Eliz., I conceive he is not to be 
indicted or sued at law, and so as a defendant to plead 
not guilty ; but upon proof made in the ecclesiastical 



d The second query is : " Whe 
ther the statutes, which are 
said to confirm any of the 
things named in the former 
query, mentioning only the ti 
tles, but not reciting the mat 
ter of the books themselves, do 
make those books, or the 



things contained in them, 
(which have been several times 
altered,) although never so 
much as said to be enrolled, 
nor found so to be, do make 
those things to be established 
and good in law, &c." 



Answer to Dr. Bui yet. 

court that he hath not read those Articles, he must be 
forthwith deprived according to that statute, which saith 
that he shall be upon that default, ipso facto, imme 
diately deprived. That this is to be done by sentence 
declaratory before the bishop of the diocese, and that 
this is the ordinary proceeding in case of an offender 
this statute, appeareth from the proceedings against 
John Durston mentioned in the sixth part of Sir Ed 
ward Coke's Reports, p. 29, in Greene's case, whose 
words are these : " Le Seignior Paulet, 6. Aprilis, 
" 1574, present al dit Esglise un John Durston, que a 
" ceo fuit admit institute et induct, et ne lia les Arti- 
" cles selonque le statute de 13 Eliz. cap. 12. Per 
" quel cause, 10. Martii, 1583, al suit del dit Thomas 
" Seignior Paulet, il fuit deprive, per sentence decla- 
" ratory devant FEvesque." Being therefore the na 
ture of the statute is such, that the proof is not put on 
the plaintiff, but on the defendant, who is bound to 
read the Articles enjoined by the statute, and, if he be 
accused for not reading, is bound to prove that he hath 
read them, and consequently to produce the Articles 
which he hath read as those intended in the statute ; 
it is easily answered to your query, that it supposeth 
something wholly inconsistent with the proceedings in 
the case, and putteth that upon the plaintiff which be- 
longeth to the defendant, and therefore the query may 
be wholly denied in every part of it. 

Again, as the query is inconsistent to itself, so the 
grounds are either false in themselves, or at least no 
way concerning the intent of the query. The first 
ground I have already refuted, shewing that the record, 
that is, the original of the Articles, is to be found : and 
if it were not, the Articles " comprised in a book im- 
" printed," commanded by the law to be read, are to be 

Q2 



228 Answer to Dr. Surges. 

found ; which is enough to evacuate the query, because 
it cannot be necessary to find any more than the act 
expresseth. And if any man read those Articles which 
are to be found, it must lie upon the plaintiff to prove, 
that such Articles so read were not the Articles intend 
ed in the statute. 

As for the second ground, that the book of Articles 
hath been several times altered since the act of 13 
Eliz., it is so far from truth, that I can aver, as I have 
done before, that the Articles now in force are the 
same with the Articles " comprised in a book imprint- 
" ed" when the act was made, without any the least 
alteration ; and whosoever readeth either those of 
1571, or any edition printed since the king's decla 
ration, and giveth his full assent to the same, shall 
never be in danger of a declaratory sentence of depri 
vation upon that statute. 

The third ground of your query, the more truth it 
hath in it, hath the less of reason to ground the query. 
For the more " have been punished upon the said act, 
" because the book hath been generally received as 
" established by law," the less is it probable that it 
should not be so established. The Articles are as 
much enrolled now, as they were when any persons 
were punished for not reading them ; and it is to be 
presumed that they were as desirous and careful to 
preserve themselves in those benefices, into which they 
were instituted and inducted, as others are now ; and 
that the learned of the law did as well understand 
how to avoid the sentence of the statute, as now they 
do : and therefore the constant practice to the con 
trary is enough to persuade any man, that your new 
plea, if there were any such to be admitted, would 
prove invalid. 



Answer to Dr. Surges. 229 

Your fourth query coucerneth the Canons only, 
made by the convocation, and ratified by the king; 
and therefore requireth no present reply in this dis 
course, confined to the justification of the Thirty-nine 
Articles. 

Thus far have I stepped out of my way in answer to 
your queries, hoping thereby to invite you to a serious 
reply to the law-part at the least of my discourse. 
And though I have omitted that part of your queries, 
which concerns the Common Prayer and the Canons, it 
is not at all as if I thought them unanswerable, but 
only because I think it not proper to confound the 
subjects of which I intend to treat. I do therefore but 
reserve that part of the queries which concerneth the 
Common Prayer, unto my answer to the matter of 
worship ; and that of the Canons unto the part which 
followeth : assuring you, that, by the assistance of God, 
I shall very suddenly shew, that there is no such ne 
cessity of a reformation of the public worship of the 
Church of England as you pretend ; neither will it be 
long before I demonstrate the same concerning the 
ceremonies and the discipline. 

Being near the conclusion of my answer to your 
postscript, there fell accidentally into my hands a more 
civil address, written by William Hamilton, gent, who 
undertakes to be an interpreter to you and the minis 
ters of sundry counties, and to defend your book, by 
altering the state of the question, and the conclusion to 
be proved. I conceive it reason at the present not to 
answer that treatise, because I am sure he hath much 
mistaken the meaning of my words, and therefore it is 
very probable that he may have as much mistaken 
yours ; and I shall not oblige myself to answer any 
other meaning than your own. 



J230 Answer to Dr. Surges. 

Howsoever, in this your postscript I have waved 
nothing, except your bad language, which I shall ever 
wave ; assuring you that no provocations shall ever 
tempt me to break my resolution of writing with a 
brotherly temper and Christian moderation : in love to 
which, as well as to the truth, I subscribe myself, 

Your servant and brother 

J. PEARSON. 6 



e Hamilton's book, referred to 
in a preceding paragraph, was 
entitled " Some Necessity of Re 
formation in the Public Doctrine 
of the Church of England ; or, 
A Modest and Brief Reply to Dr. 
Pearson's modest and learned 
No Necessity, &c. directed to 
the Doctor himself by W. 
Hamilton, Gent. Lond. 4to. 
1660." The author appears 
to have been the same with W. 
Hamilton, fellow of All Souls 



Coll. (See Wood's Ath. Oxon. v. 
Biddle.) He dedicates his reply 
to his reverend and worthy friend, 
Dr. John Pearson, and tells him, 
that ever since he was recom 
mended to his acquaintance by 
the archbishop of Armagh, he 
has always had a reverend opinion 
of him, and never found occasion 
to alter it. This is dated from 
his chambers in Black Friars, 
Sept. 6, 1660. Coles MSS. vol. 
xv. 



PROMISCUOUS ORDINATIONS ARE DESTRUCTIVE TO THE 

HONOUR AND SAFETY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 

IF THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN IT. WRITTEN 

IN A LETTER TO A PERSON OF QUALITY. 
A. D. 1668. 



A person of quality, a member of the Church of 
England, to a moderate divine. 

SIR, 

GIVE me leave to let you understand, that I am by 
a real and unfeigned profession a true son of the 
Church of England, one whom God hath blessed with a 
competent family, of whose eternal welfare I am equally 
solicitous. We are seated with many neighbours of 
the same judgment and desire of future happiness in a 
country parish with an orthodox and able minister, 
whose age and infirmity seem to foretell we shall scarce 
enjoy him another winter. 

Now, sir, the various discourses and contrivances in 
this present juncture, together with the known incli 
nation of our patron, threaten us with a pastor as next 
incumbent, who is not a pastor canonically ordained, 
but hath received something which he calls ordination, 
either after a classical or congregational way. 



A Letter against 

In this case I apply myself to you, who are rendered 
a moderate divine, desirous to know whether your 
moderation hath induced you to promote or comply 
with that which seems to us so great confusion ; and to 
declare how you can answer it to that Church of which 
you are also a member, and what satisfaction you can 
give to our consciences, who are like to be cast into 
such a condition. 

Answer. 
Sir, 

I cannot take any delight as to the differences in 
matters of religion, but in the composure of them only : 
and if I understand myself, nothing can ever alter that 
temper, by which I have been so long inclined to a due 
enlargement and indulgence for such as are ready to 
afford a rational compliance. But I hope that no such 
facility of nature or opinion shall ever reduce me to 
that weakness, as to betray the great and everlasting 
concerns of the Church, or to give over the indispens 
able duty of endeavouring that unity which is necessary 
to its conservation. 

That the order of the ministry is necessary to the 
continuation of the gospel according to the promises of 
Christ, as it was to the first plantation of it according 
to his institution, is a doctrine indubitable. That this 
ministry is derived by a succession and constant propa 
gation, and that the unity and peace of the Church of 
Christ are to be conserved by a due and legitimate 
ordination, no man who considereth the practice of the 
apostles and ecclesiastical history, can ever doubt. This 
way of ordination, having continued so many ages one 
and the same, could never be considerably altered, 
without some great commotions and dissensions in the 



Promiscuous Ordinations. 233 

Church, and the manifest breach of union and com 
munion in that body ; whomsoever we judge guilty of 
the breach of that union, which is not necessary now 
to dispute. And as the first introduction of different 
ordinations caused a standing and settled opposition, 
precluding all ways of reconciliation : so they cannot 
be brought into any one Church, but they must make 
such a division and disparity in the administrations, as 
will amount to no less than a schism. 

However, in the peculiar and happy condition of our 
Church, these promiscuous ordinations, if at all allowed 
by it, are most destructive to that which is the safety 
and honour of it. We have the greatest felicity which 
could happen to a reformation, as being regular and 
authoritative, that we have so taken away the many 
mistakes and errors, which had been introduced by a 
long ignorance and usurpation, as to retain a perfect 
compliance with the ancient Church : and therefore we 
can boldly and truly affirm, we are the same with the 
primitive Christians, even those of Rome : and while 
we hold and maintain our ordinations legitimate, we 
speak the same language with the most glorious fathers, 
martyrs, and saints of those happy and pious times. 
But if we once admit a diversity in our ordinations, we 
have lost the honour of succession, we have cast away 
our weapons of defence; we have betrayed our own 
cause, and laid ourselves open to the common enemy of 
all protestants, and we shall at last inevitably fall into 
the Socinian doctrine, to deny all necessity or use of 
any mission or ordination. 

Again, though our discipline be much weakened, and 
the good effects thereof obstructed by many scruples 
and oppositions raised against it, yet they can be no 
just imputation to that wholesome institution, it being 



234 A Letter against 

sufficiently known from whence these obstructions 
proceed. But if all sorts of ordination be any way 
established by sufficient authority, if what is so earnestly 
desired be indulged, " That a man once ordained any 
" way be still held and retained for a labourer in the 
" harvest," the most legitimate process in ecclesiastical 
affairs will become ineffectual and irrational : many 
necessary articles of inquiry, founded upon the greatest 
justice and authority, will be put off with such un 
blamable refusals, and answered with so much reason 
and equity, that his majesty's ecclesiastical laws can be 
with no conscience put in execution, when they which 
are to be prosecuted as delinquents according to law, 
must be pronounced the most innocent in the opinion 
and conscience of the administrators of the same law. 
What an uncomfortable and discouraging confusion is 
this, whereby presentments shall be made of those 
persons who are conscientiously conformable to the 
doctrine and orders of the Church, for actions or omis 
sions proceeding solely out of that conscience and con 
formity ; and they who factiously or erroneously dissent 
from that doctrine and order, shall avoid their own and 
promote the presentment of others, and in this error or 
faction shall be protected and encouraged by a super 
induced authority ! Thus by promiscuous ordinations 
the doctrine of the Church will be rendered indefen 
sible, and the discipline unpracticable. 

Although these evil consequences be of great moment 
in the general, and threaten our Bethel with the notion 
of a Babel, yet because most men are more apprehensive 
of particular mischiefs, and stronglier moved with per 
sonal inconveniences ; I shall more earnestly apply my 
self to that condition which you have represented in 
reference to yourself, your family, and neighbours of 



Promiscuous Ordinations. 235 

the same persuasion : and even this consideration will 
be of great latitude and concernment, because it is not 
confined to you alone, but all of the same judgment 
will be subject to the same unsettlement, and lie under 
the same fears and discouragement. 

If a person only qualified by a congregational mission 
should be set over you authoritatively as your lawful 
pastor, to whose ministerial acts it is expected you 
should apply yourself in all public matters of religion ; 
you being of a constant persuasion that the validity of 
such acts hath a necessary relation to the legitimacy 
of ministry, and of as certain an opinion that such a 
mission cannot amount to a legitimate ordination ; I 
cannot see what comfort you [can] take in any com 
pliance with such administrations. 

Nay further, if a person be said to have obtained 
orders after the Presbyterian way in the late times, 
when he might have received them from a Bishop, and 
since the happy restitution of public order in the 
Church, when many of his brethren have submitted, 
still obstinately refuses to receive ordination after the 
established way of the Church of England ; in this 
case if you doubt whether his ordination be valid, or 
conclude it null, I confess I know no argument to 
convince you or to incline you to another persuasion. 

But then I cannot but lament your unquiet and sad 
condition, accidentally cast upon you for reasons which 
I take no delight to consider ; and through the short 
expression in your letter I can easily perceive what 
thoughts and apprehensions may press and discourage 
you. 

For as you render yourself a son of our Church, I 
conceive you are one who values the Liturgy, thinking 
it your duty to give God that service, and taking much 



A Letter against 

comfort in the ancient and regular devotion expressed 
in those public prayers ; which being a mixed office 
and having been so ever since the apostolical times, 
wherein the priest or presbyter, and the people, jointly 
and interchangeably concur, and the rubric directing 
what words belong to the priest, and can properly in 
the sense intended, (sometimes at least,) be used by no 
other ; T confess you cannot but abate of the devotion 
and comfort of your prayers, when you think the 
person appointed to read them is no priest or presbyter. 

As for the administration of the sacrament of Bap 
tism, you cannot regularly but desire to have your 
children baptized and received into the congregation of 
Christ's Church in that solemn manner, and by such a 
person as is appointed by the same Church to receive 
them ; and though in case of necessity this office may 
be dispensed with in baptizing, for the benefit of the 
infant, yet it will be very hard to create any other 
necessity than what arises on the infant's part, or to 
make use of that irregularity, when there is no neces 
sity, which is only indulged to necessity. 

But as to the other sacrament, the Supper of the 
Lord, your case is far worse. For to that you are 
often invited, nay obliged to receive it thrice a year; 
and I doubt not but [you] earnestly desire frequently 
to participate of the body and blood of your Saviour. 
Whereas, if you be resolved that your pastor established 
is not a priest or presbyter, and consequently hath no 
power to consecrate the elements, or render them 
sacramental, I cannot see how you can follow him to 
the holy table, or with what comfort or conscience you 
can bring your family, or concur with your neighbours, 
to receive the elements from his hands. And yet 
abstaining from the sacrament, you are thereby deprived 



Promiscuous Ordinations. 237 

of the spiritual strength and comfort which you desire 
and have cause to expect ; and are moreover betrayed 
to the censures of the Church, in compliance to whose 
doctrine you are rendered disobedient to her com 
mands. 

Lastly, the unfeigned exercise of religion is un 
doubtedly, as never more necessary, so never so com 
fortable as upon the bed of our sickness, especially 
upon the approach of death : wherefore the Church 
hath taken great care that the minister shall attend, 
and how he shall behave himself in the visitation of 
the sick, for their comfort and advantage. This com 
fort I confess must be taken from you, who are of that 
persuasion concerning your pastor ; for if upon the 
apprehension of your latter end you feel your conscience 
troubled, and being observant of the method prescribed, 
desire to make a special confession, and receive the 
benefit of absolution ; to which end the priest is 
ordered to use these words, " By the authority of 
" Christ committed to me, I absolve thee of all thy 
" sin :" you will never acquiesce in the absolution, 
where you acknowledge no commission, nor can you 
expect any efficacy, which dependeth upon the autho 
rity. 

These and the like I look upon not as formal objec 
tions, or cavils, but as real and severe complaints 
raised upon sober and religious grounds, matter for 
Christian zeal rather than moderation. And therefore 
I cannot persuade myself, that any person endued with 
any kindness or care of the religion settled in this 
nation, can ever contrive or assent unto so great a dis 
couragement to the conscientious professors of it, and 
confusion in the management and administration. 



FIVE PREFACES 

TO VARIOUS THEOLOGICAL WORKS. 






PRjEFATIO 



AD 

CRITICOS SACROS, SIVE DOCTISSIMORUM VIRORUM IN 

SS. BIBLIA ANNOTATIONES ET TRACTATUS. 

A. D. 1660. 



PRODIIT nuper, et nunc inter maims hominum 
versatur, librorum optimus, Biblia scilicet Poly- 
glotta, editionem feliciter procurante viro admodum 
reverendo BBIANO WALTONO S. T. D. aliisque 
viris cl. de Religione et S. Literis quam optime meritis. 
En tibi jam prodit, lector pie et erudite, (tibi enim soli 
utrinque et seritur et metitur, tibi soli utrumque 
prelum insudavit, et Waltonianum, et nostrum,) prodit, 
inquam, liber, si ita loqui fas sit, SevTepoTrpwros, primo 
tantum posterior, optimoque proximus, Critici nimirum 
Sacri. Quid enim post literas natas melius, quid opta- 
bilius, quam ut primum S. Scripturae textus originales 
una cum versionibus antiquis VTTO /x/ai/ o-vvo-^tv redige- 
rentur, adeo ut simul ac semel omnia et conspici et 
conferri possent ; dein et ejusdem S. Scripturae sensus, 
quern vocant, literalis et grammaticus, qui ipsissima 
Scriptura eat, atque ipsummet Dei verbum, a viris 

PEARSON, VOL. II. R 



242 Prczfatio in Grit. Sacr. 

eruditione, ingenio, judicio instructissimis erueretur? 
Illud autem viri quos inodo dixi, viri ssepius, semper 
memorandi,. summa cum accuratione ante triennium 
praestiterunt : hoc vero praecipue CORNELII BEE, 
hominis ad antiquiores melioresque literas juvandas 
nati, curae et impensis acceptum ferimus. Is enim 
vere (j)ep(awfj.o9 quicquid vel ex suapte peritia vel ex 
indicatione aliena dignum compererat, id omne sedulo 
conquisitum in hunc thesaurum sacrum, in hanc cate- 
nam biblicam, vel, si mavis, (nee enim facile est tantum 
opus satis amplo titulo cohonestare,) in hanc bibliothe- 
cam hagio-criticam, sicut apis " puro distendit nectare 
cellas," congessit, et in tuos usus recondidit. Enimvero 
quotquot uspiam a^io/ui.vr]fj.oi>eur6rpa in divinis volumini- 
bus occurrunt,res,personae,actiones, loca, tempora, regio- 
nes, urbes, templa, instrumenta, vasa, pondera, men- 
surae, nummi, habitus, gestus, munera, ritus, leges, 
consuetudines, omnia docte hie et dilucide enarrantur. 
Hie non solum explicantur typorum mysteria, pro- 
phetiarum et parabolarum aenigmata, adeoque S. Textus 
loca difficiliora, quin et insuper vocum ipsarum origines, 
usus, significata, imo apices nonnunquam et minutiae 
pensiculatius examinantur. Hie exhibetur quicquid 
ad divinas paginas vel Synagogae Rabbini vel Ecclesise 
Doctores subtilius annotarant. Hie componuntur sacro- 
sancta Dei oracula cum exterorum monumentis, Hebrae- 
orum leges cum institutis gentilium, Odae Davidis, 
Solomonis Paroemiae, aliorumque scriptorum Qeoirvev- 
a-Twv gnomae cum ethnicorumpoetarum, rhetorum, philo- 
sophorum sententiis parallelis. Hie deuique, (quod opti 
mum est interpretandi genus,) videre est mirum SS. 
Codicum consensum concentumque, alteriusque ut u al 
ter poscit opem locus, et conjurat amice." 

Sed non opus est ut hederam hie nostram praetexa- 



Prcefatio in Crit. Sacr. 248 

mus : inspice catalogum, et invenies nomina omni 
lauro, omiii laude majora. Quis singulorum fuerit 
Annotatorum scopus, quod consilium negotiumque, ex 
ipsorum, quas catalogo subjunximus, praefationibus con- 
stabit melius, optime ex opere. Annotationes, quse in 
septem usque tomos excreverunt, duobus insuper trac- 
tatuum tomis cumulantur : de quibus hoc tantum nos 
dixisse sufficiat, hi etiam et ipsi annotationes sunt, 
idque et criticae, et sacrae, saltern dignissimi qui anno- 
tationibus ejusmodi quasi appendix et 'E-B-i/Aer/ooi/ adji- 
ciantur. 

Jam quae nostrae in hoc opere partes fuerint, restat 
ut exponamus: quod, ne te diutius moremur, paucis 
accipe. Hoc in primis tibi penitus persuasum iri cupi- 
mus, imo expetimus, et exspectamus ; nos non cinnum 
hie commiscuisse, aut consarcinasse centonem, verum 
auctores tibi exhibere integros et illibatos. Adeo enim 
nobis pene religio fuit ipsos mutilare, ut etiam ubi 
alterius verba usurpat unus, et item alter, deinde tertius, 
atque ita ad eundem locum eadem non sensu tantum 
sed et verbis plures commentantur, nos eadem verba, 
licet aliquantulum gravate, identidem reposuerimus, 
veriti scilicet, si ullibi vel superflua omisissemus, ne quis 
alibi et necessaria nos omisisse suspicaretur. Aliquid 
tamen juris nobismetipsis permisimus, idque e re tua, 
uti speramus, et cum bona venia. Nam non solum 
quamplurima, qua? oscitabundi typographi -xySyv et pro- 
miscue ediderant, sed quaedam etiam quae auctores ipsi 
in alieniorem locum rejecerant, nos opportune et suo 
collocavimus. Sic quatuor illi annotationum rivi, quos 
tumultuario quodam impetu magnus ille eruditionis 
torrens Jo. Drusius in N. F. profudit, jam in unum 
alveum collecti leni cursu labuntur. Sic quae H. Gro- 

R 2 



244 Prcefatio in Crit. Sacr. 

tius o iraw ad Decalogum, ad Ephes. i. ad 2 Thess. if. 
1 12, ad Jac. ii. 14, &c., ad 1 Job. ii. 18 24, et 
iii. 9, et iv. 1 5, item ad Apoc. xiii. et xvii. fusius 
disseruit, et certas ob causas annotatis ad Evangelia sub- 
junxit, in hac nostra editione proprias singula stationes 
obtinent. Ejusdem viri cl. Appendix ad interpretatio- 
nem locorum N. T. quae de Antichristo agnnt aut agere 
putantur, annotata ad Apoc. xvii. immediate subsequi- 
tur. Reliquorum quae sparsim interseruimus sedes tibi 
indigitabunt catalogi. Optima semper exemplaria se- 
quuti sumus ; veruntamen ad errata ipsorum corrigenda, 
et supplendas lacunas, pejora non raro nobis subsidio 
fuerunt. Quae in catalogo asteriscis praefixis insigniun- 
tur, mine primum in lucem prodeunt : reliqua antea 
excusa nos denuo tibi repraesentamus. Loca vel ex 
SS. Scripturis vel aliunde citata diligenter examinavi- 
mus, atque inibi deprehendimus multa mendarum mil- 
lia, quas aut preli incuria fuderat, aut scriptores, ut fit, 
nimium properantes, parum caverant. Omni a summa 
qua potuimus cura recensuimus : quaa in manifesto 
errore tenebantur, pnrgavimus ; ubi res erat in dubio, 
conjecturis duntaxat adhibitis, liberum tibi reliquimus 
judicium. Characteres, quoties opus fuit, rite variavi- 
mus, et pravis interpunctionibus sublatis substituimus 
aptiores, atque ita locis obscuris et involutis empbasin 
suam dedimus et perspicuitatem. Denique non pudet, 
imo juvat, meminisse quantum negotii nobis facesserint 
minutiae typographicae, quodque per integrum fere 
sexennium literulis, numerorum notis, punctis, accenti- 
bus intenti fuerimus, et tantum non immersi. Haec 
enim utcunque nugae videantur, tamen " seria ducent 
in mala," ubi fuerint neglecta ; et quicquid tuo com- 
modo poterit inservire, nos nee nimis durum unquam 



Prcefatio in Crit. Sacr. 245 

judicabimus, nee nobis indignum. Vale; utere, fruere 
nostris laboribus, eosque boni consule. 

Jo. PEARSON, Archidiaconus Surriensis. 

ANT. SCATTERGOOD, Ecclesiae Lincolniensis Canonicus. 

FRA. GOULDMAN, Ecclesise Okendon Australia in Co- 
mi tatu Essex iae Rector. 

Ric. PEARSON, Coll. Reg. Socius. 



Some account of Bp. Pearson's literary associates in the Critici 
Sacri, and of the bookseller Mr. Cornelius Bee, whose discernment 
and noble spirit of enterprise occasioned the undertaking and com 
pletion of the work, will be found in the Memoir prefixed to these 
volumes. 



PBJEFATIO PAR^NETICA 



AD VETUS TESTAMENTUM GILECUM EX VERSIONE SEP- 

TUAGINTA INTERPRETUM ; JUXTA EXEMPLAR 

VATICANUM ROMjE EDITUM. 

CANTABRIG. 1665. 



CUM multa sint quse de versione LXXvirali, typis 
academicis impressa, dici possent, ea tantum hoc 
loco tradenda duxi, quae animum tbeologiae studio 
addictum ad earn assidue pervolvendam et accurate 
perpend endam maxime impellant. Neque vero de ejus 
antiquitate dignitateque quicquam inprsesentiarum 
dicemus, de quibus viri docti multa, hoc praesertim 
sseculo, scripsere ; qui cum maxime inter se dissen- 
tiant, nihil adhuc satis certi et explorati videntur 
tradidisse. 

Primo itaque versionem hanc frequentius consu- 
lendam diligentiusque excutiendam arbitror, quo me- 
lius Veteris Testament! mens intelligatur, et Mosis 
Prophetarumque sensus liquidior appareat. Cum enim 
textus Hebraicus, quemadmodum apud nos hodie 
exstat, et vel Judseorum vel Christianorum commenta- 
riis enarratur, saepe obscurus sit ; hi interpretes facilem 
aliquando sensum, apertum, et concinnum prsebent. 



Prafatio Par&netica in Vet. Test. Grcsc. 247 

Fateor equidem hunc explicandi modum, a Senioribus 
illis haustum, non in eo pretio apud plerosque esse quo 
oportuit, ex opinione nimis pervulgata, LXXviralem 
scilicet versionem esse ab Hebraica veritate maxime 
alienam ; eandemque interpretandi rationem video 
multo invidiosiorem ab iis hominibus factam esse, qui, 
cum sint textui Masoretico maxime infensi, auctoritati 
LXX plurimum tribuere videri volunt ; quales hoc 
saeculo fuere Morinus et Capellus, viri sane docti, sed 
hypothesibus suis nimis addicti, et ingenio suo nimium 
plerumque tribuentes. Quam autem feliciter Seniores 
illi S. Scripturam sint interpretati, vel inde luculenter 
apparebit, si consideremus quam infeliciter fuerint 
malae interpretatiouis accusati. S*. quidem Hieronymus 
passim hanc versionem vituperat, ejusque auctoritatem 
labefactare conatur ; sed saepenumero sine ratione. Le- 
gimus, Gen. xxv. 8. DJTQN ^P?! ^?!*1 q use verba 
Seniores in hunc modum transtulerunt, KOI e/cXe/Trwj/ 
cnreOavev^A/Bpadfji. S. autem Hieronymus breviter hunc 
locum ita repraesentat, et mortuus est Abraham, statim- 
que subjungit, " Male in LXX interpretibus additum 
" est, et deficiens Abraham mortuus est, quia non con- 
" venit Abrahae deficere et imminui R ." At neque male 
additum, neque quidem additum est. Quis enim nescit 
et PyPl m Hebraeo legi, et JH^l recte reddi per TO 
eKXeiTretv, quod vocabulum non imminutionem Abrahae, 
sed euphemismum continet, et placidam ac quietam 
mortem denotat. Ita certe Onkelos et Jonathan red- 
didere ntojrr^nbO, et Vetus Interpres hie S. Hie- 

ronymum deseruit, transtulitque, et deficient mortuus 
est. Est igitur TO eVXetVeiv Grsecis interpretibus expi- 

a Quaest. Hebr. in Gencsin, torn. iii. p. 344. 



248 Prcefatio Pareenetica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 

rare, mori. Quod non erat exagitandum, sed obser- 
vandum potius; idque ad intelligendum S. Lucam, 
apud quern, cap. xvi. 9. Christus ita loquitur: TLoi^a-are 
eavrois <f)l\ov$ etc TOV /nafjicova TJ/? a^i/cca?, Iva, OTUV CK- 
\i7TJjTe, Se^covTai u/uay et? ray altoviovs {7/071/09. Licet eilim 
et Alexandrinus et Cantabrigiensis MSS. aut e/cXe/7r7 
aut K\iTry legant, quam lectionem etiam Syrus est 
secutus cum ^Ethiopico ; non dubito tamen quin c- 
X/Tr^re, ut reliqui omnes legunt, primo scriptum fuerit, 
et mutatum in eVXe/Trj/ ab iis qui hunc TOV e/cXetVeiv 
sensum non observassent : est enim orav e/cXtVi/re, vulg. 
vers. cum defeceritis, loquendi modo LXX praesertim 
familiari, cum moriemini ; sive, ut recte Theophylactus > 
Iva, OTO.V e/cX/TTW/iej/, KOI ai/a^WjOw/xei/ eic TOV (8/oy. 

Ita Gen. xxvi. 17, Veteres ex Graeco Latini, et abiit 
inde Isaac, et venit in vallem Gerarum, et habitamt ibi, 
Ad haec S. Hieronymus, " Pro voile, torrentem habet in 
" Hebraeo b :" scilicet Ija'^raa. At Sm tarn vallem 

significat quam torrentem ; locum nempe depressum, 
sive aquis coopertus, sive nudus sit c . Nulla igitur 
causa a voce Hebraea, ob quam non tarn vallis quam 
torrens verteretur. At rationem affert doctissimus 
Pater ex contextu, miram sane r '* Neque enim Isaac, 
" postquam magnificatus est, in valle habitare poterat." 
Neque hac importuna objectione contentus, ad vers. 19. 
Et foderunt pueri Isaac in valle Gerarum, et invenerunt 
ibi puteum aquae vivte, hoac annotat : " Et hie pro valle 
*' torrens scriptus est. Nunquam enim in valle inveni- 
" tur puteus aquaa vivae." Mira qu-idem haec philoso- 
phia; mira hsec a S. Hieronymo profecta, cujus Psal- 
morum versio juxta Hebraicam veritatem habet, Qui 
emittis fontes e convallibus. Frustra igitur hie su- 

b Quaest. Hebr. p. 346. c Vid. Hammond! not. in Psabn. ex. 7. 



Prafatio Parcenetica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 249 

gillantur LXX, nee bene Vulgatus Interpres eos reli- 
quit, ut S. Hieronymum sequeretur; unde commenta- 
torum pueriles errores pullularunt. 

Legimus, Gen. xxviii. 19. "V^TI Dtt ttb 
J i"T2tt?N^7> LXX : KOI Ov\a/JL\ov^ /*> OVO/JLO. rfj TroXet TO 
irpoTfpov. Ad quern locum haec habet S. Hieronymus 
in Traditionibus Hebraicis d : " Ridicule quidam verbum 
" Ilebraicum ulam nomen esse urbis putant, cum ulam 
" interpretetur prius. Ordo itaque iste est lectionis, Et 
*' rocavit nomen loci ittius Bethel, ct prius Luza voca- 
" bulum erat civitatis. Antiquae omnes Scripturae verbo 
" ulam, sive clem, plena; sunt ; quod nihil aliud signat 
" nisi ante aut prius, vel vestibulum, sive superliminare, 
" vel pastes e ." At ovXa/j. hie non est nomen urbis, sed 
pars nominis : ut cum apud Strabonem legimus, neraty 
Se rioXt^i/i/y KOI HaXaio-Kq-^eo)? rj Nea/c u>fj.tj f , TrdXat noil 
est nomen urbis, sed S/ti^et additum urbem significat, 
quae quinquaginta ^ stadiis superius steterat quam 
postea fj vea 2/c^/y, ut Strabo loquitur. Neque ulla 
ex diversis significationibus rov D7^N huic loco con- 
venire potest; non vestibulwn, sive superliminare, non 
posies ; imo nee ante aut prius ; illud enim hie 
n^U?N")7. Relinquitur igitur ut pertrneat ad nomen 
urbis, quod LXX potuit esse notissimum, qui DC annis 
ante S. Hieronymum vixere h . De hac urbe 



d Quaest. Hebr. p. 349. Ea- Error natus e numero LX in loco 

dem fere habet in versione Euse- Strabonis paululum huic praevio, 

bii Libri de Situ et Nominibua ubi de Troum Catalogo Home- 

Locorum Hebr. ad voc. Btu^X. rico loquitur, et versus numeral. 
ib. p. 1 66. '' Diversa ratio est qua Joannes 

e " postea," in impresses, er- Clericus hanc Hieronymi cen- 

rore typothetarum. Pauca alia Minim impugnat, negans scU. 

menda bic illic correximus. vocem r^s pignificare unquam 

f Lib. xiii. p. 603. Idem, lib. prius: ad quern respondet Val- 

xvi. p. 758. Mtra 8c TTJV Tvpov % larsius ad loc. Hieron. toin. iii. 

ndXairvpos. p. 1 66. 

K " sexaginta" in impressis. 



250 Prcefatio Parcenetica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 

Eusebius in Locis Hebraicis, avnj ecrriv fj KOI K\rjOei(ra 
Zaj3ov\a, KCU /xera rat/ret Bcu&JA. Ita Codex Bonfrerii, 
sed corruptus, ut ipse suspicatus est. At Codex meus, 
MS. K\rjOei<ra Aoua \ quod sequentia firman t, SefyXwrai 
avwrepw. Nempe in VOCe Bct^A, ^ <5e TO -n-porepov 
eKoXeiTO KOI Aov^ct, et in VOCe Aou^a, ravrriv eTrcovoimcKrev 
'Ia/ao/3 Bat$)//\. 

Pariter LXX malie fidei frustra et sine ratione ac- 
cusantur, Gen. xiii. 13. Et viri Sodomorum mail et 
peccatores in conspectu Dei vehementer. " Superflue," 
inquit S. Hieronymus, " hie in LXX interpretibus 
" additum est, in conspectu Dei. Siquidem Sodomorum 
" coloni apud homines mali et peccatores erant ; ille 
" autem dicitur in conspectu Dei peccator, qui potest 
" apud homines Justus videri." At certe ilia verba, in 
conspectu Dei, non sunt superflue addita, sed ad inter- 
pretandum HTTT'S in Hebrseo. Neque mala est inter- 
pretatio, si accipiamus rnrP7 pro Hin 1 ) ^33?; ita 
Chald. ^ D"!!J?.J ita Vulg. peccatores coram Domino 
nimis. 

Quid quod doctissimus Pater Aquilam " proselytum 
" contentiosum," Symmachum et Theodotionem " Ju- 
" daizantes haereticos k " saepe sequitur, et LXX Inter 
pretibus prsefert, ubi nulla omnino praeferendi ratio 
comparet? Ut Psalm. Ixxxix. (xc.) 7. " Pro eo quod 
'* nos diximus, turbati sumus, Symmachus et Aquila 
" transtulerunt, acceleravimus." Et paulo post : " Pul- 
" chre autem, non ut in Septuaginta habetur, turbati 



i Ita etiam ex codice Vaticano plura habet Epiphanius De Men- 

emendavit Vallarsius, ad Hieron. sur. et Ponder, c. xv, xvi. DC 

Opp. torn. iii. p. 288. Symmacho et Theodotione, ibid. 

k Vid. Hieron. Epist. Ivii. . c. xvi, xvii. De bis versionibus 

ii. et Comment, in Abacuc, lib. fusius agit J. G. Carpzovius in 

ii. ad cap. iii. 13. De Aquila Introd. ad Libros Vet. Test. 



Prcefatio Partenetica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 251 

" sumus, sed juxta Hebraicum, accelerammus dicitur." 
Imo vero juxta Hebraicum erapd-xOwev, turbati sumus, 
dicitur; id enim omnino *0^rD3 sonat. Licet euim 

?m in Piel aut Hiphil festinare aut accelerare signi- 
ficet, in Niphal tamen subito terr'ore percelli, et con- 
turbari denotat. Ut Psalm, vi. 3. "Tfcto n Vi??? *V*?\ 
rQD ^ rrirP gND-) *a<rai fM t Kvpte, on era- 
ra otrra. JJLOV, KOI fj ^ir^fj pov erapa-^Qrj <r<f)oSpa. 
Quern locum ipse S. Hieronymus juxta Hebraicam 
veritatem ita transtulit : Sana me, Domine, quoniam 
conturbata sunt ossa mea, et anima mea conturbata est 
valde. Et Psalm, xlviii. 5. *ftcnj ^^H^- 1 ? erapa^Otia-av, 
eo-aXevOtja-av [LXX.] Hieron. conturbati sunt, admirati 
sunt. Imo, quod ulterius observandum est, ipse doc- 
tissimus Pater, qui in Epistola ad Cyprianum 1 ita 
versionem LXX vituperat, in versione sua juxta He 
braicam veritatem Seniores sequitur : Consumpti sumus 
in furore tuo, et in indianatione tua conturbati sumus. 

Gen. xxxviii. 5. Vetus Latina versio ex LXX facta, 
hcec autem erat in Chazbi, quando peperit eum. Ad 
quae verba S. Hieronymus, Traditionibus Hebraicis in 
Genesin : " Verbum Hebraeum hie pro loci vocabulo 
" positum est, quod Aquila pro re transtulit, dicens, 
" Et vocavit nomen ejus Selom. Et factum est, ut men- 
" tiretur in partu postquam genuit Selom. Postquam 
" enim genuit Selom, stetit partus ejus. Chazbi ergo, 
" ^3 non nomen loci, sed mendacium dicitur m ." At 
nee ^3 in Hebraeo legitur ; nee mendacium, si ita 

1 Epist. cxl. (al. cxxxix.) 10. In versione vocis Achzib, Mic. i. 

m Quaest. Hebr. p. 364. " Con- 14. quae Drusio eadem est cum 

" tra Hieronymum sentiunt in- Chezib in Gen. melior est con- 

" terpretes plerique alii veteres sensus inter Seniores et Hiero- 

" recentesque." Vallars. in loc. nymum. 



252 Prafatto Par&netica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 



legeretur, significaret, quod est 1W, neque 
exponi possunt, et factum est in mentiendo, sive ut 
mentiretur, cum 2,^2 infinitivi formam non habeat. 
Vocabulum igitur loci agnoscit Onkelos, et cum eo R. 
Solomon et Aben-Ezra. Eusebius diserte, Lib. de 
Locis Hebraicis, Xao-/3e}, evOa eTrriyBrja-av, (ita Euseb. a 
Bonfrerio editus, sed rectius MS. noster,) Xao-/?}, evOa 
eTe\Qrjcrav TO> 'loi^a iraices' oeixwrcu vvv ev oplois 'E\eu- 
OepoTToXews epq/u.09 Tr\t](Tiov 'O^oXXa/x. Frustra igitur 
hie Aquila Senioribus pnefertur, et Vulgata Versio im- 
merito S. Hieronymum est secuta, quo nato parere ultra 
cessavit. 

Gen. ii. 8. Dij^p nya ja ta^r 1 ?^ rr^rr; wi LXX, 

KaJ e(f)vTiKTev KJjOto? 6 0eo? Trapdei<TOv ev 'E^e/tx /cara 

ai/aroXa?. Omnia proprie atque perspicue. Ad ha?c 
S. Hieronymus, " pro paradiso in Hebraeo hortum 
" habet ; id est, ^rw u ." At erat ille hortus arborum 
omni genere consitus, qui certe est TrapdSeia-os. Quod 
vocabulum et locum hunc sine dubio recte expressit, et 
ad superiorem sensum in Novo Testamento ideo est 
accommodatum. " Porro," inquit, " Eden, )"TV, deficits 
" interpretantur." Recte : ita Hesych. 'E^e/x, rpvcp^. 

Et Suidas, V. ITajod^etcro?. 'E(5e/x ^e Tpo(prj epju.tjvevera.1. 

Lege, rpvcpy. Ita Patres. " Pro quo Symmachus trans- 
" tulit paradisum florentem" At hoc minus recte ; 
licet enim \~W delicias denotet, hie tamen nomen loci 
est, quod ex adjuncta praBpositione patet : pl^l ]B non 
est paradisus florens, neque )"!^3. ad \Z proxime spectat, 
sed ad 3N3 1 ? referri debet. Et nomen loci esse per- 
spicuum est ex iis qua3 dicuntur de Caino Gen. iv. 16. 

n Qusest. Hebr. p. 307. 



Prcefatio Parcenetica in Pet. Test. Grcec. 253 

Ka) cpKrjarev ev ytj Na?$ Karevavrt 'E^eyti. Recte Eusebius 
de Locis Hebraicis, 'E^e/u, 6 row Oelov TrapaSeia-ov TOTTO? 
eiV ayaroAaV ep/JLijvevcrai Se KOI rpv<f)q. Sed progreditur 

doctissimus Pater: " Necnon quod sequitur, contra 
"orientem, in Hebraeo mikedem, Q^E scribitur, quod 
" Aquila posuit UTTO ap^, et nos, ab exordia, possumus 
" dicere ; Symmachus vero, e/c Trpwrw, et Theodotion, ei/ 
*' Trparrot?, quod et ipsum nou orientem, sed principium 
" significat. Ex quo manifestissime comprobatur, quod 
" priusquam coelum et terram Deus faceret, paradisum 
<k ante condiderat, sicut et legitur in Hebrseo : Planta- 
" verat autcm Deus paradisum in Eden a principio" 
Ita doctissimus Pater in sententiam incidit, Judaicorum 
interpretum gratia ductus, cui nee Judaei ipsi favent . 

Ex eodem fonte fluxerunt aliae adversus Seniorum 
interpretationem exceptiones. LXX, Gen. xxxiii. 1. 
Ka! SteiXev, vel eiriStelXev, TaKWjS TU TraiSia e-rrl Ae/ai/, Kal 
CTT} 'Pa^X, KOI eV) raf Svo Trai&Way. Et divisit pueros 

super Liam, et super Rachel, et super duos ancillas. Ad 
haec verba S. Hieronymus in Traditionibus Hebraicis, 
" non, ut plerique existimant, tres turmas fecit, sed duas. 
" Denique ubi nos habemus divisit, Aquila posuit ^/x/- 
" o-eva-ev, id est, dimidiavit ; ut unum cuneum faceret 
" ancillarum cum parvulis suis, et alium Liae et Rachel, 
** quae liberae erant, cum filiis earum P." At melius 
LXX Hebrceum yn^ transtulerunt divisit* quam Aquila 
dimidiavit ; est enim !T2n simpliciter dividers, in quot- 
cunque partes divisio fiat ; ut Jud. ix. 43. D^H'nN nj?^ 
tih D2irT1 Et tulit exercitum suum, et divisit 

. 



Vid. libr. Apocryphum 2 Esdrae iii. 6. quera locum con- 
tulit Vallarsius. P P. 385. 



254 Prcefatio Parcenetica in Vet. Test. Grose. 

in ires turmas. Et Dan. xi. 4. 

D?tt$n fTilTn ^1*1^7 Conteretur regnum ejus, et divi- 
detur in quatuor ventos cceli. Et quod hoc ipso loco 
Jacobus diviserit filios suos in tres turmas, ex ipso 
textu patet ; divisit enim super Liam, et super Rachel, 
et super duas ancillas. v. 1. Et posuit utramque ancillam 
et liberos earum in principio, Liam vero et filios ejus in 
secundo loco, (Heb. D^'inN i. e. primis posteriores,} 
Rachel autem et Joseph novissimos, (Heb. D^phPtSi i. e. 
adhuc posteriores.} v. 2. Et appropinquantes ancillae et 
filii earum incurvati sunt. v. 6. Accessit quoque Lia 
cum pueris suis, et cum similiter adorassent, extremi 
(Heb. "nM1 Cliald - l?"^ LX X Kal /xera ravra,) ap- 
propinquantes Joseph et Rachel adoraverunt. v. 7- 

Quid quod S. Hieronymus interpretationem LXX 
tanquam impropriam saepe rejicit, vel quod male ante 
ipsum fuerit Latine explicata, vel quod earn ipse minus 
recte intellexerit. Cum enim haec Graeca Versio 
prioribus Ecclesiae saeculis fuerit saepius translata, idque 
ab iis factum sit, qui linguae Hebraicae ignari, earn cum 
textu authentico conferre non potuerint ; fieri non 
potuit, quin multa aliter Latine exprimerentur, quam 
Graeca verba, quae Hebraeis semper respondebant, so- 
narent. Ut Psalm, cxxvii. (cxxviii.) 2. rou? TTOVOV? rwv 
Kap7ru>i> a-ov (pdyea-ai, Veteres transtulerunt, laboresfruc- 
tuum tuorum manducabis ; sensu nullo : " cum in hoc 
" loco non LXX Interpretes, sed Latini, de Graeci 
" verbi ambiguitate decepti, Kapirovs fructus magis quam 
" manus interpretati sint, cum Kapvrol manus quoque 
" dicantur, quod in Hebraeo ponitur capheca, TS5," ut 
recte disserit S. Hieronymus, Epist. cxli. (al. xxxiv. 5.) 



Prcefatio Parcenetica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 255 

*15 enim proprie wla, quae est icap-ros. Plena locutio 
1 Sam. V. 4. V"P JTlSS 01 icap-nol TWV ^eipcav avrov. Recte 
TheodoretllS, 'O Se 2iy/u/za}oy, KOTTOV ^eipiav trov e<rOl<av' u>9 
eivcu StjXov on KOI ol 'EfiSo/uLrjicovTa, Kap-rrovs ov rqv eiri- 
KapTriav eicdXecrav, uXXa TO fJiopiov TWV ^eipiav. Quod ideo 

fuit notandum, quia hie Latini interprets error pro cor- 
rectione foedam Senioribus corruptionem intulit. Cum 
enim putarent melius dici fructus laborum aliquem 
inanducare, quam labor es fructuum, etiam Graeco textui 
vim intulerunt, et, pro TOV? TTOVOV? ru>v Kap-n-iav crov, scrip- 
serunt TOW icap-rov? ru)v TTOVWV crov, ut in vetustissimo 
Alexandrine MS. legitur. 

Male igitur aliquando LXX in Latinum sermonem 
sunt translati, et S. Hieronymus, malam translationem 
secutus, non Latino Interpreti, sed Senioribus ipsis 
imputat. Ut Gen. xxxiv. 25. Et introgressi sunt ci- 
vitatem diligenter, et interfecerunt omnem masculum. 
Ad quae verba doctissimus Pater, " pro eo quod in 
" Graecis legitur, acr</>a\&>?, id est, diligenter, in Hebraeo 
" scriptum est PfD2 beta, id est, audacteret confidenter?" 
At a<r<pa\a>? non recte vertitur diligenter ; multo minus 
eo sensu hie capiendi sunt Seniores, qui Hebraicum 
Hips optime exprimunt, sive ad Sichemitas, cum Para- 
phraste Chaldaico, sive ad Jacobi filios referatur. Est 
enim ntpS proprie a<r<a\a, id est, non diligentia sed 
securitas, et ntpsb sive, per ellipsin, 
secure ; ut Lev. xxvi. 5. D^^.^ 
KaroiKricrere ner a<7^)aXe/af CTT} r^y yrjs v/u.a*i>. Habita- 
bant Sichemitae secure, nihil mali metuentes ; et in- 
gressi sunt Jacobi filii secure, id est, sine periculo. 

Legimus Gen. xlix. 21. Ne$0aX< crre'Xe^oy a 

i Quaest. Hebr. ib. p. 359. 



256 Prcufatio Parcenetica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 

vov eTnSiSov? ev ru> yw^fj.arL KaXXo?. Quae verba sic 
Latine exhibet S. Hieronymus, Nephihalim mrgultum 
resolutum, dans in generations pulchritudinem. At 
neque o-reXe^o? mrgultum, neque ai/et/ueVoi/, resolutum, 
neque yewtj/ma generationem significat. Ita Graecis La- 
tina minime respondent. Melius multo Latine versa 
exstant apud Ruffinum, lib. ii. de Benedictionibus : 
Arbor remissa, al. emissa, vel, ut nostra exemplaria ha- 
bent, mtis diffusa t proferens in fruclibus decorem: et 
rursus, ml arboi* diffusa, vel mtis. Apud S. Am- 
brosium, [De Benedict. Patriarch, c. x.J Nephthalim 
mtis remissa, porrigens in germine decorem. 2reXe^o? 
certe non est mrgultum^ quod proprie est a virgula, 
ut a salice salictum. Gloss. Virgulta, /3Xa<rT>//uaTa, 
Odfj-voi, et Graeco-Latin. /3Aao-r>//xa, germen, mrgultum. 
Hie autem (rre'Xe^o? aut arbor ipsa, aut ejus truncus, 
ex quo ret /3Xaorj;/zaTa, seu virgulta : HT)^ enim arbor. 
'Avei/uevov etiam non resolutum est, aut remissum, sed 
ab aviwi, quod emittere et proferre denotat, et ad 
plantas cum spectat, germinationem significat, et He- 
braeo nn7U? optime respondet : ut Psalm. Ixxx. 12. 

oy-iy TT?? n^u?n et Ezek. xvii. 6. 

et emisit propagines, et Jerem. xvii. 8. 

I^UJnu? vuler. ad humorem mittit radices suas. Ita 

T T | T 

Dioscorides, de Xiphio, lib. iv. c. 2. KavXov ^e awV 
KapTrov Se (rrpo'yyvXov, pl^a? /8. Est igitur 
avei/nevov, nn7tp H7^ arbor vel truncus emis- 
sus, diffusus, germinans, propagines emittens : cui optime 
respondet 7fVj/>7/xa,illud scilicet quod emittitur, sive/rwc- 
tus, ut Ruffinus, sive germen potius, ut Ambrosius : 
ramum enim vel frondem significare videtur, ut re- 
spondeat ^^N. Atque ita haec plana sunt, ut " designet 



Prcefatio Parcenetica in Vet. Test. Grtec. 257 

" historia Nephtalim rura possedisse arboribus ne- 
*' morosa," ut loquitur Ruffinus. Cum si nn7U? J~n*N 

cum S. Hieronymo sive agrum irriquum, sive cervum 
emissum interpreteris, posteriorem partem vaticinii cum 
priori vix unquam conciliaveris. 

Rebeccam ita alloquitur Jacobus, Gen. xxvii. 12. 

Mi; TTOTe \J/^Xa<^>i7(r7 yue 6 TTdTrjp fJLOV, KOI ecro/Acu evavrlov 

avrov <y Kara<ppovu>v. Vers. Lat. Rom. Ne forte 
attrectet me pater, et ero in conspectu ejus quasi spernens. 
Ubi primuin M irore non est ne forte, sed forte, idem 
quod Hebraeum 'hw, ita enim Graeci cum dubitant 

loqui solent. At vero quare Jacobus vereatur, ne 
appareat patri quasi spernens, non video ; non hanc 
expositionem vox Hebraea, non res ipsa admittit, sed 
alium omnino sensum postulat. Melius fortasse dices 
J.*riVJnp3 ab Aquila versum, toy /cara/uto/fw/uej/oy, ut irri- 
dem, aut a Symmacho, <J>y /caraTra/^coi', ut illudens, quern 
secutus estVulgatusInterpres, quam aLXX wsKarcKppo- 
vwv, ut sperneiis. Et recte quidem, si Karafypovwv tam 
frigide interpretemur. Est sane ea vocis Graecae usi- 
tata significatio, sed non sola, nee huic loco accommoda. 
LXX alibi vocem hanc Hebneam per nuxatrQai et 
ffjiTrai^eiv transtulere, unde suam interpretationem Aqui 
la et Symmachus hauserunt : hie autem KaTa^povwv 
potius usurparunt, ut huic loco magis accommodum. 
Hesych. KctTa^ooyeW, /cara/SouXeuoVevoy, adversus ali- 
quem consilium capiens, insidias struens, dolose affectans ; 
ut de Pisistrato loquitur Herodotus, lib. i. . 59. KO.TO.- 
<f>povri<ra<; Tt]i> rvpavviSa "jyeipe TpiT-yv a-rda-iv, dolose affec- 
tans tyrannidem, tertiam seditionem excitamt. Est ita- 
que KaTa<fypovu>v idem quod eTr/ySouXoy, insidiator, decep- 
tor, impostor, pr&varicator. Ut Prov. xiii. 15. 
ayaOrj SlSaxri X^P iV ^' ^ Kara^povovvnav (Heb. 

PEARSON, VOL. II. A 



258 Prcefatio Parcenetica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 

subdolorum, impostorum, collide et perfide agentium, non 
autem contemnentium, ut vulgo redditur,) <?v cnrwXeia. 
Et Sophon. iii. 4. Ot irpo^rai avrrj? Trvevjuaroipopoi, 
avSpe? KdTa(f)povt]Tai. Propheta ejus, non portantes spi- 
ritum, ut vulgo, Trvev/uLctTofydpoi, sed Trvev/JLardcpopoi, 
D^ITIS, quasi vento lati, desultorii ac leves ; viri, non 
contcmptores, sed nn^l "^N id est prevaricator 'es r . 

Neque tantum LXXviralis versio ad intelligendum 
textum Hebrseum utilis est imprimis et perquam ne- 
cessaria, sed etiam ad ipsum textum confirmandum, 
etiam eum aliquando, quern nunc habemus, Masore- 
tharum diligentia conservatum, saltern quod ad literas 
spectat. Ut Gen. xiv. 5. habemus scriptum Crn ; 

at aetate S. Hieronymi legebatur, ab ipso saltern, DJ~Q- 
Ita ipse testatur in Traditionibus Hebraicis. " Porro 
" Dm, pro quo dixerunt LXX u/na auror?, hoc est, 
" cum Us, putaverunt scribi per H he, ducti elementi 
" similitudine, cum per H scriptum sit. Beham enim 
" cum per tres literas scribitur,si mediam Jl habet, inter- 
" pretatur, in eis ; si autem n heth, ut in praesenti, locum 
" significat, id est in Ham*" Aliter igitur legebat 
S. Hieronymus, quam nos nunc legimus : ille DI13, 
nos Di"12 ; sed lectioni hodiernae patrocinantur LXX 
Interpretes, qui iisdem literis, quibus et nos, Dill 
legerunt, ut et codex Hebraeorum Samaritanus ; neque 
de loco qui diceretur Ham, puto, uspiam legitur. 

Si igitur LXX Seniorum fama sine ratione non lae- 
deretur, si Judaizantes haeretici sine causa iis non prae- 
ponerentur, si ipsi ex Graecae linguae copia et collatione 



r Ita Versio Anglicana, Her prophets are light and treacherous 
persons. 8 P. 327. 



Prtefafio Parcenetica in Vet. Test. Graze. 259 

cum Hebnco codice recte intelligerentur, si dcnique 
non solum quoties ab bodierno textu discrepare viden- 
tur, sed etiam quoties cum eo consentiunt, ejusdemque 
lectionem literariam stabiliunt, perpenderemus, eorum 
versionem ad Mosen et propbetas probe intelligendos 
plurimum valere nemo unquam dubitaret. 

Secundo, Versio LXXviralis magni semper sesti- 
manda, et in promptu theologis habenda, quo testimonia 
ab apostolis reliquisque Novi Foederis scriptoribus ad 
probandum Jesum esse Christum, et veritatem Chris- 
tianae religionis illustrandam, ex Veteri Testamento 
deprompta confirmentur, et ab omni exceptione libe- 
rentur. " Hoc enim generaliter observandum, quod 
" ubicunque sancti Apostoli aut Apostolici viri loquun- 
" tur ad populos, iis plerumque testimoniis abutuntur, 
** (id est, utuntur,) quae jam fuerant in gentibus divul- 
" gata," scil. ex interpretatione LXX, ut loquitur 
S. Hieronymus*. Et recte quidem observatum est, 
Apostolos et Apostolicos viros testimonia ex Graeco 
usurpasse, cum loquerentur " ad populos ;" non tamen 
hoc cum restrictione accipiendum : ad quoscunque 
enim loquuntur, aut quocunque modo scribunt, ssepe 
testimonia ex Seniorum versione depromunt- S. Ire- 
naeus, lib. iii. c. 25. " Etenim Apostoli, cum sint his 
" omnibus vetustiores, consonant praedictse interpreta- 
*' tioni, et interpretatio consonat Apostolorum tradi- 
** tioui. Etenim Petrus, et Johannes, et Matthseus, et 
" Paulus, et reliqui deinceps, et horum sectatores, pro- 
" phetica omnia ita enunciaverunt, quemadmodum 
" Seniorum interpretatio continet." Quae verba, licet, 
quod ad loca spectat, nimis universaliter dicta videan- 
tur, quod tamen ad auctores attinet, sunt verissima. 

1 Qusest. Hebr. p. 371. in Gen. xlvi. 26. 
s 2 



260 Prcefatio Parcenetica in Fet. Test. Grcec. 

Omnes enim plerumque, ubi Vetus Testamentum ad- 
\ocant, Seniorum verbis loquuntur; neque an recte id 
fecerint, dubitare nos sinit Spiritus, quo scripsere. Hoc 
autem consilium Dei, qui per scriptores Novi Testa- 
menti loquitur, summa cum veneratione recipiendum 
est : testimoniaque ab iis producta omni modo defen- 
dere nos potius decet, quam Apostolos, reliquosque 
scriptores sacros, ut aliqui loquuntur, " excusare 11 ." 

Legimus, Heb. viii. 7- ubi Apostolus non loquitur ad 
populos, neque gentes quibus sola Graeca Scriptura erat 
divulgata, sed Hebrseos affatur, et Christum Mosi, et 
Novum Veteri Frederi praeferendum probat : Nam si 
illud prius culpa vacasset, non utique secundi locus inqui- 
reretur. Vituperans autem eos dicit fyc. "On avrol OVK 

eve/ueivav ev rfj SiaOrjKtj /xou, Kayu> y/n-eXycra aimo^, \eyei 

Kvpios. Quae sunt ipsissima LXX verba, ad argumen- 
tum Apostoli accommodata, ex Jer. xxxi. 32. quae rein 
ipsam optime explicant, et discrimen inter duo Fredera 
ostendunt, et Judaeos legi Mosaicoa adhaerentes a Deo 
rejectos docent. Ubi non est excusandus Apostolus, 
sed defendenda LXXviralis Versio, quse auctoritate 
Apostoli corroboratur. Neque hie admittendus est 
Vulgatus Interpres, licet S. Hieronymum sequutus ; 
qui hunc locum ita repraesentat, pactum, quod irritum 
fecerunt, et ego dominates sum eorum, dicit Dominus : 
aut paraphrastes Chaldaicus, qui reddit ir&nrw ^SIT 
]irQ et ego complacui mihi in eis : hac enim interpre- 
tatione non tantum Judasorum rejectio obscuratur, sed 
etiam Veteris et Novi Foederis discrepantia tollitur, ut 
ipsi etiam interpretes Judaici fatentur. Est igitur omnino 
Grosca versio defendenda; idque faciendum sine prae- 
judicio textus Hebraici. Neque enim legendum cum 

u Alluditur ad verba S. Hieronymi in Comment, in Epist. ad Ga- 
latas, lib. iii. cap. v. 12. 



Prcefatio Parcmetica in Vet. Test, Grcec. 261 

Capello Dl ^r^J,' (quod nusquam legitur, sed potius 
D^nSw,) neque cum Hugone Grotio dicendum LXX 
legisse ^ribrQ, quae vox semel quidem reperitur, cum 
1 conjuncta, Zach. xi. 8. "Q nTTQ DtCB3 D3"), quern 

locum ita interpretati sunt LXX, /caJ yap al -^v^ai 
avrwv eTTtapvovro eV e/we* siquidem animce eorum rugiebant 
super me ; ut Theodoretus accepit, qui ita sensum ex- 

pressit, eTreiSav TOIVVV 6t]pt<i)$a>s JJLOI TrpocrrjXOov oiove} fipv- 
XwjjLevoi, KOI. r*]v /j.ijv ^zx^wi/Te? (Tf^ayrfv ; vel ut in aliquibus 
libris legitur, eTropeuovro, uti fortasse legebat S. Hiero- 
nymus, qui Latine in hunc modum exhibet, siquidem et 
animce eorum irruebant super me. Quocunque modo 
legas, verisimile non est LXX Interpretes, qui locum 
Zacharise ita sunt interpretati, apud Jeremiam legisse 
''.TPrQ. Et Seniores proculdubio ^SjQ jj/xe'Xi/o-a 
transtulerunt, cum, et Judaeis asserentibus, et Arabica 
lingua testante, /JO aspernari, fastidire, rcpudiare 
significet, et contextus ipse lianc significationem pos- 
tulet*. 

Insignis locus est Heb. x. 38. 'O <^e <5//ra<o? e/c TrtWea)? 

^/crerat* Kai eav VTroo-TeiXtjrai, OVK evSoKet rj ^v^f) JJLOV ev 

aura). Quibus verbis tanquam fundamento utitur 
[Apostolus], dum Hebraeos ad perseverantiam cohor- 
tatur. Sumpta autem sunt ex Habac. ii. 4. ordine 
tantum inverse, quo melius eos a lapsu deterreat ; id- 
que secundum versionem LXX. Quod ideo fuit no- 
tandum, ut perspicere possimus, qualis sit ilia observatio 
S. Hieronymi, quam ad hunc prophetae locum protulit v : 
" Porro quod Apostolus LXX magis testimonio abusus 
" est ad Romanos scribens, Jitsttts autem ex fide mea 



x Confer not. Pococki, quern Y Comment, in Abacuc, lib. i. 
citat Micliaelis in Jer. xxxi. 32. cap. 2. torn. vi. p. 612. ed. Vallars. 



262 Prcefatio Partenetica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 

" vivet, et non eo quod habetur in Hebraico, causa 
" perspicua est. Scribebat enim Romariis,qui Scripturas 
" Hebraicas nesciebant : nee erat ei cura de verbis, curn 
*' sensus esset in tuto, et damnum ex eo prsesens dispu- 
" tatio non habebat. Alioquin ubicunque diversus est 
" sensus, et aliter scriptus est in Hebraico, aliter in 
" LXX, nota eum uti liis testimoniis, quae a Gamaliele 
" doctore legis didicerat." Ubi observandum primo 
legisse S. Hieronymum, cap. i. v. 17. ad Rom. ex fide 
meet; cum nee in Graecis nee in Latinis codicibus ita 
nunc legatur, sed ex fide tantum 2 . Id autem minim 
alicui videatur, quod doctissimus Pater, qui alibi solum 
S. Lucam testimoniis ex LXX deductis, ubi ab Hebraeo 
discrepant, abuti coutendit a , id nunc de S. Paulo con- 
cedat, et rationem reddat, quod Romanis scriberet, 
" qui Scripturas Hebraicas nesciebant ;" ac si Corinthii, 
Galatae, Ephesii, reliquique, magis Hebraicam linguam 
callerent, quam Romani. Mirum adhuc magis, quod 
asserat S. Paulum alibi semper ex Hebraico testimonia 
petere ; cum ipse testetur, " Pauli idcirco ad Hebraeos 
" Epistolae coiitradictum esse, quod ad Hebraeos scribens 
" utatur testimoniis, quae in HebraMs voluminibus non 
" habenturV Minim denique, quod solum locum ad 
Roman os citet, cum hie ad Hebraeos multo plura ex 
LXX habeat, eaque ab Hebraico, uti a S. Hieronymo 
intelligitur, multum diyersa. Ita enim LXX, 'Eai/ VTTO- 
(TTeiXtjTai, OVK evSoxei fj ^v^r] /uov ev avru>' o <5e SIKCUOS etc 

7T/0-T6CO? /ULOV Q](TeTai, Vel, Ut MS. AleX. 6 <^C SlKCllOS fJLOV 

ex -Tr/crreto? ^(reTa/. At aliter sonabant Hebraica, ver- 
tente S. Hieronymo, Ecce qui incredulus est, non erit 



z Locum ex propheta bis citat :t Vid. Hicronymi Comment. 

S. Cyprianus, Adv. Judaeos i. . in Isai. lib. iii. c. vi. torn. iv. p. 97. 

vi. 3. . xlii. " Justus autcm ex b Ibid. 
" fide mea vivet." 



Prcefatw Parcenetica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 263 

recta anima ejus in semetipso : Justus autem in fide sua 
vivet. Neque hie " excusandus" Apostolus ; sed potius 
LXXviralis Versio approbanda ac defendenda est. S. 
quidem Hieronymus H7EV n|rr Ecce qui incredulus 
est transtulit, sensum magis quam verba respiciens ; at 
cum fa vertit in semetipso, alienam plane a mente 
Apostoli sententiam est amplexus. Cum vero idem 
iS in Commentario referat ad visionem praecedentem, 
multo adhuc magis cum a LXX turn ab Apostolo re- 
cedit. Verba ejus sunt : " LXX dicentes ypa^ov opaviv, 
" id est, scribe risionem, et postea, si defecerit, sustine 
" ettm, quid veniens veniet, et non tardabit ; si subtraxerit 
" se, non placebit animce mece in eo, primum interpretati 
" sunt visionem genere foeminino, quae apud Hebmeos 
*' generis masculini est : deinde, secundum Hebraicum 
" genus, ubi declinatur masculine, sustine eum, et, non 
" placebit animcemece in eo, ipsi quoque masculine genere 
" declinaverunt. Quum utique debuerint, juxta id quod 
" primum interpretati sunt visionem, etiam in reliquis 
" foemininum genus ponere visionis, ut dicerent, expecta 
" earn, quia reniens veniet, quod si se subtra<rerit, non 
" placebit anima mece in ea, id est, in visione" Mira 
liacc quidem explicatio prophetce, mira increpatio 
Seniorum. Neque vero moderna literalis expositio 
melior est, Ecce elata est, non recta anima ejus in eo: 
quae quo referenda sint, aut ad quern finem dicta, quis 
divinare potest ? Nos quidem textum Hebrseum non 
solicitamus ; sed secundum mentem Seniorum expli- 
candum contendimus: /CV enim non tantum elatum 
csse, sed etiam subducere se et occultare significat ; et 
cum nominis naturam induit, non tantum locum excel- 
sum et munitum, sed etiam obscurum absconditumque 

denotat, ut 2 Heg. v. 24. *7Djrrr*7M Nn^, KOI yXOcv eiV 



2(J4 Prcefatio Parcenetica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 

TO a-Koreivov, vel, ut paraphrastes Chaldaicus, "^^7 '2?"} 
^DS, ut 2 Paralip. xxxiii. 14<. et TO aSvrov et TO oVeX 
habemus ; et Mich. iv. 8. turris 7D^ a LXX dicitur 
avx/uwSri?, S. Hieronymo nelulosa. Est igitur 
se subtrahere prse metu et occultare, quod est u 

\ecr6ai. Hesycbius, et Suidas, 'YTrocrTeiXaVey 

\fm/ze>o9, (frofirjOei?. Recte igitur n7By MSH reddi 
potest, ^cce subducitur, vel accipiendo JIDH, ut ]H 
Chaldaice sumitur, si subductio, vel y-TrocrToX^, y?a^, id 
est, *z quis se subducat, euv inroa-reiXrirat, 1C?^ autera 
saepissime dpea-iceiv denotat; ut Num. xxiii. 27- v^N 
ei a/oeVei T Gey, et Deut. vi. 18. 
TO dpc<rrov, et fdC quod pld~ 
citum est. Sive igitur ^02 sive "iUJCi legamus, facto 
a persona ad personam transitu, qui interpretibus fre- 
quens est, recte hsec verba, ^tt?D3 ^7^ **' '"V?^ ^s"7 
il ita transferentur, 5? yww 56 subtraxerit, ille animo 
meo grains non erit. Ilia autem verba, cum Greece, 
inverse ordine, ab Apostolo usurpantur, a Theodoro 
Beza baud bona fide sunt translata, Justus autem ex fide 
vivet ; at si quis se subduwerit, non est gratum animo 
meo. Cum enim pars posterior versiculi ad justum 
pertineat, ut recte Theophylactus, eav Se vTroffTelXrjrai 6 
SiKaios, Beza eum duplici ratione excludere conatus est, 
primum interserendo pronomen. quis, secundo ei/ avr<a a 
persona, cui competit,ad factum transferendo. Ex quo 
loco quam suspecta debeat esse ejus translatio, nemo 
riescit, qui quibus opinionibus in theologia adhseserit 
novit. Utcunque sit, scriptores Novi Testament!, 
Spiritu Sancto actos, cum ubique fere testimonia ex 
Veteri Fcedere ipsis LXX verbis depromant, non tarn 



Prcpfatio Parcemtica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 26-5 

excusandos esse sentio, quod nimis est dilutum ; quin 
potius videndum annon textus Hebraicus eorum inter- 
pretationem ferre possit, quo et Veteris Testamenti 
sensus rectius intelligatur, et Novi auctoritas magis 
confirmetur. 

Tertio, LXXviralis Versio nontantum ad auctoritatem 
Apostolorum conservandam plurimum valet, verum 
etiam ad Novum Instrumentum recte intelligendum et 
accurate explicandum perquam necessaria est. Scrip- 
tores enim sacri Novi Fcederis uon tantum ex Veteri 
frequenter testimonia producunt, sed etiam Mosen et 
Prophetas ubique doctrinae Christianae accommodant, 
resque Hebraico sermone ante descriptas Graecis verbis 
tradunt ; quod fieri baud aliter fere potuit, quam ut 
modi formulaeque loquendi Hebraeis familiares, Graecis 
incognitac aut saltern inusitatae, redderent eorum scripta 
iis qui Graece tantum scirent obscuriora. Haec autem 
obscuritas tolli aut illustrari nullo alio modo potuit, 
quam ex scientia idiomatum linguae Hebraicae, qua 
conscripti codices prophetici, quos Apostoli ubique fere 
respiciunt, et qua locuti sunt Christi tempore Judaei, ab 
antiquiori puriorique aliquantum deflexa, ad quorum 
mores modosque loquendi disserendique saepe sermonem 
accommodant. Hinc autem evenire necesse fuit, ut 
Graeca Veteris Instrument! versio ad scripta apostolica 
intelligenda plurimum conferret. In ilium enim omnes 
idiotismi veteris linguae Hebraicae erant transfusi, in 
ilia Prophetarum sensus Graece explicati ; illi homines 
Graeci, quibuscum praecipue Apostolis negotium fuit, 
diu fuerant assueti ; eamque primo Divina Providentia 
factam par est credere, ut qui passim et ubique earn 
legissent, ad percipienda Apostolorum dogmata, sermo- 
nesque intelligendos, fierent aptiores. 

Multa itaque Graeca sunt in Novo Foedere vocabula 



266 Prfsfatio Parcenetica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 

quse ex usu Graecae linguae intelligi non possuut, ex 
collatione autem cum Hebraea, et ex usu LXX inter- 
pretum, facile intelliguntur. Quid trap]-, quid weCpa, 
apud Graecos scriptores denotet, nemo nescit : at si 
omnes in universum sensus, quibus his vocabulis Graeci 
usi sunt, recenseantur, nullus omnino invenietur, qui 
mentem Apostolorum attinget. Cum enim "ICQ carnem 
proprie significet, eadem tamen vox ab Hebraeis non- 
nunquam pro homine ipso, aliquando pro humana 
natura, ssepe pro ejusdem naturae imbecillitate, aut etiam 
mtiositate, usurpetur, et in hac sensuum varietate unica 
voce a-apicos a LXX redclatur ; hinc evenire necesse 
est ut quoties Apostoli eo sensu usurpent, quern Graeci 
veteres hand agnoverunt, ex Hebrseo idiomate et ver- 
sione LXX explicetur. Ut celebratissimoloco legitur,/ccu 
6 Ao^o? <ra/> e-yeVero, quod sine ulla veterum Graecorum 
auctoritate, et tamen recte, redditur, et Verbum, sive Ser- 
mojiomo factus est, sive humanam naturam induit. Et 

e epycov vo/mov ov SiKaKaOrj&erai Tracra <rap, id est, homo 

quisquam, ut Psalm, cxliv. (cxlv.) 21. evXayeirw iraa-a 
<rap TO ovo/ma TO ayiov. Hinc phrases modique lo- 
quendi Graecis incogniti, (frpovrj/uLa T^? a-apicos, eV a-apid et 
Kara <rdpica eivcu, Kara ardpKa TrepnrctTeiv, similesque plu- 
res. Ita cum fTH satis proprie Trvev/u.a, qualiter a ve- 
teribus Graecis usurpatur, denotet, et praeterea etiam 
apud Hebraaos multa alia significata contineat, quas 
apud Graecos haud comparent, cum Apostoli eo sensu 
usurparunt, quern Graeci veteres haud agnoverunt, ex 
Hebraao idiomate et versione LXX explicandi sunt: 

ut Joh. iii. 6. To yeycwmmevov e/c T^? crap/cos <rdp% <TTI' 
icai TO yeyevvyftevov e/c TOV Ilveu/xarof Trvevfjid e<rrt. Unde 
SCiemus quid sit /o^/*a, Luc. i. 37. OVK aSwctTyo-ei trapa 
TW Bec5 irav pwa, nisi meminerimus scriptum Gen. 
xviii. 14. -a? n P:^ N ./?"r] quod LXX. transtulerunt, 



Prafatio Parcenetica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 267 

fit] aSvvciTTicrei irapa TO> 0eo> /o^/xa ; Clim "1IH noil tniituni 

verbum, sed rem seu negotium denotet ? Unde cogno- 
sceremus quam vim apud Apostolum habeant TO oVai- 
ovv et To]$tK(iiovcrQai, nisi p~!2 ea significatione usurpassent 
Hebrai, et iis verbis LXX reddidissent ? Frustra apud 
veteres Grsecos quaeras quid sit Trtcrreveiv TU> 0eo>, vel 

etf TOV 0eoy, quid sit etV TOV Kiyiotov, vel vrpos TOV 0eoj/ 

TTtWi?, quse toties in Novo Foedere inculcantur, et ex 
lectione Seniorum facile intelliguntur. Quid esset 
curretos TW 0eo>, Act. vii. 20. unde conjiceremus, nisi 
LXX Hebraea ^n 1TJ2 ^3 in Mini ita reddidissent, 

v ..- 

i&6rr*S ^e ai/ro atrreroc ; Quis TOV Kvpiov pro Domino 
Deo accipiendum putaret, nisi ita Seniores locuti essent, 
quibus Ki'jofo? est 6 wv. Verum haec leviter tangere 
quam latius prosequi potius esse duximus ; sunt enim 
pene infinita. 

Neque vero Sacra Scriptura tantum futuro theologo 
pernoscenda, sed et Ecclesiae, tot ubique sacrarum 
literarum testimoniis ubique suffultae, status cogno- 
scendus, et SS. Patrum in hunc potissimum finem 
evolvenda volumina. Quod si Graecos Patres consu- 
luerimus, quis eos de rebus divinis disserentes intelli- 
get, qui normam, quam semper in animo, dum scribe- 
rent, habuere, non ante cognitam atque perspectam 
habeat ? Aut quae illis Scriptura Veteris Testament! 
innotuit, praeter earn quae a LXX Senioribus edita est ? 
II lam sane, illam ubique respiciunt ; illius auctoritate 
nituntur, illius verba recitant, sententiam referunt, ut 
in Patrum operibus legendis CCECUS plane sit qui eandem 
non noverit. Quis ilia dementis Romani, Apostolo- 
rum discipuli, intelliget, Ow, eav opOw irpoo-eveyicys, opOu? 
tie M $t\y<;, jjf/ua/DTe?; /<r^ao-oi/ c . Quis ilia quae sequuntur, 



Epist. i. ad Cor. c. iv. Vid. H. Wottoni nott. ad loc. 



268 Prafatio Parccnetica in Vet. Tent. Grcec. 

ut ex sacris oraculis deprompta, agnoscet, KaJ e?7re 

Ka'iV TTjOo? v A/3e\ TOV aoe\(pov avrov, AieXOco/mev e<? TreoYov, 

nisilacunam Ilebraeorum eodicnmobservet,et LXX ver- 
sioneni consulat, cui et Samaritanus, et Syrus suffragan- 
tur \ Patricius Junius, licet Graece doctissimus, hsec S. 

dementis verba, TO KVTOS Ttjs cnrelpov OaXda-a-ris KO.TO. Trjv 
St]/u.iovpyiav UVTOV crvcrTdOev ety ray a-vvaywya? ov TrapeK- 
fiaivei TO. TrepireOeifjieva wry K\ei6pa A , minus bene trans- 

tulit, " Immensi maris profunditas in cumulos coacer- 
** vata claustra et repagula quibus vallatur non trans- 
" greditur ;" quod baud perspiceret Patrum antiquissi- 
mum creationem respexisse, et LXX interpretum verba 
usurpasse, quae in Hebrseo non habentur, Gen. i. 9. 

KOI (rvvrjyQri TO vScop TO VTTOKO.TU) TOV ovpavou ei$ TCI? crvva- 

^(Dya? avTuiv. Licet enim S. Basilius observet haec 
verba fuisse obelo notata e , nee in Hebraeo codice 
reperiantur, patet tamen ea ad interpretationem LXX 
pertinere, et ad ipsa S. Clementem respexisse ; et 
objectio ab Origene facta a Joanne Philopono jamdu- 
duin est diluta f . In hunc igitur modum sententia 
S. dementis fait potius conformanda, " Moles immensi 
" maris in ipsa sui creatione in congregationes suas 
" collecta, repagula sibi circumposita non transgreditur." 
dementis Alexandrini ^Tpw/jiaTeis, cum ex variis auc- 
torum veterum seiitentiis, turn vero praecipue ex Sacris 
Scripturis sunt contexti : nee ullibi magis obscuri red- 
duntur, quam ubi Seniorum verba baud notantur et a 

d Epist. i. ad Cor. c. xx. Vid. " dicium, vel efFectum, ideo nos 

H. Wottoni nott. ad loc. " non putamus absurdum id quod 

e Hexaem. Horn. iv. 5. S. Am- " perhibetur additum." Hexaem. 

brosius ait, " Aliqui nee in He- lib. iii. c. v. 

' braeo putant esse, uec in cteteris f Joann. Philoponus de Mundi 

' interpretationibus Sed quia Creatione, lib. iv. c. iv. S. Cle- 

' in aliis quoque creaturis habet mentis loci versionem, quae sequi- 

' et definitionem preeceptionis, tur, cum debita laude Pearsoni, 

et repetitum operationis vel in- recepit Wottonus. 



Prcrfatio Parernetica in Vet. Test. Gra-c. 269 

reliquis distinguuntur. lib. i. IlatSeia & ave^eXeyicTOs 
TrXavarat, interprets Herveto, " Disciplina vagatur in- 
" confutabilis ;" quae verba et per se nihil significant, 
et ab auctoris institute plane sunt aliena. Scripta 
autem sunt, quod interpres baud observaverat, Prov. x. 
17- Est autem eo loco ave^eXeyicTos, nrovi 2$ incre- 
pationem deserem; aut ut Vulg. relinquens, i. e. baud 
potens redarguere, convincere, refellere. Ita saltern 
Clemens Solomonem intellexit, ut ex ipsius verbis 

patet : HatSeta Se ave^eXeyKTO? TrXavarat, (ptjv}, KOI 
fjLercivat TO e\eyKTiKov e/^oy eveica TOV Tag So^ag ray 
Aa? SiaKpove(rOai TU>V <ro(f)i(rTa>i>. 

Sed et ad Latinos Patres non minus quam Graecos 
recte intelligendos LXXviralis Versio perquam utilis 
est, imo necessaria. Quoties enim aliquid ex Veteri 
Foedere citaut, aut ad locum aliquem quocunque modo 
respiciunt, aut ipsi Seniores illos interpretantur, aut 
Latinam interpretationem ex LXX versione factam 
referunt. Quamvis enim fuerint quamplurimae inter 
Latinos Patres Veteris Instrument! versiones, tamen 
ante S. Hieronymum nulla ex Ilebrseo codice facta est, 
sed ex Graeco omnes. "Qui enim scripturas ex He- 
" bnea lingua in Grsecam verterunt, numerari possunt, 
" Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cui- 
" que primis fidei temporibus in manus venit Codex 
" Grsecus, et aliquantulunl facultatis utriusque lingua? 
" habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari," ut loquitur 
S. Augustinus de Doctr. Christiana, lib. ii. c. xi. Et de 
Civit. Dei, lib. xviii. c. xliii. " Cum fuerintet alii interpre- 
" tes, qui ex Hebrsea lingua in Graecam sacra ilia eloquia 
" transtulerunt, hanc tamen quae LXX est, tanquam sola 
*' esset, sic recepit Ecclesia, eaqueutunturGraeci populi 
" Christiani, quorum plerique utrum alia sit aliqua 
" ignorant. Ex bac LXX interpretatione etiam in 



270 Pra-fatio Parcenetica in Vet. Test. Greec. 

" Latinam linguani interpretation est, quod Ecclesise 
" Latinae tenent." Omnes itaque Latinae Veteris In 
strument! versiones ante S. Hieronymum ex LXX In- 
terpretibus sunt expressae ; atque ideo Latini Patres, 
ubi locum aliquem inde proferunt, aut ad Mosen et 
Prophetas quoquo modo respiciunt, non aliter quam ex 
ilia interpretatione sunt intelligendi. Libros duos ad- 
versus Judaeos scripsit ad Quirinum S. Cyprianus, ex 
utroque Fredere, Veteri praecipue, " excerptis capitulis 
" et annexis ;" haec autem, quatenus Vetus Instrumen- 
tum spectant, non aliter quam ex LXX versione 
intelligi possunt. Quis mentem S. Ambrosii asseque- 
tur, qui, in Oratione de obitu Theodosiis, de Helena 
in hunc modum loquitur, " Adoravit ilium qui pependit 
" in ligno, ilium, inquam, qui sicut scarabaeus clamavit, 
" ut persecutoribus sui speccata condoraret," nisi qui 
sciat eurn ad ilia Habac. ii. 11. respexisse, A/6>09 e/c 
rofyov (3oqcrTai, Kftl Kav6o.po<$ K v\ov (f)9ey^Tai avToi ; 
Unde et a S. Ambrosio, et S. Augustino Christus 
appellatur " Scarabaeus bonus." 

Denique Seniorum lectio vel ideo urgenda, quod in 
ea veteris Graecae literaturae plurima supersint vestigia, 
et nonnulli ex criticis Graecis aliter intelligi recte non 
possint, nisi quando ad LXX respexerint observemus. 
Unus pro reliquis nobis erit Hesychius, quern nemo 
nisi in Senioribus versatissimus unquam intelligit. Apud 
eum legimus, 'Zoop rvpos. Unde, quia vocibus Laco- 
nicis scatet, e litera postrema colligere quis posset La- 
conum dialectum esse ; et ita Isaacus Casaubonus ad 
Athenaeum scripsit. " 'Zoop vel 2opop, pro rvpos, caseus" 
At mihi dubium non est, non "Zoop scripsisse Hesy- 
chium, sed 2o|0, idque vocabulorum series postulat ; 
unde Casaubonus, " vel So'/oop," addidit. Neque 

S . 46. Cf. S. Ambros. Epist. xxxii. 6. 



Prcrfatio Parwnetica in Vet. Test. (*rax. 271 

scripsisse eum autumo, aut caseum in animo habuisse ; 
sed rvpo? ; atque adeo urbem Tynim intellexisse. Ita 
enim legimus, Ezech. xxvi. 2. ' 'AvO' ov e?ire Zop fn-i 
'lepova-aXtifJL, et V. 3. 'IcJou 'E^to e^n <re, Zo'p. Utrobique 
autem Hebraice legitur "12, quae alibi a LXX TVpoy 
redditur. Recte igitur apud Hesychium Zo/t>, Tiy>oy. 
Eusebius de Locis Hebraicis, 2o/>, Tvpos, &oiviKtj? /*^- 
r/oo7roXt9, K\ripov Ne^)0a\e<V. S. Hieronymus, "-Sor, 
" Tyrus, metropolis Phoenices, in tribu Nephthalim." 
Et Theodoretus, lib. xi. in Ezechielem, ^ -yap Tu^ooy 2o/> 
T fi ^r*x a> / t)l V Tpo&Byop&'GTu 1 <t><m'fi- Legimus aj>ud eun- 
dem, J$apaKtvf]<riv, aicdvOai?, vicoXo^t' et observat H. Ste- 
phanus legendum Bapctc^Ahy, quia apud Suidam Ba- 
^oa/ci/vJy, ^ anavOa. Verum an vox ipsa sit bene Gnvca, 
aut unde talem significationem sit sortita, non docet. 
Stephanus autem Glossographus antiquus MS. in expo- 
sitione evStadercov ypafyiav, eadem in hunc modum scrip- 
sit, "BapaKivytriVf a/cai/0a<p, o-/cwXi;\^, (lege ex Hesychio 
ovto'XoxJ/^,) unde statim colligimus vocem esse Scrip- 
turariam. Et quidem Jud. viii. 7. legimus, 

w ^man 'sip-rw D3iton-nN, LXX, 

. : T ; ' v v : : v 

ray <rapKa$ vfjLutv ev rafy a*raj/$aiy r^y 
KCU ev rafy /SapKtjvifji. Ita Codex Romanus : Alexan- 
drinus, fiopKonneiv, Aid. jSopKowet/m. Quod autem a/cai/- 
0ay, sive o-/coXo7ray, earn vocem veteres significare puta- 
rint, patet vel ex eo, quod Complutensis et Oxoniensis 
habeant ev roFy T/o//3o'Xo<y. Et Eusebius lib. de Locis 
Hebraicis, BojO/tovi/e!//, 'A*/Xay Tpeirei ei? a*cav0ay, 2^/x- 
^a^oy ety rpt/SoXoyy. Ita editio Bonfrerii ; et S. Hie 
ronymus, " Borconni, quod vertit Aquila in spinas, et 
" Symmachus in tribulos" Sed suspecta mihi vox ilia 
rpe-Trei apud Bonfrerium ; in meo enim codice scribitur, 
Bop/covveJ/u, a TpayaicdvOas Kai TpiftoXow. Ubi pro *ceu 



272 Prcrfatio Paranetica in T r et. Test. Grac. 

(x,) legendum <r, i. e. Symniachus, ut ex S. Hieronymi 
versione constat h . Bapicave'ifj. igitur, vel, ut Codex 
Alexandrinus ad versum 19. Bctjoa/c^i/eJ/u, Graeco casu 
redditur (3apaKt)vio-ii>. 

Apud eundem legimus, M^ cnroarKopaKio-tjar/me, /ut] cnro- 

Sico^rjarujLe, fj.tj cnroSoKifjLacrtiarimc, ubi omnia leviter sunt 
corrupta. Paulo correctius eadem peiie apud Suidam, 

cnroa-KOpaKio-tis Ate, nn ei(8iu>t]s /me, /ut] e? Kopaicas e/r- 

. Hsec ad Scripturam Veterem pertinere docet nos 
Lexicon vetus Scripturarium a reverendo archiepiscopo 
Armachano raihi concreditum, ubi inter vocabula ad 
Psalmorum explicationem pertinentia legimus, Mt] O.TTO- 

a-KOpaKicrri*; /me, fj.tj a7ro8oKi/j.d<rt]$ /xe, JJ.TI a.Troppi^ftj<i /me. At 

nec in editione Roraana, nee in MS. Alexandrino tale 
quippiam invenitur. In editionibus quidem Aldina et 
Complut. Psalm, xxvi. 9- habentur, floqQos IJ.QV yevov, 
fit] a.Tro(TKopaKiart]9 M^, Kcii /u.t] ey/caraX/Trj?? /ue, quibus 
suifragatur B. Theodoretus. At Vulgatus Interpres 
lectionem Romanam et Alexandrinam, M eyKaraXiirt]? 
/me, Kal /mtj uirepifys fj.e sequutus est ; vertit enim, ne dere- 
linquas me, neque despicias me. Adeo vetus est inter 
Codices LXX discrepantia. Certe Seniores verba, 
"OtiJt5rr7N transtulerunt /*>; cnroa-KopaKicrt]? fj.e, caeteri 
autem Interpretes, M a-Tropptyys ne, quae verba auctor 
Lex. Armachani pro explicatione posuit. Testis est 

B. Theodoretus, TO, /x^ cnroa-KOpaKio-ris ne, ny cnropptyys 

/xe el-TTov ol a\\oi epfjLrjvevrai, additque, ex eruditione 
Gentilium Seniores hoc vocabulum hausisse, axo 
ZcutQev Se TraiSelas 01 e^SofJi.t}KOVTa TOVTO TO ovo/ua 
C TO yap, e? Kopaicas, vftpis Tt? tjv irapa TO?? 



h TpayaKavdas, ex Cod. Vati- Montfauconi ad loc. in Hexaplis, 
cano edidit Vallarsius, Hieronymi torn. i. 244. 
torn. iii. 177. Vid. annotationem 



Pr&fatio Parcenetica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 273 

ctTro T/1/oy fjivOou yeyvt]/uivov. Vult igitur a trito pro- 
verbio, 9 Ko'/oa/ca?, e fabula quadam nato, ut etiam 
Zenobius et Suidas testantur, dictum fuisse <r/co|oa/a/, 
quse vox bene Graeca est, ab ipso Demosthene usur- 
pata k , et cnroa-KopaKi^eiv. Cui observation! Grammatici 
veteres adstipulantur. Zenobius, ZroyMNt/yNir, avrl rov, 

19 KOpaKas Tre/uLTreiv, fK(f>av\tieiv. HesychlUS, 



19 epri/jLov TT/j.7rei, KOI apaTdi, cnro TOV e/V Kopaicas ire/itTreiv, 
TO K(^)av\i^iv. Suidas, ^Kopaici^eii', olov ey Kopaicas 
aTroTre/j-ireiv' airo TOVTOV yap elptjrat. ^KOpaKiQiv igitur 
ex proverbio factura est ; lion a LXX, ut innuere 
videtur B. Theodoretus, sed a Graecis vetustioribus, a 
quibus acceperunt Seniores. Et frustra H. Stephanus 
aTrooncopdfy, detraho, novum in lingua Graeca verbum, 
ex depravato Hesychii loco, ut solet, excogitavit, 'ATT- 
(rKopaQv, cnreo-vpaTO. Legendum enim 'Airea-KOpaKKrev, 
Ut apud Etymologum legimus, ' ATrea-KOpdifKrev, avri TOU, 
o.7TKpovcraTO, KOI fjtera /xtVou? e^eftaXev '. Diffiteri taincn 
non possuraus, Seniores aliquando voces nonnullas 
effingere atque formare ad exprimenda verba Hebraea, 
quaa erant Graecis auribus inauditse. Ut cum apud 
Hesychium legimus, 'Ev fiaKpu/macrtv, ev a-Troo-rao-taiy, quis 
veterum Graecorum haec intelligeret ? quis quid velit 
sciret, nisi Seniores consuleret, qui ita in Esdrse inter- 
pretatione loquuntur, ix. 1. OVK c-^wpia-Orj 6 Xao? 'Io-/oa^X 
KOI ol lepeis KOI 01 Aewraz OLTTO XaaJv rtav yaiutv ev /xa- 
avrwv. Hebr. D!l < 'Jnivri3, cum ipsi soleant 
aut in ai/o/itW, aut frequentius in (SdeXvyima ver- 



k In Epist. Phillippi, 13- 'Ava^ap<riv p.fi airo<TKopaKi<tirrf s . Et 

1 Vox ajro<nco/><mr^io9 occurrit Clem. Alex. P*dag. ii. c. xii. TO 

in Versione LXX, Isai. Ixvi. 15. co<r/x(a airoattopaKHrTtov. iii. c. xi. 

quam Latine reddit Hieronymus, aTroa-KopuKtarfov 8t rj^tv *a\ TOV 

increpationem. Tatianus, Orat. ntpararov TO pcu>i>d(s. 

contr. Graecos, c. xii. ot ri>v " 

PEARSON, YOU II. 



274 Prtsfatio Paraenetica in Vet. Test. Grcec. 

tere. Ideo autem in hoc capite per /xa/C|oy/x/ua reddi- 
disse videntur, quod vers. 11. cum JTTD sit conjuncta. 

rraa NTT rn; y-jN 7? 

\aa>v TU>V e6v>v ev /j.a- 
KpvfjLfjLa<rtv avTu>v. Ut enim niyil rfj H^Tw accommo- 
darent, per /maKpv/uL/ma expresserunt, id est, remotionem* 
separationem, elongationem, quse immunditiam et abo- 
minationem sequitur : HI] enim remotio, seu quicquid 
propter immunditiam removetur. Hinc rna Senioribus 

a(pepo$. Hesych. 'A(pepw, aKa6apcria, ut Lev. XV. 19- 
CTTTO. ^ytxtjOa? ecrTai ev Ty a<pe8pa) aur^9. Nonnunquam 

eadem a-jro/ca^q/xeV^ redditur. Hesych. ' A-jroKaQrnj.evri, 
ai/u.oppoov<Ta, ut Ezech. xxii. 10. ev aicaOap<riai<; cnro- 
KaOrjimevrjv eraTrelvovv. A naKpvvu) igitur ut /ute/maKpv/ui.fJtvov 
Psalm. Ivi. in titulo, ita et paKpviui.ua deduxerunt : quam 
vocem, opinor, certe expositionem ejus, frustra apud 
veteres Graecse linguae scriptores quseras. 

Cum igitur LXXviralis Versio ad Hebraicam veri- 
tatem probe perspiciendam, ad auctoritatem testimo- 
niorum Apostolicorum confirmandam, ad nativum Novi 
Foederis stylum recte intelligendum, ad Graecos Latinos- 
que Patres rite tractandos, ad scientiam denique linguae 
Graecae ipsamque criticen adornandam tarn sit utilis 
atque necessaria, quis earn doctis omnibus, praesertim 
theologis, non videt debere esse commendatissimam ? 

Quoniam autem haec Seniorum versio, etiam S. Hie- 
ronymi tempore, " corrupta fuit atque violata," danda 
est opera, ut ei pristina puritas restitui et redintegrari 
possit. Certum est exemplaria quae habemus, Com- 
plutense, Aldinum, Romanum, plurimum inter se et ab 
Alexandrine discrepare ; alios etiam Codices aliquarum 
S. Scripturae partium satis antiques, nunc cum eorum 
aliquo, nunc cum nullo, convenire. Optime igitur 



Prfefutio Paratnetica in Vet. Test. Grtec. 275 

fecerit, qui Codices omries MSS cum eilitis cHligedter 
contulcrit, qui varias lectiones non tantum ad Jle- 
braicaiu veritatcm examinaverit, aed cum antiquis- 
simorum Judaeorum Philonis et Joseph i, et vetustis- 
simorum Patrum scriptis com para vorit, ac dcMiique 
expositioncs eas, quac aptul lexicographos scrijiturarios 
etiamnum exstant, vel potius delitescunt, inspexerit, 
atque ita nobis editioncm LXX maxime puram ador- 
naverit. Quale opus utinam aliquaudo vir doctissimus 
Isaacus Vossius, qui optime potest, perficeret ede- 
retque. 

J. P. 



PREFACE' 



TO LORD VISCOUNT FALKLAND'S DISCOURSE ON THE 
INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 



The Preface to the Reader. 

THE eminent abilities in the most noble author of 
the ensuing learned discourse, and learneder reply, 
can scarcely be imagined unknown to any whom this 
language can reach : but if any such there be, I shall 
desire them to learn the perfections of that most 
excellent person, rather from the dedication, than this 
preface ; the design of which is only to give the reader 
some satisfaction concerning the nature of this con 
troversy in itself, and of these dissertations in par 
ticular. 

The Romish doctrine of their own infallibility, as it 
is the most general controversy between them and all 
other churches excluded by them from their com 
munion, so it is of such a comprehensive nature, that 



a This Preface appears to have reprinted in the works of Dr. 

been first prefixed to a London Henry Hammond, fol. vol. ii. p. 

edition of Lord Falkland's Trea- 629. 2nd ed. Lond. 1684. 
tise, published in 1647. ^ ia 



Preface to Lord Falkland's Discourse Sfc. 277 

being once proved and clearly demonstrated, it would 
without question draw all other churches so excluded 
to a most humble submission and acknowledgment; 
nay, to an earnest desire of a sudden reconciliation 
upon any terms whatsoever. For howsoever they 
please to speak and write of our heretical and obstinate 
persistence in manifest errors, yet I hope they cannot 
seriously think we would be so irrational, as to con 
tradict him whom we ourselves think beyond a pos 
sibility of erring, and to dispute perpetually with them, 
whom only to hear were to be satisfied. 

But when they have propounded their decisions to 
be believed and embraced by us, as infallibly true, 
and that, because they propound them, who in their 
own opinion are infallible ; if, notwithstanding, some of 
those decisions seem to us to be evidently false, because 
clearly contradictory to that which they themselves 
propound as infallibly true, that is, the word of God ; 
surely we cannot be blamed if we have desired their 
infallibility to be most clearly demonstrated, at least to 
a higher degree of evidence than we have of the con 
tradiction of their decisions to the infallible rule. 
Wherefore, the great defenders of the doctrine of the 
Church of England have, with more than ordinary 
diligence, endeavoured to view the grounds of this 
controversy, and have written by the advantage either 
of their learning accurately, or of their parts most 
strongly, or of the cause itself most convincingly, 
against that darling infallibility. How clearly this 
controversy hath been managed, with what evidence of 
truth discussed, what success so much of reason hath 
had, cannot more plainly appear than in this, that the 
very name of infallibility, before so much exalted, 
begins now to be very burthensome, even to the main- 



278 Preface to Lord Falkland's Discourse on 

tainers of it : insomuch as one of their latest and ablest 
proselytes, Hugh Paulin de Cressy, lately dean of Leigh- 
lin &c. in Ireland, and prebendary of Windsor in Eng 
land, in his Exomologesis, or faithful narration of the 
occasion and motives of his conversion, hath dealt very 
clearly with the world, and told us, that this " infal- 
" libility is an unfortunate word :" that Mr. Chilling- 
worth " hath combated against it with too too great 
" success :" so great, that " he could wish the word 
" were forgotten, or at least laid by." That not only 
Mr. Chillingworth, whom he still worthily admires, 
but we the rest of the poor " Protestants have in very 
" deed very much to say for ourselves, when we are 
" pressed unnecessarily with it." And therefore Mr. 
Cressy's advice to all the Romanists is this, " that we 
" may never be invited to combat the authority of the 
" Church under that notion." Oh the strength of 
reason rightly managed ! Oh the power of truth clearly 
declared ! that it should force an eminent member of 
the Church of Rome (whose great principle is non- 
retractation) to retract so necessary, so fundamental a 
doctrine, to desert all their schools, and contradict all 
their controvertists. But indeed not without very good 
cause : for he professes withal, that " no such word as 
" infallibility is to be found in any Council : neither did 
" ever the Church enlarge her authority to so vast a 
" wideness : but doth rather deliver the victory into 
" our hands when we urge her decisions." In all 
which confessions, although he may seem only to speak 
of the word, yet that cannot be it which he is so weary 
of, because we except not against the word at all, but 
confess it rightly to signify that which we impugn, 
neither do we ever bring any nominal argument against 
it. But as when cardinal Bellarmine sets down the 



the Infallibility of the Church of Rome. 279 

doctrine of their Church in the positive terms, " Sum- 
'* mus pontifex, cum totam Ecclesiam docet. in his, 
" quae ad fidem pertinent, nullo casu errare potest;" 
we conceive he hath sufficiently expressed the sense of 
the word infallibility, so that " infallibilis est," and 
" nullo casu errare potest," are to us the same thing ; 
it cannot therefore be the word alone, but the whole 
importance and sense of that word infallibility, which 
Mr. Cressy so earnestly desires all his Catholics ever 
hereafter to forsake, because the former Church did 
never acknowledge it, and the present Church will 
never be able to maintain it. This is the great success 
which the reason, parts, and learning of the late de 
fenders of our Church have had in this main archi- 
tectonical controversy. 

And yet though the Church never maintained it, 
though the Protestants have had such advantage 
against it, though Mr. Cressy, confessing both, have 
wished all Catholics to forsake it; yet will he not 
wholly forsake it himself, but undertakes most irra 
tionally to answer for it. If the Church never asserted 
it, if the " Catholics be not at all concerned in it," to 
what end will Mr. Cressy, the great mitigator of the 
rigour and defender of the latitude of the Church's 
decisions, maintain it? If Mr. Chillingworth have had 
such good " success" against it, why will his old friend 
Mr. Cressy endeavour to answer his arguments ? espe 
cially considering, when he hath answered them all, he 
can only from thence conclude that Mr. Chillingworth 
was a very bad disputant, who could bring no argument 
able to confute that which in itself is not to be 
maintained. 

So unreasonable it is and inconsistent with his con 
cessions that he should give an answer at all ; but the 



280 Preface to Lord Falkland's Discourse on 

manner of his answer which he gives is far more irra 
tional. For deserting the infallibility, he answers only 
the authority of the Church, and so makes this au 
thority answer for that infallibility : from whence these 
three manifest absurdities must necessarily follow. 

First, When he hath answered all Mr. Chilling- 
worth's arguments, in the same manner as he pretends 
to answer them, he must still acknowledge them un 
answerable, as they were intended by him that made 
them. And no argument need to be thought good for 
any thing else, if he which made it knew what he said, 
as Mr. Chillingworth certainly did. 

Secondly, He only pretends to answer those argu 
ments as against the authority of the Church, simply 
considered, without relation to such an infallibility, 
which were never made against an authority so quali 
fied. And therefore, whether the argument of his dear 
friend were to any purpose or no, his answer manifestly 
must be to none. 

Thirdly, If he intend to refute all opposition made to 
their infallibility by an assertion of their bare authority, 
then must he assert that authority to be as great and 
convincing which is fallible, as that which is infallible ; 
that guide to be as good which may lead me out of my 
way, as that which cannot ; that judge to be as fit to 
determine any doubt who is capable of a mistake, as he 
which is not. And then I make no question but some 
of his own Church, among the rest of their dislikes, will 
put him in mind of that handsome sentence of cardinal 
Bellarmine, " Iniquissimum esset cogere Christianos, ut 
" non appellent ab eo judicio quod erroneum esse 
" potuit." 

I once thought to have replied to those answers 
which he hath given to Mr. Chillingworth's arguments: 



the Infallibility of the Church of Rome. 281 

but his antecedent concession hath made them so 
inconsiderable to me, that upon a second thought, I fear 
I should be as guilty in replying after my objections, 
as he hath been in answering after his concessions. 
Wherefore I shall conclude with an asseveration of 
mine own, which shall be therefore short because mine: 
That the reply of this most excellent person, (sola 
operarum summa, praesertim in Graecis, incuria ex- 
cepta,) is the roost accurate refutation of all which 
can be said in this controversy that ever yet appeared; 
and if what hath been already delivered have had such 
success upon so eminent an adversary, then may we 
very rationally expect at least the same effect upon all 
who shall be so happy as to read these discourses. 

Which is the earnest desire of 

J. PEARSON. 



A PREFACE 

TO A PARAPHRASTICAL EXPLICATION OF THE TWELVE 
MINOR PROPHETS, BY DAVID STOKES, D.D. AD. 1659. 

BY THE MOST WORTHY AND LEARNED MR. JOHN PEARSON, MINISTER 
OF ST. CLEMENT'S, EASTCHEAP. 



IF the eunuch in the Acts, having a Prophet in his 
hand, and being asked this question, " Understand- 
" est thou what thou readest ?" could give no better 
answer than that, " How can I, except some man 
"should guide me?" if this were the best account 
which could there be given, where the original language 
was familiarly understood ; what need of an interpreter 
must they have, who, far distant both in time and 
place, can read the Prophets in no other than their 
mother-language, and that most different from the 
tongue in which those holy authors wrote ! As there 
fore the generality of Christians could not read the 
Scriptures at all except they were first translated, so 
when they are, many parts of them cannot yet be 
understood until they be interpreted. And, as of all 
the holy writers the prophets are confessedly most 
obscure ; so amongst them the smallest must neces- 



Preface to Stokes on the Minor Prophets. 283 

sarily be most intricate ; brevity always causing some 
obscurity. 

Now, though there be many commentators which 
have copiously written on the Prophets, yet we shall 
not find that light which might be expected from them ; 
because some have undertaken to expound those oracles, 
being themselves either altogether ignorant of their 
language, or very little versed in it. Others enlarge 
themselves by way of doctrines or common-place, which 
may belong as well to any authors as those to which 
they are applied. Wherefore if any man hath really a 
desire to understand the scriptures, T commend unto 
him those interpreters whose expositions are literal, 
searching and declaring the proprieties of the speech of 
the author, and the scope and aim which he that wrote 
had in the writing of it. 

Of these literal interpreters, useful to all readers, 
those are most advantageous to the unlearned, who 
contrive their expositions by way of paraphrase, and so 
make the author speak his own sense plainly, and per 
spicuously ; which is the greatest light that can be given 
unto any writing originally obscure. For if the inter 
preter truly understand the mind of the author, then 
without any trouble or circumlocution it becomes the 
same thing as if the writer had clearly at first expressed 
himself. And therefore proportionably to our opinion 
of the knowledge of the paraphrast, we may rely upon 
the understanding of the author. 

Thus in these smaller prophets, acknowledged by all, 
especially by such as know most, to be obscure ; that 
interpreter which shall be able to deliver their mind, 
and contrive the same as if it proceeded immediately 
from themselves, must necessarily be confessed the best 
expositor. And no man can be able to perform this 



284 Preface to Stokes on the Minor Prophets. 

but he which is exactly knowing of all the idioms of 
the Hebrew tongue, and familiarly acquainted with 
and constantly versed in the Prophets themselves, and 
the writings of the Jews. 

Now such a person as this is hath taken the pains to 
benefit the Church of God with a paraphrase of this 
nature, the reverend and learned Dr. Stokes a , who hath 
from the happy beginning of his studies been known 
most industriously to have prosecuted that of the 
oriental languages, and hath for more than forty years 
constantly made remarks upon the Hebrew text, from 
which he hath raised unto himself a body of critical 
observations ready and most fit for public view. 
Amongst many advantages accruing especially to the 
understanding of the Scriptures, he hath made choice to 
publish this paraphrase of the small Prophets ; a work 
of more real than seeming value. Which I cannot 
sufficiently commend to the reader, neither in respect 
of itself, it is of so great use and benefit, nor in refer 
ence to his other works, which we may hope to see 
according to the entertainment given to this. And 
that, Christian reader, he desires may be found cor 
respondent to the desert thereof; who is the Author's 
Most affectionate Friend, 

but in this more thine, 

JOHN PEARSON. 

a See an account of Stokes, in Hales, was one of the deprived 
Wood's Fasti Oxon. ii. 81. Wai- Canons of Windsor, and Fellows 
ker, part ii. p. 93. He, as well as of Eton. 



PREFACE 



TO THE (iOLDEN REMAINS OF THE EVER MEMORABLE 

MR. JOHN HALES OF ETON COLLEGE. 

LONDON. Ifi59. 



To the Reader. 

IF that reverend and worthy person, Mr. Farindon, 
had not died before the impression of this book, 
you had received from that excellent hand an exact 
account of the Author's life, which he had begun, and 
resolved to perfect and prefix to this edition. And as 
the loss of him is great in many particulars, so espe 
cially in this ; because there was none to whom Mr. 
Hales was so thoroughly known as unto him, nor was 
there any so able to declare his worth ; partly by reason 
of his own abilities eminently known, principally be 
cause he had learned his author from an intimate 
converse, who was a man never to be truly expressed 
but by himself. 

I am therefore to entreat thee, reader, being deprived 
of the proper Plutarch, not to expect any such thing as 
a life from me, but to accept so much only as is here 
intended. If Mr. Hales were unknown to thee, be 
pleased to believe what I know and affirm to be true 



286 Preface to Holes' 's Remains. 

of him ; if he were known, then only be satisfied, that 
what is published in his name did really proceed from 
him. And more than this needs not to be spoken in 
reference to the advancement of this work ; because he 
which knew or believeth what an excellent person Mr. 
Hales was, and shall be also persuaded that he was 
the author of this book, cannot choose but infinitely 
desire to see and read him in it. 

In order to the first of these, I shall speak no more 
than my own long experience, intimate acquaintance, 
and high veneration grounded upon both, shall freely 
and sincerely prompt me to. Mr. John Hales, some 
time Greek Professor of the University of Oxford, long 
Fellow of Eton College, and at last also prebendary of 
Windsor, was a man, I think, of as great a sharpness, 
quickness, and subtil ty of wit, as ever this, or perhaps 
any nation bred. His industry did strive, if it were 
possible, to equal the largeness of his capacity ; 
whereby he became as great a master of polite, various, 
and universal learning, as ever yet conversed with 
books. Proportionate to his reading was his medita 
tion, which furnished him with a judgment beyond the 
vulgar reach of man, built upon unordinary notions, 
raised out of strange observations and comprehensive 
thoughts within himself. So that he really was a most 
prodigious example of an acute and piercing wit, of a 
vast and illimited knowledge, of a severe and profound 
judgment. 

Although this may seem, as in itself it truly is, a 
grand elogium, yet I cannot esteem him less in any 
thing which belongs to a good man, than in those in 
tellectual perfections ; and had he never understood a 
letter, he had other ornaments sufficient to endear him. 
For he was of a nature, (as we ordinarily speak,) so 



Preface to Hales's Remains. 

kind, so sweet, so courting all mankind ; of an affability 
so prompt, so ready to receive all conditions of men ; 
that I conceive it near as easy a task for any one to 
become so knowing, as so obliging. 

As a Christian, none more acquainted with the 
nature of the Gospel, because none more studious of 
the knowledge of it, or more curious in the search ; 
which, being strengthened by those great advantages 
before mentioned, could not prove otherwise than 
highly effectual. He took indeed to himself a liberty 
of judging, not of others, but for himself; and if ever 
any man might be allowed in these matters to judge, it 
was he, who had so long, so much, so advantageously 
considered, and, which is more, never could be said to 
have had the least worldly design in his determinations. 
He was not only most truly and strictly just in his 
secular transactions, most exemplary, meek, and hum 
ble, notwithstanding his perfections; but beyond all 
example charitable, giving unto all ; preserving nothing 
but his books, to continue his learning and himself; 
which when he had before digested, he was forced at 
last to feed upon, at the same time the happiest and 
most unfortunate helluo of books, the grand example of 
learning, and of the envy and contempt which fol- 
loweth it a . 

This testimony may be truly given of his person, and 

* " Being reduced to necessity, with by degrees to many scho- 

he was forced," says Wood, lars, sequestered ministers, and 

to sell the best part of his others that were in want ; till he 

most admirable library, which was himself, before his death, 

cost him 25007., to Cornelius almost destitute. See Walker's 

Bee of London bookseller, for Sufferings of the Clergy, pt. 

yoo/. only, as I have been ii. p. 94, where an affecting ac- 

informed by persons of un- count is given of Hales's last 

questionable veracity." The days from a MS. of Farindon's. 
sum thus produced he parted 



288 Preface to Hales s Remains. 

nothing in it liable to the least exception, but this 
alone, that it comes far short of him. Which inti 
mation I conceive more necessary for such as knew him 
not, than all which hath been said. 

In reference to the second part of my design, I 
confess, while he lived, none was ever more solicited 
and urged to write, and thereby truly to teach the 
world, than he ; none ever so resolved, pardon the 
expression, so obstinate, against it. His facile and 
courteous nature learnt only not to yield to that so 
licitation. And therefore the world must be content to 
suffer the loss of all his learning with the deprivation of 
himself; and yet he cannot be accused for hiding of 
his talent, being so communicative, that his chamber 
was a church, and his chair a pulpit. 

Only that there might some taste continue of him, 
here are some of his remains recollected ; such as he 
could not but write, and such as, when written, 
were out of his power to destroy. These consist of 
sermons, miscellanies, and letters; and each of them 
proceeded from him upon respective obligations. [This 
impression is further augmented with the addition of 
some authentic letters, relating to the same trans 
action 1 *.] His letters, though written by himself, yet 
were wholly in the power of that honourable person to 
whom they were sent c , and by that means they were 
preserved. The sermons, preached on several eminent 
occasions, were snatched from him by his friends, and 
in their hands the copies were continued, or by tran 
scription dispersed. Of all which published for his, 
there is need to say 110 more than this, that you may 
be confident they are his. 

b This sentence was added in the second edition, 1673. c Sir 
Dudley Carleton. 



Preface to Hales's Remains. 289 

[The editor hath sent these abroad to explore what 
welcome they shall find. He hath some more of his 
sermons and tractates in his hands, and desires if any 
person have any other writings of the same author by 
him, that he would be pleased to communicate them to 
the printer of this work, T. Garthwaite, upon promise 
and any other engagement, that he will take care to 
see them printed and set forth by themselves.] a 

This, reader, is all the trouble thought fit to be given 
thee, by 

JOHN PEARSON. 

This paragraph was omitted in the later editions. 



tBARSON, VOL. It, 



DISSERTATIONES DILE 



DE SERIE ET SUCCESSIONS 



PRIMORUM R01VLE EPISCOPORUM. 



u 2 



JOANNIS THANI DEDICATIO 

AD 

VENERABILEM GUL. SANCBOFT. 

ARCHIEPI8COPUM CANTUARIEN8EM. 

REVERENDISSIMO IN CHRISTO PATRI AC DOMINO DOMINO 
WILHELMO, DIVINA PROVIDENTIA ARCHIEPISCOPO 
CANTUARIENSI, TOTIUS ANGLIC PRIMATI ET 
METROPOLITANO. 



OUOD res ipsa magnopere suadet, et officii mei ratio pos- 
,^_ tulat, id certe egomet absque piaculo missum facere non 
potui. Quern enim magis aut Pearsoniani nominis decus et 
gloria, aut etiam chronologic hae Reliquiae quam reve- 
rendissimum Cantuariensem nostrum, hodie vindicem ac 
patronum agnoscant ? Nam in ea Ecclesiae tempora incidimus, 
in quibus obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit. Haec ergo 
ipsa jamdiu a Petri cathedra depulsa ad sedem tuam archi- 
episcopalem confugit : cumque totus in ea sis ad Ecclesiae 
* commune bonum et animarum salutem, quid mirum si tantis 
laboribus par succrescat invidia? Adeo dura rei Christianae 
pars ac fortuna, tarn iniqua etiam veritatis prae erroris sorte 
conditio, ut vel inaudita antehac venerandam antiquitatem 
impune mentiantur, et fides ipsa sanctis semel tradita audiat 
haeretica. Hem quo redacta est co3lestis ilia verae religionis 
forma, quam misere recto Dei cultui superstitiosa vanitas 
illusit ! Est genus hominum, qui lucem ipsam et veritatem 
evangelii aspernantur, qui larvata et ficta omnia in pretio 
habent, qui relictis veteris Ecclesiae monumentis adulterinas 



295 Epistola Dedicatoria. 

merces passim venditant ; in rebus sacris quam fluxa fides, in 
digerendis Ecclesiae annalibus quanta confusio ! Multi tamen 
exorti sunt viri boni, quos haec aetas in Ecclesiae Dei commo- 
dum tulit, qui omnes ingenii et eruditionis copias istorum 
conatibus feliciter opposuere ; inter quos prima acie merito 
stetit, dum vixit, clarissiraus Pearsonus, infulati ordinis decus 
et ornamentum, cujus haec Chronologia Pontificia, imperfecta 
quidem ilia, sed ab amicissimo Dodwello jam tandem suis 
numeris absoluta, sub auspiciis optimis prodit in lucem. In 
clientelam ergo tuam et fidem, reverendissime pater, etiam 
magni Cestriensis fama se commendat, dum judicio tuo omnia 
facile permittit ; tarn sacro munita praesidio a saeculi maligni- 
tate labem non metuit; cumque vir idem, cujus supra memini, 
Pearsonianae famae studiosissimus, illustrissimi Asaphen- 
sis a nomen in subsidium suis succenturiaverit, certe nil aliud 
sibi voluit, quam ut opus integrum duplici hoc clypeo utrim- 
que tectum procedat in publicum. Deus Opt. Max. utrum- 
que servet incolumem in Ecclesise Anglicanae commodum et 
felicitatem, et in rei literariee literatorumque beneficium max 
imum. Ita ex animo precatur ac vovet 

Paternitati tuae 
devotissimus, 

JOANNES THANE. 

a Gul. Lloyd, postea ad Sedem Dissertation em suam, olim Pear- 
Lichfeldensem, deinde ad Wigor- sonianis subjunctam, dedicaverat. 
niam translati ; cui Dodwellus 



DISSERTATIO PRIMA 

DE 

SUCCESSIONE PRIMORUM ROM^J EPISCOPORUM 
IN GENERE. 



CAP. I. 

I. Vera series pontificum Romanorum suis temporum terminis recte 
disposita ad intelligendam historiam ecclesiasticam perquam ne- 
cessariaest. II. Chronologi Pontificii quilucem majorem expecta- 
bant, aut profess! sunt, nihil in ea re effecerunt. III. Protestantium 
chronologi, earn partem chronologiae aut penitus omiserunt, aut 
confuse tradiderunt. IV. Solus Heinschenius earn partem cum cura 
tradidit, nihil tamen certi attulit. V. Nobis igitur alia tentanda 
est via. 

I. OjERIES pontificum Romanorum suis temporum 
O terminis rite digesta ad intelligendam historiam 
ecclesiasticam plurimum valet. Eadem vero, praesertim 
ubi alii characteres temporis desiderantur, baud recte 
disposita, miram confusionem ut pariat necesse est ; 
cum religio Christiana tarn cito Roma? radices egerit, et 
ab urbe rerum domina in alias regiones penetraverit. 
Per priora autem Ecclesiae saecula ii temporum charac 
teres a scriptoribus ecclesiasticis minime usurpati sunt, 
quos posteriores adhibuerunt; quales sunt anni a 



296 De Successions primorum Romce Episcoporum. 

Christo nato, consules Romani, imperatorum, similesque. 
Antiquissimi quidem scriptores Christiani nunc fortasse 
imperatorem, nunc Romanum pontificem obiter nomi- 
nant ; sed plerumque sine anno imperil, semper autem 
sine anno pontificatus : et quod maxime dolendum, non 
invenimus ab eodem antiquo auctore, et pontificem, et 
imperatorem, simul et in eadem re, nominatum. Quo- 
niam vero imperatorum tempora satis certo nobis 
aliunde innotescunt, ubi eorum nomina proferuntur ; si 
anni etiam addantur, satis certi reddimur ; et si non 
addantur (aliqua circumstantia recte observata) multum 
aberrare non possumus, cum prioris imperatoris exitum, 
et sequentis initium, satis certo cognoverimus. At ubi 
pontifex tantummodo indigitatur, cum Romae episco- 
porum tempora ab initio aut cognita aut agnita hac- 
tenus non fuerint, neque decessoris obitus, neque suc- 
cessoris ordinatio, satis nobis innotescat, gravis error in 
annalibus facile admitti potest, quoties res gestoa ad 
eorum pontificatus rediguntur ; plurimosque hujusmodi 
errores et inveteratos adhuc in historia ecclesiastica 
retineri ego quidem existimo. 

II. " Romana," inquit Bucherius, " Ecclesia licet 
" continuam texat pastorum suorum seriem, lucem 
" tamen in eorum prioribus majorem se requirere non 
" dissimulat." Unde hanc lucem ea Ecclesia quserat, 
nescio ; certe nullam hactenus obtinuit ; neque ipse, 
qui hoc fassus est, quamvis temporum examinator 
caetera diligentissimus, ullam affundere conatus est. 
Dionysius Petavius, vir sane doctus, et in rebus chrono- 
logicis maxime versatus, in Animadversionibus ad Epi- 
phanium Hseresi xxviii. castigatam horum pontificum 
seriem, et ad veros annos redactam se dedisse profitetur : 
sed earn seriem ad veros annos minim e castigavit, unum 
aut alterum annum in sera Christiana correxit, adeoque 



CAP. i. Qua m sit horum Temporum indagatio necessaria. 297 

nihil effecit ; dum eorum tempora sigillatim perscrutari 
" plus molestiae quam utilitatis habere" putavit, aut 
potius, ut se excusaret, putare voluit. Imo chronologi 
ex ea Ecclesia nuperi, ut Labbeus et Acciolius, dum 
maxime insudarunt ut anni vulgares Christi, impera- 
torum anni, et consules, recte sibi invicem responderent ; 
de annis pontificum illorurn ordini respondentibus 
miuime solicit! fuerunt, aut leviter tantum earn partem 
attigerunt. Una nobis cogitantibus bujus discriminis 
ratio succurrere solebat ; quod scilicet, si veri primorum 
pontificum anni eruerentur, autoritas omnium fere 
ecclesiasticarum tabularum, (ut loquuntur,) et martyro- 
logiorum, (quod ad duo priora secula pertinet,) prorsus 
convelleretur. 

III. Sed neque Josephus Scaliger neque Calvisius, 
uterque emendator temporum, quicquam hie tentavit, 
etiamsi ea ratione minime ducti sunt. Nam Scaliger 
in Canonum Isagogicorum lib. ii. hunc titulum habet, 
" Episcopi urbis Romae, Antiochiae, Alexandriae, lero- 
" solymorum, Constantinopoleos, et praeterea nihil.'' In 
Animadversionibus autem ad Eusebii Chronicon, aut 
parum aut potius nihil de annis pontificum scripsit. 
Calvisius nulla cura eosdem disponit, sed nunc ex 
Damaso, nunc ex Eusebio, nunc ex Onuphrio, nonnun- 
quam ex Baronio, ad annos diversos collocat, suam 
sententiam nunquam interponit. Adeo ut, si episco- 
porum Romanorum tempora spectemus, hoc Calvisii 
opus Scaligeri encomium minime mereatur. Hsec 
igitur chronologiae pars aut obiter tantum et leviter 
tacta, aut penitus neglecta, mihi videtur necessario 
ventilanda, enucleate pensitanda, et ad origines eccle- 
siasticas eruendas corrigenda atque penitus reformanda. 
Nam, ut recte ab 111. Cardinale observatum est, " Si in 
" ordine et tempore primorum Romanorum pontificum 



298 De Successions primorum Romas Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

" quempiam errare contigerit, in multos alios errores 
" ferri omnino cogetur." 

IV. Sed postquam haec aliaque quamplurima a nobis 
scripta sunt, et ad finem quern mihi praestitueram pro- 
ducta, vir eruditissimus Heinschenius edidit Diatribam 
Praeliminarem in catalogos veteres Romanorum ponti- 
ficum, ad Acta Sanctorum Aprilis. Ilia Diatriba, quae 
tandem ad manus meas pervenit, totam de hac chrono- 
logiae parte doctrinam accurate et copiose explicat ; 
quae ante ab eo in tomo primo dicta fuerant, cum anti- 
quitatis succum nondum imbiberat, revocat et amota 
esse vult ; quae nunc edoctus melius magisque exerci- 
tatus edit, sola eorum loco substituenda decernit. In 
quibus cum saepissime errores Baronii recte castigat, ita 
tamen tabulas Romanas omnes defendit, etiam ubi 
vitiosissimae sunt, et earum discrepantias tarn miris 
modis conciliare conatur, ut post ejus magnam diligen- 
tiam ad veritatem eruendam, aut parum, aut nihil, 
adhuc peractum esse videatur. Nobis igitur ea pro- 
vincia, quam non paucis abhinc annis in nos recepe- 
ramus, etiamnum integra relicta esse videbatur, neque 
magna viri doctissimi industria proposito nostro viam 
praeclusit, sed potius animum addidit, et desiderium 
illius lucis consequendae accendit, quam Ecclesia 
Romana per Bucherium qusesivit, per Heinschemum 
non invenit. " Placuit,'' inquit Papebrochius, " haec 
" opera circa Romanes pontifices in Aprili, et profuit 
" multis." Mihi certe nondum placuit, multo minus 
profuit. Et credo equidem auctori ipsi minus jam 
placere, cum profiteatur se habere paratam prelo ante 
tres tomos Junii dividendam universam Pontificiam 
Chronologiam, quam studiosius elaborans alia multa 
cognovit. Nam quod se putet ex diebus obitus posse 
initium cujusque pontificatus eruere, hoc est, ex incer- 



CAP. i. Quam sit horum Tempontm indayatlo necessaria. 299 

tioribus certiora producere, et duos parietes eadem 
fidelia dealbare : nihil unquam maximo conatu et soler- 
tissima indagine efficiet aut extundet, quod cuipiam 
veritatis cupido satisfaciat; licet ei in hoc negotio 
Blondellus diu ante in praefatione et apologia viam 
straverit. Nam cum Martyrologium, quod Romanum 
dicitur, post librum pontificalem scriptum sit, ex diebus 
obitus in illo martyrologio descriptis nihil auctoritatis 
ordinationibus in pontificali descriptis accedet. 

V. Quare adhuc diligentiae nostrae qualicunque locus 
relictus est ; alia nobis via tentanda, et ab ilia cui hac- 
tenus viri docti institerunt plane diversa. Neque enim 
tot viros erudites falli potuisse putandum est, si earn 
methodum prosecuti essent, quae veritatem ostendere 
poterat, aut eos auctores in consilium adhibuissent, qui 
ipsos ad lucem aliquam perspiciendam dirigere atque 
deducere valuerant. Sed cum illi tantummodo ad 
catalogos et chronica priorum temporum nimis incerta, 
et sibi ipsis plerumque contraria respicerent tanquam 
omnium oculis exposita ; et interim historiam eorundem 
temporum, tanquam minime ad annos supputandos aut 
necessarian! aut utilem, praetermitterent atque negli- 
gerent, nihil ex antiquitate certius colligere potuerunt 
quam quod auctores, quos ante oculos habuere, quosque 
pro judicio quisque suo tanquam veraciores sequutus 
est, ipsis exhibebant. Primo igitur loco illorum cata- 
logonim, gestorum, chronicorum, auctoritas examinanda, 
discutienda, et ubi opus est refellenda esse videtur, ex 
quibus nulla hactenus veritatis certitude, quamvis et 
diligenter, et a multis quaesita, emicuit, et ex quibus, 
ut arbitror, qualitercunque evolvendis, terendis, atque 
retractandis, nulla unquam emicabit aut extorquebitur. 
Quae examinatio in antecessum visa est mihi in hoc 



300 De Succession* primorum Roma Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

opere prorsus necessaria, turn ut rationem reddam 
aequis lectoribus sane probabilem, quare hactenus ea 
tempora viris perspicacissimis minus intellects fuerint, 
(quod nude propositum aut affirmatum segre fidem 
habiturum apud plerosque facile praevideo,) et simul 
ostendam, quam necessariam sit aliam viam experiri, et 
in eum finem nostra proponere, si forte ilia prioribus 
et veriora, et clariora, et denique firmiora judicari, 
debeant 



CAP. II. 

I. Duo Romanorum pontificum hactenus recepti catalog! veteres 
erronei. II. Graecus prior Eusebii. Refellitur Valesius. Quin- 
decim primorum Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae episcoporum nuda 
nomina, non item tempora, in archivis ecclesiastic! s conservata 
repent Eusebius. III. Sed et recentiorum Hadriano ejusdem 
urbis episcoporum tempora admodum incerta. IV. Horum tamen 
episcoporum nonnullorum tempora, nullo prorsus Autore, desig- 
navit Eusebius. V. Male itaque ex Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae 
successione collegit Valesius, tempora primorum episcoporum in 
Ecclesiae primaevae monument is fuisse conservata. In reliquarum 
sedium primariarum successionibus conservata fuisse verisimilius 
est, non tamen ita certum ut omnem prorsus excludat dubitandi 
rationem. 



I. T^UO supersunt Romanorum pontificum veteres 
J-J catalogi annis uniuscujusque pontificatus con- 
signati, sed non parum diversi, quorum unus a Graecis, 
alter a Latinis prodiit. Et quidem viri docti, aut 
hunc, aut ilium passim sequuntur ; alterum enim 
eorum satis probant, nee de alio aliquo hactenus co- 
gitarunt : unde nunc huic, nunc illi adhaerentes, veri- 
tatem assequi minime potuerunt. Ego vero, quod ad 
duo priora fere spectat ssecula, neutrum probandum, 
utrumque a veritate longe alienum, et a ducis auctori- 
tate removendum sentio ; quod turn ad minuendam 
maximorum virorum in hoc negotio existimationem 
(quam in aliis maximam esse debere libenter profiteer) 
turn ad tollendum totius operis nostri praejudicium 
omnino necessarium esse judico : quodque nisi prae- 



302 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

stitero, et apertis rationibus evicero, aut nullum, aut 
minimum ex industria nostra emolumentum sperare 
potero. 

II. Ut ab antiquiori, Eusebiano scilicet, quo epi- 
scoporum quatuor sedium praecipuarum successiories 
distincte proponuntur, incipiam : merito nobis consi- 
deranda sunt, quae vir undequaque doctissimus Henricus 
Valesius observavit : ille autem ad cap. 12. lib. v. 
Historiae Eusebii haec habet; " Nobiles Ecclesiae, et 
" praesertim quae ab Apostolis institutae fuerant, epi- 
" scoporum suorum successionem in archivis reconditam 
" diligentissime servabant; eorum nomina et diem 
" obitus ex diptychis perscribentes. Hujusmodi libros 
" accurate excusserat Eusebius noster, sicuti ex hoc 
" loco apparet, qui praecipuarum sedium episcopus non 
" aliunde quam ex hujusmodi tabulis digessit." Utinam 
vir doctissimus haec aliunde de archivis Ecclesiarum, et 
successionibus episcoporum reconditis, et de die obitus 
in diptychis scripto docuisset, et Eusebium sua ex 
hujusmodi tabulis digessisse probasset ; nam quod ex 
hoc loco apparere ait, mihi minime probatur. Docet 
hoc loco Eusebius Narcissum post obsidionem Judaeo- 
rum sub Hadriano decimum quintum successionis 
locum tenuisse, eorum quindecim ex gentibus primum 
fuisse Marcum, Me$' ov e7ricrK07rev<rai Kacrtriai/oi/ at TWV 
avrodi SiaSo-^al Trepie^ovcri f KU\ fiera TOVTOV, Hov(3\tov, 
etra Ma^t/xov, KOI eVJ rourot? 'IoyXmi/oV. Quae verba sic 
transtulit Valesius, " Post quern episcopatu functum 
" esse Cassianum, deinde Publium, postea Maximum, 
" ac deinceps Julianum, episcoporum series, quae in 
" archivis illius Ecclesiae servantur, ostendunt." Ha- 
bemus igitur archiva illius Ecclesiae, et successiones in 
illis conservatas, si Latina Valesii spectemus ; sed in 
Graecis nihil horum. Apud Eusebium simpliciter 



CAP. H. Excutiuntur rationes Eusebianee. 303 

positse at TWV avroOi SiaSo-^al id non docent a . Optimus 
sui interpres Eusebius, lib. iv. c. 5. rwv ye MV ev '\tpo- 
<ro\vfj.ois eTTKTKOTTwv TOW yjpovovs ypafyy (Ttafyfjievovs oi5- 
Sa/jiu>s evpov. " Eonim autem episcoporum tempora, qui 
" Hierosolyinis praefuerunt, scripta conservata," (quae 
verba in versione Valesii male omittuntur) " nusquam 
** reperi." TOO-OVTOV Se e eyypa^xav 7rapei\tj<f>a, top pexpt 
T^9 KO.& 'ASptavov 'lovSaicov 7ro\op</a9, TrevreKatSeKa TOV 
aptOfJiov avroOi yeyovacriv Trt<rKOTr<av Staoo^ai. " I Hud 
" tantum ex scriptis accepi, ad illam usque obsessionem 
" Judaeorum, quae imperante Hadriano contigit, quin- 
*' decim numero episcoporum ibidem successiones 
" fuisse." Ecce quindecim episcoporum avroQi SiaSoxa? 
scriptas sane, sed a nescio quo; et in eo scripto nu- 
merum quidem, et nomina conservata, sed praeterea 
nihil. Eorum enim tempora sive annos, aut obitus, 
nullibi reperit scripto conservatos Eusebius. Idem 
Eusebius ipse etiam docet Demonstrationis Evangelicae 

lib. iii. cap. 5. Kcu 17 ta-ropla /care'^ei, tt>f KOI p.eyi(TTr) TI? 
tjv KK\rj<Tia ev ro<9 'lepoa-oXvfiois airo 'lovSaicov crvyKporov- 
mevtj yu^X/ 01 T ^ v XP V(av T ^ p KaT> 'A^tavoi/ TroXiopicias. 
Aeyoircu yovv ol Trpurrot KOTO. StaSo^v irpo(TTa.vTs avrodi 
Tri<rKO7roi 'lovfiaioi yeyovevat, wv KCU dvo/xara irapa rot? 
eyxwpiots tuLVfi/jLovevrrai. " Historia etiam continet max- 
** imam quandam Christi Ecclesiam Hierosolymis fuisse 
" ex Judaeis conflatam usque ad Hadriani obsidionem. 
" Unde episcopi primi qui per successionem ibi prae- 
" fuerunt, Judaei fuisse dicuntur, quorum etiam nomina 
" ab incolis etiamnum memorantur." Quindecim igitur 
primorum episcoporum Hierosolymae nomina apud 

a Valesii versionem contra " Non assentior patri maxinio, 

Pearsonum defendit nuperus Eu- " (Pearsono,) quod putet nomi- 

sebii editor, F. A. Heinichen. in " num duntaxat, non item tem- 

Annott. p. 359. ed. Oxon. Dod- " porum has Hegesippi fuisse 

wellus in Dissert, sua c. xii. 2. " Jta^odf." Vid. infr. c. v. 



804 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

Christianos provinciae illius remanserunt, et praeterea 
nihil. 

III. Quindecim autem episcoporum, qui post illara 
Adrian! obsessionem Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae prae- 
fuerunt, crederes ex ipsius verbis Eusebium majorem 
notitiam habuisse ; sed ipse de iis etiam nihil aliud 
quam numerum et nomina in historia profert. I mo 
nee in chronico eorum tempera distinguit ; sed potius, 
cum ad Narcissum episcoporum tricesimum quartum 
pervenit, haec vel ipse, vel Hieronymus addidit : " Tan- 
" tis apud Hierosolymam constitutis episcopis non 
" potuimus discernere tempora singulorum, eo quod in 
" praesentem diem episcopatus eorum anni minime 
" servarentur." jEtate igitur Eusebii, sub initio quart! 
saeculi, nulla erat annorum distinctio scripto aliquo 
conservata, quae tempora triginta trium priorum epi 
scoporum, qui Hierosolymis praesidebant, distingueret. 
Fateor Epiphanium Haeresi Ixvi. episcoporum Hie- 
rosolymitanorum tempora promisisse ; ubi autem ca- 
talogum texit, nullius annos singulatim affert, pauco- 
rum exitus ad annos imperatorum deducit, Jacobum 
tradit passum sub Nerone, Symeonem sub Trajano, 
Joannem deducit ad undevicesimum Trajani, Justum 
ad decimum nonum Hadriani. Unde apparet, ne qui- 
dem aetate Epiphanii, annos priorum Hierosolymi- 
tanorum episcoporum vulgo cognitos fuisse. Indiculus 
quidem Nicephoro tributus post aetatem Epiphanii 
scriptus suos annos cuique adjungit, ut etiam Eutychius, 
sed unde eos habuerint, nescitur. 

IV. Illud potius observandum fuit, Eusebium ali- 
quando certum annum assignare, etiam ubi nullum 
scripto aliquo assignatum viderat. Ipse enim fatetur 
quindecim prioribus Hierosolymorum episcopis annos 
assignatos reperiri minime potuisse, et tamen Symeonis 



CAP. 11. Excwtiuntur rationes Eusebiatue. 305 

Cleopae martyrio decimum Trajani annum attribuit. 
Nulla auctoritate, seel tantummodo, ut obitum ejus 
ad persecutionem earn reduceret, qua S. Ignatius pas- 
sus est, ut putabat. Didicerat enim ab Hegesippo 
Symeonem imperante Trajano crucifixum esse; quod 

Epiphanius sic expressit, Si/yueajv e-TrJ Tpa'iavou earravpa>6ii, 

" Symeon sub Trajano crucifixus est ;" quodque potius 
ad initium imperii ejus referri debuit, ut auctor indiculi 
Nicephoro tributi nos docet; qui quinque episcopis 
Symeoni proxime succedentibus octodecim annos assig- 
nat, quorum ultimus ad decimum nonum Trajani annum 
vixit, referente Epiphanio. Justo etiam Symeonis 
successor! quatuor annos tribuit Eusebius ad annum 
Trajani xiv. his verbis in Chronico, " Post Justum 
" Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae episcopattim quartus sus- 
" cipit Zaccbaeus." Hsec ille, nemine praceunte ; sicque 
undecim reliquis ex circumcisione episcopis vix viginti 
quatuor annos reliquit. 

V. Ex hoc certe loco, unde observationem suam 
hausit Valesius, concludi non potest primis Ecclesiae 
temporibus memoriam episcoporum in archivis conser- 
vatam, aut dies obitus eorundem in diptycha fuisse 
relatos, aut etiam tempora et annos posteritati trans- 
missos, si aut Eusebii historiam, aut etiam Latinorum 
catalogos consideremus. Neque opus est ut de dipty- 
chorum ratione et antiquitate hie disseramus, cum 
eorum usus nullus in Ecclesia illis temporibus, quae nos 
tractamus, mentio nulla appareat. Illud quidem sus- 
picari quis potest, Eusebium habuisse catalogos reliqua- 
rum ecclesiarum nobilissimamm praeter Hierosolymi- 
t ;u Kim. cum uniuscuj usque episcopi annis scripto con- 
signatis, et cum successionibus ab initio ad suam u'tu- 
tem derivatis, certos et illibatos. Sed haec mera est 
conjecture, et in eo tantum fuudari potest, quod Euse- 

PEARSON, VOL. II. X 



306 De Successione primorum Roma Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

bius testetur se non habuisse tales catalogos ab initio 
de episcopis Hierosolymitanis, de aliis autem nobilissi- 
jnis ecclesiis idem non testetur. Sed hanc conjecturam 
vanissimam esse, quod ad Ecclesiam Romanam attinet, 
de qua nunc agitur, copiose probabimus ; postquam de 
anticjuissimis successionibus, earumque natura, vi et 
origine disputavimus,eaque adduximus, quae suntad bane 
chronologiaepartem prorsus necessaria. Interimbanc ina- 
nem conjecturam esse, et hanc consequentiam minime 
admittendam esse patet ; quia nee in reliquis ecclesia- 
rum illustrium, Antiochenae nempe et Alexandrinae, suc- 
cessionibus certa ratio temporum ab Eusebio observatur. 
Quod uno et altero exemplo breviter ostendam. In 
Chronico haec ad annum Marci Antonini nonum legi- 
mus, " Antiochiae vi. episcopus ordinatur Theophilus." 
Et rursus ad annum Marci decimum-septimum, " An- 
" tiochiae vn. episcopus constituitur Maximinus." 
Agnovit Eusebius hujus Theophili " plurima ingenii 
" opera" sua setate extitisse, et inter ilia ad Autolycum 
tria volumina : ex istis autem satis constat hanc epi- 
scoporum chronotaxin esse erroneam. Nam Theophi 
lus ad Autolycum post mortem Marci sub imperio 
Commodi scripsit. Libro enim tertio annos imperato- 
rum Romanorum affert ex Chrysero, Nomenclatore, 
Marci liberto, quern ait omnes descripsisse usque ad 
domini sui obitum. Post obitum Marci scripsit Chry- 
seros, post Chryserum Theophilus, sed ante mortem 
Commodi, cujus annos ipse non addit b . 



b Pauca huic capitulo videntur rentur, olim in Dissert, ii. ad Iren. 

in fine deesse, quae non absolve- . 44. propositam ; Theophilum 

rat Pearsonus. Omisimus quae scil. qui scripsit ad Autolycum 

subjecerat Dodwellus, cumistius- diversum esse ab episcopo Antio- 

modi essent, quae nihil conferrent cheno. Quae opinio vix cuiquam 

ad argumentum Pearsoni, sed tan- alii in Hist. Ecclesiastica versato 

tummodo opinionem suam tue- se acceptam reddidit. 



CAP. III. 

I. Ab episcoporum successione argumentari solebant secundi tertii- 
que seculi Patres ad versus sui temporis haereticos. II. Item 
quarti seculi et quinti. HI. Qui tamen ubi successionis illiuscata- 
logos referunt, temporis nullain faciunt mentioneta. 

I. Ijl RANT quidem successiones episcoporum in apo- 
-L^ stolicis ecclesiis a veteribus observatae, et ad 
catholicae doctrinae traditionem adversus haereticorum 
deliria comprobandam usurpatae ; ex quibus argu- 
mentum a Patribus confectum est irrefragabile, cui 
hseretici directe nunquam respondere ausi sunt. Pri 
mus omnium, quos novimus, S. Irenaeus successiones 
eas asseruit, et contra haereticos usurpavit, lib. iii. c. 3. 
" Habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti 
" sunt in ecclesiis, et successores eorum usque ad nos." 

Et lib. iv. C. 63. TvSxriy aXr/Ofo fj TU>V aTrooroXeov 
)(fi, KUI TO ap-^aiov ri}? etcicXqcria? (rv(TTt)/u.a. /cara 
rov /CO'OT/OV, "et character corporis Christi secundum 
" successiones episcoporum, quibus illi earn, quae in 
" unoquoque loco est, Ecclesiam tradiderunt, quae per- 
" venit usque ad nos." Non aliter Tertullianus, qui Ire- 
naeum sequi amat, de Praescriptionibus cap. 32. " Edant 
" ergo origines ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem 
'* episcoporum suorum ita per successiones decurrentem, 
" ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis, vel apo- 
" stolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveraverit, 
" habuerit auctoremet antecessorem : hoc enim modo ec- 
" clesiae apostolicas census suos deferunt, sicut Smyrnae- 
" orum ecclesia Polycarpum a Joanne collocatum refert, 

x 2 



308 De Successione primorum Roma Episcoporum. mss. i. 

" sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum iti- 
" dem. Perinde utique et caeterae exhibent, quos ab 
" apostolis in episcopatum constitutes apostolici seminis 
" traduces habeant." Origenes Prsef. in lib. -Tre^ot 'Apx&v' 
" Servetur vero ecclesiastica praedicatio per successions 
" ordinem ab apostolis tradita, usque ad praesens in 
" Ecclesia permanens." S. Cyprianus Ep. ad Lapses : 
" Inde per temporum et successionum vices episcopo- 
" rum ordinatio, et ecclesiae ratio decurrit." Et hie 
est ille "ordo episcoporum ad originem recensus," de 
quo Tertullianus contra Marcionem 1. iv. c. 5. Firmi- 
lianus in Epistola ad Cyprianum, " Potestas ergo pecca- 
" torum remittendorum apostolis data, et ecclesiis, quas 
" illi a Christo missi constituerunt, et episcopis, qui eis 
" ordinatione vicaria successerunt." Haec Patres se- 
cundi tertiique saeculi. 

II. Eadem testantur Patres quarti, quintique sseculi. 
S. Epiphanius Haeresi Ixxix. de Jacobo fratre Do 
mini agens, 'E ovirep CTTIO-KOTTOV, Kal rS)v Trpoeiptj/Lievcov 
CLTrotTToXcov KaTe&TaOqcrav SiaSo^al eTrtovcoTrwi/, ical 7rpe<r- 
(3vTpu>v ev OLKU) Gcou* " A quo episcopo, et praedictis 
" apostolis episcoporum et presbyterorum in domo 
" Dei constitutes sunt." Ut et Hseres. xli. meminit, 
Ti?? TWV Trepl 'Ia/cto/3oi/, KOI TLerpov, Kal HavXov aTrocrTO- 
\wv haSoxfls' " successionis Jacobi, et Petri ac Pauli 
" apostolorum." Sic postea contra Donatistas disputa- 
tum est. Optatus libro secundo, c. 3, 4. cum de cathe 
dra Petri disseruisset, et successionis tabulam usque 
ad Damasum, aut Siricium descripsisset, his verbis 
Donatistas in arenam provocat, " Vestrae cathedrae vos 
" originem reddite, qui vobis vultis sanctam Ecclesiam 
" vindicare." Erat quidem tune Macrobius in Urbe 
Donatistarum episcopus, sed ejus ordinem ad originem 
recensens Optatus, brevem hanc tantummodo successio- 



CAP. 111. Successions* a f'eteribus obsercate, non tempora. 309 

nem dare potuit. Primus Donatistarum episcopus in 
urbe Victor Garbiensis, cui successit Bonifacius Ballita- 
nus, Bonifacio Encolpius, Encolpio Macrobius. Et 
Victor illorum primus " erat," inquit, " illic filius sine 
" patre, tyro sine principe, discipulus sine magistro, 
" sequens sine antecedente." Addit quidem postea 
Macrobio successorem Lucianum, Luciano Claudianum. 
Quod obiter notandum esse putavi, utpote necessarium 
ad verum tempus scriptionis et editionis illius operis 
eruendum. S. Augustinus in Psalmo contra partem 
Donati : " Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede, 
" et in ordine illo patrum quis cui successit, videte." 
Idem lib. contra epistolam Manichaei, cap. 4. " Tenet 
" ab ipsa sede Petri apostoli, cui pascendas oves suas 
" post resurrectionem Dominus commendavit, usque ad 
" praesentem episcopatum , successio sacerdotum." Idem 
ep. xlii. al. ccxxxii. " Videtis certe multos praecisos a 
" radice Christianas societatis, quae per sedes aposto- 
" lorum et successiones episcoporum certa per orbem 
" propagatione diffunditur, de sola figura originis sub 
" Christiano nomine quasi arescentia sarmenta gloriari, 
" quas haereses et schismata nominamus.'' Auctor libri 
Quaestionum utriusque Testamenti, c. cx c . " Nam et 
" ordinem ab apostolo Petro coeptum, et usque ad hoc 
" tempus per traducem succedentium episcoporum ser- 
" vatum perturbant, ordiiiem sibi sine origine vindi- 
" cantes, hoc est, corpus sine capite profitentes." S. 
Fulgentius lib. de Trinitate, cap. 1. laudat fidem, " quas 
" usque nunc per successorum seriem in cathedra Petri 
" apostoli Romae vel Antiochiae, in cathedra Marci Evan- 
" gelistae in Alexandria, in cathedra Joannis Evange- 
" listae Ephesi, in cathedra Jacobi Hierosolymae, ab 
" ipsorum episcopis praedicatur." Haec successio adeo 
Celebris fuit, ut ipsi episcopi qui in Ecclesia succedebant, 

c In Append. Augustini, torn. xvi. p. 498. ed. Ven. 



310 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

apostolorum successio dicerentur. Sic intelligo Vin- 
centium Lirinensem cap. 6. " Exemplis plena sunt 
" omnia. Sed ne longum fiat, unum aliquod, et ab 
" apostolica potissimum sede sumemus, ut omnes luce 
" clarius videant, beatorum apostolorum beata successio, 
" quanta vi semper, quanto studio, quanta contentione 
" defenderit susceptae semel religionis integritatem." 
Neque aliter intelligendus est Ruffinus Hist. Ecclesias- 
ticae lib. xl. ubi de Basilio et Gregorio agens haec 
habet : " Solis divinos scripturae voluminibus operam 
" dabant, eorumque intelligentiam non ex propria prae- 
" sumptione, sed ex majorum scriptis et auctoritate 
" sequebantur, quos et ipsos ex apostolica successione 
" intelligendi regulam suscepisse constabat." 

III. In his successionibus habemus ordinem per- 
petua serie continuatum, et prseterea nihil. Talem 
nobis exhibet tabulam Irenseus, lib. iii. cap. 3. qualem 
etiam alii postea ; ut Epiphanius, Optatus, Augustinus ; 
in quibus nomina tantum episcoporum, et numerus et 
ordo repraesentantur ; de distinctis eorum temporibus, 
de die ordinationis, aut obitus nulla fit mentio. Pseudo- 
Tertullianus de Successione Romana loquens lib. v. 
videri potest episcoporum tempora et annos indigitasse, 
dum ait, 

" Majorum natu cum nomine tempora, lustri 
" Tempora^servavi, sceleris cui paruit auctor 
" Ignotus" 

Lego enim " servavi," non " servati," ut libri editi prae- 
ferunt. Sed ille tantum ad ea respicit, quae lib. iii. 
scripserat de successione, ubi dixerat Marcionem sub 
Aniceto Romam venisse, et per " lustrum 5 ' nihil aliud 
voluit quam spatium temporis, quo quisque episcopus 
sedit, quod nullibi definivit ; ut cum ait, 

" Sextus Alexander Sixto commendat ovile, 
" Post expleta sui qui lustri tempora tradit 
" Telesphoro" 



CAP. IV. 

I. In primis episcoporum catalogis nulli memorantur dies emor- 
tuales. Serior ilia Depositio Episcoporum Bucheriana. II. Re- 
cepta de primis Romse episcopis plerisque martyribus sententia 
erronea est. III. Notaries colligendis martyrum gestis primus 
instituit Fabianus. IV. Nee ultra Fabiani memoriam surgunt 
gesta ecclesiasticis monumentis inserta. V. Depositionis tarn 
episcoporum, quam martyrum Bucherianae tempus eruitur. 

I. TLLUD certe ulterior! consideratione dignum est, 
-1- quod Valesius tradidit de diebus obitus episco 
porum in Ecclesiae diptychis quasi ab initio conservatis, 
unde successiones apud Eusebium magni faciendas 
putat. Nam si dies illi ab initio conservati, et illis, qui 
successiones tradideririt, cogniti fuissent, magna lux 
historiae et chronologize ecclesiastical inde affulsisset. 
Sed ut de diptychorum primorum aetate Lie nihil 
dicam, nemo qui ante Eusebium scripsit, de die obitus 
alicujus episcopi in Ecclesia Romana, de qua nunc 
agimus, quicquam tradidit. In ilia successione, quam 
primus memorat Irenaeus, ordo tantummodo episco 
porum per seriem quandam sive sequelam continuatus, 
observabatur ; ut apud ipsum Irenacum legimus, lib. iii. 
cap. 3. Ttj avrrj Taet, KOI rfj avrrj SiaSoxfj. Ita legendum, 
non SiSa-xjj, secundum Eusebii codices. Vetus interpres, 
" Hac ordinatione, et successione." Ut apud Epipha- 
niuin, 'H TU>V cv 'Povuj? eTrto-KO-n-wv StaSo-^rj Tavrrjv e^ei 
aito\ov6iav. " Successio Romae episcoporum hanc habet 
" seriem'" Nondum autem horum episcoporum, quo- 



312 De Successions primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

rum noinina et numerus, et ordo in successionibus 
repraesentabantur, tempera et anni, nondum dies ordi- 
nationis, aut obitus singulorum ullo modo innotuisse 
noscimtur. Neque vero Eusebius diem obitus cujus- 
piam episcopi Romani commemorat. Extat quidem 
apud eum S. Polycarpi dies obitus, quia maxime il- 
lustris inter martyres fuit, cujusque martyrium ab ilia 
Ecclesia, cui praefuit, conscriptum est. Reliqua mar- 
tyria eo modo edita in unum volumen ab eo hinc inde 
collecta periere. In libro de Martyribus Palaestinse, 
qui sub Diocletiano passi sunt, dies plerumque expri- 
mitur; sed inter eos vix unus episcopus memoratur. 
Certe in aliquibus ecclesiis episcopi diu martyres non 
fuere ; et " ex quo Carthagini episcoporum ordo me- 
" moratur, nunquam aliquis, quamvis ex bonis sacer- 
" dotibus, ad passionem ante Cyprianum venisse me- 
" moratur," ut tradit Pontius. De die quidem obitus 
episcoporum habemus aliquam memoriam in Ecclesia 
Romana, de qua agimus, in Opusculo apud Bucherium 
edito, quae Depositio Episcoporum indigitatur. Sed 
quod ad disquisitionem nostram pertinet, nimis haec 
sera sunt. Nam nullus ibi episcopus ante Lucium 
nominatur, qui sub Gallo et Volusiano mortuus est 
An. Dom. CCLIII. ut reliquorum, eorum saltern qui 
martyres non erant, dies obitus aetate Liberii pontificis 
minime consignati fuissevideantur, nequidem Telesphori, 
qui gloriosissime martyrium fecit a . 

II. Si credamus Martyrologio Romano, et Breviariis, 
et Libro Pontificum, priores omnes Romae episcopi mar 
tyrium subiere. ; eosque magna ex parte vitam martyrio 
finiisse in confesso est, inquit Blondellus, qui contra 
euccessionem episcopalem in Ecclesia Hierosolymitana 

a Iren. verba 1. iii. adv. Hseres. c. 3. DODWBLL. 



CAP. iv. Nulla archiva ante tempora Fabiani. 313 

disputans etiam addit, " Primes Romanae ecclesiae 
*' praesules, quos dira seculi furentis rabies, vita pro 
" Christo profusa, exegit, ad paucos nonnunquam menses 
" praeftusse nihil minim." Sed inter primes illos prae 
sules Anterus sane primus fuit, cujus pontificatus men- 
sibus numeratur, qui decessit Anno Dom. ccxxxvi; 
secundus autem Xystus, qui passus est An. Dom. 
CCLVIII. Et si vetustissimos scriptores consulamus, 
non inveniemus martyrem inter eos praesules ante 
Telesphorum, nee post eum ante Pontianum b . Alia 
hujusmodi rerum apud veteres ratio habetur. Verba 
quidem Onuphrii in Annotationibus ad Platinae Hy- 
ginum haec sunt : "AS. Petro usque ad Telesphorum 
" omnes pontifices ob Christi confessionem capitis 
" poenas dedisse, Damasus auctor est :" quae tamen ita 
intelligenda sunt, non quasi ita scripserit Damasus, 
quae nuspiam scripta leguntur; sed quod Onuphrius 
ipse ex libro pontificali observasset singulos pontifices 
usque ad Telesphorum martyres dictos fuisse. Quae 
tamen observatio non adeo certa est, ut statim recipi 
debeat. Nam in vulgatis codicibus istius libri Cleto 
martyrium non tribuitur, et ista verba " martyrio 
" coronatur" a Labbeo in margine adduntur, ut opinor, 
ex Anastasio. De Anacleto ibidem traditur eum 
" sepultum esse in pace," martyrium subiisse non 
traditur. Alexander, ut idem inquit, " martyrio 
" coronatur." Sed ea verba cum sequentibus absunt a 
C. H. ut Labbeus testatur c . Et nullius haec ponderis 
sunt ex pontificali desumta, cum in secundo catalogo, 
libro pontificali antiquiore, nee Anacletus nee Euaris- 
tus, martyrium subiisse memoratur. 

b Vide quae annotavit vene- tyre descriptae. p. 1 40. ed. Whar- 

rabilis antistes Gul. Sancroft. in ton. 

margine Historiae praestantissimi l> In Concil. torn. i. 541. 
Gul. Laud, ab ipso eximio mar- 



314 De Successions primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

III. Neque hoc mirum cuiquam videri debet : nam, ut 
ego quidem puto, ante tempora Fabiani episcopi 
Roman! nulla talium rerum publica et constans con- 
signatio Rornse habita est. De eo pontifice in vetus- 
tissimo catalogo legimus, " Hie regiones divisit diaco- 
" nibus :" et in secundo catalogo, " Hie regiones divisit 
" diaconibus, et fecit sex vel septem subdiaconos, qui 
" septem notariis imminerent, ut gesta martyrum fide- 
" liter colligerent." Et in Pontifical], " Hie regiones 
" divisit diaconibus, et fecit septem subdiaconos, qui 
" septem notariis imminerent, ut gesta martyrum in 
" integro colligerent." Et Pseudo-Isidorus Epistola 
Fabiani prima : " Septem ergo diaconos in urbe Roma 
" per septem regiones civitatis (sicut a patribus acce- 
" pimus) liabemus." Et paulo post, " Denique septem 
" similiter subdiaconos ordinavimus, qui septem notariis 
" imminerent, et gesta martyrum veraciter in integro 
" colligerent, nobisque rimanda manifestarent." Ita 
ille ex Gestis Pontificalibus ; sed haec vera fuisse de 
Fabiano ego quidem credo ; nam Cornelius, qui Fa- 
biano successit, notat sub suo pontificatu Romae fuisse 
cum septem diacoriis, septem subdiaconos, apud Euseb. 
Hist. lib. vi. cap. 43 : et non multo post Fabiani 
mortem, idem ut fieret, prsecepit S. Cyprianus in Ec- 
clesia Carthaginensi, Ep. 37. vel potius aliquid amplius: 
nam de confessoribus loquens, qui forte in carcere 
morerentur, " Denique," inquit, " et dies eorum, quibus 
" excedunt, annotate, ut commemorationes eorum inter 
" memorias martyrum celebrare possimus." Morem 
enim eum memorias martyrum celebrandi tune et 
antea in usu fuisse idem indicat Ep. 34. et idem ante 
eum Tertullianus, et post eum Pontius. Et Gregorius 
Thaumaturgus, Cypriano synchronus post Decii per- 
secutionem, TroarOyictiv fTroieiTO TOI$ diravra'ov Xao?f T*/y 



CAP. iv. A Fabiani tempore archiva seroata. 315 

Trepl TO Oetov (nrovSfjs, ray v-jrep riav evtjOXrjKOTWv rfj Trto-ret 
Travrjyvpets vofjio6eTq<ra$. Ka) Sia\a(3orre? aXXoy aXXa^JJ 
TWV fiapTvpotv TU (rw/iara, /caret TIJV errja'tov TOV eviavcriaiov 

KVK\OV TTeploSoV, (TVVlOVTe? l]ydX\OVTO, Ttj TlfJLtj T(i)V /J.apTV~ 

pwv TravtjyvptfyvTes' " Additamentum faciebat ubique 
" studii erga Deum, martyrum panegyres lege sanciens. 
" Et alio in alium locum martyrum corpora deducente, 
" per annul circuli ambitum congregati laetabantur, in 
" honorem martyrum solennes conventus celebrantes." 
Quod tanquam magnae sapientiae Thaumaturgi argu- 
mentum laudat Gregorius Nyssenus in ejus vita d . 

IV. Quod autem idem tribuit libri pontificalis auctor 
dementi, temporibus Galbae et Vespasiani, omnem 
fidem superat ; et miror Baronium JSIartyrolog. Rom. 
c. 8. asserere potuisse protonotarios initio nascentis 
Ecclesiae sub Clemente Romano pontifice res gestas 
martyrum locupletius et diligentius scripsisse, quam 
ipse scripsit Eusebius ; atque a temporibus S. dementis 
Martyrologium Romanum originem deducere, et initium 
auspicari. Dies obitus Callisti, et Pontiani in depo- 
sitione martyrum, ut et Anteri in vetustissimo cata- 
logo, memorantur ; sed hi facile a notariis Fabiani ex 
recent! memoria consignari potuerunt. Telesphorus 
autem quern gloriose martyrium subiisse testatur Ire- 
naeus, quoniam plusquam integro seculo Fabianum 
praecessit, in depositione martyrum non memoratur 6 . 
Ego plane sentio Fabianum pontificem, qui sub im- 
perio Maximini post relegationem Pontiani, et mortem 
Anteri, praedecessorum suorum ordinatus est, statim 
post persecutionem earn, quae brevissima fuit, paca- 
tissimo tempore regiones divisisse diaconis, et subdia- 
conos instituisse, et multas fabricas per coemeteria fieri 

d Opp. torn. iii. p. 574. a. ed. Morell. e Vid. infr. Dissert, ii. 
c. viii. 9. 



316 De Successions primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

jussisse, et simul instituisse, ut gesta martyrum col- 
ligerentur circa An. Dom. ccxxxvi. Nee enim 
mihi placet morosa ilia Rigaltii, ecclesiasticis viris 
saepius iniquioris, observatio; qui subdiaconos primum 
institutes fuisse ait ex superbia et inertia pastorum 
Ecclesiae. Utcunque sit, successiones istae circa me 
dium secundi seculi primo literis consignatae dis- 
tinctionem temporum et annorum prae se non fere- 
bant. 

V. Haec de initio episcopatus Fabiani sententia 
nostra, et de publica dierum obitus in Ecclesia Ro- 
mana observatione, ne quis earn ex arbitrio nostro nos 
posuisse, aut ex sola interpretatione locorum hactenus 
adductorum haustam proposuisse sentiat, particularius 
explicanda, illustranda, et sic fortius probanda est. A 
tempore persecutionis Maximinianse dies obitus Romas 
episcoporum, qui martyrium subiere, sine dubio publica 
cura consignati sunt ; et proinde in Ecclesiae Romanse 
archivis conservati, ut dies obitus Pontiani, qui sub ea 
persecutione primo " discinctus f " est ; et Anteri, qui 
eodem anno, quo ordinationem suam Fabianus accepit, 
et quidem paulo ante, martyrio coronatus est. Ex his 
Ecclesiae archivis, quod praecipue Romanes episcopos 
spectat, confecta est depositio martyrum apud Bu- 
cherium extans ; quse circa annum aerae vulgaris 
CCCLX. scripta esse videtur. Sed et eadem opera, 
episcoporum qui Romae decesserunt, etiamsi cruentam 
mortem non subierant, dies obitus postea consignati 
sunt, et conservati. Earn depositionem episcoporum, 
ut nunc exstat, sub Julii episcopatu primo collectain, 
sub Liberio perfectam esse, sive ultimam manum 
accepisse sentio. Ratio distinguendi, tempora collec- 
tionis, et perfections in eadem depositione, haec mihi 
f Verb. Pontifical. P. 



CAP. iv. A Fabiani tempore archiva serrate. 317 

satis idonea, imo perquam necessaria videtur. Dies 
enim depositionis non dispositi sunt secundum seriem 
successionis episcoporum qui deponebantur ; sed se- 
eundum ordinem mensium quibus quisque obiit, in- 
cipiendo a Januario, et in Decembri desinendo. Inter 
quos cum Marcus, qui decessor Julii fuit, memoretur 
secundum ordinem mensis quo obiit, Octobri scilicet, 
ilia collectio fieri non potuit ante episcopatum succes- 
soris ejus Julii. Rursus cum Julii, qui post omnes 
praesul fiiit, depositio extra et infra ordinem mensium 
posita sit; et post Decembris mentionem pridie idus 
Aprilis facta esse memoretur, vel inde constat priorem 
depositionis partem cum Decembri finientem, sub Julio 
collectam fuisse, et hanc unicam additionem post Julii 
mortem sub Liberio accessisse. Harum depositionum, 
sive martyrum, sive episcoporum Romae, nee vola, nee 
vestigium ante episcopatum Pontiani, sive persecu- 
tionem Maximiniauam, extat : et quod maxime sen- 
tentiam nostram confirmat, auctor antiquissimi catalog! 
pontificum Romanorum a Pontiano et Antero incipiens, 
dies obitus succedentium episcoporum plerumque an- 
notat, nullum diem emortualem cuiquam ante Pontia- 
nuin assignat. 



CAP. V. 

I. Hasreticis, sub seculi secundi initium, traditionis apos-tolicse suc- 
cessionem venditantibus, inde facta est catholicis occasio, ut et 
ipsi successorum in ecclesiis, prsesertim apostolicis, tabulas con- 
ficerent. II. Istiusmodi tabulas primus collegit Hegesippus, cujus 
vera, adversus Valesium, lectio defenditur. III. Item adversus 
Halloixium. IV. Vera loci interpretatio ulterius confirmatur. 
V. Etiam ex Hieronymo. 

I. TTARUM successionum natura multo penitius 
JLJLcognosceretur, si eorum originem reperire pos- 
semus ; verisimile enim non est apud ecclesias cele- 
berrimas in archivis tabulas aliquas conservatas esse, in 
quibus nomina episcoporum scriberentur ; neque puto 
eum ecclesiarum statum ab initio fuisse, ut de talibus, 
aut rebus, aut scriptis, aut reconditoriis cogitarent. 
Multo probabilius mihi videtur, tales tabulas confectas 
esse, postquam Ecclesiae videbantur necessarian. Vetus- 
tiores enim hseretici dogmatibus suis ab ipso initio 
secundi seculi patrocinium ex eo quaerebant, quod ilia 
ab apostolorum discipulis didicerant : ut Basilides 
Glauciam Petri interpretem, magistrum suum fuisse 
gloriatus est : et Valentinus professus est se audivisse 
quendam nomine Theodadi, discipulum S. Pauli. 
Quare catholici hoc argumento levi et imbecillo pressi, 
ad certos et indubitatos apostolorum successores pro- 
vocabant ; adeoque tabulas in ecclesiis prsesertim 



CAP. v. Tabtilas Successionum primus collegit Hegesippus. 319 

apostolicis conficiendas curabant : certi auctoritatem ab 
episcopis per apostolos constitutes, eorumque succes- 
soribus indubitata serie coritinuatis petitam maxime 
valituram esse contra praetextum unius, aut alterius 
hominis obscuri, qui forte apostolorum aliquem ali- 
quando audiverat. 

II. Hujusmodi episcoporum successionis in aposto 
licis ecclesiis tabularum, aut ego fallor, aut Hege 
sippus primus, vel inter primes auctor vel editor fuit, 
et quidem circa medium secundi seculi : sic enim ille 
de seipso loquitur apud Eusebium, lib. iv. c. 22. 
1/09 <5e ev 'Pft>/x7 SiaSo^tjv eTroiqtrafJiqv /ze^otp 
Henricus quidem Savilius ad oram sui Codicis pro 
StaSoxyv scripsit $tarpi(3t]t>, quam emendationem neces- 
sariam putans Valesius sic Graeca transtulit, " Romam 
" vero cum venissem, mansi ibi apud Anicetum." Quae 
quidem versio si proba sit, hanc nostram conjecturam 
de Hegesippo funditus evertit ; sed est nimis manifesto 
detorta : nam /*ex/><9 'Ai/i/c^rou, " apud Anicetum," nun- 
quam sonat : a^ot et fj.e\P l Crrsece aliud significat : 

Hesych. Me'p^oj, eW TIVOS. Suidas, "A-^pi, avri TOV /"e'x/M, 

eo>9. Lex. Graeco-Lat. Me'^ot i/i/i/, " usque adhuc," et 
Toi/roy, '* usque eo." Lex. Cyrilli, Me'^/n Sevpo, 
Se, eo>9 TOV vvv. Quare fJiexP 1 'AiwnfrMi non magis 
sonat " apud Anicetum," in verbis Hegesippi, quam 
/ue'x/> 'Pto/x)/?, " apud Romam," paulo ante in verbis 
Eusebii. Quam absurdum enim esset, si quis ilia 
Eusebiana de Hegesippo cnroo'tjutav erreiAa/uevoy ^XP 1 
'PftVi/?, sic interpretari vellet, " cum apud Romam, vel 
" Romas, proficisceretur ?" Vidit hoc vir perspicacis- 
simus, ideoque in annotationibus, quibus versionem 
suam aut corrigere, aut emollire solet, tradit Hegesip- 
pum tantum dixisse, " se Romae mansisse usque ad 
" pontificatum Aniceti :" quod ut aliquo modo tuere- 



320 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

tur, addidit, " Roraam ergo venerat Hegesippus sub 
" extrema Pii tempora," sine ulla auctoritate, aut 
verisimilitudine ; et contra expressam sententiam Eu- 
sebii, et Hieronymi, qui eum non sub Pio, sed sub 
Aniceto Romam venisse diserte tradunt. Cum igitur 
ilia marginis observatio in hos errores tantum virum 
deduxerit, cum MSS. Codices, quibus usus erat, nihil 
tale ipsi suggesserint ; cum Robertus Stephanus in 
vetustis codicibus nullam hie lectionis varietatem ani- 
madverterit ; cum Ruffinus, qui ei praivit, tarn absurde 
locum transtulerit, " Cum autem venissem Romam, 
" permansi ibi donee Aniceto Soter, et Soteri successit 
" Eleutherus," aliud aliquid his verbis significari sentio. 

III. Certe Halloixii effraenis licentia in hoc loco 
corrumpendo minime ferenda est, qui primo supposuit 
hunc locum valde corruptum esse in Graecis exem- 
plaribus, partim ex dictionum transpositione, partim 
etiam ex commutatione ; quo supposito non tantum 
StaSoxtjv in Siarpi/3)jv, nemine praeeunte, convertit ; sed 
et pro /xe^oty 'Awiofrov legit Trapa 'AwKJ/Tw, quod paulo 
inferius extra locum suum ex vitio, vel librariorum, 
vel typographorum positum fuisse putat. Et rursus 
pro KOI Trapa 'Ai/t/cj/rou SiaSe-^erai ^EcoTtjp, extrita parti- 
cula Ka\ t substituit p-exf 1 '-AWwyroi* SiaSexerat ^(artjp, 
sicque interpretatur, " donee Aniceto successit Soter;" 
quasi ftexP 1 'Awiofrw SiaSe^erat bene Grseca essent, aut 
eum sensum funderent ; qui denique hsec a seipso 
pessime excogitata pro ipsis Hegesippi verbis edidit, 
adeoque sententiam suam a se confictam pro Hegesip- 
piana dedit. 

IV. Ego veterem lectionem in hoc Hegesippi loco 
minime solicitandam, sed omnino retinendam puto; 
cujus ex loci integri inspectione ratio statim constabit. 
Sic igitur Hegesippus, Fei/oVei/oy <5e eV 'Pco/up 



( \i-. v. Tahttlas Successionum primm collegit Hegesippiis. 321 



ov ICIKOVOS qv ev|OO9, KOI 
irapa ' ' A.VIKTJTOV SiaSe^erai ^LcoTJjp, ^ieO' ov nXevdepo?' ev 
KU(TTt] <5e StaSoxy, KOI ev e/caoT>; TroXet OVTW? fX f '> ^ ^ 

VOfJLO? KtJpUTTei, KOI Ol TTpO<p^Tat t KOI 6 Kl/|0<O9* " Ronift? 

" vero cum esseni, successionem composui usque ad 
" Anicetum, cujus diaconus erat Eleutherus, et Aniceto 
" successit Soter, post quern Eleutherus : in omni 
*' autem successiorie, et in omni civitate res ita se 
" habet, ut lex pra^dicat, et prophetae, et Dominus." 
Mihi haec clarissinia videntur : Hegesippus longum iter 
institiiit Romam usque, multas civitates adiit, multis 
episcopis se adjunxit ; Corinthi cum esset, de origine 
ejus ecclesiae quaesivit, de Epistola S. dementis cer- 
tiorem se fecit ; illani ecclesiam ab eo tempore in 
recta fide permansisse usque ad Primum tune episcopi 
locum ibidem tenentem, observavit. Romam inde adiit, 
ibique successionis tabulam confecit usque ad Anice 
tum, sub cujus pontificatu Romam venit, ut Eusebius 
testatur lib. iv. c. 11. obiterque postea, cum commenta 
ries scriberet sub Eleuthero, e quibus haec verba tran- 
scripta sunt, monuit Aniceto successisse Soterem, Soteri 
Eleutherum, qui Aniceti diaconus erat eo tempore, quo 
Romae fuit, addiditque. ev e/cao-rj? Se StaSoxjj, " in omni 
" vero successione," et in unaquaque civitate rectam 
fidem conservatam esse. Quae cum sint ad nostram 
interpretationem confirmandam imprimis comparata, 
Halloixius ilia ev e/cao-r// ^m^o^, in Hegesippi verbis 
recitandis penitus omisit. Hanc autem veterem lec- 
tionem et interpretationem nostram, qua ^ia^o^^ e-jrot- 
rjo-dfjitjv, *' successionem composui," vel successionis 
tabulam confeci, reddittim est, non alio argtimento 
rejicit Halloixius, quam quod non sit " usitatissima 
" locutio." Cui facile resi)ondetur ox Hieronymo, qui 
modum loquendi ab ITegesippo in liistoria usurpatuni 

PKARSO.V. VOL. II. Y 



322 De Successione primorwn Romae Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

observavit. Ille enim in catalogo de illo veteri scrip- 
tore, " Quinque libros composuit sermone simplici, ut 
" quorum vitam sectabatur, dicendi quoque exprimeret 
" characterem." 

V. Hsec prima mihi videtur episcoporum Romse suc- 
eessionis observatio, quae postea maximi usus fuit ad- 
versus haereticorum deliria, ab Irenseo primo in eum 
finem, ab aliis postea saepius usurpata. Nam, ut refert 
Hieronymus, " Hegesippus vicinus apostolicorum tern- 
" porum, omnes a passione Domini usque ad suam 
" eetatem ecclesiasticorum actuum texens historias, 
" multaque ad utilitatem legentium pertinentia hinc 
" hide congregans, quinque libros composuit." Quod si 
successiones episcoporum ante ejus setatem factse ex- 
titissent, quorsum ille in unaquaque civitate diligenter 
qusereret, qui episcopi ab initio praefuerint? quorsum 
successionis tabulam Romae conficeret usque ad Anice- 
tum pertingentenij tamdiu antequam historian! scripsit? 



CAP. VI. 

I. Fundarintne Ecclesiam Romanam Petrus et Paulus ? II. Affir- 
mant Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Eusebius. III. Apostolos Ecclesiae 
Romanae non fundatores modo, verum etiam episcopos, statuit 
Epiphanius. IV. A S. Petro solo Romanae Ecclesiae successionem 
arcessunt Caius Graecus, et Latini auctores plerique. V. E Scrip- 
tura probari nequit, seu Romae fuisse S. Petruru, seu e contra. 

I. II TANET adhuc alia quaestio non de auctoretabu- 
1_?_L lae, sed de ipsius successionis origine ; an sci 
licet primus Romae episcopus aliquem ex apostolis ha- 
buerit auctorem et antecessorem : hoc enim modo Ec 
clesiae apostolicae census suos deferunt, ut loquitur 
Tertullianus. Quae quideui quaestio ideo hie ventilanda 
est, ut inde perspicere possimus, an ea successio vere 
fuerit apostolica, adeoque digna, pro qua tantopere 
contendere debuerint antiqui pat res, et nos etiamnum 
debeamus. Quamvis enim hac aetate de hac apostolica 
successione instituta dissertatio quaestio dici possit, in 
primitiva tamen Ecclesia nunquam pro quaestione, sed 
pro vera et indubitata veritate habebatur. 

II. Nam Irenaeus, a quo hanc Romanae successionis 
tabulam primo accepimus, originem ejus clare a duobus 
apostolis, SS. Petro et Paulo arcessit. Sic enim ille, 

QefJLeXiaxravTe? ovv, KOI oiKoSonrj&avTes ot /u-aicdpioi aTrooro- 

\0l Tt]V KK\t]<TiaV, At I/to) Tt]V T^9 eTTKrKOTTrjS \lTOVpytav 

eve^eiptja-av' " Fundantes igitur, et instruentes beati 
" apostoli Ecclesiam, Lino episcopatum adminis- 
" trandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt," ut habet Vetus In- 

Y 2 



324 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

terpres lib. iii. cap. 3. Quinam autem hi apostoli 
fuerint, idem paulo ante indicat, dum dicit se non 
omnium ecclesiarum successiones enumerare velle; 
sed unins tantum, " Maximae et antiquissimse, et omni- 
" bus cognitic, a gloriosissimis apostolis Petro et Paulo 
" Romse ftindatae, et constitutes Ecclesia?." Ita Ro- 
manse Ecclesiae successionem enarrat Epipbanius, User. 

XXvii, 'Ej/ 'Pui/Jit] yap yeyovao-i Trpwrot HeTpos Kal 
riauXo?, ol aTrocrToAoi avTol Kal ex/cr/coTTOi, etra Atvos' 

" Romae enim fuere primi Petrus et Paul us, irdem 
" apostoli et episcopi, deiride Linus." Et paulo post, 

"O/XftJ? t] TU)V V 'Pft)MJ7 eTTHTKOTTUIV Oia^O^t] TaVTtJV %l TfjV 

aKoXovOlav, TTeVjOO? Kal TlauXoy, A.tVOf t KX^ro?" " Atta- 
" men Romanorum episcoporum successio hanc habet 
* seriem ; Petrus et Paulus, Linus. Cletus." Sic Ire- 
nseus dicit Hyginum Romae nonum locum episcopatus 
per successionem ub apostolis habuisse. Sic Eusebius, 

1. iii. C. 21. 'Ef TGI/TO) Se 'Poj/aa/cov elcreTi KA^/x.^? qyeirOy 
rpirov Kal auTO? e-jre^wv ru>v rtjfie ywera IJai/Xov re Kal 
Ilerpov eTTKTKOTreva-dvTcov fiaOfJiov. Et rurSUS, lib. iv. cap. 1. 
'Ev TOUTW Kal 'AXe^af<5po?, e-jr\ 'Pa) / u>/9 oySoov ero9 O.TTO- 
TT\tipa)<TavTO$ EOajOeiTTOt;, TTCJULTTT^V CLTTO TIeTpov Kal IlauXoi/ 
KaTayoov oiaoo^tjVf Tt]v eTria-KOTr^v a7ro\aju.(3dvei* " Eo- 

" dem tern pore, cum Euaristus annos octo exegisset, 
" Romoc episcopatum suscepit Alexander, quintuin a 
" Petro et Paulo successions obtinens locum." Ita 
Graeci, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, originem suc- 
cessionis ab utroque apostolo deducunt. 

III. Eodem sensu in haeresi Cerdonianorum Epipha 
nius ait, Hyginum post Jacobum, Petrum ac Paulum 
apostolos, nonum episcopalis successions locum tenu- 
isse. Quomodo ex hoc loco eundem sensum Epiphanii 
exsculpserit, quern Eusebio affixerat, non video. Vult 
Valesius Eusebium S. Paulum fundatorem cum Petro 



TAP. vi. Testimonla Irentci ct Epiphanii. 

Ecclesiac Romano?, sed non episcopum statuisse : an 
hoc elicit Epiphanius? Imo si Valesio credamus, sic 
enim ille, " Siquis ex hoc loco contenderet Jacobuni 
" fuisse episcopum urbis Romae una cum Petro, is pro- 
** fecto ridiculus haberetur : idem quoque putandum 
*' est de Paulo." Sed non minus ridiculus csset, qui 
ex eodem Epiphanii loco colligeret Jacobum fuisse 
Ecclesiae Romance fundatorem. Tlhid certe voluit Epi 
phanius, et Jacobum, et Petrum, et Paulum, cpiscopos 
fuisse, Petrum et Paulum Roma?, Jacobum ITierosoly- 
mis. Hoc ex pluribus Epiphanii locis manifestum erit. 
Primo Haeres. Ixxi. ubi apostolos cnumerat crvv 

aSe\<p(p TOV K.vplov, KOI irpun-io eTncr/fOTTto 'lepo- 

, " cum Jacobo fratre Domini, et primo Hiero- 

'* solymorum episcopo." 'E^ ovircp e-mo-Koirov, KOI TWV 
aTrotrroXcov KaTeerrdPya-ctv StaSo^ai TTI- 
, KCU Trpf<r(3vTepu)v, ev ofvco 0eou. " Ex quo episcopo, 

" et proedictis apostolis successiones episcoporum, et 
presbyterorum, in domo Dei constitute sunt." Suc- 
jcessio scilicet Hierosolymitana ab episcopo Jacobo, 
i Romana a Petro et Paulo, apostolis et episcopis. Sic 

enim ipse loquitur, 'Ev 'Pat/my yap yeyavaa-i Trpwroi 
IIoiJAo?, 01 a-TroVroXot auroJ KOI eiria-KOTroi, 

e?ra KX^ro?' " Roma? enim fuere primi 
" Petrus et Paulus, iidem apostoli et cpiscopi, dein 
** Linus, dein Cletus." Ubi aperte docet Paulum non 
minus quam Petrum, et apostolum, et episcopum, 
fuisse, et a Paulo non minus quam a Petro successionem 
episcoporum Romanorum deducit. In Hacresi quidem 
Ixxi. Jacobum episcopum tan turn nominat, quia pu- 
tavit eum a duobus apostolis distinctum, adeoque 
apostolum non fuisse ; Petrum autem et Paulum turn 
apostolos, turn episcopos fuisse dixit, ut ab illis suc 
cessionem episcoporum derivaret. Verum est igitur, 



326 De Successions primorum Koines Episcoporum. mss. i. 

quod diximus, veteres Graecos patres Petrum et Paulum 
pro episcopis Ecclesiae Romanae habuisse. 1 

IV. Cains quidem Graece scripsit contra Artemonem, 

et solum Petrum nominavit, a quo successio derivata 

est ; sed erat ille Ecclesiae Romanae presbyter, ut 

veteres testantur. Latini vero patres S. Paulum hie 

non Dominant, sed a solius Petri ordinatione successio- 

nis originem petunt. Ut Tertullianus de Praescriptione, 

cap. 32. " Hoc enim modo Ecclesia Polycarpum ab 

" Joanne conlocatum refert ; sicut Romanorum Cle- 

" mentem a Petro ordinatum itidem." Hujus suc- 

cessionis a S. Petro saepius meminit S. Cyprianus ; in 

Ep. Iv. " Cum Fabiani locus, id est, cum locus Petri 

" et gradus cathedrae sacerdotalis vacaret :" alibique 

saepius, ut in secunda dissertatione ostendemus. Idem 

docebat Cypriano synchronus, papa Stephanus, ut patet 

ex epistola Firmiliani, in qua de eo in hunc modum 

loquitur : " Qui sic de episcopatus sui loco gloriatur, et 

" successionem Petri tenere contendit." Ac rursus, 

" Qui per successionem cathedram Petri habere se 

" proedicat." Hoc voluit vetustissimi catalogi auctor 

in proremio : " Post ascensum Christi beatissimus Petrus 

" episcopatum suscepit. Ex quo tempore per suc- 

" cessionem dispositum, quis episcopus, et quot annis 

" prsefuit, vel quo imperante." Mox Optatus, lib. ii. 

c. 3. " Ergo cathedra unica, quae est prima de dotibus, 

" sedit prior Petrus ; cui successit Linus." Et libro 

primo, c. 10. " Nee Coecilianus recessit a cathedra 

" Petri, vel Cypriani, sed Majorinus." Hieronymus in 

Catalogo, " Clemens quartus post Petrum Romae epi- 

" scopus." Et rursus : " Quamvis plerique Latinorum 

" secundum post Petrum apostolum putent fuisse Cle- 

" mentem." Sulpitius de Imperio Neronis agens 3 : 

a In Hist. Sacr. lib. ii. c. 28. 



CAP. vi. Disputatur, Fueritne unquam Roma S. Petrus. 327 

" Eo tempore divina apud urbem religio invaluerat, 
" Petro ibi episcopatum gerente, et Paulo, postquam ab 
" injusto praesulis (aut praesidis) judicio appellaverat, 
" Romam deducto." Auctor Quaestionum utriusque 
Testament!, cap. 110. "Nam et ordinem ab apostolo 
" Petro coeptum, et usque ad hoc tern pus per traducem 
" succedentium episcoporum servatum perturbant.'* 
Idem docet Augustinus, Epist. cxlv. ad Generosum, 
" Si enim ordo episcoporum sibi succedentium con- 
" siderandus est, quanto certius et vere salubriter ab 
" ipso Petro numeramus, cui totius Ecclesise figuram 
" gerenti, Dominus ait, Super hanc petram cedificabo 
" Ecclesiam meam, et portce inferorum non mncent 
" earn f ' Idem ipse alibi, et Fulgentius, locis capite 
tertio citatis, aliique complures. 

V. Et quidem S. Paulum Rom* fuisse, eique Ec- 
clesiae praefuisse, ex Actis Apostolorum constat, ut a 
nemine negari possit. Sed non defuerunt viri docti 
hoc, et priori seeculo, qui aperte negarunt S. Petrum 
Romae cathedram posuisse, aut quenquam illic ordi- 
nasse, aut in ea urbe unquam fuisse. Cum enim in 
Actis Apostolorum adventus Romam hujus apostoli 
nullo modo indicatur, et aliqua etiam aliunde affe- 
runtur, quae tali adventui contradicere videantur, Pe 
trum unquam Romae fuisse negare non verentur. Haec 
autem in hoc negotio praetereunda esse non putavi ; 
sed potius quod ad historiam et chronologiam pertinet, 
quas in hoc opere conjungo, examinanda: neque aliter 
judicium nostrum interponendum esse sentio. Largior 
equidem ex S. Scriptura probari minime posse S. Pe 
trum unquam Romam vidisse; quod videtur etiam 
Hieronymus nobis largiri, dum in Commentario ad cap. 
2. Epistolae ad Galatas ait, " Denique primum epi- 
" scopum Antiochenac Ecclesiae Petrum fuisse acce- 



328 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

" pimus, et Romam exinde translatum, quod Lucas 
" penitus omisit." Neque mirum. Nam nee Titi 
S. Pauli comitis usquam meminit Lucas, cujus apo- 
stolus ipse toties raeminit in Epistolis. Sed dum hoc 
largior, ex eadem Scriptura probari posse eum Romae 
nunquam fuisse non puto. Hie igitur fidem historiae, 
licet non divinae, et rationem ex circumstantiis ab 
ultima antiquitate depromptis innixam locum habere 
posse sentio. Quod ad tempora et annos, quos sedi 
ejus Antiochenae et Romanse vulgo tribuunt, puto eos 
S. Scripturae refragari, nee ullo veteris ecclesiae testi- 
monio satis idoneo niti, ideoque earn partem chrono- 
logiaa penitus rejiciendam esse facile imprsesentiarum 
concede, et mox probabo. 



CAP. VII. 

I. S. Petrum Roma? fuisse probatur II. ex Ignatio, Papia, vetus- 
tissimo Krjpvynaros Iltrpov auctore, III. e Dionysio Corinthio, 
IV. ex Irenaeo, Caio, Clemente Alexandrine, Tertulliano, Origene, 
Cypriano, Lactantio, Eusebio, Athanasio, Epiphanio, Juliano 
Apostata, Augustino, Palladio. V. Mirum itaque reperiri po- 
tuisse qui Petrum Romae unquara fuisse negarent. 

I. T)RIMO igitur ea ex scriptis antiquissimorum 
A patrum adducenda sunt, quae apostolum Pe- 
trum Romae fuisse aut diserte asserunt, aut aperte satis 
indicant ; quaeque ex aetate, qua scripta sunt, et cir- 
cumstantiis, quibus vestiuntur, aut singulatira, aut 
conjunctim ad earn rem demonstrandam optime com- 
parata esse videantur. 

II. S. Ignatius Epistola ad Romanes, Ou^ &>? 
KOI IlavAoy V/JLIV Stardo-a-o/jLai' CKCIVOI, cnrofrroXot, 
KaTaicpiTOs' Ktvoi eXevOepot, eyu> fJLe\pt vvv SovXos. Vetus 
Interpres ; " Non ut Petrus ut Paulus praecipio vobis : 
" illi apostoli, ego condemnatus; illi liberi, ego usque 
" nunc servus." Quid enim ex his verbis ad Romanes 
scriptis apertius, quam sanctissimum martyrem in ea 
sententia fuisse, quod Petrus non minus quam Paulus 
Romae evangelium pracdicaverit et passus sit ? Certe 
S. Chrysostomus hunc locum respexisse videtur, cum 
de Roma ait, Am TOVTO a) Ilerpo? KO.} riauXo?, Kai ytxer' 
OUT09 CKCI Trai/re? erv6t)<TaV " Propterea PetniS et 



330 De Successione primorum Homoe Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

" Paulus, et post eos hie (Ignatius) illic (Romae) omnes 
" passi sunt a ." Post S. Ignatium Papias episcopus 

HierapolitailUS, 'Iwdwov a:ovcrT^?, XIoXu/cajOTrou erafjOO?, 

apxalos avrjp, " Joannis auditor, Polycarpi autem con- 
" tubernalis, vetus homo," (ut testatur Irenaeus, lib. v. 
c. 33.) qui vir adeo antiquus eodem tempore vixit, quo 
ista scripsit Ignatius, idem de Petro testari videtur 
apud Eusebium, lib. ii. c. 15. Ibi enim testimonium 
ejus sententiae dementis adjungitur de Evangelio 
Marci Romae scripto, et a S. Petro Romae approbate. 
Idem etiam Papias tradidit Petri Epistolam primam 
Romas scriptam fuisse, et Babylonem in ea Epistola 
nominatam significasse urbem Romanam. Erat ille 
quidem mediocri ingenio praeditus, et haeresi mille- 
nariorum infectus, traditioni maxime adhaerebat. At 
ilia duo ab eo prodire, et ab aliis tarn avide recipi, et 
probari non potuerunt, si eo tempore traditio ubique 
recepta non fuisset, Petrum Romae aliquando fuisse. 
An ille, cum apostolorum discipulis diu multumque 
versatus, hsec excogitasset, si illi novissent Petrum 
Romae nunquam fuisse ; imo si non ab illis accepisset, 
Petrum Romae fuisse ? An ille, qui in prooemio libro- 
rum suorum testatur se solitum fuisse ex apostolorum 
discipulis diligenter quaerere, ri 'Ai/^ea?, *] ri Herpes 
eiTrev, " quid Andreas, quid Petrus dixerit," quid alii 
apostoli, quid eorum discipuli, qui tune in vivis erant, 
Aristion et presbyter Joannes, ignorare potuit, ubi 
Petrus fuerit, cujus dicta ab ipsius discipulis acceperat ? 
Haec mihi videntur praesentiam Petri in urbe Romana 
validissime stabilire. Circa tractum temporis quo vixit 
Papias non longe post initium secundi saeculi editum 
fuisse puto Kripvyna llerpov, " praedicationem Petri," 

a Horn, in S. Ignat. 



CAP. vii. Ronwefuisse S. Petrum probatur. 331 

quia sub finem ejusclem saeculi Clemens Alexandrinus 
tanquam scriptum vetus, librum eum saepe citat, et 
Stromat. lib. vi. multa ex isto opere transcribit et 
explicat. At in illo tractatu cliserte asserebatur Pe- 
trum et Paulum simul Roma? praedicasse : ita inter 
preter verba Lactantii, lib. iv. c. 21. " Sed et futura 
" aperuit iis omnia, quae Petrus et Paulus Romae prae- 
" dicaverunt. Et ea praedicatio in memoriam scripta 
" permansit ; in qua cum multa alia mira, turn etiam 
" hoc futurum esse dixerunt, ut post breve tempus 
" immitteret Deus regem, qui expugnaret Judaeos, et 
" civitates eoruin solo requaret, ipsos autem fame 
" sitique confectos obsideret," &c. Quisquis igitur 
libri illius apocryphi auctor fuit, certe antiquus, os- 
tendit vetustissimam illam sententiam, Petrum Romae 
praedicasse, ea aetate obtinuisse, qua ipse scripsit : 
scripsit autem ante Heracleonem ; nam Origenes in 
Joannem, p. 211. [torn. xiii. 17.J quaedam TOV 'Hpa- 
K\e<0vo$ ra prjTa axo TOV eTriyeypa/jL/jievov Herpov Ktjpvy- 
/xaro? Trapa,\afji/3ai>o/JLeva fuisse testatur. Erat autem 
Heracleon, ab Irenaeo obiter memoratus b , successor 
Colarbasi, teste Epiphanio, Haeresi xxxvi. et magis- 
ter Cerdonis, qui sub Hadriano haereticus extitit. 

III. Post Papiam, et auctorem praedicationis Petri, 
Dionysius Corinthiorum episcopus, extra controversiam 
catholicus, in Epistola ad Romanos sub Sotere Papa 
circa annum CLXIV. scripta, de S. Petro et Paulo, 
J yap <i/j.<pw, KCU ei$ T^V yfj-erepav KopivOov (f)vTv<rai>T$ 
o/io/w? eSlSa^av, 6/xo/eo9 ^e Kal e/y Ttjv 'IraX/ai/ 6/uo<re 
re? /j.apTvpij<Tav Kara TOV avrov icaipov. Insiglie 
hoc testimonium est, et omni exceptione majus. Non 
defuerunt tamen viri docti, qui illud falsi convincere 

h Iren. lib. ii. c. 4. 



332 De Succcssione primorum Romee Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

conarentur. Hoc primo immebat Josephus Scaliger: 
" Post ilium Dionysium nemo, quod sciam," inquit, 
" scripsit eodem tempore Petrum cum Paulo Corinthi, 
" et in Italia, docuisse. Et nemo ei concedit, nisi qui 
" Actis Apostolorum contraria sentire velit." Sed de- 
cepit magnum Scaligerum versio Ruffini, quern hie 
secutus est. " Ambo etiam simul adventantes, et in 
" nostra Corinthiorum Ecclesise docuerunt, et per 
" omnem Italiam atque in hac urbe simul docentes, 
" etiam martyrio pariter urio eodemque tempore coro- 
" nati sunt." Post eum vir eruditus adhuc planius, 
" Falsus est non uno modo Dionysius." Scilicet primo, 
quia dixit Petrum et Paulum ambos simul egisse 
Corinthi ; secundo, quia tradidit arnbos in Italiam simul 
profectos esse. Eundem sequitur errorem versio Va- 
lesii, qui ita transtulit, " Ambo enim illi in urbem 
" nostram Corinthum ingressi, sparso evangelicse doc- 
" trinse semine, nos instituerunt, et in Italiam simul 
" profecti, cum eos similiter instituissent, eodem tem- 
" pore martyrium pertulerunt." Sed ut hunc sensum 
ex verbis Dionysii, exculperet Valesius; primo in 
priori membro hujus sententise contra omnes Eusebii 
codices, et editos, et scriptos, ex solo Syncello pro 

legit (poiTrja-avres, et eandem VOCem (froiTq- 
in posteriori membro sententiee supplendam 
docet. Vocem autem " simul" in Versione unde ha- 
buerit nescio ; nisi forte a Ruffino ; nam vox 6yuo/w9 
aliud significat, quam in priori membro omisit, in pos 
teriori extra locum suum posuit. Et quidem (potr^a-av- 
re? pro (pvreucravTes perperam onmino, et contra apertam 
Dionysii mentem scribendum esse voluit. Nam hsec 
sententia quasi ratio priori sub] icitur, ut particula yap 
clare significat. Prior autem sententia haec est, Taura 
is oia r^p TO(ravTtj9 vov9e<rla9, T*JV O.TTO TIeTpou KUI 



i AI-. vii. Romtefuisse #. Petrum probatur. '>>'> 

\luv\ov <pvTtav yevrjOeiarav 'PtafJiaiwv re KOI KoptvOtcov 

crwcKepda-are. Quam etiam sic male reddidit Valesius, 
' Ita et vos tanta admonitione vestra semen teni, qua? 
" Petri ac Pauli satione succreverat, Romanos scilicet 
" et Corinthios, commiscuistis." Ex hoc tanien loco 
satis clare apparet TO (frvrevo-avres in posteriori sen- 
tentia ad fyurdav in priori referendum esse, idque o/uo/w?, 
'* similiter," bis j)ositum satis innuit. Ut ha?c omnia 
rectius intelligantur, integrum Dionysii fraginentuin 
simpliciter transferendum censui. " Ita et vos ex 
" tanta admonitione plantationem Romanorum et Co- 
" rinthiorum a Petro et Paulo factam commiscuistis. 
" Ambo enim in urbe nostra Corintho plantantes nos 
" similiter docuerunt, similiter autem et in Italia au- 
" dacter docentes circa idem tempus martyrium passi 
** sunt." To (pvreveiv enim in Evangelii pracdicatione 
apostoloruin erat, ut S. Paulus de seipso dixit, eya> 
efyvTeva-a, et (f>vreiai>, (fivreveiv, phrasis est Scripturaria, 
et utrumque hie de apostolis dicitur, et quidem pro- 
prie tanquam de praccipuis Ecclesiae doctoribus. At 
qui TO (poirav apostolis trilmeret, eos non doctores, sed 
discipulos efficeret. Nam <potrav Gra:-ce est crcbro seu 
frequenter itare ; non ad docendum, sed ad discendum. 
Unde et (poir^rai non sunt doctores, sed discipuli, et 
a-vfjL(j)oiTt]Ta}, condiscipuli. Qui igitur Petrum et Pau- 
lum nobis simul ^oiTi]<rai>Ta$ describuut, maximos 
apostolos Corintliiorum et Romanorum discipulos 
faciunt. Ut cum ]\larcus Antoninus imperator sexti 
})liilosoplli studiosus fuit, $afifltt* avrw, KOI fyoirtav eVz 
6vpai$, " ipsum frequentans, et ad ejus fores ventitans," 
Lucius exclamavit, *Q Zey, 6 'Pu>fjLal<av (3a<Ti\eu9 ytummmif 
>/St), StXrov fa'^/a/j.ei>o<; ey Sifiao-KoXou (f)otTa, wcnrep oi 
TrciiSes. " Proh Jupiter, Romanorum imperator jam 
" senescens, arrepta tabella ad ludimagistri aedes itat, 



334 De Successions primorum Romce. Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

" ut pueri," ita scribit Philostratus in vita Sexti c . 
Plane ut Agathias, lib. ii. c. 29- TOVTMV /mev ow ol 
TrXeicrrot, ov$e e/y ypa^jULaTiKov, ofyxat, <j)oiTq(ravTe9' vel 
ypafj./u.aTi(rrov, ut legebat Suidas. Quinetiam Valesius 
6/xoVe, aut male transtulit, aut penitus omisit. 'O/xoVe 
enim non magis hie simul, quam 6yuo/&>9 significat : 6/xoVe 
StSd^avres aliquid aliud significat, nempe coram hosti- 
bus, et cominus pugnantes doctrinam Christi prsedica- 
bant. Quod non indicat eos simul, et eodem tempore 
praedicasse : nam Greece o/xoVe Uvai dicitur etiam unus, 
sive persona singularis, ut Plato in Euthyphrone, aXX' 
ovSev avTcov %prj (ppovrifyiv, aXX' 6/moare Uvai' et Hyperides 
Oratione contra Atlienogenem, XXa o/xoVe (3ov\o/j.ai TW 
\oyw roj/ro) eXOeiv, quern locum exponens Harpocration 
notat ofjioa-e e\0eiv idem esse quod Trapa8a\ea-6ai, cum 
hoste conjligere, aitque metaphorice dictum esse, A eye- 
rat ^e CK /xeTa<o|Oa? o/xoVe ra?9 Xo^y^ai? ievai, avrl rov e^ 
e/p 'TO avro ep-^ecrOai, Kal /mr] (TTpe<pe(r0ai, fjLrjoe 

" Dicitur autem ex metaphora, cum ipsis has- 
" tis congredi, pro ex adverso in idem venire, et non 
" regredi, neque fugere d ." Sic igitur apostoli Petrus 
et Paulus, sive simul, sive separatim, sive iisdem, sive 
diversis temporibus in Italia evangelii hostibus obviani 
ibant ; cumque iis cominus congressi sunt, et ex ad- 
verso stantes, nee unquam retrocedentes, aut fugientes, 
sed intrepide et immobiliter perstantes, circa idem 
tempus passi sunt. Sic o/xoVe exporiit Suidas, e evav- 
r/a?, a-cfroSpais, Opaa-ecos. Nihil igitur huic Dionysii 
testimonio objici potest, quod non facile refellitur. 
Nam si S. Petrus fuerit Corinthi, quis eum etiam 



c De Vitis Sophist, lib. ii. p. Heinichen. ubi de Origene, Hist. 

556. ed. Morell. lib. vi. 3. 6/ido-e rols KivSvvois 

& Eusebii ipsius verba contulit 



CAP. vii. RomfB fuisse S. Petrum probatur. 335 

Romae aliquando fuisse negabit? At certissinmm est 
Petrum non minus quam Paulum Corinthi fuisse, et 
quidem antequam S. Paulus primam Epistolam cledit 
ad Corintbios. Ita enim apostolus loquitur, 1 Cor. i. 

12. ZKCHTTOS V/ULWV Xe-yei, eya> yuev eifMi Ilai'Xof, eyu> Se 

'AiroXXto, eyu> <$e Ki;<a. Unde colligitur non minus 
Cepbani et Apollo, quam Paulum Corintbi fuisse, ante 
quam ista scribebantur. Et quoniam nonnulli negant 
Cephara ilium esse Petrum apostolum, omnino obser- 
vandum est istud esse merum effugium ; cum S. Paulus 
sa^pe Petrum Cepha? nomine indigitet in hac Epistola, 
Petrum autem in eadem non nominet. Et in Epistola 
ad Galatas licet Petrum nominet, eundem tamen 
diserte Cepbam appellat, cap. ii. 9. Et in codice 
Alexandrine, aliisque MSS. cum v. 11. turn 14. non 
IleV/oos, sed Krj<pas babetur. Atque ita veteres legisse 
certum est, quoniam inde controversia orta est an 
apostolus, an unus ex LXX. discipulis fuerit, cui 
Paulus Antiocbiae restitif; nam si Iler/ooy in utroque 
isto versiculo, non Kijtyas scriptus extitisset, ea con 
troversia oriri nunquam potuisset. Ut autem antiquas 
versiones praetermittam, certe Clemens Romanus satis 
bene novit, quis ille Cephas fuerit, cujus eo loco 
meminit S. Paulus. Ille autem in Epistola ad eosdem 
Corinthios ait, 'Aj/aXa/3ere rtjv 7ncrTO\t]v TOU fj.ai<apiov 
HavXov, TI irpurrov vfjiiv ev a.p\y TOV evayyeXlov eypa^ev ; 
rn-' aXtideia? Tri/eu/uaTi/cw? eVeo-retXev V/JLIV irepi avrov re 

teal Kt)<pa, KUI 'A7roXXw. Et paulo post subjungit, 

TrapK\t6t)T yap a- 



e Ita Clemens Alex, apud Eu- tinctam renovare conatus est 

seb. Hist. i. 12. Vid. Hierony- Joann. Harduinus, dabit Gottfr. 

mi Comment, in Gal. ii. n, 12. Lumper. Hist. Theol. Crit. vol. 

et Vallarsii not. ad loc. Plura viii. p. 285. 
de hac controversia, quam ex- 



336 De Successione primorum Roma Episcoporum. DISS. 



Trap avrols' " Propendebatis enim in 
" apostolos testimonio celebres, et virum ab illis pro- 
" batum." Quibus verbis clare distinguit Paulum et 
Cepham duos apostolos ab Apollo, non quidem apo- 
stolo, sed tantum viro ab apostolis probato, et quidem 
ab illis ipsis apostolis Petro et Paulo. Nam a quo 
praeter Paulum apostolo probatus fuit Apollos, nisi a 
Petro ? aut ubi a Petro probatus erat, si non Corinthi ? 
Mirum enim est illud Grotii glossema, " Alii ergo 
" Corinthi, ab Apollo instituti post Pauli abitum, alii 
" ab ipso Paulo, alii qui e Judaea venerant a Petro." 
Quare enim e Judaea venisse dicuntur, qui Petro adhae- 
rebant Corinthi? Nullos fuisse Corinthi Christianos 
constat, antequam Paulus illis prscdicavit. Nullos tune 
etiam agnoscit, qui ab Hierosolymis, vel ante se, vel 
postea doctrinam evangelii hauserant, ut apparet ex 
illis verbis, An a vobis verbum Dei processitf xiv. 36. 
Unde hoc didicit, ex qua scriptura, ex qua historia? 
Clemens ansam huic interpretation! nullam praebuit, 

'}/?' a\t]0eia$ Tri/eiyxcm/co)? e7re<TTeC\ev v/u.iv, irepl avrov re 
KOI K>;<u re [ita MS.] Ka} 'A-TToXXw, <$ia TO /ecu roVe 
7rpo<TK\i<reis VJULUS TreTrotrja-Oai' " Revera spiritualiter ad 
*' vos scripsit, et de seipso, et turn de Cepha, turn de 
' Apollo ; propterea quod etiam turn vos inclinations 
" feceratis." Non obscure enim indicat, ad personas 
apostolorum inclinationes illas sen propensiones a sin- 
gulis partibus tune temporis factas esse, quod et ex 
oppositione posterioris schismatis intelligere datur. 
NUJ/< ^e Ka.Ta.vori (rare TiVe? u/xa? SiecrTpe^sav' " NllllC 
" vero considerate qui sint qui vos perverterint." Tn 
priore schismate ipsi se separabant inclinando sive 
propendendo ad apostolum aliquem, aut virum quern 
ab apostolis probatum fuisse noverunt. In hoc autem 
schismate viri illi quos secuti sunt, apostolorum 



CAP. vii. Veterum Testimonia. 337 

similes nullo modo erant. Quis ex his verbis venisse 
aliquos Ecclesiae Corinthiacae, ad quam scripsit S. 
Paulus, e Judaea, qui Petro nunquam Corinthi ap- 
parenti se adjungebant, aut adjunxerant, colligere 
potest? Si quis objiciat Christum nunquam Corinthi 
fuisse, ac tamen ejus nominis mentionem fieri, simi- 
liter et Petri mentionem factam esse, licet et ille 
nunquam ibi fuerit ; facilis et expedita responsio est. 
In Epistola quidem Pauli mentio fit Christi, sed non 
in verbis hujus dementis, nee apud Paulum cap. iii. 22. 
Sed nee rfc Trpo<TK\t<reu>s meminit Paulus, quam urget 
Clemens, et schismaticos priores male adhaesisse Petro, 
non minus quam Paulo et Apollo aegre fert; illosque 
eo tantum nomine excusari, quod tantis viris, quam- 
vis schismatice, adhaeserint, posse ostendit. Fuit 
igittir S. Petrus apostolus Corinthi, non minus quam 
S. Paulus aut Apollos, antequam primam ad Co- 
rinthios Epistolam S. Paulus scripsit, et quidem eo- 
dem tempore quo Apollos ibi fuit; cum eum et a 
Cepha, et a Paulo, probatum esse dicat Clemens, et 
Corinthios Petro non minus, quam Paulo et Apollo 
adhaesisse. Quare procul omni dubio vere scripsit 
Dionysius, Corinthiorum episcopus, Petrum aliquando 
fuisse Corinthi ; quidni etiam vere scripserit eundem 
Romam adiisse, ibique passum esse ? 

IV. Post Dionysium Irenaeus, Polycarpi, et Papiae, 
Hieronymo teste, in Asia discipulus, Pothini in Gallia 
presbyter, et tandem Lugduui episcopus, cui cum 
Romana Ecclesia multum commercii fuit, circa an. 
Dom. CLXXX. idem testatus est, locis a me saepius 
adductis et adducendis, ad quos lectorem remitto. 
Haud diu post Caius vir catholicus, sub Zephyrino 
Romae in Dialogo adversus Proclum Montanistam 

PEARSON, VOL. Jl. 7. 



338 De Successione primorum Romce Episcopomm. DISS. i. 

scripto , utrumque apostolum et Ecclesiam Romanam 
fundasse. et in ea urbe passum esse his verbis apud 
Eusebium, lib. ii. cap. 25. testatur: 'E^w Se ra TpoTraia 

TCOV cnrocrToXwv ejft> Set^ai' eav yap OeXtja-ys a.7re\6eiv ewl 
TO BariKavov, tj 7rl Trjv 6Sov Ttjv 'Qortay, evpfaeis TO. Tpo 
Traia T>V Taurtjv iSpv<ra/ui.eva)v Ttjv eKK\r]<riav' " Ego vero 
" apostolorum tropaea possum ostendere. Nam si in 
" Vaticanum, aut ad viam Ostiensem pergere libet, 
" occurrent tibi tropsea eorum, qui ecclesiam hanc 
" fundaverunt." Circa idem tempus Clemens in libro 
aliquo 'YTrorvTraxrewv hsec tradidit de Evangelio Marci : 

Toy Her^ou Stj/uLoaria ev 'Pwyu>; Ktjpv^avTOS TOV Xoyoi/, KOI 
Ilvev par i TO evayyeXiov e'^etTroWo?, TOVS irapovTas TroXXou? 
OVTO.<S Tra.paKa\e<rat TOV Map/cov, top av aKoXovOqtravTO. CIVTW 
TTOppdoQev teat /uLe/J.vt]/uLevov TU>V Xe^Oei/rcoi/, avaypa^ai TO. eipy- 
fjieva' TroiqcravTa Se TO evayyeXiov fMeraSovvat rof? Seo/u.evois 
avrov. "Qjrep eTrtyvovra TOV Ilerpov irpoTpeTTTiKu)? MTe KCO- 
\va-ai, MTe TrpoTpe^aarOac " Cum Petrus in urbe Roma 
" verbum Dei publice prsedicasset, et Spiritu Sancto 
" afflatus evangelium promulgasset, multi qui aderant 
" Marcuni cohortati sunt, utpote qui Petrum jamdudum 
" sectatus fuisset, et dicta ejus memoria teneret, ut 
" quae ab apostolo praedicata erant, conscriberet. 
" Marcus igitur Evangelium composuit, iisque qui illud 
" ab ipso rogabant, impertiit. Quod cum Petrus com- 
" ]>erisset, nee prohibuit omnino rem fieri, nee ut fieret 
" incitavit." Post hunc statim Tertullianus, turn 
catholicus, turn Montanista idem asseruit. Praescrip- 
tionis cap. 36. de Roma loquens, " Ista quam felix 
** ecclesia, cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine 
" suo profuderunt ! Ubi Petrus passioni Dominicas ad- 
" sequatur ; ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronatur." 

c Vid. infra Dissert, ii. c. i. 3. 



CAP. vii. Veterum Testimonia. 839 

Scorpiaces cap. 15. " Vitas Caesarum legimus; orieiitem 
" fidem Romae primus Nero cruentavit. Tune Petrus 
" ab altero cingitur, cum cruci astringitur.'' Ad versus 
Marcionem, lib. iv. cap. 5. '* Videamus quid etiam 
" Romani de proximo sonent, quibus evangelium et 
" Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque suo signatum 
" reliquerunt." Idem lib. de Baptismo, c. 4. " Nee 
" quidquam refert inter eos, quos Joannes in Jordane, 
" et Petrus in Tiberi tinxit." Post Tertullianum 
Origenes lib. iii. Expositionum in Genesin, de S. Petro : 
- Oy xai TT\ reXet ev 'Put/my 'yevoyuej/oy ave(TKO\OTri<rOr] KCLTO. 
/te^aXiJ?, OUTW9 avro9 afyuxra? TraOetv, Euseb. 1. iii. C. 1. 
Post Origenem S. Cyprianus cathedrae Petri saepe me- 
minit. Post Cyprianum Lactantius, lib. de Persecutione, 
c. 2. ** Cumque jam Nero imperaret, Petrus Romaui 
" advenit." Et de Nerone paulo post, " Petrum cruci 
" affixit, et Paulum (gladio) interfecit." Ac ne quis 
dubitet an liber iste tam sero repertus, et a doctissimo 
Baluzio tam feliciter editus d , ipsius Lactantii opus 
fuerit, idem lib. iv. Institutionum, cap. 21. " Discipuli 
" vero (Christi) per provincias dispersi fundamenta 
" Ecclesiae ubique posuerunt, ..... sed et futura ape- 
" ruit (Deus) illis omiiia, quae Petrus et Paulus Romae 
*' praedicaverunt, &c.'' Et paulo post, " Itaque post 
" illorum obitum, cum eos Nero interemisset, Judaeorum 
" gentem et nomen Vespasianus extinxit, fecitque 
" omnia quae illi futura praedixerunt.'* Post Lactantium 
Eusebius multis antiquorum testimoniis fulcitus, de 
Nerone agens lib. ii. cap. 25. haec habet, Taurj? yovv 
OWTO? 0eoyud^oy, ev TO?? fj.d\i<rra irpwros a 



d Primum editus est inter Ba- annis const! tut um, haec scripsisse ; 

luzii Miscell. torn. ii. Paris. 1679. et quidem post editos Annales 

Hinc patet Pearsonum serius, et Cyprianicos. Vid. infr. Dissert. 

episcopatus cathedra jam aliquot ii. c. vii. 5. 

z 2 



340 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

7Ti ra? Kara TWV cnroGToXcov eirypOr] crc^a-ya?. ITai/Xo? 
Srj ovv CTT' avTtjs 'Pc^ujj? 1 T^I/ KetpaXrjv cnroTfJL^Otji'ai, KO.I 
IleToo? a><raura>9 ava<TKO\O7rtcr6^vai KO.T CLVTOV IcrTOpovvTai. 
Kcu TTKTTOVTai ye Ttjv liTTOpiav y rieTjOoi; KOI ITauXou et? 
Seiipo KpctTya-acra eTrl TWV avro9t KOi/jLtiTtjpicav Trpoa-prjcris. 
Quae optime Musculus sic transtulit : " Hie itaque 
" hostis Dei, qua in re primus declaratus est, ad necem 
'* apostolorum usque elevabatur. Quapropter et Paulus 
" ab eo Romse capite truncatus, et Petrus palo affixus 
*' scribuntur. Et historiae huic fidem facit, quod illic 
" coemeteria habentur, in quibus Petri et Pauli nuncu- 
" patio ad hunc usque diem obtinet." Post Eusebium 
idem testantur Athanasius 6 et Epiphanius, et post eos 
plurimi, quorum testimonia non opus est adjicere. 
Addam autem impiam illam Juliani apostatse conjec- 
turam de Joanne apud Cyrillum, lib. x. 'A*oiW ^e, 
oi/Jiai, KCU TO. iJ.vriiJ.aTa. TleTpov KGU IlavXoi;, \d6pa fiev 
OLKOVWV e o/jtW9 aura Oepairevo/meva, TTJOWTO? eroX/x^crei/ etTreiv. 

Certe Julianus putavit monumenta Petri et Pauli 
Romae in veneratione clanculum habita fuisse, antequam 
Joannes scripsit Evangelium. Locum non explico 
propter impietatem sub eo latentem : sed eum potius 
optima S. Augustini sententia ad eandem rem, licet non 
ad idem spectante compensabo, qui Epistola xlii. (al. 
ccxxxii. 3.) observavit, " Imperii nobilissimi eminentis- 
" simum culmen ad sepulcrum piscatoris Petri, sum- 
" misso diademate, supplicare." Et conclude, postquam 
alium etiam locum paucis adhuc cognitum adduxerim 
ex Palladio, qui in Hypomnematico de Brachmanibus, 
quod edidit vir Cl. Bissaeus noster f , agens de setate 
Epicteti, de qua viri docti dubitarunt, haec habet : 
'Appiavov fJLevroi TOU /xaO^rou <pi\o(ro(pov KOI SovXov yeye- 



e In Apol. ad Imper. Con- f Lond. 1665. 410. Cum ver- 
stantium. sione Lat. Joann. Gregorii. 



CAP. vii. Ronuefuisse S. Petrttm probatur, 841 

vtinevov, Si V(pvtav Se <f)v<T<a$ etV (f)i\o<ro(})iav eXao-avTOs ev 
rofy Kaipois NfjtMDco? row /StKriXewy, TOU KoXaa-avTOs TOU$ 
aotSlfjLovs a-TToo-ToXoi/9 llerpov KOI Ilai/Xoi/' " Arriani 
** nempe discipuli illius philosophi qui natus servus 
" fuerat, ob naturae vero praestantiam ad philosophiam 
'* aspiravit tempore Neronis imperatoris, qui illustres 
" apostolos Petrum et Paulum tmcidavit." 

V. Cum tanto consensu ab initio fere traditum sit 
S. Petrum Romas evangelium praedicasse, et ibidem 
passum esse; cumque nemo unquam dixerit, vel Pe 
trum, vel Paulum alibi martyrio coronatum esse ; cum 
denique Christus ipse satis aperte significet Petrum 
crucifigendum fore : tuto satis huic historiae fidem 
adhiberi posse existimo. Quis enim credet tantum 
apostolum tarn obscure mori potuisse, ut nemo unquam 
loci illius, quo mortuus est, meminerit ? Quis credet, 
cum aliae regiones suum apostolum sibi vindicarent, 
quod nulla urbs, nulla regio, nulla ecclesia dixerit se 
cruore Petri nobilitatam esse ? Cumque Christus ipse 
taut a cum asseveratione, Amen, Amen, dico tibi, dixerit 
Petro, cum senueris, extendes manus tuas, et alius te 
cinget, et ducet quo non vis ; et diu post mortem ejus 
scripserit S. Joannes apostolus Christum iis verbis 
significasse TTO/O) Octi/d, id est, quo genere mortis, glori- 
ficaturus esset Deum ; quis unquam putabit Christia- 
norum neminem quo genere mortis passus sit novisse, 
omnesque potius quomodo Deum glorih'cavit, ignorasse ; 
aut saltern Deum sua providentia posteris notum esse 
noluisse? Duobus tamen his posterioribus seculis non 
defuerunt viri docti, qui cum viderent pontificiae potes- 
tatis nimios assertores hac successione maxime gloriari, 
primo de ipsa successione dubitarent, mox etiam diserte 
negarent Petrum Romae unquam fuisse. 



CAP. VIII. 

I. Non ita Judaeos propriam sibi provinciam sortitus est Petrus, quin 
potuerit etiam Gentes, oblata occasione, convertere. II. Et tamen 
Romae multi, illis etiam temporibus, fuere Judaei. III. Petrum e 
Babylone Epistolam scripsisse conceditur. IV. Babylon Assyria 
eo tempore deserta. V. Non tune Babylon ilia sedes erat imperii, 
sed paulo ante Seleucia ; Petro vero prsedicante, Ctesiphon. 
VI. Sed nee fuit ilia Judseorum incolentium multitudine illo 
tempore Celebris. VII. De Babylone potius yEgyptiaca intelli- 
gendus in Epistola S. Petrus. VIII. Melius ad hanc Babylonem 
referenda erant, quse per totam ill am epistolam scripsit S. Apo- 
stolus. IX. Refellitur argumentum Salmasii e Clemente Romano. 
X. Ejusdem sententia mortem S. Petri decimo Claudii anno statu- 
entis, etiam refellitur. 

I. /CLAUDIUS Salmasius magno animo hujus causae 
V_^ patrocinium suscepit, et in secunda parte De 
Primatu Papse se Petrum Romae nunquain fuisse proba- 
turum pollicitus est, quam tamen nunquam edidit. 
Interim in Apparatu ait, " Praecipuum huic rei probandae 
" argumentum afferetur, quod est invictissimum." Fun- 
damentum ponit hujus invictissimi argumenti in ver- 
sibus 7, 8, 9. capitis secundi Epistolae ad Galatas, ibi 
enim affirmat Paulus apostolatum circumcisionis Petro 
concreditum fuisse. Sed non consuluit Hieronymi 
explicationem sane observandam, " Occulta hie oritur 
" quaestio; Quid igitur? Petrus si invenisset ex gentibus, 
" non eos adducebat ad fidem? aut Paulus si ex cir- 
" cumcisione aliquos reperisset, non eos ad Christi 
" baptismum provocabat ? Quae ita solvetur, ut dicamus 



CAP. vin. Salmasii argumentum de S. Petro. 343 

" principale singulis in Judaeos et Gentes fuisse man- 
" datum, ut qui . defendebant legem, haberent quern 
" sequerentur : qui legi gratiam praeferebant, non de- 
" esset eis doctor et praevius. In commune vero hoc 
" eos habuisse propositi, ut Christo ex cunctis gentibus 
" Ecclesiam congregarent. Legimus enim et a S. Petro 
" gentilem baptizatum fuisse Cornelium, et a Paulo in 
" synagoga Judaeorum Christum saepissime praedicatum." 
Ubi clare distinguitur inter mandatum singulis datum, 
et commune. Prius quidem singulare ab hominibus, 
apostolis nempe, datum est ; posterius autem, sive 
commune, ab ipso Deo utrique impositum est: ut 
scilicet uterque, sive ex Judaeis, sive ex Gentibus Christo 
discipulos faceret. Cum Paulus et Barnabas verbum 
Dei praedicarent in Pisidia, a Judaeis Antiochiae rejecti, 
dixerunt necesse fuisse, ut illis primo verbum nuuciarent. 
Et statim Iconii ita praevalebant in synagoga, ut et 
Judaorum et Grtecorum multi crederent, Act. xiv. 1. 
S. Paulus cum primum venit Corinthum, Act. xviii. 4. 
disputabat in synagoga per omne sabbatum interponens 
nomen Domini Jesu, suadebatque Judceis et Greeds : nee 
nisi contradicentibus eis (Judaeis) et blasphemantibus 
dij'it ad eos, Sanguis Tester super caput vestrum : mundrn 
ego, ex hoc ad gentes vadam. Quando complures Judaei 
Romae ad eum venerunt, annon tune Judaeis exponebat 
testificans regnum Dei, suadensque iu de Jesu ex lege 
Moysi et Prophetis a mane usque ad vesperam f Et qui- 
dam credebant Us qua dicebantur. Quod licuit Paulo 
post partitionem officii ex consensu factam, non licuit 
Petro post eandem, quod ad Gentes spectabat ? An illi 
plus concreditum est ad salutem Judaeorum, quam huic 
ad salutem Gentium, post conversionem Cornelii ? Cum 
ipse Petrus in concilio apostolorum dixerit, Viri fra- 



344 De Saccessione primorum Romae Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

tres, vos scitis quoniam ab antiquis diebus Deus in nobis 
elegit per os meum audire gentes verbum evangelii et 
credere. 

II. Quod si concedere oporteret hoc verum esse, 
Petrum nempe ad solos Judaeos missum esse, an ideo 
Romam pervenisse eum prorsus neganduni est ? An 
Rom se aut nulli, aut tarn pauci fuerunt Judsei vivente 
et prsedicante Petro, ut eos^ad fidem Christianam con- 
vertere operae pretium non duxerit ? Sub initio Eccle- 
siae Christianse Libertinorum Synagoga Hierosolymis 
fuit, conflata sine dubio ex iis Judaeis, ab iisque nomen 
adepta qui Roma ad metropolin Judaeorum religionis 
ergo convenire solebant. Hi trans Tiberim sub Au- 
gusto suas habuere proseuchas, suam synagogam Hiero 
solymis, ad quam urbem etiam tune Judaei Roma col- 
lectas primitiarum nomine, et victimas mittere sole- 
bant. Unde cum forte post mortem Herodis legati 
quinquaginta Romam missi sunt, onWo-rai/To ^e avrois 
TU)V CTT] 'Pa>/w7? 'lou^a/cov vTrep ocTtuaar^tXiOVf, " adjunx- 
" erunt se illis ex Judaeis urbis Romanes plures quam 
" octies mille," ut tradit Josephus, lib. xvii. cap. xii. 
[al. xi. i.] Haec Judaeorum sub Augusto Romae 
conditio fuit. Nam Philo Judaeus in Legatione ad 
Caium testatur Augustum magnam urbis partem trans 
Tiberim a Judaeis teneri passum esse, qui libertini 
generis erant. Sub Tiberii principatu, circa annum 
ejus imperii sextum, " factum est patrum consultum, 
" ut quatuor millia libertini generis ea superstitione 
" infecta, queis idonea aetas, in insulam Sardinian! vehe- 
*' rentur." Sed nee ille numerus omnes Judaeos idoneae 
aetatis continuisse censendus est ; addit enim Tacitus, 
" ceteri excederent Italia, nisi certam ante diem pro- 
" fanos ritus exuissent ;" idemque docet Suetonius ; et 



CAP. vni. Multitiulo Judceurum Romte ciHitiuuruntium. 345 

Josephus eandem rem pertractans tradit consules de- 
lectu habito quatuor mi Ilia misisse in Sardinian! a . Ne- 
que Judaei qui tune Roma pellebantur, diu extorres 
permansere, sed intra paucos annos reversi sunt. Nam 
quamprimum Sejanus ad imperium aspiravit, ambitioni 
et sceleri suo necessarium putavit conficta de Judaeis 
urbem incolentibus crimina ab Tiberium deferre, ut 
gentem e medio tolleret : at post Sejani interitum 
Tiberius Judaeis maxime benevolus fuit. Unde ilia ad 
Caium infensissimum Judaeorum hostem Agrippae in 
praesentissimo mortis periculo constituti praeclara pero- 

ratio, I\pocTK\t)Tevov<Tt TOI$ vofjLOis avTOKpaTeis irpos avro- 
KpaTOpa, <re(3a<rTol irpos (reffaa-TOv, Trcnnroi KOI Trpoyovoi 

Trpo? exyovov' " Deprecantur pro legibus nostris impera- 
" tores apud imperatorem, Augusti apud Augustum, 
" avi proavique apud nepotem." Quid a Caio contra 
Judaeos Romas habitantes factum sit, non lego. Quic- 
quid sit, numerum Judaeorum in Urbe sub initio imperii 
Claudiani baud contemnendum fuisse constat. Nam 
Dio, libro Ix. c. 6. de primis Claudii institutis agens base 

diserte SCribit : Toi/y T 'Ioi<Wouy -rrXeovdcravTa? avOis, 
<Sa~T ^aXe-TTwy av avev Tapa^^s, inro TOV o^Xoy cr(f)u>v, T^9 
7roXec)9 eip'xjdtjvai, OVK e^iJXacre yue/, TOJ ^e Trarpiff vo/Jup 
{3i(f> xjxofjievovs e/ceXeuire fJLrj crvvaOpoi^ecrOai' " Quum Judaei 

" adeo iterum Romae frequentes essent, ut difficulter sine 
" tumultu propter multitudinem urbe possent arceri ; 
" non ejecit quidem eos, patriis tamen legibus vitam 
" tolerantes vetuit convenire." Neque inirum, cum 
Claudius Judaeis maxime faveret, nee eos ante annum 
imperii duodecimum Roma expulit, ut alibi ostendimus b , 
quicquid Orosius anno nono ex Josephi testiuionio, 
quod nulluin est, factum esse dixit. Post hoc edictum 

a Antiq. xviii. iii. 5. b Soil, in Annalibus Paulinis anno 

Claudii xii. 



346 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

Claudii, aut ipso superstite, (quod verisimillimum est) 
aut Nerone principatum mox obtinente, Judaei Romam 
reversi sunt, ibique sub imperio Neroniano satis secure 
habitabant. Quod satis ostendunt ilia Persii Sat. v. 

" Herodis venere dies, unctaque fenestra 

" Dispositse pinguem nebulam vomuere lucernae," &c. 

Unde S. Paulus Romam missus complures Judaeorum 
primores eongregasse dictus est. Ex quibus clare 
patet argumentum Salmasii, nee a partitione officii 
apostolici, nee a paucitate Judaeorum inter Romanes 
invictum esse. 

III. Etiamsi vero hsec per se sumpta nihil probare 
videantur, si tamen comparate sumantur, maximam 
inde vim habere putantur. Fuerint Romas aliquot 
Judaei, at Babylone multo plures erant, et inde apostolo 
circumcisionis plenior messis expectanda fuit. Inde 
satis rotunde Salmasius, " ab Antiochia," inquit, " non 
" Romam venit, sed Babylonem, extern! imperii sedem, 
" et longissime a Roma dissitam, quoniam ibi pene 
" regnabant Judaei, et ai-^/uLaXwrdp^v suum habuere, a 
" qua urbe nunquam recessit, postquain earn ingressus 
" est." Ut huic novo argumento et maxime specioso 
diligenter respondeam ; primo, libens concede S. Pe- 
trum Antiochiam profectum esse, antequam Romam 
venit ; turn quod veteres omnes idem tradiderunt, 
turn quod hodierni pontificii hoc non negant. Et si 
ex antiquorum monumentis possit probari eundem 
apostolum, cum ab Antiochia primo recessit, non Ro 
mam, sed Babylonem externi imperii sedem venisse, 
idque ab eo factum esse, quoniam ibi pene regnabant 
Judaei ; et prsecipue si probari ulterius possit ab ea 
urbe nunquam recessisse Petrum, postquam earn in 
gressus est; quod ad me attinet, Salmasii sententiam 
amplecti paratus sum. Sed quis unquam docuit Petrum 



CAP. VIH. Babylon, unde scripsit S. Petrus, qucefuerit. 347 

extra Roman! imperil fines iter instituisse ? Quis 
tradidit Babylonem eo temporis tractu fuisse " externi 
" imperii sedem ?" Qnis in ilia imperil sede pene reg- 
nasse Judaeos, et at^/jLaXwrdp-^v suum habuisse prodi- 
dit ? Quis denique unquam asseruit Petrum, postquam 
Babylonem profectus est, ab ea urbe nunquam reces- 
sisse ? Quibus annalibus, quo historiae monumento haec 
prodita sunt? Quis ullo modo haec omnia, vel horum 
aliquid significavit ? Ipse scilicet Petrus, si Salmasio 
credamus. " Nam," inquit, " cum scripsit epistolam 
" ad dispersionem Judaeorum, Babylone fuit." For- 
tasse. Non enim nego S. Petrum tune Babylone fuisse, 
cum ilia verba scripsit, Salutat vos Ecclesia, qua est in 
Babylone electa. Quippe neutiquam mihi placet figu- 
rata ilia interpretatio, quae docet Romam sub nomine 
Babylonis intelligi debere. Quamvis minime concedam 
** non alio argumento hanc invaluisse opinionem vete- 
" rum, Petrum Romae fuisse." Nam antequam ea 
interpretatio nata est, communis omnium sententia 
fuisse videtur, Petrum turn Romam venisse, turn ibidem 
passum esse : et ex ilia communi sententia primum 
orta, dein corroborata est figurata ilia interpretatio, 
quae mihi minus placet. Fuerit igitur Petrus Babylone, 
cum Epistolam ad dispersionem Judaeorum scripsit. 
Sed non una Babylon tune temporis extitit. Imo 
potius ilia Babylon apud Parthos vix tune urbs fuit. 

IV. Strabo lib. xvi. enumeratis causis baud paucis ob 
quas ingens ilia urbs a pristina amplitudine defecit; 
tandem qualis ilia fuit suo tempore his verbis describit : 
'H fjiev (2eXet//ca) yeyove Ba/9i/Xa>i/o? /ue/^ajy, 17 Se eptjuos 
q iroXXjJ* UHTT eir' ayri/? /u^ av oKVtjarai TWO. eltcelv OTrep e<pij 

T<9 TU)V K(l)fJLlKti>V eTTI Me^aXoTToXtTO)!/ TU>V V 'ApKCtSlCt, 

'Eipt]/j.ia /uicydXt] ecrrtv fj neyaXtj TroX/?' (Seleucia) " major 
" Babylone est, ilia magna ex parte deserta ; ut in- 



348 De Successions primorum Homes Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

" trepide de ea usurpari possit, quod de Megalopoli 
" Arcadiae magnaurbe quidam dixit comicus, Est magna 
44 solitude nunc Megalopolis." Plinius, qui sub Ves- 
pasiano vel Tito scripsit, Hist. Nat. 1. vi. c. 26. hsec 
habet de Babylone ; " Ceetero in solitudinem rediit 
" exhausta vicinitate Seleuciac ob id conditae a Nicatore." 
Inter tempora Strabonis et Plinii contendit Salmasius 
Petrum profectum esse Babylonem, extern! imperii 
sedem, quam historici tradunt fuisse tune desertam : 
imo et ipse idem fatetur de Primatu Papse, p. 221. 
" Atqui Babylon longe ante Seleuciam defecit, et in 
" solitudinem rediit, cum Plinius scribat sua a?tate 
" desolatam et exhaustam vicinitate Seleuciaa." At 
Petrus non ignoravit judicia Dei aut mentem prophe- 
tarum : illi autem Dei nomine praedicaverant Babylonem 
urbem desolatam fore, eaque diserte praedixerant, " per 
** quae omnia vastitatis et solitudinis signa monstraban- 
" tur," ut loquitur Hieronymus : sic enim Esaiae xiii. 
19, 20. Et erit Babylon ilia gloriosa in regnis, incli/ta 
in superbia Chaldceorum ; sicut subvertit Dominus Sodo- 
mam et Gomorrham : non habitabitur usque infinem, et 
non fundabitur usque in generatione et generationem. 
An urbem illam S. Petrus adire maxime concupivit, 
quam prophetarum vaticinio et justo Dei judicio per- 
cussam esse novit ? 

V. Sed erat ilia tune " externi imperii sedes, in qua 
" pene regnabant Judsei." Rapuit igitur illuc aposto- 
lum circumcisionis et loci majestas et dignitas Judoeo- 
rum, qui tanta illic auctoritate et potestate gaudebant. 
Prseclara hose observatio, si modo vera sit : sed est fal- 
sissima. Ipse Hieronymus prophetiam Esaiae impletam 
fuisse ait ; quod pro Babylone " Seleuciam et Ctesiphon- 
" tern urbes Persarum inclytas fecerunt." Et Theodo- 
retus adhuc magis expresse 'AXXa TO /mev e<V rov 



CAP. vni. Ctesiphon, Parthici Imperii caput. 349 

ftpovov ov KaTOiKtjO^ererat, avri rot/, OVKCTI (3a.(rt\e<ai> oiKrjrri- 

ptov e<rrai. " Verum illud, In tempus sempiternum non 
" habitabitur, pro eo positum est, Non amplius reguni 
" erit habitaculum." Paulatim igitur defecit Babylon, 
a regibus primo, dein a populo deserta ; sic Seleuciam 
sub Macedonibus, et sub Parthis Ctesiphontem imperii 
sedem fuisse novimus. Quoniam autem Ctesiphontem eo 
ipso tempore, quo Antiochiae sedit apostolus, externi im 
perii sedem fuisse putamus ; id hie opportune demon 
strandum est. Josephus de rebus Judaicis in Oriente 
circa Caii imperatoris tempora scribens, vocat Ctesi 
phontem " regiam tune urbem," ut postea ostendemus. 
PI i ni us, Josepho synchronus, 1. vi. c. 26. '* Invicem ad 
" hanc (Seleuciam) exhauriendam, Ctesiphontem juxta 
" tertium ab ea lapidem in Chalonitide condidere 
" Parthi, quod nunc est caput regni." Tacitus Anna- 
Hum 1. vi. agens de Tiridate in regnum Parthicum sub 
extremis Tiberii inducendo, " Mox consultans," inquit, 
" quonam die solennia rt^gni capesseret; . . . atque inte- 
" rim Ctesiphon sedes imperii petita." Ut ante Arta- 
banus victo Vonone, et Seleuciam cum paucis equitibus 
petente, Ctesiphontem se contulit, ubi rex Parthorum 
declaratus est, Josephus Antiq. 1. xviii. c. 3. Postea 
Trajanus, qui expugnata Nisibi et Batnis Parthicus 
dictus est, referente Dione, non Babylone, sed post 
Babylonem recepta Ctesiphonte, avroKpdrwp eTrtovo/uLao-Ori, 
" imperator appellatus est," KOI eTriicXtjo-iv rov HapOucov 
ej8e(8a<o)(raTo,"et cognomen Parthici confirmavit."!. Ixviii. 
Et cum postea regem dare Parthis voluit, Parthos cum 
Romanis Ctesiphonte convocavit, et Parthamaspaten 
Parthis regem dedit. Et Herodianus lib. iii. de Severi 
exercitu scribens, Trpoo-wKeiXe rat? HapOvaicw o^Ocus, cu 



oov' evBa tjv ra /8ar'Xe<a TOV YlapOvaiov, KU\ auroy Sterpifiev 



850 De Successione primorum Romee Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

elprjvrjv ayoov' " Appulit ad ripas Parthorum quae non 
" procul aberant Ctesiphonte, qua in urbe sedes erat 
" Parthorum regis, et ipse habitabat pacem agitans :" 
et paulo post, Kar' oXlyov re irpoiaiv eirea-Ty KTqvKpwvTi, 
vf riv 6 /meyas fla<ri\v$ 'A^ora/Savo?* " Et paulatim 
" usque ad Ctesiphontem perrexit, qua in civitate mag- 
" nus rex Artabanus commorabatur." Ammianus 
Marcellinus 1. xxiii. c. 3. " Ctesiphon, quam Vardanes 
" priscis temporibus instituit, posteaque rex Pacorus 
*' incolarura viribus amplificatum et moenibus, Graeco 
" indito nomine, Persidis effecit specimen summum." Ex 
omni itaque historia liquido constat, aetate S. Petri Baby- 
lonem non fuisse externi, nempe Parthici, imperii sedem. 
Eraut tune quidem duo imperia, sive, ut loquitur Jose 
ph us, Svo /jieyta-rai VTTO TOV yXiov qye/movlai, quorum unius 
Roma, alterius, non Babylon, sed Ctesiphon caput fuit. 
VI. At, inquies, si non propter dignitatem, propter 
multitudinem tamen Judseorum apostolus circumcisio- 
nis Babylonem Romae praetulit. Sed nee ex hac parte 
vis ulla huic argumento accedit. Nullus enim dubito 
quin plures Judaei ea tempestate Romae quam Babylone 
vixerint. Phraates quidem Parthorum rex Hyrcanum 

vinculis solutum ev Ba/SuXwj/f Kardyea-Qai Trapei-^ev, evQa 

KOI 7rX^o9 n 'IovSai<av c . Erat igitur tune temporis 
irXtjOos 'lovScuuv Babylone. Sed non videtur major 
numerus ea voce denotari, quam sub voce o^Xou, apud 
Dionem superius laudatum, quando Judaei Roinae tTrXeo- 
vaa-av. Sed et hoc praecipue notandum est illud a 
Phraate factum septuaginta et amplius annis conti- 
gisse, antequam S. Petrus vidit Antiochiam ; ex quo 
tempore numerus Judseorum cum potestate in Baby 
lonia valde diminutus est. Nam sub extremis impe- 
ratoris Caii d , Tivercu $e Trep\ TOUS ev Ty Meo-OTTOTa/i/a, /cat 
c Joseph. Antiq. xv. c. 2. d Id. xviii. c. 9. 



CAP. viii. Judcci in Babylonia dispersi. 351 

/uaXicrra Tqv Ba/^iA&Way otKoviras 'loi^a/ou? <rvfA(f>opa Seivt], 

\"i* *v ' J. ' x* * 

KO.I ovwpuaf Jj<mvo? eXacr<r&)v, (povos re avrwv -roXu?, KOI 
OTTOCTOS ov% la-Toprjfj.ei'Of irpoTepov. Vetus interpres, " Con- 
" tigit etiam per idem tempus Judaeis illis qui in Me- 
" sopotamia et Babylonia habitabant, valde magna 
" calamitas ; ubi quoque multa caedes accidit, quanta 
** nunquam ante refertur in historia." Hanc Judaeorum 
cladem omnium quae unquam Judaeis contigerant maxi- 
mam fuse et accurate persequitur Josephus ; quae a 
nobis diligenter observata, et breviter explicata Judaeo 
rum in Babylonia statum iis temporibus proximeque se- 
cutis clare ostendit. Primo tradit Josepbus duas fuisse 
urbes, unam in Babyloniaintra Eupbratem Nearda dictam, 
alteram illi oppositam Transeuphratensem, cui Nisibis 

nomen fuit : To re SiSpa^ov ('lovSaiot,) r<a 0co) /caTa/8a\- 
\ftv o eKao-TOts ircLTpiov, TavTy /cttTer/^erro, KOI OTToaa aXXa 
yjpwvro $e tacnrep ra/xie/a) Tai<rSe rats Tr6\<riv' 
Se Tr\ 'IepO(ro\vfji<av ai/eW/xTrero ^ Kaipof " Illic 

" Judaei turn didrachmum Deo pendi ab unoquoque 
" solitum, aliaque omnia anathemata reponebant; 
" quippe utebantur illis urbibus tanquam aerario, et 
** inde ilia Hierosolyma mittebantur, ubi opportunitas 
" se obtulit." Ex quo Joseph i loco alter Philonis in 
Legatione ad Caium optime explicatur, ubi de Petronio 
agit ante ultimam hanc cladem dubitante, an imaginem 
Caii Templo Hierosolymitano inferret : 'E<o73ow/ ^e 

avTOV f inquit, KOI al Trepav TZvcfipaTOv Swa/meif yfiei yap 
Ba/8iXa>i>a, KOI TroXXay aXXa? TWV (raTpcnreiwv VTTO 'lovSaitav 

icaTe^o/ueVaf " Terrebaiit enim eum etiam copiae Trans- 
*' euphratenses ; quippe qui sciret Babylonem, et mul- 
" tas alias satrapias a Judaeis teneri ;" hoc autem eum 

novisse ait, Ka$' e/cao-TOV yap eviavrov lepoTTOfMTrol <TTC\- 
Xovrat xpvo-ov icai apyupov TrXfio-rov Ko/JLt^ovrey eis TO lepov 
rov aOpoKrOevra CK rwv airapytoV k * Nam quotannis sacri 
" legati mittuntur auri et argenti plurimum ex primitiis 



352 De Successions primorum Rom& Episcoporum. DISS. r. 

" collectum in templum ferentes." Hos viderat Petronius 
per Syriam transeuntes, ex quibus numerum Judseo- 
rum Transeuphratensium colligebat. Cseterum ex Jo- 
sepho constat etiam ante ultimam cladem non in urbe 
Babylone has primitias ant collectas, ant conservatas, 
sed in aliis satrapiis, Neardis scilicet et Nisibi urbibus 
tuto collocatas fuisse, atqne ex illis civitatibus Hiero- 
solyma missas. Ex his Judaeis erant Asinaeus et Ani- 
laeus fratres patria Neardenses, qui quasi male habiti 
ad arma confugiunt, et collecto juvenum non contem- 
nendo numero, castellisque positis, etiam Satrapam 
Babyloniae profligarunt. Unde Artabanus, Parthorum 
Rex, eorum audaciam fortitudinemque impendio admi- 
ratus, illos sibi devincire cupiebat: commisit itaque 
Asinaeo regionem Babylonicam, ut earn a latrociniis 
illaesam custodiret ; qui per quindecim annos magna 
felicitate auctoritateque inter Babylonios gavisus est : 
donee Anilaeus Parthorum ducis uxore ablata, et Asi 
naeo fratre veneno sublato, et Mithridate Parthorum no- 
bilissimo indigne habito, tarn male in conflictu se gessit, 
ut e suis multae myriades ceciderint ; etiana paulo post 
Anilaeus ipse cum multisipsi adhuc adhserentibus occisus 
est. Post interitum tarn multarum myriadum et ipsius 
Anilaei, qui cum viveret et floreret, quasi fraenum erat 
odio Babyloniorurn adversus Judaeos, Babylonii contra 
Judoeos insurgunt ; Judaei autem nee Babyloniis amplius 
resistere,nec eorum cohabitationem ferre valentes,Seleu- 
ciam migrant, ubi per quinquennium secure habitabant : 
sexto autem post priorem cladem anno, Syris et Graecis 
Seleuciae cum Babyloniis conspirantibus, supra quinqua- 
ginta Judaeorum millia occisa sunt. Reliqui, qui gegre 
evaserant, Ctesiphontem regiam tune urbem fuga vene- 
runt, tuto se illic ex majestate et reverentia imperil 
habitaturos rati, sed frustra; nam qui illic habitabant 
Judaei, terrore Babyloniorum et Seleucensium perculsi 



CAP. VIM. Babylon JEgyptiaca. 353 

sunt ; unde factum est ut plerique Nearda et Nisibin 
se receperint. Omnesque tune earum parti urn Judaei 
non Babylone, sed, quantum ex Josepho colligere pos- 
sumus, vel Ctesiphonte, vel Neardis, vel Nisibi habita- 
bant. Unde Agrippa sub initio belli Judaici, in prae- 
clara apud Josephum oratione, Judaeos etiam trans 
Euphratem nullos nominare potuit praeter eos, qui in 
Adiabenorum regione sub Parthorum imperio habita- 
bant. Et postea Trajanus, cum Judsei in ^Egypto et 
Cyrenaica rebellarent, Lucio Quieto in mandatis dedit, 
ut Judaeos in Mesopotamia solos, de quibus ante 
diximus, opprimeret, ne quid simile etiam illic tentarent. 
Ipse autem imperator Babylonem petens nihil illic 
memoria dignum vidit. Quorsum igitur S. Petrus 
Antiochiam relinqueret, in qua urbe plurimi Judaei 
erant nondum ad Christi fidem conversi ? Quorsum 
imperio Romano in aetemum valediceret, in quo quain- 
plurimae Judaeorum coloniae erant ubique dispersae, ut 
externum imperium peteret, et Babylonem Assyriacam 
pergeret ; in qua urbe, toties deserta et prophetarum 
fulmine percussa, vel pauci, vel nulli Judaei tune tem- 
poris habitabant ? 

VII. Sed Babylone tune fuit Petrus, quando scripsit 
epistolam ad dispersionem Judaeorum ; tota enim argu- 
menti vis tandem ad illam literalem expositionem 
resolvitur. Verum et ilia, his quae ante diximus con- 
sideratis, statim evanescit. Explodatur figurata, ad- 
mittatur literalis expositio ; non opus erit ut in Assyriam 
nos conferamus, si nudo urbis nomini standum esse 
arbitremur : alia enim erat urbs Babylonis nomine 
insignita, eaque Judfrae multo vicinior, a Babyloniis 
post dira prophetarum vaticinia Ptolemaeorum permissu 
condita et habitata. Stephanus voce Baj3v\an>, e<m Se 
KO,} ev AtyvTTTw TTo'X/?, " Est autem et in ^.gypto urbs 

PKARSOX, VOL. II. A a 



354 De Successions primorum Romee Episcoporum. mss. i, 

" Babylon." De hac Babylone loquitur Strabo lib. 
xvii. tanquam de urbe et satis ampla et munita, post- 
quam Heliopolitin et Latopolitin praefecturas descrip- 

(ravTi <T ecrr! Ba/8uXcoi/ (ppovpiov pv/uivov f 
evravQa (1. evTavBoi) Ba/3vXcoi/<W TIVUIV, efra 
$icnrpaa/u.ev(i)v evTavOa KdTOiKiav Trapa TWV (3acri\e<av* 

" Ulterius sursum naviganti est Babylon castellum 
" natura munitum, a Babyloniis quibusdam conditum : 
" qui hue secedentes eo in loco habitationem a regibus 
" impetrarunt." Tempore autem Strabonis sub imperio 
Tiberii una ex tribus legionibus, quse J^gyptum custo- 
diebant, ibi collocata est, ut ipse narrat. De hac 
Babylone Ptolemseus in descriptione ^.gypti : 'Ei/ /xe- 
Oopiw 'AjOa/3/a? KOI 'AcfipoSiTOTroXecDs Ba/3uX(oi/, 'HXtoyTroXt?, 
'Hpaxiov TroXt?, i* ^9 KOU Ba|8i/Xwj/o9 TroXew? Tpai'avos TTOTOL- 

/xo? pet- " In confinio Arabiae et Aphroditopoleos Ba- 
" bylon, Heliopolis, Heroopolis, per quam et urbem 
" Babylonem Trajanus fluvius decurrit." Haec est ilia 
Babylon de qua loquitur Hieronymus in vita Hilarionis, 
cujus verba hue afferenda putavi, quod situm urbis in 
,/Egypto aliquo modo describant, et distantiam a Pelusio. 
" Quinto igitur die venit Pelusium (Hilarion) visitatis- 
" que fratribus qui in vicina eremo erant, et in loco qui 
" dicitur Lychnos, morabantur, perrexit post triduum 
'* ad Castrum Theubatum, ut videret Dracontium epi- 
" scopum et confessorem, qui ibi exulabat ; quo incre- 
" dibiliter consolato tanti viri prsesentia, post aliud 
*' triduum multo Babylonem labore pervenit, ut videret 
" Philonem episcopum et ipsum confessorem." Unde 
etiam colligere possumus Philonem hujus urbis fuisse 
episcopum, ut postea in Concilio Chalcedonensi inter 
episcopos mentio fit Kvpov Ba/3jA<Si/o?, qui turn Ephe- 
sinse, turn Chalcedonensi synodo interfuit; et in sub- 
scriptionibus ad Concilium Constantinopolitanum a 



CAP. vni. Babylon ^Egyptiaca. 355 



Lambecio editis, 
" Photius episcopus Babylonis subscripsi." Si in hac 
urbe ^Egyptiaca S. Petrum scripsisse quis dixerit Epi- 
stolam primam, literalis expositio satis constabit, neque 
ullo argumento refelli poterit, nisi quis ad figuratam 
locutionem a Patribus baud paucis probatam confugerit. 
Nomen enim urbis proprie sumptum, ut sumi debere 
conteudit Salmasius, me baud renuente, non minus huic 
urbi ^Egyptiacae sub imperio Romano, quam alteri 
Assyriacae sub imperio externo competit. 

VIII. Quinetiam praeterea et argumentum totius 
Epistola; Petri in qua Babylonis mentio fit, et nonnulla 
quae ex eadem particulatim deduci possunt, Babylonem 
illam longissime a Judaea sitam potius aspernantur, et 
huic propinquiori melius conveniunt. Scribit enim 
praecipue ad Judaeos, qui Christianam fidem receperant 
in Ponto, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia et Bithynia (ut 
easdem fere colonias simul recenset Philo, V <Je ra? 

TTOppa) oiu>Ki(riJ.va.<} Ha[J.(j)v\iai>, KtAj/a'ui/, TU TroXXa T^9 
'Ao-my ax/ ' Bt$w/a?, /ecu Ttav TOU \\6vrov /jivj^dav) ex iis 
scilicet coloniis, quas Judaei diversis temporibus emi- 
serant, ulteriores autem, non vicinas in Jiigypto, Phoe- 
nice, et utraque Syria, in quibus ipse jam prsudicaverat. 
Ad eos autem scripsisse videtur, quos nee viderat prius, 
nee postea videre constituerat. Certe in tota hac 
epistola uusquam innuit se iis, ad quos scribit, evan- 
gelium praedicasse, vel oculis eosdem usurpasse ; neque 
unquam promittit se eos postea visurum. Nullo modo 
enim admittenda mihi videtur historia, quam refert in 
apostoli vita Hieronymus, " Post episcopatum Antio- 
** chensis Ecclesiae, et praedicationem dispersionis eorum 
" qui de circumcisione crediderant, in Ponto, Galatia, 
" Cappadocia, Asia et Bithynia, secundo Claudii anno 
" ad expugnandum Simonem Magum lloniam pergit ;'' 

A a 2 



356 De Successions primorum Roma Episcoporum. DISS. r. 

idque non tantum quia haec facta narrat tarn mature 
ante secundum Claudii annum, sed etiam quia prae- 
dicasse Petrum in illis regionibus affirmat, quas eum 
nemo vidisse unquam docuit, prs&ter Epiphanium 'Hae- 

i XXVl'i. IleTjOO? Se TroXXa/ay HOVTOV TC Kal HiOvviav 

aro' " Petrus autem Pontum et Bithyniam ssepe 
" invisit." Ex hoc solo fimdamento Salmasius in Ap- 
paratu sic disputat : " Ergo Petrus Babylonem recta 
" concesserit, non Romam, postquam dispersioni Judae- 
" orum per illas provincias consistentium evangelium 
" prsedicavit." Sane si apostolus file circumcisionis 
Babylonem non venit, nisi postquam Judaeis per illas 
provincias praedicaverat, Babylone nunquam fuit. Idem 
mihi firmare videntur duo comites S. Petri Silvanus et 
Marcus, per quorum unum misit epistolam, et alterius 
nomine eos salutavit ad quos scripsit. Erat autem 
Silvanus unus ex iis, quos Petrus cum Concilio Hiero- 
solymitano miserat ad docendum quid in illo concilio 
constitutum est. Erat porro S. Pauli individuus comes 
per provincias illas Asiaticas praedicantis, eique per 
aliquot annos adhaesit. Neque enim mihi unquam 
placuit ilia observatio Hieronymi Ep. ad Damasum cxliii. 
" Sciendum, Silam collegam Pauli, lingua Hebraea apo- 
" stolum dici, qui cum eo nonnullas epistolas scripsit r 
" et vitiose Silvanus legitur pro Sila, cum Silvanum in 
" Apostolorum Actis non legamus." Nunc autem eum 
cum Petro Babylone invenimus, et per eum epistola 
missa est, quia fuerat fere illis, ad quos scripta est, 
notissimus. Quinetiam Marcus, cujus nomine eos 
salutat, Hierosolymis Paulum et Barnabam Antiochiam 
usque secutus est, et per eas provincias, donee in Pam- 
phylia eum reliquerat ; adeoque eorum plurimis notus 
fuerat. Cyprum autem cum Barnaba navigans, ab- 
nuente ejus consortium Paulo, ut par est credere,. 



CAP. viii. S. Marcus S. Petri in ^Egypto comes. 357 

Antiochiam ad Petmm reversus est ; unde nunc ei in 
jEgyptiaca urbe merito adjunctura fuisse credimus. 
Atque inde ratio non mala petitur, cur Marcus post 
mortem Petri et Pauli Evangelium scripserit, ut Trenaeus 
lib. iii. cap. 1. refert, et Alexandrian cathedram posuerit, 
ut omnes testantur : nempe quia illi noverunt eum in 
^Egypto Petri comitem fuisse. Salmasius ipse saepe 
fatetur Petrum Alexandriae fuisse ; si ab Antiochia 
Babylonem profectus est, erat ilia Babylon jEgyptiaca ; 
aliter Petrus Alexandrian! nunquam vidisset. " Certum 
" est," inquit Salmasius, " Petrum urbes illas, Alexan- 
" driam nempe et Babylonem, adiisse, et axocrroX^y suse 
4< munus in Judaeis, qui in illis civitatibus maxima et 
" abundantissima multitudine effervescebant, ad fidem 
44 convertendis exercuisse.'' At hujus rei certitude 
aliunde oriri non potest, quam ex nostra sententia, 
quae statuit Babylonem, cujus mentio nuspiam nisi in 
Epistola Petri habetur, urbem ^Egyptiacam fuisse. Cum- 
que rursus ait, " Si Romae fuit Petrus, post Alexandrian!, 
" Antiochiam et Babylonem, hanc urbem inviserit 
" necesse est ;" libens hoc concedo ; nam post Alex- 
andriam et Antiochiam et Babylonem invisit Petrus 
Corinthum, quam inter colonias Judseorum per Europam 
dispersas numerat Philo ; et postea profectus est in 
Italiam ; non eo tempore quo Judaei a Claudio exact! 
sunt, sed sub imperio Neronis. Denique in quacunque 
urbe Petrus Epistolam scripsit, quae vocatur prima, 
probari inde non potest eum Romae nunquam fuisse ; 
si Romae, imo vel si alibi secundam scripserit, 2 Pet. iii. 
1. Hanc ecce vobis, charissimi, secundam scribo Epi 
stolam ; haec autem paulo ante mortem scripta, et qui- 
dem talem, qualem Christus praedixit, i. 14. Certiis 
f/uod relax est depositio tabei~naculi mei, secundum quod 
?t Dominus nostcr Jesus Christus significant wihi. 



358 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

Hoc certe extrema Petri senectute, quam etiam prae- 
dixerat Christus, scriptum fuisse certum est, cum in 
eadem Epistola omnes Epistolae Pauli laudentur, 2 Pet. 
iii. 16. Sicut et in omnibus Epistolis loquens ; " Anno," 
inquit Salmasius, " Claudii duodecimo, altero ante 
" primum Neronis anno Antiochiae erat Paulus, et 
" eodem venit Petrus." Eo autem anno Paulus rmllam 
Epistolam scripserat, et multis annis post eum haec 
secunda Petri Epistola scripta sit necesse est, qua 
omnes Pauli Epistolae memorantur. Ac praecipue ilia 
ad Hebraeos, quam diserte Salmasius a Paulo negat 
fuisse scriptam. Sic enim Petrus ad Hebraeos scribens, 
cap. iii. v. 15. Et Domini nostri longanimitatem salutem 
arbitremini ; sicut et charissimus frater nosier Paulus 
secundum datam sibi sapientiam scripsit vobis. Quac 
signanter dicta sunt. Nam S. Paulus ad Hebraeos, 
c. ix. v. 28. Christus secundo apparebit expectantibus se 
in salutem. Noverat itaque S. Petrus Pauli Epistolas, 
noverat eas ab indoctis et instabilibus fuisse depravatas. 
Quae omnia cognoscere non potuit Petrus, si ab An- 
tiochia Babylonem Assyriacam profectus sit, atque inde 
pedem nunquam tulerit, ibique multo maturius ante 
mortem Pauli passus sit, secundum Salmasii sententiam. 
Fateor equidem eum secundam Petri Epistolam prorsus 
rejicere, ideoque haec ad eos tantum scribo, qui cum 
Ecclesia Dei earn recipiunt. Negat etiam Epistolam 
ad Hebraeos a Paulo scriptam esse, additque : " Qui 
" Paulo tribuunt, ideo nomen suum suppressisse eum 
" volunt, quia Hebraeis scripta est." Sed et haec de 
veteribus observatio, quam ad suam hypothesin trahit 
Salmasius, absolute vera non est. Nam antiquissimus 
eorum, qui de hac re scripsere, erat senior ille, quisquis 
fuerit, quern laudavit in Hypotyposibus Clemens. Ille 
autem hanc rationem reddidit, 'E?ra o Ki/to? 'A?'- 



CAP. viii. Salmastt commenta de Epistolis Petri et Pauli. 359 

(TToAo? <av TOU TlavroKpuTOpos cnre<TTa\t) Trpoy 'EjSjOa/oi;?, Sta 
fjLTpiOTt]Ta 6 HauAoy a>y av els ra eQvtj a-jreoraX/ieyop OVK 
eyypoHpei eavrov '^tfipa'uav cnrd(rro\ov Sid re rrjv Trpo<s rov 
Kvpiov Ti/Jitjv, Sid re TO e/c Trepiovcria? KOI rot? 'E/8^oa/oi9 eiri- 
(TT\\eiv eOviav Kf'ipvita ovra ical aTrocrroXov* " Quaildo- 
** quidem Dominus, omnipotentis Dei Apostolus, ad 
" Hebraeos missus fuerat, prae modestia Paulus utpote 
** ad Gentes missus Hebraeorum apostolum se minime 
*' inscribit, turn ob suam erga Dominum reverentiam, 
** turn quod ex abundanti ad Hebraeos scriberet, cum 
** gentium praeco et apostolus esset." Ecce rationem 
reddit quare S. Paulus, cum Epistolam hanc ad Hebraeos 
scripsit, nomen suum praefigere noluit ; nempe ob reve 
rentiam quam erga Christum habuit, qui a Deo Apo 
stolus ad Hebraeos missus est. Sed vel ille unicus 
versiculus cap. xiii. 23. Cognoscite fratrem nostrum 
Timotheum dimissum : cum quo, si celerius venerit, 
ridebo vos, satis mihi probat earn Epistolam a S. Paulo 
scriptam esse. Neque enim Barnabas, neque dementi, 
neque Lucae ea verba tribui possunt, tanquam ob eorum 
aliquo de Timotheo scripta. Cui si adjunxeris testi- 
monium ex secunda Petri Epistola a nobis jam allatum ; 
non video quomodo quisquam negare possit, earn Epi 
stolam esse Pauli, nisi putet de ea re semper dubitan- 
dum esse, de qua quispiam aliquando dubitaverit. 

IX. Cum nos nubem testium antiquissimorum ad 
probandum Romae aliquando fuisse Petrum, adduximus; 
Salmasius eos omnes rejiciens unico videtur esse con- 
tentus, eoque maxime idoneo, Clemente scilicet Ro 
mano; qui si testetur Petrum Romae nunquam fuisse, 
dirimitur illico haec controversia, et Saimasio cum suo 
Clemeute manus dandae. Mira quidem res est, si ita se 
habeat. Patricius Jim i us noster, qui dementis Epi 
stolam niagno cum labore transtulit, Latine vertit, 



360 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

notisque illustravit, hujusmodi nihil animadvertit ; imo 
dubium non esse, quin Romse Petrus passus sit, aperte 
professus est. Quamvis haec epistola nobis non nisi 
nuper innotuit, primis tamen Ecclesiae temporibus no- 
tissima fuit, etiam illis omnibus perspecta, qui Petrum 
Romae fuisse crediderunt. An verisimile est Patres 
secundi seculi doctissimos a Papia viro nO n magni ju- 
dicii decipi potuisse, qui dementi Romano summam in 
omnibus auctoritatem tribuebant? An cum haec Epi 
stola in Ecclesia Corinthiaca saepissime lecta esset, 
Dionysius Corinthi episcopus ea tradidisset, quae attu- 
limus, si Clementis testimonio contraria fuissent ? Sed 
verba Clementis audiamus, Aa/3<o/xev irpo 6(p0a\iu.wv 
TOV? ayaOov<f aTrocrroXoi/?* IIeT|OO9 Sia tyXov aSticov, 
va ovSe Svo, aXXa -TrXe/oi/a? VTre/metvev TTOVOVS, ical OUTCO 
/j.apTVpr](ra<i eTropevQij etV TOV o<pei\6/Ji.vov TOTTOV r/?? So*]?' 
" Ponamus nobis ante oculos bonos apostolos; propter 
" aemulationem iniquam Petrus non unum aut alterum, 
" sed plures labores sustulit, atque ita martyrium pas- 
" sus in debitum glorias locum migravit." Primo, hsec 
verba Clementis nullo modo probant Petrum Romse 
nunquam fuisse. Secundo, nee illud probant, Petrum 
Romae passum non esse. At si Petrus Romse passus 
est, inquit, id ignorare non potuit Clemens. Fateor. 
At Clemens, inquit, ignorasse videtur ; nam si scisset, 
expressisset : neque debuisset obiter tantum et simpli- 
citer dixisse, on enaprvpycre. Sed Clemens nullo modo 
coactus est exprimere, quo loco Petrus passus sit, nulla 
occasio ei oblata est de loco passionis disserendi : dis- 
serit enim de pessimis zeli et invidiae effectibus, quibus 
tune peccatis maxime obnoxii erant Corinthii ; horta- 
tur eos ad patientiam, quae maxime in eo Ecclesiae 
statu erat necessaria : revocat illis in memoriam quanta 
mala omni aevo zelus et invidia orbi intolerant ; et 



CAP. viii. Clerne/ttis Rom. Testimoiiium. 361 

quod qui nuper etiam Ecclesise columnae erant, propter 
zelum et invidiam ad mortem usque acerbam persecutio- 
nem passi sunt : quod ostendit exemplo Petri et Pauli : 
neque meminit loci in quo passus est Petrus, quia 
neque ad zelum aut invidiam inimicorum, neque ad 
patient lain apostoli pertiuebat. At " non debuit," 
intjiii t . " ita distincte de utriusque morte et supplicio 
" tradere," ut et urbem in qua passus est Paulus, et 
tyrannum sub quo passus est, expresserit ; de Petro 
autem neutrum dixerit ; quod dicere debuit, si Petrus 
in eadem urbe et sub eodem tyranno passus fuisset. 
Sed nee hoc verum est, Clementem expresse dixisse 
Paulum aut Romae, aut sub Nerone passum esse : dixit 
quidem de Paulo, 'E-rr/ TO reppa TJ/? Sva-ew eXOwv, KOI fJiap- 
Tvpfaas eTn T<av yyou/JLevtavovTO)? aTTi/AAa'yi; TOV KOtrfAOV " Ad 

" occidentis terminos (sive fines) veniens, et sub impe- 
" ratoribus martyrium subiens sic e mundo migravit." 
Ego certe in his verbis, neque Romam, neque Neronem 
expressum video. Quis enim unquam dixit Romam 
fuisse termiuos, aut fines occidentis? quae quidem occi 
dentis pars fuit, sed neque terminus, neque finis. Ut 
Velleius Paterculus " ultimum Hispaniae tractum, ex- 
" tremum nostri orbis" (id est, occidentis) '* terminum" 
appellat. Et Plinius 1. ii. ep. 3. " Gaditanum quendam" 
refert " Titi Livii nomine gloriaque commotum ad 
*' visendum eum ab ultimo terrarum orbe venisse." 
Unde ilia Hieronymi, Ep. ciii. " Ad T. Livium lacteo 
" eloquentias fonte manantem de ultimis Hispaniae 
" Galliarumque finibus quosdam venisse nobiles legi- 
" mus ; et quos ad contemplationem sui Roma non traxe- 
" rat, unius hominis fama perduxit." Alia mens 
fuit dementis, qui dum labores et peregrinationes 
Pauli persequitur, eum ab Oriente per Asiam longis 
iteratisque peragratiouibus in occidentein, variasque 



362 De Successione prlmorum Homes Eplscoporum. DISS. i. 

ejus partes, ut Illyricum, Italiam, et fortasse Hispaniam 
usque pervenisse docet. Sic apud Philostratum Apol- 
lonius Tyanaaus, cum Nero edixisset, MtjSeva eju.<pi- 

\O(ro(f)eiv T7 'Po>/x7, TpeTrerai ejrl TO. eanrepia r>?9 ytjs, 1. IV. 
C. ult. et 1. V. C. 1. Ta Se TdSeipa /carat /mev Kara TO TrJ9 

Eu|0ftj7r79 repfj-a. Quod si Romam diserte non ex- 
presserit, Neronem certe multo minus delineavit ; dicit 
enim Paulum enl rwv f/yoviu.ev(0i>, hoc est, ut illi volunt, 
" sub imperatoribus, sub Nerone nimirum" explicante 
Salmasio. Nero quidem imperator, sed imperatores 
non fuit ; multo minus tyovmevoi ; neque enim fjyov- 
fjievot, " imperatores" dicti surit; sed qui sub imperatore 
in provinciis praesertim, praesidum loca sub variis 
nominibus obtinebant. Fateor Paulum Romam ve- 
nisse, fateor eum Romge sub Nerone passum esse ; at 
neque urbem, neque imperatorem exprimere voluit 
Clemens, quia utrumque Corinthiis fuit notissimum. 
'ETT) ^yovfjLevcov autem cum dixit de passione Pauli, 
praefectos sine dubio intellexit, ut de martyribus loqui 
solebant veteres. Tertullianus de Corona, " et reus ad 
" praefectos. Neque haec vox tantum in provinciis 
solennis fuit, sed etiam Romae ; ut patet ex Ep. S. Cy- 
priani ad Successum. " Sed et huic persecution! quo- 
" tidie insistunt prsefecti in urbe," Romana scilicet, 
" ut siqui sibi oblati fuerint, animadvertantur, et bona 
" eorum fisco vindicentur." Tales erant Romae, ultimo 
Neronis anno, duo praefecti praatorio Tigillinus et Sabi- 
nus. et cum summa potestate Helius. Denique mani- 
festum est nihil hie a Clemente de urbe, vel de im 
peratore diserte et expressim dictum esse, quia a 
Romanis ad Corinthios scripsit, qui base omnia non 
minus quam ipse, noverunt; imo Clemens mentionem 
loci non fecit, non quia ipse ignorabat, sed quia illi 
cognoverunt. Nam si ignorasset quo in loco, qua in 



CAP. viii. Quo tempore S. Petrus Romam venerit. 363 

regione, aut qua in orbis parte, mortuus est Petrus, 
quomodo asserere potuit eum martyrio coronatum 
fuisse ? Qui enim scire potuit, quo genere mortis affec- 
tus est, qui locum ubi vivere desiit, penitus ignorabat ? 
Qui novit eum ex zelo et invidia ad mortem usque 
acerbam deductum fuisse, si nesciret in quo populo 
versabatur tune cum excessit e vita ? Proculdubio haec 
loci omissio non ex ignorantia cujuspiam, aut scriptoris 
alterius, sed ex certissima omnium, ad quos spectabat 
haec epistola, turn Romanorum, turn Corinthiorum, 
aliorumque fidelium cognitione et explorata scientia, 
quae ulteriorem expositionem minime requirebat. Ac 
tandem argumentum hoc negativum ex Clemente pro- 
ductum, non eorurn sed nostrum est. Clemens optime 
novit, et ubi, et quomodo passus est S. Petrus. Idem 
etiam bene noverunt turn Romaui, turn Corinthii, 
aliter eos ea de re certiores fecisset Clemens. 

X. Quae edisserit Salmasius de tempore, quo Romam 
venisse dicitur Petrus, partim a nobis valde probantur ; 
sed cum inde confici posse putat Petrum Romae nun- 
quam fuisse, fugit eum ratio. Sub Claudio uondum 
eum Romam pervenisse sentio ; sub Nerone vero non 
venisse, nihil probat. " Anno," inquit, " Neronis sexto 
" vinctus Romam adductus est Paulus; Petrum tune 
" Romae non fuisse plusquam certum est." Fortasse. 
At per Neronis quinquennium Petrum Romae fuisse 
quid vetat ? Mors scilicet. " Nam e vivis jam multo 
" ante abierat Petrus, quam Paulus Romam venit." 
Quam multo, quaeso, ante ? " Undecim," inquit, " cir- 
" citer annos ; anno Claudii decimo." Haec si vera 
sint, quorsum ulterius disputamus ? qui quadriennio, 
vel triennio ante imperium Neronis mortuus est, sub 
Nerone Romae non fuit. Sed unde lure de decimo 



364 De Sitccessione primoram Jiomce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

Claudii anno ? Salmasius ipse ante dixerat duodecimo 
Claudii anno Paulum fuisse Antiochige, illucque venisse 
Petrura. Certe Romge nunquam fuit Petrus, sed 
neque Antiochiae sic fuisset, neque Babylone, si decimo 
Claudii anno mortuus est. Ex Eutychio haec omnia. 
At Eutychius diserte tradit Petrum Romae fuisse, et 
prius patriarcham Antiochias statuisse, " et profectus 
" est," inquit, " deinde Petrus Romam, quod anno 
" regni Caii Caesaris secundo contigit." Ibi etiam 
passum eum esse sine dubio credidit. De tempore 
autem ab Eusebio dissentit, aitque rursum, " Occisus 
" autem est Petrus sub annum vicesimum secundum 
" post Dominum nostrum Christum." At hoc factum 
esse non decimo Claudii anno, sed sub Nerone tradidit 
Eutychius ; verba ejus sunt paulo ante, " Prehensum 
" vero Petrum Nero Caesar cruci affigit." Manifesto 
enim sequitur Eutychius traditionem illam quae xxv. 
annos pontificatui Petri tribuebat, quamvis non tot 
annis Rornse prasfuerit : et ab illis triennium Eutychius 
decerpsit, quia Christum credidit triennio serius passum 
esse quani illi tradebant. Nain verba ejus etiam sunt, 
" Turn post quadraginta dies in ccelum ascendit annos 
" habens triginta tres :" quern notavit xv. Tiberii 
anno natum esse xxx. Eutychii igitur anni xxn. 
prorsus conspirant cum aliorum annis xxv: quorum 
sententia accurate expressa cernitur in vetustissimo 
catalogo; de qua sententia, et illius errore manifesto 
postea latius disserendum erit. Interim hactenus ad- 
ductum est, quod probet Petrum sub Nerone ante 
Pauli adventum Romas non fuisse. Largior equidem 
per illud biennium, quo Paulus Romas praedicasse ex 
Actis ostenditur, Petrum in eadem urbe non fuisse. 
Unde autem post illud biennium Petrum Romam non 



CAP. Yin. Fattuntur qui negant S. Petrwn Romafuitse. 365 

venisse probatur ? Nempe Salmasius ait Paulum Romae 
septem annos vixisse, et turn ibi martyrium passuni 
esse. Quamvis haec nova sint, et ut alibi ostendimus 
in. tractatu de ultimo S. Pauli quadriennio, vel quin- 
quennio n , aperte falsa ; tamen his etiam positis et 
concessis, nihil hujusraodi inde probatur. Ideo enim 
tantum Petrum Romae non fuisse toto illo biennio 
conceditur, quia eo tempore nee Lucas Petri meminit, 
nee Paulus in Epistolis eo temporis tractu scriptis; 
inter quas non numerandae sunt Epistolae ad Thessalo- 
nicenses, et ad Galatas. Sed post illud biennium nihil 
suadet Petrum Romae non fuisse, si modo Paulus inde 
unquam exierit ; imo si ibidem permansisse Paulum 
usque ad martyrium suum concederetur, nihil omnino 
probat Petrum, aut eo tempore, aut paulo ante, ibidem 
non fuisse. De his alibi disputaturus contra vulgarem 
Romanorum sententiam, eamque fortioribus argumentis 
refutaturus, hie tantummodo sententiam nostram ex- 
promere statui, et quidem verbis Theodori Bezae, 
accurati admodum scriptoris, qui ad ilia verba S. Petri, 
Salutat vos Ecclesia qua est in Babylone co-electa, haec 
annotat, " Quod traditum est de viginti quinque illis 
" annis, quibus Petrus Romae sederit, partim ex Pauli 
" Epistolis Roma scriptis probabiliter refellitur, partim 
u etiam necessariis argumentis demonstratur ex tem- 



Hunc tractatum de ultimo Lini tempora recte constituta 

S. Pauli quadriennio inter Pear- sunt in Dissert, n. c. ii. ab A. D. 

soni depend it a adnumerandum 55. ad A. D. 67. non solum 

arbitror : de eo nusquam alias, " post illud" Pauli " biennium," 

quod sciam, mentionem fecit. Si sed etiam aliquot annis antequam 

superesset, fortasse paullo accu- Paulus Romam viderat, oportet 

rathis nos monuisset de tempore Petrum Romae fuisse. Locus est 

quo S. Petrus primum Romam ejusmodi, ubi nos ultimam Pear- 

visisse putandus sit. Nam si soni manum desideramus. 



366 De Successions primorum Roma Episcoporum. DISS. i- 

" porum supputatione ; etiamsi Romam ilium venisse 
" ibique pro Christ! nomine trucidatum fuisse, non 
" invitus concedam." Atque inde tandem conclude 
nullam succession! apostolicae, aut ejus auctoritati, 
qualis ab antiquissimis Patribus contra haereticos asserta 
est, injuriam ex incertissimis, imo falsissimis de S. Pe- 
tro assertionibns fieri debere. 



CAP. IX. 

I. Salmasii nullos apostolorum in ecclesiis successores concedentis 
sententia proponitur. II. Successoris vox de successoribus par- 
tiariis usurpata. In Alexandri Magni successione dtado^ot, 
(iriyovoi, anoyovoi, quo pacto invicem distinguendi. III. Proinde 
quod in partem ditionis apostolicae successerint episcopi, nihil 
tamen obstat quo minus dici possint apostolorum successores. 
IV. Etiam ante mortem S. Pauli singuli presbyteriis episcopi 
prsefecti sunt. V. Primam ad Timotheum Epistolam e Macedonia 
(hit ;n 11, antequam Romam veniret apostolus, male statuit Sal- 
masius. Triplex memoratur apostoli in Actis profectio in 
Macedonian), quarum nulla scribi haec potuit Epistola. VI. 
Male rursus Epistolam ad Titum profectioni Macedonicse assignat 
in Actis memoratse. VII. Non affirmat Clemens Romanus 
Paulum, postquam Romam ingressus est, pedem inde postea 
nunquam extulisse. VIII. Bis Romae Paulum fuisse probatur. 
IX. Inter binos illos Romam adventus impositi erant presbyteriis 
viri singulares episcopi. X. Idem probatur de secundo tempo- 
rum apostolicorum intervallo, a martyrio S. Pauli ad obitum 
S. Joannis. XI. Idem de tertio intervallo probatur ab obitu S. 
Joannis usque ad tempora Victoris. XII. * * 

HUJUS in Ecclesia Romana successions aliarum- 
que in aliis apostolicis ecclesiis tabulae, apud 
antiquissimos Patres magni semper habitoe sunt; ex 
illis disputabant contra haereticos et schismaticos ; ne- 
que hi aut illi quicquam habebant, quod huic argu- 
mento ulla verisimilitudine opponi posset. Patet hoc 
ex locis Patrum tertio capite adductis, ut plura addere 
necesse non sit. Alia autem hujus successionis utilitas 



368 De Successione primorum Roma Episcoporum. DISS. r. 

fuit, quod eodem argumento vera et iudubitata ordinis 
episcopalis antiquitas, et primordialis forma regiminis 
duraturi ab ipsis apostolis derivata siinul demonstra- 
retur. Tidein enim, qui doctrinam his successionibus 
traditam, et receptam pro vera habuerunt, simul etiam 
docuerunt hos episcopos in suis ecclesiis fuisse apo- 
stolorum in officio successores. Hoc autem est, quod 
novatores male habet ; et ne haec consequentia ad- 
mittatur, nullam in primis duobus seculis Ecclesise 
successionem fuisse asserunt, idque contra expressa 
eorum Patruin verba qui secundo seculo vixere. 
" Nulli episcopi succedere potuerunt apostolis. Nulli 
" episcopi succedere potuerunt illis episcopis, qui ab 
" apostolis ordinati sunt." Sic Salmasius in Apparatu. 
Unde sequitur eos antiquos Patres qui secundo seculo 
vixere, omnesque qui illos sequuti sunt, non modo 
falsas successiones nobis tradidisse, sed et impossibiles. 
Quid sit SiaSoyrit qui appellandi SidSo-^oi^ optime no- 
verunt viri illi magni, Hegesippus, Irenseus, Tertul- 
lianus, qui secundo seculo vixere. " Ipse Hieronymus," 
inquit Salmasius, " aliquando errore isto communi 
" abreptus deprehenditur successionum episcopalium ab 
" apostolorum tempore repetendarum." An communis 
sententia Patrum fuit communis error? Habuerunt illi 
ante oculos successiones regum, et successorum nomina 
consignata. Notissimae tune erant SiaSo^al praeci- 
puorum philosophorum, et SiaSo-^cov turn loca, turn 
nomina. An soli Patres ignorabant, quibus nomina 
SiaSox<ov competebant ? An adeo ignari rerum erant, ut 
tarn notum vocabulum istis tribuerent, qui illud ferre 
nullo modo potuerunt? An qui sub initio seculi 
secundi, vel ante medium vixere, quales episcopos 
sseculum primum jam affectum viderit, prorsus nescie- 
bant? An Hieronymus nescivit quomodo de apostolis 



CAP. ix. Primi Episcopi cere Aposiolorum Successors. 369 

et episcopis loquendum sit, qui in Epistola ad Evagrium 
scripta, toties a Salmasio laudata, liaec tarn rotunde 
protulit : " Ubicunque fuerit episcopus, sive Romae, 
** sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive 
** Alexandria;, sive Tanis, ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est 
" et sacerdotii. Potentia divitiarum et paupertatis 
" humilitas, vel sublimiorem, vel inferiorem episcopum 
" non facit. Caeterum oranes apostolorum successors 
" sunt." 

II. Quod nulli episcopi succedere potuerint apostolis, 
unico argumento probare nititur ex disparitate aposto 
lorum et episcoporum petito. Unusquisque aposto 
lorum habuit illimitatam jurisdictionem, episcoporum 
unusquisque limitatam : nulli igitur apostolo succedere 
potuit episcopus, quia tantum partem illius curse et 
jurisdictionis sortitus est. Hujus argumenti vis nulla 
est ; nam vox successions, ubi pars tantum potestatis, 
sive jurisdictionis alicui contigit, semper usurpata et 
legitima habita est. Justinus lib. xix. cap. 1. " Mago 
** Carthaginiensium imperator die fungitur, relictis 
" duobus filiis, Hasdrubale et Hamilcare, qui per 
** vestigia paternae virtutis decurrentes, sicut generi sic 
" et magnitudini patris successerunt." Sub imperatore 
Claudio loco duorum unicus praefectus praetorio con- 
stitutus est Burrhus Afranius. Sub Nerone Burrbo 
mortuo duo praefecti praetorio constituti sunt, ut unius 
successores. Ita loquitur Tacitus, Annalium lib. xiv. 
c. 51. " Civitati grande desiderium ejus mansit, per 
*" memoriam virtutis, et successorum alterius segnem 
** innocentiam, alterius flagrantissima flagitia et adul- 
*' teria." Sic Herodes Roma redux post reconcilia- 
tionem filiorum ab Augusto factam tantum Caesaris 
beneh'cium coram populo Hierosolymitano, adstantibus 
tribus filiis, agnoscit. 'O /xev yap Kvpioy e/xe T^? 
PEARSON, VOL. ii. B b 



370 De Successions primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

Kttl SlKCMTTriV TOV SiaSo^OV KaTe<TTt)<T' " Ille enim H16 

" regni domiimm et successoris judicera constituit :" 
e'yto <^e rova-Se TOU? Tpei$ TratSa? cnroSeiKw/uLai /3ct(rtXea9 
" ego autem hosce tres filios reges designo," ipsius 
scilicet in regno successores : TW IJ.GV yap jJXt/c/a, rof? 

Se evyeveia Ttjv SiaSo^rjv Trpo^evei' " huic enim," Anti- 

patro, " setas ; illis," Alexandra et Aristobulo, " nobi- 
" litas generis successionem conciliat." Hos igitur tres 
filios suos successores sibi publice designavit Herodes, 
eosque regni sui haeredes partiarios constituit, quod 
proximis verbis aperte significat, roye MV imeyeOo? rtj? 
(3aa-i\etas apicei KCU TrXelocriv' " magnitude enim regni 
" etiam pluribus sufficit." Haec Josephus de Bello 
lib. i. cap. 23. Mortuus est Alexander Magnus in 
maximo imperio. Non interruptum est illius im- 
perium, sed per successiones continuatum est, sive ut 
loquitur Livius, " Maximum in terris Macedonum 
" regnum nomenque inde morte Alexandri distractum 
" est in multa regna," quasi " minutalia regna,'* ut 
loquitur Tertullianus a . Josephus lib. xi. cap. ult. 
<5e 'AXe^dvSpov rj /xef apx*] eh Sia8o-)(ovs 
Vetus Interpres, " Post obitum autem 
" Alexandri imperium quidem ejus inter successores 
" est divisum." Agathias lib. ii. de imperio Persarum 
translate in Macedonicum ab Alexandro, Ovrw yap rjv 
/jLeyaXovpyos e? TO. /maXicTTa nal a/xa^o)TaTO9, w? eT 
avrov Kal CLTrofiitavai ^uj/e/3>/, o/xwy TOW? cKelvou 
Mafce^oj/a? ye oj/ra?, KaTavyeiv eirnrXelaTOv T^y 
KOI oOveias, Kal Trl /u.eya Svvd/u.eu)s cupiicecrOai' " Ita enim 
" erat rerum gestarum magnitudine eximie clarus, 
" belloque insuperabilis, ut etiam posteaquam eum e 
" vivis excedere contigit, successores tamen ipsius, 

a Adv. Marcion. i. 4. 



CAP. ix . Primi Episcopi vere Apostolorum Successores. 371 

" Macedones quum essent, alienam exteramque re- 
" gionem quam diutissime in potestate retiniierint, et 
" ad summam potentiam evaserint." Qui haec regna 
obtinuerunt, Sid$oxoi Graecis dicebantur, successores 
nempe Alexandri, non in toto imperio, sed in parte 
unicuique assignata, rrjs ftacrtXetas vtovs Sia^o^ov^ owe 
e^oi/cri/?, ut loquitur Diodorus Siculus. De qua re ita 
loquitur Eusebius de vita Constantini, lib. i. cap. 7. 
AvTtica 8e f\ J3a<ri\ta Karerenvero^ ru>v OepcnrovTcov Ka<rrov 
fjLotpdv Ttva Trapao-TrwvTos KOI dpTrdfyvros eavrw. Idque 
adeo passim apud Graecos obtinuit, ut ot f SidSoxpi 
sirapliciter dicti, sine adjecto, regni Alexandri parti- 
arios peculiariter significent; sic apud Josephum lib. 
xii. cap. 1. MapTupei $e TW \6y<a TOVTW 'AyaSapviStjs 6 
K//otoy, o ray TCOV SiaSd^cov irpafcet? <rvyypa^dfjifvo$' 
44 Testis est orationi huic Agatbarchides Cnidius, suc- 
** cessorum Alexandri gesta conscribens." Sic apud 
Suidam, 'Eucaraios 'ApStjpiTtjs yeyovsv firl rtav SiaSd^cav. 
Et, NvfM(pts 'H|t)a*cXeft)Ti79 Trept ' A.\edvSpov KOI TU>V Sia- 
Sd-^eov KOI eTTtyoixav. Horum locorum primo aetas 
Hecataei satis innotescit ex eo quod sub Successoribus 
vixerit ; id autem intelligendum est de iis regibus qui 
Alexandra proxime successerunt : aliter ejus aetas 
prorsus remaneret incerta, quod ad scripta attinet. 
Erat autem ille cum Alexandro ipso nutritus, et cum 
Ptolemaeo Lagi commoratus est, ut testatur Josephus 
lib. i. contra Apionem. Secundo pariter Nymphis 
scripsisse intelligendus est de iis regibus, qui Alexandro 
proxime successerunt, et de eorum liberis: id enim 
vox cTrtyovot significat ; filios scilicet successorum, non 
successores, ut Scaliger, neque posteros, ut Vossius, 
qui Triy6voi9 TO?? ex} 0i7/3ay opposuit cTrtydvov? 'AAeaj/- 
Spov a se inventos ; Graecorum enim nemo ita locutus 
est. Nam ut apud Apollodorum leguntur ol 

Bbi 



372 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISB. i. 
TratSes K\*]0evTe$ eirtyovoi, (unde apparet 

dictos, qui filii erant septem ducum, qui apud 
Thebarum portas occisi sunt : de quibus scripta est a 
Sophocle Tragoedia 'Enrlyovoi dicta, ut ante ab ^Eschylo 

''Enrra e-jrl 6^/3at? :) ita etiam eTTiyovoi dicti Slint pri- 

morum Alexandri successorum filii, ut Hieronymus 
etiam scripsit irepi rwv StaSfyuv, teste Josepho, et Trepl 
TCOV eiriyovuiv, teste Dionysio Halicarnassensi ; utpote 
qui turn SiaSo-^cov, turn eTriyovwv setate vixit. Qui autem 
eTriyovois succedebant, non eTriyovoi, sed cnroyovoi dice- 
bantur, ut testatur Josephus, Antiq. lib. i. cap. 6. de 
Antiocho Epiphane loquens, Ma/ce^oVe? <5e avrtjv '"Enrt- 
<paveiav a(fi evo<? T&V anroyovuiv eTT(i)v6/u.a<rav. Quod cum 
non intelligeret Vetus Interpres, a<^>' evos rS>v cnroyovoov, 
" ab uno priscorum" reddidit. Ibi enim certe cnroyovoi 
pro posteris successorum Alexandri positi sunt. Ut 
post Hierosolymorum excidium Eleazarus sicariorum 
coryphaeus, eidem Josepho dicitur cnroyovos 'lovSa rov 
'Iov8aiu>v OVK oXlyovs fJLtj 7roiei<rOai ray ctTro- 
ore KujO^/o? rifJLtjr^ e*V Tyv 'lovSaiav 7re/n(f)9t]. 
De Bell. lib. vii. cap. 8. Ut Nicolaus Damascenus 
Philippum Octavii Vitricum, in Excerptis de Institu- 
tione Caesaris, TS>v rov Ma/ce^oW QlXnrTrov (vel <&i\l7nr<av) 
KXipa)/u.ev(ai> cnroyovov vocat. Et idem Damascenus de 
Adado Syriae rege, TeXevTya-avros Se eiceivov airoyovoi 7rl 
SeKa yeveas e/3a<Ti\vov, eKOKTTOv Trapa TOV TraTjOo? /cat 
Tovvo/na TOVTO e/c^e^o/xei/ou' " Mortuo autem Adado 
" posteri ejus per decem generationes regnabant, uno- 
" quoque nomen hoc assumente." Ita habemus primo 
row? StaSo-^ov^ partiarios regni, Alexandri successores; 
secundo fTriyovovs, eorum successorum filios; tertio 
a7ro7oi/ou9, eorundem successorum posteros. Quare 
notio successorum partiariorum non tantum possibilis 
est, sed etiam nonnunquam necessaria. Unde apparet 



CAP. ix. Primi Episcopi cere Apostolomm Successores. 373 

quam falsum sit illud Salmasii effatum, " Pluralitas non 
** succedit unitati :" neque expositio Salmasiana hujus 
effati absurditatem tollit, cum addit, " praecipue dispar et 
" inferior." Nam illi qui Alexandro successerunt, cum 
plures essent, dispares etiain erant et Alexandro iu- 
feriores. Et ratio Salmasii non est, ut ipsi videbatur, 
" validissima et inexpugnabilis." Cum Nero omine si- 
nistro perterritus, et de imperio retinendo solicitus 
complures subito interficere vellet, eum hoc sapien- 
tissimo dicto, Dione referente, Seneca compescuit, 
Ocrou? av a7ro<T^)d^>79, ov dvvacrai TOV Siaoo^ov <rov UTTO- 
Kretvat' " Licet quamplurimos trucidaveris, non potes 
" successorem tuum occidere." Apostoli ipsi, quamvis 
summa auctoritate coelitus donati, et potestate vitae ac 
necis, ubi opus erat, usi, tamen successores suos nee 
voluerunt, nee potuerunt e medio tollere. Et Sal- 
masius, qui nimis sero fatali unius argumenti ictu eos 
omnes de statu suo deturbare]conatus est, et frustra et 
infeliciter hoc efficere tentavit. 

III. Cum autem plures unius successores dici legi- 
time possint, ut ex antedictis patet ; cur in hac una re 
nomen successionis admitti non possit, haud video. 
Quamvis maximum sit discrimen urbis et orbis, max 
ima differentia apostoli fundatoris, et episcoporum ab 
ipso creatorum ; tamen ubi alicui episcopo singular! 
ecclesiae in urbe aliqua constitute regimen, cum 
auctoritate et potestate supra omnes presbyteros ante 
creates, et in posterum creandos, ab ipso apostolo 
concreditum et demandatum est, ille episcopus istius 
apostoli in ea ecclesia successor jure nominari potent. 
Apostoli enim cum fundarent aliquam in urbe alicujus 
provincial ecclesiam, in eaque presbyteros constitu- 
erent, summam ecclesiarum curam et regimen sibi 
solis reservabant, quamdiu ipsis visum est. Sic nobis 



374 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

describuntur Paulus et Barnabas primo regiones pera- 
grantes, et evangelizantes, et discipulos facientes ; et 
cum reversi sunt, presbyteros fratribus ordinantes in 
unaquaque ecclesia, Act. xiv. 21, 22, 23. Aliquot 
annis postea dixit Paulus ad Barnabam, Revertentes 
visitemus fratres per universas civitates in quibus pr<B- 
dicavimus verbum Domini, quomodo se habeant, Act. 
xv. 36. Et Paulus cum Sila perambulamt Syriam et 
Ciliciam confirmans ecclesias, v. 41. Hoc ordine primo 
constitute sunt ecclesiae per diversas provincias. Apo- 
stoli autem cum maxime ad utilitatem Ecclesise per- 
tinere videbant, ut alius aliquis illis presbyteris im- 
poneretur, vel propter absentiam nimis diuturnam, vel 
mortem appropinquantem, singulares episcopos con- 
stituerunt, et ecclesiis a se fundatis prseposuerunt, 
qui sic ab illis praepositi, durante vita, auctoritate sibi 
ab apostolo suo demandata in sua quisque ecclesia 
potiebantur. Et ideo propter Ecclesiam ab apostolo 
primo fundatam, et ab eodem apostolo alicui episcopo 
concreditam, ille, cui concredita est, merito apostoli 
successor ab omnibus postea appellatus est. Tales 
autem episcopos singulares ab ipsis apostolis sua vice 
in ecclesiis praepositos fuisse mox aperte ostendemus; 
adeoque hoc argumentum Salmasio eripiemus, qui 
asserit episcopos non videri debere apostolis ipsis suc- 
cessisse, " cum illi," ut ait, " nullum unquam talem 
" episcopum creaverint, qui summam in singulis ec- 
" clesiis supra presbyteros dignitatem et potestatem 
" haberet." Nam cum altera pars argumenti huic 
conjuncta, " nullos," scilicet, " episcopos succedere 
" potuisse illis episcopis qui ab apostolis ordinati sunt," 
ad convellendam successionem ab antiquis Patribus 
traditam multo majoris ponderis esse videatur : cum- 
que hujus eifati unica ratio assignetur, quia sub 



CAP. ix. Duo intervalla temporum apostolicorum. 375 

apostolis unicus tan turn ordo in ecclesiis constitutus 
est, unde concludunt nullum episcopum, quales nunc 
sunt, ulli episcopo ab apostolis succedere potuisse : cum 
denique multa de hac re in tumultuario opere a Sal- 
masio congerantur, et . saepiuscule repetantur, ut dis- 
tinguat et late disterminet episcopos postea ab Ecclesia 
introductos, ab iis qui ab apostolis ordinati, et ab iis 
qui post apostolos diu continuati sunt in Ecclesia : nos 
distinctius et apertius de temporibus necessario dis- 
putandum, et de re tota simul disserendum esse 
duximus. 

IV. Ac primo omnem hanc quacstionem in eo verti 
concedamus, Utrum per totam omnium apostolorum 
vitam, quamdiu vel ultimus ex his Ecclesiam rexit, 
episcopi iidemque presbyteri plures ecclesiis particu- 
laribus prcepositi fuerint, an vero in aliquibus ecclesiis 
unus aliquis omnibus presbyteris in eadeni ecclesia 
superimpositus fuerit, viventibus adhuc apostolis, aut 
pluribus, aut uno saltern eorum qui longissime vitam 
ultra caeteros produxerit. Quaestione in hunc modum 
constituta, ut distinctius et clarius sententia nostra 
proponatur, et validius probetur, duo intervalla tem 
porum apostolicorum separatim considerabimus, primum 
ante passionem S. Pauli, secundum ante obitum S. 
Joannis : et in utroque temporum intervallo episcopos 
speciales et singulares in civitatibus, et ecclesiis ali 
quibus particularibus omni presbyterio in iisdem eccle 
siis cum potestate superimpositos ab ipsis apostolis 
fuisse demonstrabimus. Quod ad primum intervallum 
attinet, secundum legem a Salmasio impositam, ex sola 
S. Scriptura disputabimus. Quippe ex ipsis S. Pauli 
Epistolis id quod a nostris asseritur liquido constat, 
nempe in particularibus ecclesiis singulares aliquos et 
speciales, ut loquitur Salmasius, viros prcepositos fuisse 



376 De Successions primorum Romce Episcoporum. mss. i. 

omnibus presbyteris inter se aequalibus, cum juris- 
dictione supra illos presbyteros prius ordinatos ; illos- 
que singulares et speciales viros ab ipso apostolo 
Paulo, iis presbyteris quos ipse pan cum potestate 
instituerat, cum majore et exsorti potestate superim- 
positos fuisse. Ad hoc autem comprobandum nituntur 
nostri prsecipue auctoritate Epistolge ad Titum, et primae 
ad Timotheum. Quod cum facile perspiceret Salmasius, 
et heec disputatio tota in temporum tractu posfta vide- 
retur, tempora Epistolis a S. Paulo scriptis assignanda 
ita confundere conatus est, ut exinde nihil certi colligi 
posset. Epistolam ad Timotheum primam, et al- 
teram ad Titum scriptas fuisse statuit diu antequam 
Paulus Romam vidit ; Paulum Roma nunquam pedem 
tulisse, sed in ea urbe per integros septem annos con- 
stitisse vult usque ad martyrium. Ex quibus nonnulla 
ipse primum commentus est, reliqua ab aliis perperam 
posita ad institutum suum traxit. Nam primo ex 
Macedonia scriptam vult primam ad Timotheum ; et 
" Epistola ad Titum," inquit, " scripta est circa idem 
" ferme tempus quo prima ad Timotheum, cum in 
" Macedonian! rediisset ex Achaia, et in transitu Cretam 
" adiisset." Ita quidem alii. 

V. Nos autem diu postea scriptam fuisse primam ad 
Timotheum Epistolam asserimus, et tarn mature scribi 
potuisse pernegamus. Verba quidem S, Pauli sunt 
1 Tim. i. 3. Sicut rogavi te permanere Ephesi cum irem 
in Macedoniam, quae sibi favere putant illius sententiae 
auctores. Ego vero ex iisdem verbis demonstro, neque 
illo tempore, neque quovis alio in Actibus denotato 
Paulum rogasse Timotheum ut Ephesi permaneret, aut 
ad ilium scripsisse hanc Epistolam, in qua haec verba 
continentur. Recte Theodorus Beza, " Ter omnino 
w vidit Macedonian! Paulus, ut ex historiae filo apparet. 



CAP. ix. Quo tempore scripta fuerit 1 Epist. ad Tim. :i77 

" Quamvis enim non omnia perscripserit Lucas, ita 
" tamen contextam historiam esse apparet, ut non 
" plures profectiones in Macedonian! possint constitui." 
Ad mi 11 am autem harum trinm profectionum referri 
ullo modo possunt ilia quae produximus verba, sive 
Paulum sive Timotheum, sive Ephesum sive Mace 
donian! spectemus. S. Paulus primo incidit in Timo 
theum jam discipulum Lystris, eumque circumcidit, et 
secum abduxit priusquam ipse Macedonian! viderat. 
Et cum pervenisset Troadem, in somniis monitus pro- 
fectus est in Macedonian!, Act. xvi. 9, 10. In hac 
prima profectione non rogavit Timotheum Paulus ut 
Ephesi permaneret ; ipsum enim secum habuit quamdiu 
in Macedonia ea vice moratus est, neque vero aut 
Paulus aut Timotheus Ephesi fuisse ante illud tempus 
perhibetur. Secunda apostoli profectio ab Epheso et 
Troade facta est, cum post tumultum Ephesi excitatum, 
valedlrit discipulis, et profectus est, ut iret in Mace 
doniam, Act. xx. 1. cujus profectionis ipse mentionem 
facit 1 Cor. xv. 5. et 2 Cor. ii. 12. Sed nee in hac 
secunda profectione Timotheum rogavit Paulus ut 
Ephesi permaneret ; eum enim illuc jam praemiserat, 
Mittens autem in Macedoniam duos ea? ministrantibus 
sibi, Timotheum et Erastum, ipse remansit ad tempus in 
Asia, Act. xix. 22. Dedit etiam tune Timotheo in 
mandatis, ut peracto in Macedonia negotio perveniret 
ad Corintlniin, 1 Cor. iv. 17. Practerea dum apostolus 
remansit ad tempus in Asia, scripsit primam ad Corin- 
thios Epistolam, eo ipso tempore quo Timotheus erat 
adhuc in Macedonia, in qua eum Corinthiis commendat 
his verbis, Si autem venerit Timotheus, videte ut sine 
timore sit apud vos, opus enim Domini operatur, sicut et 
ego. Et q non mm apostolus ipse, mutato pro re nata 
consilio, non primo Corinthum, deinde in Macedoniam, 



378 De Successions primorum Ttomce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

sed primo in Macedonian!, dein Corinthum proficisci 
statnerat ; in ipsa Macedonia Timotheurn Corintho 
venientem recepit. Neque diu post ex Macedonia 
scribit secundam ad Corinthios Epistolam, 2 Cor. vii. 5. 
viii. 1. ix. 2. simul cum Timotheo, 2 Cor. i. 1. Dein 
ex Macedonia Timotheus secutus est Paulum in 
Achaiam, eique in Achaia comes fuit, cum scripsit 
Epistolam ad Romanes, Rom. xvi. 21. et Achaiam 
simul cum Paulo reliquit. Nihil igitur certius aut 
exploratius ea observatione esse potest, quae asserit in 
secunda profectione in Macedonian! Paulum non ro- 
gasse Timotheum ut permaneret Ephesi. Tertia apo- 
stoli profectio non ab Epheso aut ex Asia, sed ex 
Achaia, eaque improvisa et subitanea fuit, propter 
metum insidiarum quae factae sunt tendentibus Hiero- 
solyma. Cum autem institueret tertiam hanc profec- 
tionera, seu potius reditum in Macedonian!, habuii enim 
consilium ut reverteretur per Macedonian, Act. xx. 3. 
non rogavit Timotheum ut permaneret Ephesi. Tune 
enim totus erat in collectis tuto Hierosolyma trans- 
ferendis, et tune Timotheus eum secutus est, utpote 
unus eorum quorum curae concreditae sunt collectse, qui 
cum pr&cessissent, Paulum reliquosque prcestolabantur 
Troade, et Paulus venit ad eos Troadem, unde simul 
profecti sunt Hierosolyma, ubi invenimus Trophimum 
nominatim qui Asianus fuit, et cum Timotheo profectus 
esse dicitur in Asiam. Nee in itinere toto aut annis 
proxime sequentibus, vel excogitari potest tempus ali- 
quod quo scribi potuit ilia Epistola, quaB celerem ad- 
ventum Pauli ad Timotheum Ephesi permanentem 
pollicetur, Hcec tibi scribo sperans me ad te venire cito, 
1 Tim. iii. 14. Et, Dum venio attende doctrince, iv. 13. 
Quamobrem pro certo haberi debet, nulla ex his tribus 
profecti onibus Paulum rogasse Timotheum ut Ephesi 



CAP. ix. Quo tempore scripta Epist. ad Titum. 879 

permaneret, ac pariter certum est circa ilia tempora 
non fuisse scriptam primam ad Timotheum Epistolam. 
Unde clare sequitur necessario statuendum esse, Paulum 
quarto in Macedonian! profectum esse, antequam Epi 
stolam scripsit ad Timotheum. Ilia autem quarta pro- 
fectio institui non potuit nisi post biennalem ejus Romae 
custodiam. 

VI. " Epistola ad Titum scripta est," inquit, " cum 
*' in Macedonian! rediisset ex Achaia Paulus, et in 
" transitu Cretam adiisset." Ecce iterum Macedonian! 
toties vexatam, et nunc etiam productam, ad probandam 
Epistolae ad Titum epocham, in qua ne nomen quidem 
istius regionis extat. Parum hoc est, vult etiam apo- 
stolum cum ex Achaia rediit in Macedonian!, in transitu 
Cretam adiisse. Quis haec ferre potest, qui Acta Apo- 
stolorum et Epistolam ad Titum legit? Erant tune 
temporis Paulo sociisque suis concreditae collectse b ex 
Achaia ; erant tune illi ex Achaia c navigaturo in Syriam 
paratae insidiae, quare redire statuit in Asiam per Mace- 
doniam. An haec cogitans Paulus navigare voluit in 
Cretam ? et sic in manus insidiatorum se dare ? An vo 
luit in Creta evangelium praedicando tempus terere, cum 
summa festinatioue Hierosolyma adire contenderet? d 
Si daremus apostolum in Cretam navigasse, et Titum 
tune temporis in ea insula reliquisse, quod nullo modo 
concedendum est, an cum e Creta rediisset in Mace- 
doniam, ex ea regione ad Titum scriberet, Cum misero 
ad te Arteman aut Tychicum, festina ad me venire Ni- 
copolim, ibi enim statui hyemaref iii. 12. Quomodo 
enim tune statueret Nicopoli hyemare, cum jam 
hyeme iiuita. Philippis pascha celebraret, et summa 
festinatione Hierosolyma adire contenderet, ut ibi 

b i Cor. xvi. i, 2. 4, 5. Act. c Act. xx. 3. 
xxiv. 17. d Act. xx. 16. 



880 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

Pentecosten celebraret, et praeterea exinde Romam 
videre maxime concupiverit ? Quomodo de mittendo 
Artema, quern nondum comitem Pauli fuisse legimus, 
aut etiam de Tychico cogitavit, qui legationis illius pars 
fuit, et quern Roma? postea comitem apostoli fuisse 
legimus? Quorsum eo tempore Zenam jurisperitum, de 
quo nihil in Actibus legitur, accerseret? Quorsum 
Apollo, quern certe Paulus nondum Cretae reliquerat ? 
Haec certe consistere non possunt. Sed nee alii multo 
melius hanc rem explicant. Nam Baronius, qui anno 
superiori apostolum Cretam petiisse dicit, primo navi- 
gationem excogitavit ex Macedonia per jEgaeum mare 
usque ad Cretam, de qua silet Scriptura ; deinde Paulum 
vult Cretae reliquisse Titum, cum Titus eo tempore, quo 
apostolus profectus est ex Macedonia in Achaiam, in 
Pauli contubernio non fuit, utpote ab ipso praemissus 
ad Corinthios, ut collectas curaret in adventum suum 
paratas esse, 2 Cor. viii. 6, 16, 17- Scriptam etiam e 
Graecia vult Epistolam, in qua Titum ut Nicopolim 
quam citissime se conferret admonuit, ubi hyemare 
statuit ; cum eo tempore in Achaia per tres tantum- 
modo menses substiterit, qui omnes hyberni erant, ut 
ex historia patet. Ludovicus Capellus cum has opiniones 
minime ferendas esse perspiceret, aliam sententiam 
commentus est, his objectionibus minime obnoxiam, 
sed a veritate maxime alienam. Paulum scilicet in 
secunda peregrinatione per Asiam, qua? post concilium 
Hierosolymitanum facta est, navigasse Cretam, atque 
istic annuntiato evangelio Titum reliquisse, ut ea quas 
deessent corrigeret, atque mox ex Creta venisse Derben 
et Lystram. Nam quis credet Paulum ex Cilicia in 
Cretam navigasse tarn longe dissitam, ut in Lycaoniam 
perveniret, quae erat Ciliciae contermina ; quis inquam 
sine auctore haec admittet, pnesertim cum in MS. Canta- 



CAP. ix. Refutatur Salmasius. 381 



brigiensi talis fiat connexio, AieX&oi> 8e TO. eOv 
Karrivrtjcrev e!$ Aepfiyv xal \v<rTpav, Cum has reaiones 
(Syriam et Ciliciam) pertransisset, pervenit Derben et 
Lystramf Act. xvi. 1. Imo quis ei concedet Titum, 
quern tune Cretae relictum esse statuit, in ea peregri- 
natione Pauli comitem fuisse? Dicit quidem Capellus 
non semel, Paulum assumtis Sila et Tito Syriam et 
Ciliciam peragrasse, et citat etiam pro hac sententia 
Act. xv. 40. ubi haec tantum legimus, Paulus vero 
electo Sila profectus est. Nimis igitur suo ingenio 
indulsit, cum, invito S. Luca, et novam navigationem 
apostolo extra ordinem assignavit, et alium ei comitem 
sine auctore adjunxit. Revera non est scripta Epistola 
ad Titum aut ex Achaia, aut ex Macedonia, aut ab 
Epheso, aut aliimde tarn mature ac illi volunt ; neque 
S. Paulus vidit Cretam ante biennalem Romae custodiam. 
Post illam igitur Romam reliquit, in Cretam navigavit, 
ubi Titum reliquit, et ad eum postea non procul a Ni- 
copoli scripsit. 

VII. Sed quoniam haec magni momenti sunt, vi- 
dendum porro unde probet Salmasius suam sententiam, 
quam contra omnes tarn veteres quam modernos tueri 
conatur. Pro eo duo dicit, primum, " Quod autem 
" quibusdam placet Paulum post illud biennium, Lucas 
" memoratum, iterum ejus rei petita venia in Graeciam 
" profectum esse, et anno post Romam reversum, id 
" quam verum sit nescio, nee multum refert." Satis 
haec astute. Novit enim plurimos aliter sensisse; ab 
aliquibus septem, ab aliis plures annos, post biennium 
Lucae memoratum, Paulo ante martyrium tributes 6 . 
Sed Jacobi Capelli sententiam retulit, quae utrum vera 
an falsa sit non multum referre ait, adhuc tamen nihil 

e tribuisse. ed. Dodw. 



382 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

probat. Secundo propius ad rem ipsam accedit, " Ex 
" Clemente potius liceat affirmare, ex quo Romam in- 
" gressus est primum, nunquam postea inde pedem ex- 
*' tulisse." Certe si hoc a Clemente Romano dictum 
est, licebit Salmasio, imo decebit omnes idem affirmare. 
Sed verba Clementis de Paulo, quse ad hoc negotium 
spectantia adducit, hsec tantum sunt, 'Ex* TO repp-a TW 
^I/crew? e\0<*Jv KOI p-aprvpricrag TT\ TUIV yyofytePAM/ aTrtjXXdyij 
roi; Koa-fjiov' quse sic interpretatur, " Ad occidentis finem 
" veniens et sub imperatoribus martyrium passus ita 
** migravit e mundo." Et turn inquit, " Aperte innuit 
** non inde decessisse, sed ibi martyrium passum esse 
" sub Nerone." Quid scripsit Clemens, video ; quid 
innuit, vidit Salmasius, non ego ; Davus sum non 
(Edipus. Certe non " innuit aperte" Paulum Roma 
nunquam discessisse. Imo quis ista ex hoc loco potest 
exculpere, in quo neque Roma, neque Nero nominatur ; 
neque Kaia-ap, neque AvroKpaTwp, neque A? r youo-T09, 
neque Baa-Aei/?, quibus nominibus uti solebant scrip- 
tores Graeci, indigitatur? ex quo Paulum, vel Romam, 
vel Nerouem vidisse unquam nullo modo probari pot 
est ? Quis crederet virum impendio doctum ex talibus 
praemissis conclusionem tarn enormem deducere potu- 
isse ? Hsec sane consequentia tarn infirma omnibus 
necessario apparet, ut plura addere sit in lectoris pati- 
entiam nimium peccare. 

VIII. Quamvis ea quae jam diximus sufficere vide- 
antur, adhuc tamen apertius et extra omnem contro- 
versiam ex Epistola secunda ad Timotheum probatur 
apostolum Paulum bis Romam venisse, et in ea urbe 
haud diu ante mortem secunda vincula et severiora 
passum esse. Nam apostolus earn Epistolam scripsit, 
ut ex ipsa patet, Romae, i. 17- et quidem in vinculis 
quorum ipse mentionem facit i. 8. ii. 9- Scripsit autem 






CAP. ix. S. Paulus bis Itomam, invisit. 383 

earn ad Timotheum tune absentem desiderans eum 
videre, i. 9- Hacc autem vincula multum a prioribus 
differebant, et in his apostoli conditio maxime dispar 
fuit. Nam in prioribus vinculis praedicavit in conducto 
suo cum omni fiducia sine prohibitione. Notissima 
tune fuit Pauli domus, in qua per biennium habitavit, 
et recepit omnes ingredientes ad eum, Act. xxviii. 30, 31. 
In secundis vineulis alia statim rerum facies fuit. Tune 
enim Ouesiphorus, inquit, cum Romam venisset, solicite 
me qucKsimt et invenit, i. 17. An opus erat ut Onesi- 
phorus cnrovSaioTepov, et cum tanto studio ac solici- 
tudine quaereret Paulum, et ex tarn sedula inquisitione 
inveniret, si apostolus aut in eadem domo, aut cum 
eadem libertate, et non in arcta et abdita custodia 
praedicasset ? De prioribus vinculis ad Philippenses 
scribit, ea manifesto, fuisse in pr&torio et in cceteris 
omnibus; ut plures efratribus in Domino confidentes in 
vinculis meis, abundantius auderent sine timore verbum 
Dei loqui. In posterioribus autem omnes eum comites 
et crwepyot praeter unum dereliqtierunt, et in alias 
regiones transierunt, iv. 10. imo, inquit, in prima mea 
defensione nemo mihi adfuit, sed omnes me dereliquerunt ; 
non illis imputetur, iv. 16. Magnum certe discrimen 
inter biennalem Pauli custodiam Lucae memoratam, et 
hanc quam apostolus in hac Epistola describit ; neque 
hujus disparitatis ulla ratio excogitari posse videtur, 
quam quod prior ante incendium quod praediis Tigillini 
jEmilianis proruperit f , posterior postea, neutra sub ipso 
incendio. Praeterea magna Lie apparet personarum 
mutatio, dum ad Timotheum absentem scribitur Epistola 
haec, qui in biennali custodia Paulo aderat, et cum eo 
HIM ul tres Epistolas scripsit ad Philippenses, ad Colos- 

f Tac. Annul, xv. 40. 



384 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. wss. i 

senses, et ad Philemonem ; neque tamen quisquam 
adhuc Timotheum aut Troade, aut Mileti, aut Hiero- 
solymis, aut Caesareae relictum, aut Paulo comitem 
Romam usque non fuisse conatus est ostendere. Cum 
bane Paulus scripsit Epistolam, Demas eum reliquerat, 
et quidem cum hoc pessimo charactere, diligens hoc 
scgculum, qui in priori custodia fidus apostolo comes 
fuit, et inter ejus arwepyovs salutavit Philemonem. 
Marcus etiam in secundis vinculis Roma aberat, ideoque 
Paulus monet Timotheum ut secum Romam afferat, 
iv. 14. Ille autem in prioribus vinculis apostolo ad- 
hacsit, et Philemonem salutavit, 24. Tychicus non, ut 
alii, reliquerat Paulum, sed ab eo missus fuerat Ephesum, 
cujus missionis Timotheum certiorem facit, iv. 12. quern 
bene noverat Timotheus et Paulo in biennali custodia 
et sibi adfuisse, et tune Ephesum etiam missum fuisse, 
cum scripta est Epistola ad Ephesios, vi. 21. et ad 
Colossenses, iv. 7- Alia igitur et a priori di versa hsec 
missio fuit. Denique in hac secunda Epistola habet 
nonnulla Paulus, quae nisi postquam Roma elapsus 
fuerat, atque etiam plures provincias et regiones pera- 
graverat, scribi nullo modo ad Timotheum potuerunt. 
Erastus, inquit, remansit Corinthi, iv. 20. Quorsum 
hoc m emorasset Timotheo, qui ipsi aderat cum Co- 
rinthum ante prima vincula proxime reliquit ? Post ilia 
igitur apostolus Corinthi fuit, et postquam Corinthum 
iterum reliquerat et Romam venit, ubi haec scripta 
sunt. Similiter, inquit, Trophimum reliqui infirmum 
Mileti. At cum in itinere Hierosolymitano erat 
proxime ante prima vincula, non reliquit Trophimum 
Mileti vel sanum vel aegrotuin, sed secum duxit Hiero- 
solyma. Ibi enim Judaei viderunt Trophimum Ephesium 
in civitate cum ipso, quern cestimaverunt quoniam in 
templum introduxisset Paulus, Act. xxi. 29. Fuit igitur 



CAP. ix. Episcopi a S. Paulo quando constituti. 385 

Mileti Paulus postquam Roma elapsus est. Idem etiam 
de Troade affirmandum, ubi reliquit penulam apud 
Carpum cum libris et membranis. Ex his et ex iis quae 
ante diximus, constat S. Paulum prioribus vinculis 
solutum Roma exiisse, multas provincias peragrasse, 
Corinthi, Mileti, Troade fuisse, Nicopoli hyemasse, in 
Asiam et Macedonian! profectum esse, et in insula 
Greta praedicasse, et denique Romam reversum esse. 

IX. In hac ultima peregrinatione Pauli dicimus eum 
viros singulares sive speciales presbyteriis a seipso 
constitutis superimposuisse cum auctoritate atque po- 
testate, quam episcopi horum specialium successores 
sibi vindicabant. Nam Timotheus presbyteris Ephe- 
sinis, quocunque nomine censeantur, superimpositus 
est, ut earn ecclesiam totam regeret, et presbyteris 
ejusdem omnibus cum auctoritate sibi demandata proe- 
esset, eosque ubi opus erat corriperet, aliosque pres- 
byteros insuper, quos necessaries putavit dignosque 
repperit, ipse ordinaret. Acceperat Timotheus gratiam 
Dei per impositionem manuum Pauli, qua instructus ad 
illud officium rite perficiendum aptus et idoneus ex- 
titerat. Accepit etiam ab apostolo admonitiones et 
praecepta per epistolam, in qua omnes officii illius 
partes satis explicate, et earundem administratio ipsi 
demandantur. Quod ad rem praesentem attinet, ac- 
cepit Timotheus ab apostolo auctoritatem exercendi 
censuras in tota Ecclesia Ephesina, Peccantes coram 
omnibus argue, ut et c&teri timorem habeant, v. 2. 
Eademque auctoritas speciatim ad presbyteros in officio 
continendos extendebatur. Quae eo nobis evidentior 
est, quod cum certa limitatione proponitur, et quasi 
discriminatur, Adversus presbyterum accusationem noli 
recipere nisi sub duobus vel tribus testibm, v. 19. Idem 
etiam de potestate sacros ordines conferendi obser- 

HEAHSON, VOL. II. C C 



386 De Successions primorum Homes Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

vandum est; quae ideo magis fit conspicua, quia cum 
cautione traditur, Manus cito nemini imposueris ; neque 
communicaveris peccatis alienis, v. 22. Quse de Ti- 
motheo et Epheso, de Tito et Greta dicenda sunt. 
Apostolus enim circa idem tempus scripsit ad Titum 
Epistolam, cujus statim initio de potestate sacros 
ordines conferendi sic eum alloquitur, Hujus rei gratia 
reliqui ie Cretce, ut ea qua desunt corrigas, et constituas 
per cimtates presbyter os, sicut et ego disposui, i. 5. 
Eidem Tito plenam jurisdictionem impertitur veram 
doctrinam cum summa auctoritate promulgandi, Hcec 
loquere et exhortare, htsc argue cum summo imperio ; 
nemo te contemnat, ii. 15. falsis doctoribus silentium 
imponendi, o5y Set eTrierTOfj.i'^eiv, quorum oportet ora 
obturare, i. 11. ac denique hsereticos excommunicandi, 
hcereticum hominem post unam et secundam correp- 
tionem devita, iii. 10. Haec de Timotheo et Tito clara 
sunt ; sed de aliis idem affirmare secundum legem 
Salmasii non possumus; non quod alios etiam alibi 
paulo ante apostolorum mortem presbyteriis super- 
impositos fuisse non credamus, sed quod sacra historia 
eorum temporum defecti sumus. Neque vero fuit hsec 
mutatio regiminis ab apostolis primo instituti, quam 
adeo incredibilem esse vult Salmasius, sed tantum 
ejusdem regiminis adimpletio, qua Ecclesia ab apostolo 
primum fundata, et ministris sub apostolo administrata, 
addito tandem singular! et speciali viro, membris suis 
jam completa, et numeris omnibus absoluta evaderet, 
itaque post apostolorum mortem eadem forma et eodem 
vigore per ordinationis continuationem usque ad finem 
seculi permaneret. 

X. Secundo temporum apostolicorum intervallo, a 
martyrio S. Pauli ad obitum S. Joannis, quod triginta 
circiter annorum fuit, nullse Sacrae Literse exaratae esse 



CAP. ix. Primi Episcopi vere Apostolornm Stwcessores . 387 

creduntur, nisi quae ab ipso Joanne scriptae extant. Ex 
eo tanien idem facile demonstrator. S. Joannes in 
Apocalypsi scribit ad septem angelos septem eccle- 
siarum in Asia. Nominat urbes septem, in quibus illae 
ecclesiae constitute sunt. Vidit Christum in medio 
septem candelabrorum, dextra tvnentem septem stettas, 
Didicit ab eo harum rerum mysterium, scilicet septem 
stellas esse angelos septem ecclesiarum, et septem can 
delabra septem ecclesias. Unde unumquemque angelum 
uniuscujusque ecclesiae separatim alloquitur, et uni- 
cuique sua bona, aut mala opera imputat. Hos angelos 
ecclesiarum dicimus fuisse viros singulares et speciales 
earum ecclesiarum rectores ; quorum unusquisque suam 
ecclesiam per aliquot jam annos rexerat, antequam 
Joaimi Revelatio facta est. Presbyterium certe neque 
quia Seniorum est, neque quia Senatus est, neque 
propter aetatem, neque propter numerum angelus us- 
piam dicebatur. 'Aorepe? sunt, non asterismi, illi 
ecclesiarum angeli : et quidem tales quales eorum suc- 
cessores, qui ^e-yaXa rrroi-^fia appellabantur ; non magna 
element^ sed magna lumina. 

XI. De tertio autem intervallo sententia Salmasii 
haec est: " Politia quae aequales omnes habuit epi- 
" scopos sive presbyteros, duravit usque ad tempora 
" Antoninorum, vel usque ad Victorem," hoc est per 
annos minimum LXXX. " Tune quasi decreto facto 
" per totum orbem ea consuetude immutata esL" Ita 
scilicet interpretatur Hieronymum. Sed mens Hiero- 
nymi melius ex ipso discitur, et rei veritas certius ex 
antiquissimis Patribus, et indubitatis historiae mona- 
mentis colligitur, firmiterque concluditur ante Victoris, 
imo ante imperii secundi Antonini tempora, singulares 
et speciales viros ubique eeclesias Dei rexisse. Sub 
Victore status ecclesio? ubique diffuse? adeo manifestus 

c c 2 



388 De Successions priinorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

est, ut ad ilia usque tempora presbyteria cum summa 
potestate deducere summae sit dementiae : sed et ex 
ejusdem pontificis historia compertum est, diu ante 
illius pontificatus tempora in eadem regiminis forma 
ecclesias constitutas floruisse qua tune florebant. Nam 
Polycrates septem consobrinos suos episcopos fuisse, 
ipsum autem octavum testatur. Erat tune Irenseus 
Lugduni episcopus, sed successor Potliini, sub quo 
etiam presbyter fuerat. Inter caeteras erant etiam 
literse episcoporum Ponti, quorum Palmas utpote anti- 
quissimus primo loco positus est. Erat enim ille 
Amastrianorum episcopus, ad quos seribens sub Sotere 
Dionysius Corinthius eum eorum episcopum nominatim 
appellavit. Idem enim regimen ubique tune floruit, 
cum Dionysius ille catholicas ad ecclesias scripsit epi- 
stolas, in quibus nominatim non tantum Palmae memi- 
nit, sed et Philippi Gortynensium, et Pinyti Cnos- 
siorum, et Quadrati Atbeniensium, et Soteris Roma- 
norum episcopi. Ante Dionysium cum peregrinatus 
est Hegesippus, qui sub Aniceto Romam venit sub 
imperio primi Antonini, Corinthi episcopus primus fuit, 
teste ipso Hegesippo, qui etiam scribit se, cum Romam 
proficisceretur, quamplurimos episcopos adiisse. 

XII. Locus Hieronymi, quern pro fundo habent 
novatores, jam explicandus est d 

d Id sibi voluit Hieronymus, " tollerentur." Quse certe non 

in Epist. ad Tit. cap. i. " ante- de temporibus Victoris, sed de 

quam stadia in religione fie- primis partium stndiis, de ipsis 

rent, communi presbyterorum illis quorum meminit in priori ad 

consilio ecclesias fuisse guber- Corinthios Epistola S. Paulus, 

natas ;" ea vero studia cum omnino sunt intelligenda. Oc- 

diaboli instinctu" evenirent, ita cursum ait ipsis schismatum 

andem " toto orbe fuisse decre- "initiis," cum tamen multa in 

turn, ut unus de presbyteris Ecclesia schismata Victoris tem- 

electus superponeretur cseteris, pora praecesserint, non modo 

ad quern omnis ecclesiae cura illud de quo agimus Corinthio- 

pertineret, et schismatum initia rum sub S. Paulo, sed et aliud 



CAP. IX. 



Locus Hieronymi de Episcoporum institutions. 389 



brevi consecutum de quo scripsit 
ad eosdem Corinthios S. Cle 
mens, sed alia ilia baereticorum 
sub Trajano, Hadriano, utroque 
Antonino, e latebris prodeuntium, 
inimicitiatnque jam manifestam 
profitentium ; ne jam schismata 
ilia memorem quorum occasione 
scripsit Ignatius, qua? esset pro 
suspectis habiturus forte Salma- 
sius ; ne et alia ilia quae cavenda 
mo net Barnabas atque Justinus. 
Male " schismatum initia" sub- 
lata dixisset Hieronymus, si tanti 
schismatum progressus fuissent 
impune neglecti. Sed vero Pau 
linos illos scbismaticos disertis- 
sime feriunt verba ipsa Hiero 
nymi. De illis enim loquitur 
schismaticis qui dicerent, Ego 
sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem 
Cephee. De illis, inquam, qui 
" quos baptizaverant suos esse 
" putarent, non Christi." Non 
phraseologiam modo Paulinam 
imitatus est, ut existimat Blon- 
dellus, sed causam ipsam illorum 
sckismaticorum designavit, ver- 
bis, quibus potuit, expressissimis. 
Nee enim alios legimus recen- 
tiores illis temporibus schisma- 
ticos, qui schismati suo baptismi 
vel prsetextum obtenderent. Nul- 
los certe quos ob oculos habere 
potuerit Hieronymus. Proinde 
nihil est unde colligaut adver- 
sarii aliter sensisse Hieronymum, 
quam sensit auctor noster de 
praefectis, primo etiam intervallo, 
illo quod S. Pauli martyrium 
praecesserat, episcopis. Quin po- 
tius idem sensisse oportuit, si 
sibi saltern constare velint Hiero 
nymum. Semper enim ille epi 
scopos agnoscit apostolorum suc- 
cessores, non certe agniturus, si 
tanto ab apostolorum excessu 
intervallo prefecturam ab episco 



pis arreptam credidisset. Semper 
ille receptos success! onis cata- 
logos sine ulla haesitatione se- 
quitur, qui tamen catalog! non 
alios complectebantur quam sin- 
gulares presbyterorum praefectos. 
Semper eodem ab apostolis loco 
episcopos numerat quo in illis 
catalogis numeratos repererat, ut 
proinde primes catalogorum de- 
cessores ab ipsis numerarit apo 
stolis. Sic ille in chronicis, sic 
in scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, sic 
et in aliis locis, quotiescunque 
daretur occasio. Nee vero alia 
illis temporibus auctoritas esse 
potuit quae singulis in toto orbe 
presbyteriis episcopos imponeret 
praeterquam apostolorum, cum 
non alia' ex aliarum nutu pen- 
derent ecclesiae, sed vero essent 
singulae, pro sua quaeque ditione, 
absolutissimae, ab eo certe lon- 
gissimae ut in unam de re adi- 
aphora sententiam, et quidem 
brevi tempore, conspirarent. 
DODWELL. 

Haec ille Pearson! amicus, satis 
hactenus ad mentem Pearsoni : 
Vid. Vind. Ignat. p. ii. c. xiii. p. 
i. c. xi. ubi bis agitur affatiin de 
testimonio Hieronymi. Nos igi- 
tur, quae plura hue congesserat 
Dodwellus, breviter enumeranda 
potius quam recudenda curavi- 
mus, ne lectori fastidium mo- 
veant, cum in eodem argumento 
alias se explicuit Pearsonus. i . 
Ambrosiastri sententiam attulerat 
ex Comment, in Eph. iv. ubi ait 
ille, " prospexisse Concilium, ut 
" non ordo eed merit um crearet 
" episcopum." Concilium intel- 
ligit Dodwellus appellari pro- 
vincialium episcoporum colle 
gium, ad quos, ex Canone 
Nicaeno iv., spectabat ordinatio 
singulorum in sua provincia 



390 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 



episcoporum : nihil certe hie de 
paritate ministrorum, sive coetu 
presbyterii. De Ambrosiastri 
sententia agit, ubi de Hieronymo, 
Pearsonus, Vind. Ign. P. ii. c. 
xiii. Ejusdem hunc locum at- 
tingit infra in Dissert, ii. c. iv. i. 
2. Disputationem cum Salmasio 
inierat Dodwellus de testimoniis 
S. Polycarpi, Irensei, et Epipha- 
nii. Quae onvnia ibidem in Vind. 
Ign. expenduntur a Pearsono. 
3. Cum Salmasius ad Epistolas 
Pii I P. R. quae feruntur, provo- 
casset, causam suam antiquissimis 
testibus, si posset, roboraturus, 
responderat Dodwellus, commen- 
titias esse istas epistolas ; sin 
minus, nihil inde profiei ad cau 
sam presbyterianam. Commen- 
titias pronunciat etiam Pearsonus, 
ibid, in Vind. Ign. et mox in 
Dissert, ii. c. xi. 2. 

Nescio an opera? pretium prse- 
stiturus sim lectori, si pauca de 
hac controversia in mentem re- 
vocavero. De minimis enim non 
curat theologian lex critica ; et 
epistolae illse sunt adeo minutae, 
adeo inefficaces ad argumentum 
aliquod connrmandum, ut nemini 
curse esse oporteat, in utram 
partem statuerit vel Baronius vel 
Blondellus. Et Baronius quidem, 
ut decet Ultramontanorum patri- 
archam, " germanas atque legi- 
" timas" appellat, et " simpli- 
" cissimum antiquitatis cando- 
*' rem," quern prseferunt, impense 
admiratur. Blondellus vero, 
(juuin prius nulhim lapidem non 
movisaet, quo ex scriptis mani- 
festum falsarium argueret, postea, 
et modo et stylo verso, quod 
repertus esset ille Pius dixisse 
coepiscopo Justo suo, " presby- 
" teri non ut majorem, sed ut 
*' ministrum Christi te obs.er- 



" vent," statim genuina omnia 
amplexus, veterem pontificem in 
ordinem presbyterii coactum atni- 
cissime salutat. 

Nactus est Pius, quisquis ille 
fuerit, propugnatorem inter re- 
centiores non indoctum, Justum 
Fontaninum, in Hist. Literar. 
Aquileiens. lib. ii. c. 4 ; cujus 
argumenta exhibet Gottfr. Lum 
per, in Hist. Theol. Crit. ii. 384. 
sqq. Legenti autem sine partinm 
studio serioris aevi manus se pro- 
dit ; quod nulla idonea causa 
appareat cur omnino seripserit 
Pius, nullo ejus consilio flagitato, 
nullo rerum motu urgente, nullo 
nuntio de Justo isto Viennensi 
accepto ; et epistolaB ejus modi 
sint, quas ex locis communibus 
theologicis, et prioris seculi pau- 
cis quibusdam monumentis, so- 
phista quivis potuisset conficere. 
" Missas agi" in seculo secundo, 
imo tertio, nemo alius raeminit. 
Et sane istud compositum, quo 
dicitur " Cerinthus Satanse pri- 
" marches," Dunstani nostri ar- 
chipontificis genio et aevo 
potius, quam Pio Romano in 
medio Latio et florente imperio^ 
arbitror congruere. 

Quod vero post Blondellum 
Dodwellus objecerat de " Sena- 
" toria urbe Viennensi," re non. 
satis explorata dictum. Ratio 
erat, quod " in Coloniis non se- 
" natum, sed decuriones atque 
" duumviros pra?fuisse, veteres 
" inscriptiones manifestum fa-. 
" ciunt." Parum quidem valent 
quae de senatu Viennensi post 
dissolutionem imperii affert Fon- 
taninus ex Avito, Gregorio Turo- 
nensi, et aliis seriorum temporum 
scriptoribus : sed illustre est mo- 
numentum de senatorio jure jam 
ante A. D. 48. Galliae Narbo- 



CAP. ix. PtV / P. R. EpistolcB confictee. 



391 



nensis urbibus et imprimis Colo- 
niae Viennensi concesso. Vid. 
Orationem Imp. Claudii apud 
Gruterum, p. 502. et. in Gab. 
Brotier. Nott. ad Tac. Annal. 
xi. 24. 

Epistolas Papae Victoris, quas 
" ejusdem farinae" es?e ait alias 
Pearsonus, et hie damnaverat 
Dodwellus, jam com muni erudi- 
torum suffragio inter spuria rele- 
gatas, nihil opus est attingere. 
Nee alias quaestiones minus ad 



rem spectantes, quas Dodwellua 
immiscuerat ; qui cum ait, nul- 
lam Paulinarum epistolarum chro- 
nologiam veteribus fuisse notam 
vel servatam, Chrysostomo et 
aliis iniquus est ; cum interpre- 
tatur Clementis Roman! dnap^us, 
c. 42. de discipulis qui priores 
ordine temporis in ecclesiam re- 
cepti essent, " quo quisque 
" prior, eo sanctior," nimis ar- 
gutatur in voce. Redeamus ad 
Pearsonum. 



CAP. X. 

I. Pontificum Romanorum successiones descripsit, ante Eusebium 
anonymus qui scripsit sub Severe. II. Eusebius in temporibus 
pontificum Romanorum disponendis nullum habuit auctorem. 

III. Multis id exemplis evincitur. De temporibus Xysti. 

IV. Dionysium Romanum cum Dionysio Alexandrine aliquot 
annis sedem tenuisse necesse est. V. Diu etiam ante synodum 
ilium Antiochenam quae Samosatenum deposuit. VI. Successit 
Romae Dionysius Gallieni sexto, Antiochiae Paul us ejusdem 
Gallieni octavo. VII. Synodus Antiochena in Paulum Samosa 
tenum unica. Ea anno Gallieni undecimo primum congregata est, 
duodecimo Dionysium Alexandrinum invitavit, decimo tertio 
Gallieni, Christi CCLXVI. deposito Paulo Domnum suffecit. VIII. 
Dionysius Romanus mortuus A.D. CCLXIX. Defenditur tempus 
synodi Antiochense ab auctore designatum. IX. Eusebii in reli- 
quorum ad Caium usque succedentium ponti6cum temporibus 
errores. X. Non fuit alius a Marcellino Marcellus Romanae urbis 
episcopus. XI. * * 

I. T)OSTQUAM de successionibus episcoporum, ea- 
-L rumque vi et natura, atque utraque origine 
sententiam nostram explicuimus, et earundem auctori- 
tatem ex mente sanctorum Patrum vindicavimus ; 
tempus est ut ad ipsarum eatalogos cum suis temporibus 
cuique episcopo assignatis, quse hactenus obtinuerunt, 
perveniamus. Ac primo ad eum Romanae successionis 
catalogum, qui ab Eusebio omnium primo cum certis 
annorum intervallis traditus est. Quippe ab antiquiori 
incepturum me promisi ipso secundi capitis initio ; 
cujus promissi memor, post tot interposita non inutilia, 
uti spero, capita, ad pensum chronologicum me accingo, 



CAP. x. Eusebii Chronologia de Episcopis Romanis. 393 

et ad Eusebium tanquam primum examini nostro sub- 
jiciendum progredior. Non quod Eusebius revera 
primus sit qui tempera pontificum Romanorum de- 
scripsit, sed quod inter scriptores qui nunc extant pri- 
matum teneat. Erat enim quidam anonymus, qui sub 
extremis Alexandri imperatoris temporibus floruit, 
Africano coaevus, quique circa an. Dom. ccxxxvi. 
libellum scripsit, de divisionibus et generationibus 
gentium, cui inseruerat episcoporum Romanorum suc- 
cessionem, cum annis quibus unusquisque sedit ; ut 
patet ex indiculo illius opens prsefationi praemisso, in 
Nova Bibliotheca MSS. librorum a Labbeo edita, cujus 
hoc ultimum lemma fuit, '* Nomina episcoporum Romae, 
" et quis quot annis praefuit.'' Sed hoc ipsum opus- 
culum desideratur, et fortasse ideo a librariis omissum 
est, quod ab Eusebiano Chronico, cui adhaerebant, 
magnopere discrepabat. 

II. Inter ea, quae Eusebio in Historia Ecclesiastica 
trad ere propositum fuit, primum ac praecipuum locum 
tenebant hae episcoporum successiones. In hujus operis 
argumento TO? TU>V iepwv (nrocrToXwv StaSo^a^ primo 
loco proponit, et in fine libri vii. concludit rtjv ru>v Sia- 
S6-x/u>v vTrodea-tv, " successorum argumentum." Sint 
igitur istae successiones episcoporum quae in Historia et 
Chronico Eusebii recensentur, maximi faciendae, utpote 
omnium vetustissimae ac certissimae, ut fert Valesii 
sententia; certe cum eorum tempora chronologice dis- 
ponit Eusebius, anni eorum pro certissimis haberi non 
debent. Coustat enim Eusebium non ex archivis 
Ecclesiae Romanae pontificum tempora hausisse, - nec ex 
aliquo alio scripto, quod ullam certitudinem temporum 
prae se ferret ; nam alios in Chronico prius scripto, alios 
postea in Historia episcopis Romanis annos saepe tribuit ; 
et, ut nunc de prioribus episcopis nihil dicam, de quibus 



394 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

in secunda dissertatione singulatim et copiose disputa- 
bimus, aut de iis etiam de quibus in Annalibus Cypri- 
anicis disseruimus; in posterioribus quoque et suae 
setati proximis, quae prioribus notiora fuerunt, manifesto 
lapsus est, etiam turn cum depositio episcoporum Romae 
erat conservata. Quod si appareat Eusebium in tem- 
poribus eorum, qui suae aatati propiores erant, refe- 
rendis, nullum certum indiculum habuisse, quern seque- 
retur; nemo, opinor, contendet ei certa magis et 
explorata fuisse priorum pontificum tempora a suis 
longe remotiora; quod satis est ad secundam disser- 
tationem nostram ab omni temeritatis nota vindicandam, 
cum a sententia tanti viri et de ecclesia optime meriti 
ssepius cogar recedere. 

III. In Chronico Eusebii ad annum Valeriani primum 
vel secundum haec legimus : " Romanes Ecclesiae episco- 
" patum tenet vigesimus tertius Xystus annis vm." 
Et ad Gallieni decimum vel undecimum : " Alexandrinae 
" Ecclesiae vigesimus quartus episcopus ordinatur 
" Maximus." Ad ejusdem undecimum vel duodecimum : 
" Romanse Ecclesiae vicesimus quartus episcopus con- 
" stituitur Dionysius annis ix. vel xil." Et rursus sub 
initio imperii Probi : " Romanae Ecclesiae episcopatum 
" suscipit vigesimus quintus Felix." Duobus igitur 
Romanis episcopis Xysto et Dionysio simul sumptis 
annos tribuit supra viginti. Qui quidem immanis 
parachronismus est. Ac ne forte error in editionem 
Chronici irrepsisse videatur, idem etiam baud minor, 
sed potius major apparet in Historia. Illic enim 1. vii. 
c. 27.' Pontificatui Xysti tribuit annos undecim*. 
Neque minim ; nam quern ordinatum esse docuit sub 

a " Pontificate! Xysti annos Pearsonus ait, in Annal. Cyprian. 
" undecim assjgnat, cum menses Ann. cclviii. . 5. Ubi plura ad 
" totidera potius tribuendiessent," Xysti historiam spectantia. 



CAP. x. Eusebii Chronologia parum accurate. 895 

initio Valeriani Chronicon, eundem sub Gallo ordinatum 
esse narrat Historia. Primo igitur'ingens error ubique 
committitur in pontificatu Xysti, sive initium sive finem 
ejus spectes. Nam si sub Gallo ordinatus est Xystus, 
successit Lucio, et Stephauus Papa nunquam fuit; si 
sub primo vel secundo Gallieni, error adhuc manet, qui 
et alium in Chronico sibi adjunxit. Nam inde in eo 
legimus ad annum Valeriani secundum : " Cyprianus 
" Carthaginiensis episcopus martyrio coronatur." Qui 
manifestus est aliquot annorum prochronismus : si 
Cyprianus vel proximo, vel eodem anno quo ordinatus 
est Xystus, martyrium subiit, quod verum est ; initium 
Xysti multo maturius quam oportuit ab Eusebio ponitur. 
Unde constat eum non habuisse certum aliquem Roma- 
norum episcoporum catalogum ; quod ad annos Cornelii, 
Lucii, Stephani, et Xysti pertinet. Sed majorem multo 
avierropqiTiav exhibet finis pontificatus Xysti, quam 
initium. Post Xysti martyrium sane gloriosum, Dio- 
nysius Romanus presbyter ordinatus est episcopus. At 
hunc ordinatum esse anno postquam Maximus in locum 
Dionysii Alexandrini ordinatus fuerat, statuit Chronicon, 
ut diximus. Quo errore nihil potest esse apertius. 
Multa enim in Historia turn apud alios, turn apud ipsum 
Eusebium inter Dionysium Alexandrinum, et hunc 
Dionysium Romanum, Xysti jam successorem consti- 
tutum, negotia transacta memorantur. Non igitur vixit 
Xystus post mortem Dionysii Alexandrini, neque Dio- 
nysius Romanus, anno post ordinationem Maximi, epi- 
scopatum suscepit. 

IV. Eusebius quidem in Historia videtur Chronicon 
suum aliquatenus correxisse, dum tradit Dionysium 
Romanum duodecimo Gallieni anno ordinatum, Alex 
andrinum eodem anno mortuum esse. Sed nee unius 
anni spatio comprehendi possunt ea, quac Dionysius 



896 De Successione primorum Roma Episcoporum. mss. i. 

Alexandrinus cum cognomine Romse episcopo com- 
mercia habuisse noscitur. Inter Dionysii Alexandrini 
opera ab Hieronymo in Catalogo recensentur, " Quatuor 
" libri ad Dionysium Romanse urbis episcopum ;" quos 
recenset etiam Eusebius lib. vii. cap. 26. tacito " epi- 
" scopi" vocabulo, quod tamen subintelligendum esse 
docet nos S. Athanasius: quod ita intelligo, ut unus 
ad Dionysium Romano? urbis adhuc presbyterum, tres 
reliqui ad eundem jam episcopum scripti fuerint. Hi 
quatuor libri, sive epistolae, ad Dionysium Romanum 
episcopum, non ab auctore jamjam morituro scripti sunt. 
At Alexandrinus ille invitatus ad synodum Antiochenam 
se per epistolam excusavit propter senectutem et infir- 
mitatem corporis. Unde Hieronymus de eo in Catalogo 
" Sed adversus Paulum Samosatenum, ante paucos dies 
" quam moreretur, insignis ejus fertur Epistola." Neque 
vero unius anni erat istud negotium, quod ab eo ex- 
torsi t quatuor illos, vel ad minimum tres, libros ad 
episcopum Romanum scriptos, ut ex ilia historia constat, 
quae ab Athanasio turn in libro de Synodis, turn de 
sententia Dionysii narratur, et a Baronio et Binio per- 
peram explicatur. Binius ad auctoritatem pontificis 
omnia trahens, inquit, " Pontifex, episcoporum conventu 
" indicto, Dionysium Alexandrinum ad Concilium citat," 
quse citatio nunquam facta est : praeterea, " quid sentiat 
" scripto profiteri mandat," quod mandatum etiam 
pariter falsum est. Baronius ex Athanasio, Dionysium 
Alexandrinum scripsisse librum de Duplici Hseresi, quod 
factum est a Dionysio Romano; scribit etiam Dionysium 
Alexandrinum postulavisse a Romano praesule, ut ob- 
jecta sibi indicaret; quod aperte falsum est. Sed 
Baronius, ut solet, deceptus est mala Athanasii versione, 
quam qui edidit, Grseca rion intellexit, prava lectione 
seductus. Vox enim ilia St]\u>crat, quse etiamnum apud 



CAP. x. Eusebii Chronologia parum accurata. 397 

Athanasium in libro de Sententia Dionysii legitur, cor- 
rupta est, et legendum St]\u><ras b . 

V. Nuda historia hacc est: cum Dionysius Alex- 
andrinus ad supprimendam Sabellii haeresin in Penta- 
poli grassantem scripsisset Epistolam ad Ammonium et 
Euphranorem, in qua multa congesserat de humana 
natura Christi, de divina nihil dixerat ; ipsi catholic! 
Pentapolitani, qui a Sabellii doctrina satis abhorrebant, 
inconsulto Dionysio suo, Romam profecti ad Dionysium 
illius urbis episcopum, et de suo Dionysio conquest! 
sunt, eumque accusarunt, quod diceret Filium iro/wta, 
" opus" vel " facturam" esse, eumque Patri consub- 
stantialem non agnosceret. Romanus episcopus, his 
auditis, synodum Romae convocat, quae rem compertam 
iudigne tulit ; et sententiam suam turn contra Sa- 
bellium, turn contra omnes, qui verbum Dei dicerent 
KTia-fjLa /caJ -Tro/j/yua, protulit. De quo argumento scripsit 
Dionysius Romanus, et sententiam synodi per literas 
Dionysio Alexandrino communicat, et significat, quae 
illi objecta a fratribus suis ^Egyptiis fiierant. Statim 
igitur de his ab episcopo Romano Dionysio certior 
factus, ad eum scripsit epistolam sub titulo e\eyxpv /ca/ 
a7roXo7/ay, " refutationis" accusatorum, et " apologiae" 
pro epistola sua. Quibus epistolis obtinuit ut fides ejus 
pro orthodoxa haberetur c . Hnec fieri nullo modo 
potuerunt ; ut nempe fratres ex Pentapoli primo cog- 
noscerent Dionysium Romae fuisse episcopum, et ad 
eum ascenderent et episcopum suum accusarent, et 
Romanus episcopus synodum episcoporum convocaret, 

b Athanas. De Sentent. Dio- torsisse. 

nysii. rirtoretXc 8, scil. firia-icoiros c Vid. Bulli Defens. Fid. Ni- 

'?!>/;?, Aioi/to-i'w di;Xa><ra( (Pear- caen. sect. ii. c. xi. 3. sqq. " Haec 

sonus SrjXdxras) irfpl 5i/ dpT)Ka<ri " fieri non potuerunt," ait Pear- 

KOT' avrov. Ubi \ndeas pravam sonus, sc. unius anni spatio. 
hanc lectionem interpretes mire 



398 De Successions primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

ejusque sententiam exploraret, eamque Alexandrine 
episcopo patefaceret, et tres epistolas tanti moment!, 
tamque prolixas, ut excerpta et observationes Athanasii 
demonstrant, extorqueret, unde Alexandrini antisti- 
tis fides etiam approbaretur ; adeo ut postea ab epi- 
scopis Orientalibus invitaretur ad synodum Antioche- 
nam. Quod factum non fuisset, nisi omnibus jamdiu 
notum esset fidem ejus de divina Christi natura sanam 
et pro orthodoxa habitam fuisse. Perperam igitur 
Baronitis ex Athanasio colligit utrumque Dionysium 
contra Pauli impietates insurrexisse an. Dom. CCLXV. 
et multo adhuc pejus Petavius ex eodem statuit an. 
Dom. CCLXX. a Dionysio papa synodum super Pauli 
haeresi celebratam esse. 

VI. Et quidem diu ante illam synodum hsec trans- 
acta fuisse diserte testatur Athanasius, cujus haec verba 
SUnt libro de Synodis, Atovvonoi yap Suo ycyovaanv e)u- 
Trpoa-Oev irdXv TU>V e/SSo/Ji^KovTa Ttav Ka6e\6vTU>v rov 
2a/uocraTea, TOVTCOV 6 fj.ev r^9 'P(o/x>;9, 6 Se T^? 'AAe^ai/- 

Speta? $v eiricTKOTros' " Duo enim Dionysii diu ante eos 
" septuaginta fuere, qui Samosatensem sustulerunt, 
" quorum alter Romae, alter Alexandriae praesul erat." 
Non breve igitur temporis spatium inter synodum 
Romanam a Dionysio Romano coactam in causa 
Dionysii Alexandrini, et synodum Antiochenam in 
causa Samosateni, cujus initio mortuus est Dionysius 
Alexandrinus, intercessit. Quod annos Xysto tributes 
ab Eusebio clare refutat. Ille enim in Chronico 
Dionysium Romae primo Gallieni xi. episcopum sta 
tuit, in Historia potius xn. At in eodem Chronico ad 
annum Gallieni xm. " Paulus Samosatenus a cunc- 
" torum praedicatione desciscens, Artemonis hseresin 
" suscitavit. In cujus locum Antiochenae ecclesise xvi. 
" ordinatur episcopus Domnus." Jam si Domnus 



CAP. x. Error in temporibus Xysti et Dionysii Rom. 399 

Pauli loco constitutes est xm. vel xiv. anno Gallieni, 
diu ante eos LXX. episcopos Orientales non potuit esse 
Dionysius Romae episcopos, nisi Eusebii chronologia 
penitus rejiciatur, et ad certissimam de martyrio Xysti 
historiam redeamus. Et hujus quidem erroris correctio 
ex ipso Eusebio recte colligi posse videtur. Nam in 
Historia, in qua maxime rerum gestarum connexionem 
complectitur, lib. vii. cap. 27. bsec habet, Evtrrov raw 
Po)/xa/&)' KK\tj(rias ere<riv evSeica -jrpo(na.irra SiaSe^erat TO> 
/car' ' AXe^dvSpeiav ofuaw/Jios Aiovv<rto$. ev TOVTW $e KOI 
KdT 'Avrtoxeiav TOV filov /ieraAXa^arroy, Tyv 
Ilai/Ao? 6 ex 2a/zo<raT(o/ TrapaXa/uifidvei' " Cum 
" igitur Xystus undecim annis ecclesiae Romanae prae- 
" fiiisset, in ejus locum successit Dionysius, Alexan- 
" drino illi cognominis. Sub idem tempus defuncto 
" Antiochiae Demetriano, Paulus Samosatenus episco- 
" patum suscepit ;" hoc est, circa idem tempus, quo 
Xysto successit Dionysius Romae, Paulus Demetriano 
successit Antiochiae. At Paulus Demetriano successit 
Gallieni septimo, ut refert ipse Eusebius in Chronico. 
Vel igitur eo anno, vel priori potius, ordinatus est 
Romae Dionysius. Sublatus est Xystus Gallieni quinto 
exeunte, sub persecutione Valeriani ; sublatus est 
Demetrianus Gallieni sexto, sub eodem Valeriano; 
Gallieni sexto substituitur Dionysius Romae, Paulus 
Antiochiae octavo. 

VII. Cum Xysti pontificatui tot annos male tri- 
buisset Eusebius, etiam quod necessario sequebatur, 
Dionysii pontificatum justo longius extendit ; novem 
scilicit a xn. Gallieni annos Dionysio tribuit aut duo- 
decim : neque ei successisse Felicem tradit nisi post 
mortem Aureliani imperatoris. Unde natus error 
maxime vulgaris de duobus conciliis Antiochensibus, 
et de condemnatione Pauli non ante primum Aureliani 



400 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

annum facta, aut secundum, quam factam esse, sedente 
adhuc Romae Dionysio, constat. Si enim Felix non 
successit Dionysio ante mortem Aureliani, ad quem- 
libet Aureliani annum Pauli condemnatio poterit re- 
ferri. Sed quamvis Eusebius pontificum Romanorum 
tempora male disposuerit, et deorsum justo longius 
extenderit, et sequaces in errorem duxerit, vera tamen 
historia illius Concilii, semota horum pontificatuum 
prava dispositione, cum aliunde, turn ex ipso Eusebio, 
erui potest. Ostendimus ex historia Eusebii recte 
intellecta Paulum Samosatenum vn. anno Gallieni epi- 
scopum Antiochiae creatum esse. Ubi cum aliquandiu 
sedisset, lapsus est in Artemonis haeresin, eamque tan 
dem publice docuit. Ad quam reprimendam episcopi 
Orientales anno Gallieni undecimo excitati sunt et 
Antiochiae congregati. Ineunte anno xn. invitarunt 
Dionysium Alexandrinum ad Concilium, qui se excu- 
savit senectutem et imbecillitatem corporis causatus. 
Scripsit autem suam sententiam de haeresi Pauli, eam 
que ad Concilium misit; et non multo post mortuus 
est, eodem anno Gallieni duodecimo exeunte. Anno 
xm. Paulus a synodo condemnatus est. Haec ego non 
tantum vera esse contendo, sed etiam ex Eusebii 
Chronico confirmo. Hsec enim ille ad annum Gal 
lieni xm. w Paulus Samosatenus a cunctorum praedi- 
" catione desciscens Artemonis haeresin suscitavit. In 
" cujus locum Antiochenae ecclesiae xvi. ordinatur epi- 
" scopus Domnus." Quern locum sic explicandum 
puto, non quod tune Paulus haereticus esse coeperit, aut 
concilium adversus eum primo coactum fuerit; sed eo 
anno propter haeresin a synodo condemnatus sit, et 
Domnus ejus loco episcopus Antiochiae ordinatus an. 
Dom. CCLXVI. Sed, " Mendax," inquit Baronius, 
" omnino Eusebii Chronicon reperitur, in quo ponitur 



CAP. x. Synodus Antiocliena. 401 

" anno xiu. Gallieni Pauli Samosateni damnatio atque 
" Domni suffectio." Unde hoc illi mendacium pate- 
factum est ? " Quod ex dicta," inquit, " synodica sub 
" Aureliano imperatore factam constat." At unde 
constat dictam illam synodicam, quae apud Eusebium 
extat, ad Dionysium Romae episcopum scriptam, sub 
Aureliano imperatore exaratam esse? Imo scripta est 
ad Dionysium Romanum qui x. mensibus ante initium 
imperii Aureliani, ut jam omnes fatentur, mortuus 
est d . 

VIII. In summa, Antiocheni Patres, damnato Paulo, 
et substitute Domno, epistolam synodicam scripserunt 
ad Dionysium et Maximum ; ad Maximum scilicet 
anno uno vel altero post obitum Dionysii Alexandrini 
decessoris sui ; ad Dionysium Romanum triennio ante 
mortem ipsius, quae contigit an. Dom. CCLXIX. ut in 
antiquissimo catalogo traditur, non CCLXXII. ut Ba- 
ronius pro arbitrio statuit. Qui ab anno CCLXXII. ad 
annum CCLXX. revocant, et sub imperio Claudii collo- 
cant, fateri coguntur epistolam illam synodicam scrip 
tam fuisse ad Dionysium Romanum post ipsius mortem, 
sed concilio Antiocheno cum scriberetur adhuc incog- 
nitam. Venim nimis hscc subtilia, ideoque inania, 
sunt. Argumentum pro hac sententia Valesius nimis 
infirmum affert. Libellus Cleri propositus est consu- 
latu Theodosii xni. et Valentiniani (anno ccccxxx.) 
anno antequam synodus in urbe Epheso congregaretur. 
" Ab eo igitur consulatu," inquit, " si retro numeres 
" annos CLX. solidos, incides in consulatum Claudii et 
" Paterni" (dicere voluit aut certe debuit, Antiochiani 

d Videtur Baronius verba xaff diri oporteat xatpov, quo modo 

tv, Euseb. vii. 29. init. retulisse loqui solet, ut Valesius observa- 

ad Aurelianum, cujus proxime vit, Eusebius. Vid. Annul, torn, 

facta mentio ; cum potius subau- ii. p. 659. sqq. 

PEARSON, VOL. II. D d 



402 De Successione primorum JRomce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

et Orfiti) " qui est annus Christi CCLXX. Proinde syn- 
" odus Antiochena in qua damnatus est Paulus, 
" convenit Claudio et Paterno coss. anno Christi 
" CCLXX." (dicere voluit, ut oportuit, CCLXIX.) Argu- 
mentum hoc, inquam, nimis infirmum est. Primo, 
constat libellum ilium an. Dom. ccccxxx. scriptum 
esse. Ante concilium quidem scriptus est libellus 
ille, sive contestatio, non a clero sed ab Eusebio laico 
ad clerum. Non autem uno tan turn anno ante syno- 
dum Ephesinam, sed triennio, publicata est ilia con 
testatio, ab ipso scilicet exordio hsereseos Nestorianae. 
Illius autem exordium satis notum est ex Apologia 
Cyrilli ad Theodosium sub finem anni ccccxxxi. ex- 
arata, quod etiam aliunde colligitur. Ipso igitur anno 
ccccxxvui. Felice et Tauro coss. scripta est con 
testatio. Jam si retro numeres annos CLX. solidos, 
incides in consulatum Paterni et Maximiniani ; an. 
Dom. CCLXVIII. Secundo, numerus ille CLX. in con- 
testatione positus, cum sit rotundus, non statim pro 
exacto habendus est; et qui ante annos CLXII. con- 
demnatus est, ante annos CLX. et vere, et satis com 
mode, et secundum loquendi modum non infrequentem 
accepisse condemnationem dici potest. Jam si retro 
numeres CLXII. annos solidos, pervenies ad an. Dom. 
CCLXVI. et consulatum Gallieni et Sabinilli, quo anno 
dicimus Paulum Samosatenum a synodo Antiochena 
condemnatum esse, ante Aureliani, imo ante Claudii 
imperium, vivo et valente Dionysio Romano. Quae 
addunt ex Hermanno Contracto, aut etiam Methodic 
episcopo apud Marianum, nimis sera sunt. Illud so- 
lummodo obiter dico, hacc omnia effugia ex inveterata, 
sed falsissima, opinione fluxisse, quae statuit duo fuisse 
Antiochiae de Paulo Samosateno concilia, vel sex, vel 
quinque, vel ad minimum quatuor annis distincta, quae 



CAP. x. Eusebii Chronologia parum accurate. 403 

cum sit ex falsis principiis deducta, nullo modo ad- 
mittenda est e . 

IX. Cum hacc tarn perturbate atque confuse tra- 
didisset Eusebius de annis Xysti, Dionysii, et Felicis 
Romae episcoporum ; ad annum Probi imperatoris quin- 
tum in Chrouico ait, " Romanae ecclesiae episcopatum 
" suscipit vicesimus sextus Eutychianus mensibus octo. 
" Post quem Gaius annis quindecim." Et rursus in 
Historiac lib. vii. cap. 32. " Felici Eutychianus succedit, 
" qui vix decem mensibus transactis Gaio, qui nostra 
" aetate vixit, sedem suam relinquit." Haec autem 
aperte demonstrant Eusebium non habuisse ante oculos 
scriptum aliquod verum de annis unicuique Romae 
episcopo tribuendis. Nam Eutychianum octo tantum 
vel novem mensibus sedisse affirmat, Gaium annis dein 
quindecim. Ubi Eutychiano eos annos dempsit, quos 
ante Xysto male adjecerat. Id quo tandem necessario 
ab eo factum esse constat, cum perveniret ad pontifi- 
catum Gaii, sive Caii, explicandum, quem ipse agnoscit 
sua aetate ecclesiam Romanam rexisse. Et erat sine 
dubio Eusebius ipse triginta annos natus ante obitum 

e Multum discordant erudi- tulerit, nihil inveniet quod minus 

torum judicia de hac Synodo. probabilem reddat sententiara 

" Plures diversis temporibus syn- Pearsoni, si modo credere liceat 

" odos coactas," ex Eusebio non una vel altera sessione rem 

colligit Valesius. Dodwellus in ad tint in perductam, sed haeretico 

Dissert. Singular! huic operi olim illo moras nectente, quod ex 

subjuncta, " Tantum absum," Eusebio discitur, temporis factum 

ait, " a viri maximi sententia, dispendium. Annorum interval - 

" qui unicam agnoscit in causa lum inter duas synodos ex Eu- 

" Samosateni synodum, ut tres sebio invito videtur primus ex- 

" c-t lam agnoscendas exist i mem.'' tudisse Baronius. Pearsoni men- 

c. vi. 1 8. Duas agnoscit Bullus, tern male reprsesentat nuperus 

Jud. Eccl. Cath. c. iii. 7. duas Eusebii editor, cum ait eum 

facit Baronius, duas Caveus, Flo- " studuisse probare, posteriorem 

rius, et alii complures. Attamen " synodum habitam esse anno 

qui Eusebii narrationem in His- " 270." Non perlegerat, opinor, 

toria cum Chronico ejusdem con- qua? habentur in textu. 

Dd2 



404 De Successions primorum Roma Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

Caii, si modo verum sit quod ipse voluit, nempe eum 
vixisse usque ad annum Diocletiani duodecimum. De 
quo minime dubitandum est, cum vetustissimus Cata- 
logus eodem anno Caium mortuum esse tradat, Dio- 
cletiano VI. et Constantio II. coss. Unde apparet 
vanitas eorum quae a secundo Catalog! auctore adduntur 
Actis Caii : " Hie fugit persecutionem Diocletiani in 
" cryptis habitans et confessor quievit." Quae sic postea 
in Libro Pontificali interpolata leguntur : " Hie fugiens 
" persecutionem Diocletiani confessor quievit martyrio 
" coronatus post annos octo." 

X. Expectabunt fortasse nonnulli, ut Eusebium etiam 
in proximis duobus episcopis Romanis describendis 
pariter errasse demonstrem, quod Marcellini quidem 
meminerit, Marcellum autem ejus in episcopatu suc- 
cessorem prorsus omiserit. Hujus enim erroris eum 
manifeste reum esse volunt Romani chronologi, gra- 
viterque et frequenter exagitant ; ego non item. Fateor 
apud antiquissimum Catalogum Marcellinum et Mar 
cellum, tanquam duos et distinctos antistites nominari, 
et utrique annos consulatus diversos assignari. Fateor 
etiam Marcellum inter Marcellini clericos ab Augustino 
numerari. Non tamen asserere velim Marcellum un- 
quam in Petri cathedra sedisse. Nam licet auctori 
vetusti illius catalogi multum, uti par est, tribuo, ejus 
tamen auctoritati minime acquiescendum puto, ubi sibi 
ipsi contradicit. In illis autem quae de his episcopis et 
sequentibus in eo catalogo nunc extant, manifestam 
contradictionem videor mihi deprehendisse, de qua 
alibi potius agendum. Hie autem ea tantummodo 
addam quae ad ferendum de chronologicis et historicis 
Eusebii judicium maxime necessaria videntur. 

XI. D. Blondellus in Apologia, sectione ii. . 19. 
tradit Chronicon desiisse an. Dom. cccxxvi. Historian! 



CAP. X. 



Eusebii Chronologia parum accurate. 



405 






scriptam esse anno cccxxx. circiter, immani meta- 
chronismo f . . 



f Dodwellus, additiuncula sua, 
quam DOS omisimus, pauca sane 
de Blondello, sed plura conges- 
serat ut probaret Eusebio parum 
cognitas fuisse res imperii occi- 
dentalis, et ecclesiasticos scrip- 
tores latinos. Putaverat enim 
Pearsono propositum fuisse fid em 
Eusebii tarn in Historia quam in 
Chronologia elevare. Quod non 
placet ; cum noster supra tantum 
statuit, " successi ones episcopo- 
" rum in Chronico et Historia 
" maximi faciendas, utpote om- 
" nium vetustissimas ac certissi- 
" mas ; tempora vero et annos 
" pro certissimis haberi non de- 
" bere." In scriptoribus Latinis 
minus versatum fuisse Eusebium 
non negamus, et ab aliis observa- 
tura est. Inde temporum et an- 
norum, quibus episcopi occiden- 
tales successerint, notitia ali- 
quando ei defuit ; successionum 



et rerum mcmorabilium non 
item. 

Brevissimum fuisse intervallum 
inter Chronici scriptionem et His- 
toriam docet Dodwellus, et do- 
cere voluisse putat Pearsonum : 
neque ulla subsidia Eusebium in 
Historia habuisse, quibus in 
Chronico caruerit. Attamen quod 
ad Blondellum spectat, " quibus 
" argumentis," ait, " ilium refu- 
" taturus fuerit, divinare nequeo; 
" et lucem illam, quae tempori 
" Ecclesiasticae Historiae Euse- 
" bianae e viri excultissimi obser- 
" vationibus esset emersura, rei- 
" publ. literariae universae interi- 
" isse doleo." Hoc unum ad- 
jicimus : Pearsonus minime con- 
sentire videtur cum Criticis qui- 
busdam recentioribus, qui sta- 
tuunt Eusebium post mortem 
Constantini Historiam scripsisse. 



CAP. XL 

I. Libellum de Romanis Pontificibus Blondellus in Apologia miris 
efiert laudibus, cujus tamen notas consulares in Pseudo-Isidoro 
reprehenderat. II. Libelli hujus meminerunt antiquiores Ana- 
stasio auctores. III. Secutus est eundem Pseudo-Isidorus, et 
quidem ilium quern vulgo habemus, interpolatum, idque in ipsis 
etiam librarii erroribus. IV. Idem Pseudo-Isidorus Damasum 
suarum Decretalium Epistolarum collectorem haberi voluit, qui 
etiam Libelli de Pontificibus auctor vulgo habitus est. V. Non 
chronicos duntaxat canones, sed ipsas etiam pontificum vitas 
complecti voluit hujus Libelli auctor. Respondetur Turriano. 

I. ~T\E Latinorum catalogo idem mihi omnino statu- 
JL/ endum esse videtur, praesertim quod ad priora 
Ecclesiae tempora spectat, de quibus nuuc agimus. 
Blondellus quidem Libellum de Romanis Pontificibus 
miris laudibus effert, " eo veteres Ecclesiae Romanse 
" tabulas contineri" asserit, " nihil eo scripto incor- 
" ruptius/' aut " a falsi suspicione alienius reperiri 
" posse" affirmat ; imo auctorem, " quasi solis radio 
" scripserit," veneratur. Ita enim solet ille eos quos 
suae causae patrocinari putat, cohonestare. Ut cum 
anonymum auctorem libelli, De septem Ecclesiae 
Ordinibus, incertse aetatis hominem (qui inter annum 
DCC. et DCCCC. ut ipse putat, scripsit) pro sententia 
Hieronymi testem adducit. " Hinc manifesto apparet," 
inquit, *' quasi solis radio anonymus auctor ille scrip- 
" serit, &c." Unde etiam Salmasius Blondelli sedulus 



CAP. xi. De Libra Pontificali et Pseudo-Isidoro. 407 

lector, ab eadem phrasi abstinere non potuit, quamvis 
ea paulo modestius utatur dum de verbis Hieronymi 
in Epistolam ad Titum loquitur: " Si solis radio haec 
" scripta essent, baud poterant esse quam sunt clariora." 
Baronium aliosque turn Pontificios, turn Protestantes 
acriter objurgat, quod eo calcato, Eusebium potius se- 
quantur. Haec ille in praefatione ad Apologiam ; novus 
Hyperaspistes depromit. Nam cum misellum Pseudo- 
Isidorum debellaret, atque confoderet, Epistolas Decre- 
tales fictas esse ex mendosa notae consularis consig- 
natione saepissime probare conatus est, nee ullum eo 
frequentius argumentum usurpavit ; consignationes epi- 
stolarum eos consules habere, qui pontificibus, a quibus 
scriptac epistolae perhibentur, miuime competerent, 
graviter conquestus est. Ipse tamen in Apologise 
praefatione, multo jam senior sapientiorque factue eos 
ipsos annos pontificibus Romanis ascribit, quos ascrip- 
sisse Pseudo-Isidorum apparet. Verbi gratia : Isidorus 
ille Epistolse Hygini haec subscripsit, " Data xvn. kal. 
" Octobr. Magno et Camerino coss." Blondelli nota 
est, " Ad finem, uotam temporis mendosissimam addidit 
" plagiarius. Nam sedere coepit Hyginus an. Dom. CLIV. 
" Glabrione et Variano coss." Ita scilicet clare refu- 
tatur Pseudo-Isidorus, qui Hygino pontificalem epi- 
stolam tribuit xiv. annis antequam pontifex factus est. 
Sed idem Blondellus in praefatione magna cum cura 
docet, " Hyginum Telespliori an. Dom. cxxxvm. Ha- 
** driani xxi. exeunte, Camerino et Magno coss. Janu- 
" arii v. denati loco, ejusdem mensis xm. feria I. 
" cvQpoi/to-Qrjvcu." Quidni igitur Hyginus epistolam pon 
tificalem scriberet xvn. kal. Octobres, cum mense 
Januario ejusdem anui pontifex factus fuisset ? Rursus 
idem impostor epistolae Pii subscripsit^* Data vn. idus 
" Apriles Claro et Severe viris clarissimis coss." Rursus 



408 De Succcssione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

etiam censor, " Notae consularis mendosa consignatio ; 
" nam Severus cum Claro consulatum non administravit 
" Pio sedente." Sed idem censor in prasfatione, p. 31. 
et in Apologia, p. 18. Pium anno xiv. Claro et Se- 
vero coss. Martii vu. feria i. ordinatum esse docet. 
Pio igitur sedente Claras et Severus coss. fuere, Pseudo- 
Isidoro tandem consentiente Blondello. Denique Vic- 
toris epistolae hsec nota consularis apposita est : " Data 
" xin. kal. August. Commodo et Gravione," corrupte 
pro Glabrione, " viris clarissimis coss." Ad qua3 cen 
sor, " Falsa consulum nomericlatura farraginem suam 
" concludit ;" et rationem hanc reddit, quia " Com- 
" modus cum Glabrione v. consulatum administravit 
" an. Dom. CLXXXVIII. Eleutherii loco successit Victor 
" an. Dom. cxciv." Ejusdem tamen in Apologia hsec 
verba sunt, " Victorem a consulatu Commodi et Gla- 
" brionis sedisse constat," ex priscis nempe Ecclesiae 
Romanse tabulis. 

II. Verumenimvero videamus an tot elogiis Liber ille 
Pontificalis merito ornandus sit, tantseque certitudinis 
ea, quse de annis Romanorum episcoporum in illo tra- 
duntur, haberi debeant. Auctor illius libri, quisquis 
est, incerti sane laris homo, nee jam Damasi nomen 
apud eruditos sustinet, et si Anastasii bibliothecarii 
nomen vindicare possit, nimis illud serum est. Ante 
Anastasium opus illud saepius laudabatur, et quidem 
cum suo titulo, non semper eodem, sed sine ullo 
auctoris nomine. Nomen erat libro, Gesta Pontifi 
calia; ita ilium nominat Walafridus Strabo, lib. de 
Rebus Ecclesiasticis, c. 22. Nullum autem nomen 
auctoris operi praefixum ea setate fuisse indicant ilia 
Walafridi verba : " Videtur autem non alias lectiones 
" ante evangelium fuisse tune positas, nisi tantum 
** apostoli Pauli ; quas solum nominavit, qui gesta 



CAP. xi. Liber Pontifical^. 409 

" pontificum scripsit." Ante Walafridum Amalarius 
idem opus saepe Gesta Pontificalia, saepe etiam Gesta 
Episcopalia nominavit; auctoris nusquam meminit. 
Ante Amalarium Babanus Maurus de Institutione 
Clericorum librum vocat Gesta Patrum, cap. 28. 
eaque saepius citat sine titulo. Ante Rabanum Beda 
Gesta Pontificalia appellavit, Homil. in feria iii. 
Palmarum 8 ; et quod notatu valde dignum est, quae 
habet de Lucio rege Britannorum Christiano, ex eo 
libro transcripsit in vita Eleutheri, nempe, " Misit ad 
" eum Lucius Britannorum rex epistolam, obsecrans 
" ut per ejus mandatum Christianus efficeretur b ." Ante 
Bedam nostrum Agathonis papas legati, ut refert Hum- 
bertus contra Nicetam : *' Hinc in Ecclesia mos obtinuit, 
" ut sacrificiurn altaris non in serico aut in panno 
" tincto, sed in lino terreno celebretur, sicut corpus 
" Domini fuit in syndone munda sepultum. Sic et 
" oblatio munda debet esse a fermento, juxta quod in 
" Gestis Pontifical ibus ab Sylvestro legimus esse sta- 
" tutum." Romani Martyrologii auctor in pontificibus 
Romanis martyrii titulo insignitis, librum hunc sequutus 
est, ut turn ex re ipsa, turn ex eo loco, vm. Id. Augusti 
apparet; in quo describit martyrium Xysti n. et soci- 
orum, " qui in coemeterio praetextati sepulti sunt, ut in 
" Gestis Pontificalibus legitur." Quae posterior pars 
sententiae nunc non comparet: sed in duobus MSS. 
etiamnum extat, ut testatur Holstenius. Et quidem 
Amalarius et Walafridus omnia, quae ad officia eccle- 
siastica pertinere putabant, ex eo libro transcripserunt 

R " Hinc ecclesiae mos obtinuit, "in Gestis Pontificalibus a B. 

' ut sacrificium altaris non in " papa Sylvestro legimus esse 

" serico, neque in panno tincto, " statutum." Bed. Opp. torn. 

" sed in lino terreno celebretur, vii. p. 286. ed. Colon. Vid. Diss. 

" sicut corpus Domini in eindone ii. c. xi. 3. 
" munda sepultum ; juxta quod b Cf. Hist. Eccl. ejusd. i. 4. 



410 De Successione primorum Romee Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

usque ad Sergiura papam et Gregorium secundum aut 
etiam tertium. Tot pontificum vitse eorum aetate 
exstabant. 

III. Ante hos Pseudo-Isidorus Librum Pontificum 
non nominavit quidem, semper tamen secutus est, et ad 
ilia Gesta Episcopalia decretales epistolas efformavit. 
Nibil hac observatione certius. Nam primo epistolas 
ad illos nonnunquam scriptas esse fingit ad quos solus 
Liber Pontificalis eum quasi manu duxit. Verbi gratia, 
" Hyginus papa Atheniensibus salutem. Multa mihi 
" fiducia est apud vos, fratres, et magna gloriatio pro 
" vobis." Quare hsec ad Athenienses Hyginus ? Nerape 
quia scriptum erat in Pontificali, " Hyginus natione 
" Grsecus ex philosopho de Athenis." Rursum, " Pius 
" Romanae urbis archiepiscopus Italicis fratribus sa- 
" lutem in Domino." Quare ad fratres Italicos scribit ? 
Quia sic in Vitis Pontificum describitur : " Pius natione 
" Italus ex patre Rufino, frater pastoris, de civitate 
" Aquileia." Quia Pius dicebatur Italus, ideo scribit 
illico ad fratres Italicos : quia pro fratre pastoris habe- 
batur, aliam ei epistolam tribuit, in qua omnes ecclesias 
docet, pascha die Dominico celebrandum esse, quia 
" Hermse angelus Domini in habitu pastoris apparuit, 
*' et prsecepit ei, ut pascha die Dominico ab omnibus 
" celebraretur." Sic Soter dictus est " natione Cam- 
" panus, ex patre Concordio, de civitate Fundis." Quare 
statim scribit epistolam " Campanis omnibus," miroque 
exordio eos affatur: " Gaudere vos oportet, fratres, 
" quod divina largiente gratia familiares Domini voca- 
" mini, ejusque sacerdotii dignitate fungimini." Deinde 
alteram etiam mittit, ** Dilectissimis fratribus per 
" Italiae provincias, sanctis constitutis episcopis." Se- 
cundo Pseudo-Isidorus consules in libro Pontificum 
papae cuique assignatos suis epistolis subjungit ; neque 



CAP. xi. Pseudo-Isidori commento ex Libro Pontificali. 411 

alios, quam eos quos in isto libro invenerat nominatos, 
usurpat ; quasi papae Romani nunquam decreta edide- 
rint, nisi aut primo aut postremo sui pontificates anno. 
Verbi gratia, in Gestis Pontifical ibus de Euaristo haec 
legerat, " Sedit a consulatu Valentis et Veteris usque 
" ad Gallum et Braduara coss." Primae igitur Euaristi 
epistolae, " Data ix. kal. Apriles Valente et Vetere 
" coss.," secundae, " Data kal. Novembr. Gallo et Bra- 
** dua coss.," subscripsit. Hoc illi solenne est. Quoties 
autem impostor ille in ascribendis coss. falsus est de- 
prehenditur, Libri Pontificalis corrupto aut mutilo codice 
deceptus est. Legerat in pontificali de Alexandro, 
" Fuit temporibus Trajani usque ad Helianum et 
" Veterem." Hinc primo Trajanum et Helianum par 
coss. comminiscitur, eosque primae et secundae Alexandri 
epistolae, tertiae vero Helianum et Veterem ascribit. 
Neque enim eum locum in Pontificali mutilum, ex 
vetustiori Catalogo hoc modo supplendum esse novit : 
" Fuit temporibus Trajani a consulatu Palmae et Tulli 
" usque Heliano et Vetere." Perinde in vita Sixti, 
codex et mutilus et corruptus eum in miras angustias 
conjecit. Nam cum in eo scriptum reperiret, " Fuit 
*' temporibus Hadriani, usque Vero et Angulo," Hadri- 
anum et Verum par coss. fecit, eosque primae Sixti 
epistolae subjecit ; et cum mirum Anguli vel Anniculi 
nomen videretur, eosdem secundae etiam epistolae sub- 
junxit. Non euim perspexit quomodo et suppleri et 
emendari debuerat ex vetustiori Catalogo, " Fuit tem- 
" poribus Hadriani a consulatu Nigri et Aproniani 
** usque Vero et Ambiguo vel Am. Bibulo," i. e. 
Ambiguo Bibulo ; " Ambibulo" quidem corrupte scri- 
bitur, unde " Angulus" et '* Anniculus" in Pontificali 
multo corruptius. Hujusmodi fere sunt apud Pseudo- 
Jsidorum mendosae notac consulares ex mendoso aut 



412 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

mutilo Pontificalis codice profectae : unde constat im- 
postorem ilium cum Decretales Epistolas finxit, Gesta 
Pontificalia ante oculos semper habuisse. Tertio, idem 
etiam inde confirmatur, quod in corpore Decretalium 
Epistolarum saepe materia ex Libro Pontificum sumatur, 
et verba etiam multoties recitentur. Auctor Vitarum 
tradit Anacletum presbyterum factum esse a B. Petro ; 
Pseudo-Isidorus in Epistola Anacleti secunda haec habet, 
" Ut a B. Petro principe apostolorum sumus instruct], a 
" quo et presbyter sum ordinatus :" unde et postea de 
ordinationibus, hac occasione arrepta, plenus tractatus 
instituitur. Pariter cum legisset in Gestis Alexandri, 
" Hie passioriem Domini miscuit in precationem sacer- 
" dotum ;" Epistolae illius papae primse haec inseruit, 
" In sacramentorum quoque oblationibus, quse inter 
" missarum solennia Domino offeruntur, passio Domini 
" miscenda est." Et cum de eodem ibidem scriptum 
vidisset, " Hie constituit aquam aspersionis cum sale 
" benedici in habitaculis hominum ;" ipse pariter eidem 
haec addidit, " Aquam enim sale conspersam populis 
" benedicimus, ut ea cuncti aspersi sanctificentur et 
" purificentur, quod et omnibus sacerdotibus faciendum 
" esse mandamus," et praeterea miras illius ritus. rationes 
ex suo penu subjecit. Similiter in vita Sixti duo con- 
stituta de vasibus sacris, et de formatis c cum reper- 
isset, utrumque in secundam ejus epistolam conjecit. 
In vita Telesphori scriptum erat, " Hie constituit ut 
" septem hebdomadis jejunium celebraretur paschae." 
Inde eidem aptata est Epistola, quae indicat a se et 
concilio Romano idem statutum esse : et prseterea ob 
eandem rationem de missa nocte nativitatis Domini 
celebranda, et de hymno angelico praeceptum dat. 

c De Formatis adeat, cui libet, Du Cangii Gloss, in voce. 



CAP. xi. Librum Potitificalem imitatus est Pseudo-Isidorus. 413 

Pauca haec ex mult is observanda esse duximus. Deni- 
que idem Pseudo-Isidorus ut majorem Gestis Pontifi 
cal ibus auctoritatem conciliaret, Epistolam quasi ab 
Hieronymo ad Damasum scriptam confinxit, aut illis 
ipsis ante pracfixam inter suas posuit, qua papam sic 
affatur, " Gloriam sanctitatis tuae nostra hurailitas de- 
" precatur, ut secundum apostolicae sedis auctoritatem, 
" quam cognovimus gubernari per tuam sanctitatem, 
" Actus Gestorum a B. Petri principatu, usque ad 
" vestra tempora, quae gesta sunt in sede tua, nobis per 
" ordinem enarrare digneris." Ex quibus verbis facile 
perspicitur librum ilium Gesta Pontificum appellatum 
esse, quern a Damaso scriptum fuisse credi voluit im 
postor. Quod etiam adbuc clarius exprimitur in 
Epistola Damasi eadem manu conficta : " Veruntamen 
" Gesta Pontificum quae potuimus reperire in nostrae 
" sedis studio ad tuam caritatem gaudentes direximus." 
Idem etiam recte colligitur ex boc titulo libri Thuanaei ' 
MS. " Incipit Liber Episcopalis in quo continentur Acta 
" B. Pontificum urbis Romae." Nihil igitur certius est 
quam Librum Pontificalem eundem fuisse quern Gesta 
Pontificalia, vel Episcopalia, mediae aetatis scriptores 
nominabant, quemque Damaso papae ascribi voluere 
impostores : eumque ipsum librum fundum fuisse 
Pseudo-Isidoro omnium epistolarum quas Romanis 
episcopis falso ascripsit. 

IV. Hoc autem adhuc manifestius fiet ex alia obser- 
vatione ad bane rem appositissima. Pseudo-Isidorus 
non tantum Librum Pontificalem ascribi voluit Damaso ; 
sed etiam Epistolas Decretales a seipso confictas credi 
voluit ab eodem Damaso ex archivis Ecclesiae Romanae 
productas editasque fuisse. Certissimum hujus obser- 
vationis argumentum est, quod impostor Hie in suae 



414 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

collectionis exordio duas epistolas posuerit, unam quasi 
ab Aurelio Carthaginiensi episcopo ad Damasum, al- 
teram quasi a Damaso ad Aurelium scriptam. Nam in 
priori Aurelius a Damaso petit, ut " Statuta quse 
" reperire poterit post finem B. principis apostolorum 
" Petri usque ad suse sauctitatis principium ipsi scripta 
" mitteret ;" quse instituta mox etiam " Decreta" no- 
minat : in posteriori respondet Damasus, " Qusedam ex 
" his quse petisti misimus, et qusedam adhuc, cum 
" iterum miseris, mittere cupimus. Nullum tamen a 
'* B. Petri principis apostolorum fine praedecessorum 
" nostrorum prsetermisimus, de quorum statutis aliquid 
" tibi non mitteremus." Quibus verbis Damasi im 
postor collection! suse prsemissis, ipsas Epistolas Decre- 
tales intelligi voluit, ut vel inde aperte colligitur, quod 
a fine Petri dicat se Damasus ejus nullum praedeces- 
sorum suorum prsetermisisse. Nam ipse nullam epi- 
stolam Lino aut Cleto tribuebat, quia Linum ante 
Petrum obiisse putabat, et Cletum ut ab Anacleto 
distinctum vel non agnovit, vel eum simul cum Lino 
praefuisse existimavit. Voluit igitur credi Damasum 
" a fine Petri" pontificum decreta collegisse et a Cle- 
mente incepisse, et revera epistolas tarn diu postea 
natas edidisse, ut maximam ipsis auctoritatem con- 
ciliaret. Sic enim Damasum postremo loquentem intro- 
ducit, " His itaque rite deliberatis, et ad ecclesiarum 
" notitiam nostra deliberatione perlatis, parere vos 
" eorundem sanctorum regulis summopere convenit." 
Cum igitur Pseudo-Isidorus, sive Riculfus, sive Ha 
drian us, Librum Pontificalem sequutus sit in excogi- 
tandis Epistolarum suarum argumentis, eundem turn 
auctorem Pontificalis turn Epistolarum editorem con- 
finxit Damasum, in pontificatu adeundo minus pro- 



CAP. xi. Liber Pontificalis quce continet. 415 

batum d , in admin istrando magis felicem, certe apud 
posteros magni nominis papam. 

V. Haec adeo prolixe prosecuti sumus, quod ea 
necessaria esse putemus, ut recte intelligatur quae fuerit 
natura Libri Pontificum, quando primum natus et 
editus est. Inter eos enim qui a Damaso scriptum 
putant, aliqui in eodem nihil contineri contendunt 
prseter canones chronicos. Magdeburgenses dixerant, 
" Damasum ex professo suorum antecessorum vitas 
" descripsisse." Turrianus de antecessoribus suis Da 
masum scripsisse largitur, vitas eorum scripsisse negat, 
" Quia nihil,'' inquit, " fere aliud brevissime scribit 
" quam quo loco, quo patre natus, quibus temporibus 
" vixit, quot ordinationes fecit, quibus coss. mortuus, 
" ubi sepultus ; quae non tarn ad historise scriptionem 
" pertinent, quam ad quosdam veluti chronicos ca- 
" nones." At alia multa in eo libro continentur: quas 
scilicet fabricas fecit, quot cseremonias instituit, quae 
constituta edidit, quomodo clerum ordinavit, quam 
partem missae addidit, aliaque peregit pontificum quis- 
que ante Damasum, in eodem docetur. Addit deinde 
Turrianus, " Si ex professo vitas pontificum scribebat, 
" ubi sunt eorum Acta et Gesta ?" Respondeo, in ipso 
Libro Pontifical!, quern Gesta Pontificalia sive Acta 
veteres nominabant, moderni, Vitas : in illo, inquam, 
libro sunt eorum Acta et Gesta. 

d Vid. Socr. Hist. Eccl. iv. c. 29. 



CAP. XII. 

I. De Libri Pontificalis auctore. II. Alii Damaso partem priorem, 
posteriorem autem tribuebant Anastasio bibliothecario ; Baronius 
nihil Damaso, sed incerto omnia tribuebat auctori, qui tamen e 
duobus saltern auctoribus sua consarcinarit ; alii libri universi 
auctorem solum credebant Anastasium ; alii priorem partem ita 
Damaso concedebant, ut tamen et ipsam crediderint interpolatam 
ab Anastasio. III. Assertio prima, prioris partis non esse auc 
torem Damasum. IV. Assertio secunda, auctorem libri, quicun- 
que tandem is fuerit, non vixisse ante seculum sextum. V. As 
sertio tertia, primum libri pontificalis apographum esse quod sub 
nomine catalogi secundi edidit Henschenius, cujus auctor sub 
finem sexti seculi scripserit; interpolatum tamen atque continua- 
tum ante Anastasium. VI. Assertio quarta, incertum esse an 
quicquam in illo libro interpolarit, aut continuant, Anastasius. 
VII. Probatur interpolatum fuisse ante Anastasium, et viceversa 
in nonnullis mutilatum. VIII. Siquid boni habeat in primis 
pontificibus liber pontificalis, id omne hausit e catalogo primo 
per Cuspinianum edito, quern tamen ipsum non integrum, scd 
vitiatum duntaxat, viderit. 

I. T^E his Gestis Pontificalibus, sive libro de ponti- 
J-J ficibus Romanis, ut judicium meum feram ; 
primo auctores, quibus liber ille hactenus tributus est, 
deinde tempora, quibus eum scripsisse videantur, con- 
sideranda, et quae ante nos observarunt viri docti, 
discutienda sunt. Inde enim patebit quanta auctoritas 
tali scripto ascribenda sit: quippe si neque auctorem 
habeat, neque aetatem ullo modo venerandam, nescio 
ex quo capite assensum nostrum vindicare possit, 
narrationibus praesertim iis, quae vel omnem fidem 



CAP. xii. Quo seculo scriptus fuerit Liber Pontijtccdis. 417 

superant, vel omnium veterum testimonio defecta et 
destituta sunt. 

II. Prima autem virorum doctorum prioris seculi 
sententia fuit, Damasum Vitarum omnium Pontificum, 
qui suum pontificatum praecesserunt, auctorem fuisse : 
ita Onuphrius, Turrianus aliique. Sed haec sententia 
non diu duravit inter Rornano-Catholicos : nam earn 
primo Baronius rejecit, nihil omnino in eo opere ad 
Damasum pertinere asserens ; qui etiam addidit ejus- 
dem libri incertum auctorem fuisse, et ex duobus 
saltern auctoribus sua consarcinasse ; quse conjecture, 
111. Annalistae erat verissima, licet ipse Cardinalis, 
quinam essent illi auctores duo, ex quibus liber iste 
consarcinatus est, penitus ignoraret. Baronii senten- 
tiam statim sequuti sunt Binius, Possevinus, aliique, 
quod ad Damasum spectat. Qui Damasum ad sua 
tempora Vitas Pontificum scripsisse putabant, reliquos 
usque ad pontificatum Nicolai I. Anastasium bibliothe- 
carium addidisse asserebant ; ut Onuphrius aliique. 
Sed nee hsec seutentia diu obtinuit ; nam Moguntini 
qui Vitas Pontificum an. Dom. MDCII. ediderunt, simul 
significarunt se propter styli et totius scribendi rationis 
et methodi earum Vitarum, quae post Damasum scriptae 
sunt, consensum cum phrasi universaque scribendi ra- 
tione, quae est in Vitis prioribus, in earn sententiam 
inclinare, omnium illarum Vitarum germanum paren- 
tem esse Anastasium. Unde statim Bellarminus eorum 
sententiam quasi notam amplectitur, eandemque se- 
quitur ex nostris Gerardus Joannes Vossius. Alii etiam 
ex nostris, qui multum auctoritatis isti Libro Pontificum 
tribuendum esse ut crederetur, ob rationes minime 
incognitas maxime cupiebant, ad Damasum rursus 
recurrebaut, et quicquid in illius opere minus verum 
esse putabant, posterioribus ac praecipue Anastasio 

PEARSON, VOL. II. E 6 



418 De Successione primorum Homes Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

tribuebant: quales erant viri sane doctissimi, Blon- 
dellus et Salmasius. Necesse igitur esse sentimus, 
ut cum nos Librum ilium Pontificalem, in prioribus 
praesertim Ecclesise temporibus enarrandis, non flocci 
facimus, sententiam nostram de ejus auctore expli- 
cemus, ejusque rationes particulatim reddamus. 

III. Dico igitur primo, priorem partem Libri Pon- 
tificalis, qui Gesta Pontificum continet, non fuisse a 
Damaso scriptam. Quotquot ab eo natam putabant, 
nullam aliam rationem istius sententise afferre unquam 
potuerunt, praeterquam quod nomen illius pluribus 
MSS. codicibus inscriptum fuit. Sed nimis infirmum 
est a titulo argumentum, cum alia omnia refragentur. 
Nam primo Damasi fama hoc vetat, cujus ingenii 
elegantia semper agnita est, quam plane nullam fateri 
cogitur quisquis ilium librum scabrum tarn styli in- 
conditi et ineruditi ei tribuit. Secundo Hieronymus, 
qui eum juvisse dicitur, bujus operis non memiriit, 
cum ejus Vitam post decennium fere scripserit. Tertio, 
materia illius libri adeo novitatem redolet, et antiqui- 
tatem adeo crasse affectat, et res nemini cognitas 
tain secure recitat, ut nulli quarti seculi scriptori, 
quamvis rudi et inerudito, sine injuria ejus nomini 
facta, assignari possit. Et si duas partes illius Pontifi- 
calis seorsim consideremus, quamvis utraque eodem 
genere scriptionis similis sit, prior tamen posteriori 
multo incertior, imo multo pejor, fabulosior et con- 
taminatior est, ideoque Damaso auctore minus digna. 

IV. Dico secundo, nullum papam aut alium quem- 
cunque fuisse auctorem Libri Pontificum, sive Gestorum 
Pontificalium ante sextum seculum : imo nullum ejus- 
modi librum in Ecclesia extitisse ante annum CLX. 
ab obitu Damasi papse. Cum enim tot ritus ecclesias- 
tici, tot opiniones de rebus fidei et discipline, quae 



CAP. xu. Quo seculo scriptus Liber Pontificalis. 419 

ante initium sexti seculi minime obtinuerunt, in eo 
libro contineantur, et ab ipso ejus initio utramque 
paginam faciant, maturius quicquam in illis gestis 
scriptum fuisse nulla ratio admittit. 

V. Tertio, verisimillimum mihi videtur Librum ilium 
Pontificum in bibliotheca reginae Sueciae usque ad 
Felicem quartum et Justiniani tempora deductum, quern 
nobis exhibuit Heinschenius sub nomine Catalogi Se- 
cundi, apograpbum esseprimi omnium Libri Pontificum, 
neque ulla ante eum Gesta Pontificalia, aut Vitas Pon 
tificum extitisse. Nee tamen eum Librum Pontificum 
sub Justiniano scriptum fuisse puto, sed sub finem sexti 
seculi ab impostore exaratum editumque, cum Blon- 
dello seiitio ; auctoremque Vitas Pontificum post Feli 
cem ad suam usque setatem de industria omisisse, ne 
seipsum proderet. Eum autem librum sub nomine 
Gestorum Pontificalium continuatum fuisse, atque etiam 
in aliquibus locis interpolatum ante aetatem Anastasii 
affirmare non dubito. De continuatione dubitari non 
potest, quia tales libri MSS. in bibliothecarum forulis 
adhuc conservantur, quibus deducta sunt Gesta Ponti 
ficum usque ad Stephanum tertium ultra an. Dom. 
DCCL. ut testantur Freherus, Labbeue, et Heinschenius. 
Quae Gesta post aetatem Justiniani per modum conti- 
nuationis scripta, non sunt ab Anastasio tanquam 
auctore profecta, quia ante Anastasium meminere scrip- 
tores baud pauci diversorum pontificum, et ab iis 
gestorum usque ad Sergium et Gregorium tertium, hoc 
est, ultra an. Dom. DCCXL. ut cum ex pluribus aliis, 
turn ex eo Strabonis loco clare ostenditur. 

VI. Quarto, illud porro observo, librum ilium Ges 
torum Pontificalium primum seculo sexto exaratum, in 
posterioribus editionibus interpolatum fuisse ante oeta- 
tem Anastasii; quod diligenter notandum est. Quia 

E e 2 



420 De Successione primorum Rottce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 
i 

Blondellus putavit verisimile esse Anastasii temeritati 
DOS debere omnia, quae in eo libro a veritate aliena 
sunt. Ego potius primo scriptori temeritatem sum- 
mam tribuo, posterioribus aliquam, sed minorem, an 
ulla omnino Anastasio tribuenda sit nescio ; non enim 
hactenus quicquam vidi, quod Anastasium eum librum 
edidisse doceat, praeter titulum in aliquibus MSS. et 
sane paticis inventum. Reliqui Damasum agnoscunt, 
et tarn en falso omnes : quinimo recte a Labbeo nota- 
tum est, ante setatem Anastasii illud opus Damaso 
tributum esse in libro tempore Caroli Magni scripto. 
Cum enim liber ille, antequam Anastasius quicquam 
scripsit, editus sit, alii auctori necessario tribuendus 
est ; et cum etiam ea aetate liber ille sub Damasi 
nomine exstabat, nimis sero eidem operi etiam conti- 
nuato Anastasii nomen prsefixum est, praesertim cum 
ille bibliothecarius tale opus edidisse a nemine ante 
seculum decimum quartum vel quintum perhibeatur. 

VII. Interim Librum primum Pontiiicalem sexto 
seculo exaratum ante setatem Anastasii interpolatum 
fuisse sic probari posse sentio. In primo catalogo sive 
primae editionis illius libri pontificum apographo de 
Alexandro legimus, " Hie passionem Domini miscuit in 
" praedicatione sacerdotum." Quae sic interpolata apud 
Anastasium leguntur, " Hie passionem Domini miscuit 
" in precationem sacerdotum, quando missae celebran- 
" tur." Sed haec interpolatio ante Anastasium facta 
est : eadem enim verba apud Walafridum Strabonem 
libro de Rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. xxii. recitantur. In 
Vita Telesphori apud Anastasium legimus, " Hie con- 
" stituit, ut" (legendum enim est " ut" pro " cum") 
" omni tempore ante horae tertiae cursum nullus prae- 
" sumeret missam celebrare, qua hora Dominus noster 
" ascendit crucem." In catalogo secundo haec verba 



I 
CAP. xii. Liber Pontificalis sectilo sexto exaratus. 421 

non comparent : addita autem sunt ante Anastasium ; 
legit enim eadem in suo codice Walafridus Strabo et 
exscripsit cap. xxiii. De Eutychiano in catalogo scri- 
bitur, " Hie constituit fruges super altario benedici," 
apud Anastasium, " ut fruges super altare tantum fabae 
" et uvae benedicerentur." Sed et haec interpolatio 
facta est ante Anastasium, ut patet ex Strabone cap. 
xviii. Apud catalogum in Vita Symmachi hymni an- 
gelici mentio fit : apud Anastasium haec legimus, " Hie 
" constituit, ut omni die Dominico et natalitiis mar- 
" tyrum hynmus diceretur angelicus, id est, Gloria in 
** excelsis :" quae ante eum recitavit Strabo cap. xxii. 
Sic in Vita proximi pontificis Hormisdae Anastasius haec 
habet, " Hie composuit clerum et psalmis erudivit ;" 
quae in catalogo non comparent; sed a Strabone me- 
morantur cap. xxv. Neque minim esse videatur, ut a 
posterioribus aliqua prioribus adderentur : illud potius 
observandum est, nonnulla in prima editione scripta 
extitisse, quae posterioribus omissa aut detracta fnerunt. 
Verbi gratia in catalogo secundo legimus de Teles- 
phoro, " Hie fecit ut natali Domini nostri Jesu Christ! 
" noctu missae celebrarentur, et in ingressu sacrificii 
" hymnus diceretur angelicus, Gloria in excelsis, &c. 
" tantum noctu natalis Domini." Postrema autem 
verba " tantum noctu natalis Domini," apud Ana 
stasium omissa sunt ; et sane ante eum erant detracta, 
ut patet ex Strabone, quern locus ille mire torsit, non 
ob aliam causam, quam quod ilia verba ante sublata in 
suo codice non viderat ; viderat autem ea verba Sym 
machi de hymno angelico, quae, ut diximus, in prima 
editione non habebantur. In catalogo de Gelasio 
legimus, " Hie fecit sacramentorum praefationes cauto 
" sermone, et epistolas fidei elimato sermone." Horum 
nihil habet Anastasius, sed eorum loco substituit, ' Hie 



De Successione primorum Romcs Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

" fecit constitutum de omni ecclesia." Denique in Vita 
Hormisdse pars quaedam historiae de Concilio Constan- 
tinopoli facto, in quo reddita ratio damnationis Acacii, 
et ab omnibus accepta est ; et de concordia ab Oriente 
usque ad Occidentem facta in catalogo habetur, apud 
Anastasium non reperitur. 

VIII. His perpensis, quis non videt fidem huic Libro 
Pontificali minime adkibendam esse? Auctor enim ejus 
anonymus, et incertus sexti seculi scriptor, et status 
primitivae Ecclesise plane ignarus fuit. Unde pluribus 
et foedis erroribus scatet, fictisque narrationibus plenus 
est, et enormem rituum doctrinarumque antiquitatem 
venditat. Et quod ad chronologiam spectat, succes- 
sionis ordinem non semel perturbat, annosque ponti- 
ficum nulla certitudine, summa negligentia vel inscitia 
tradit, et quicquid de eorura annis, qui ante Liberium 
sedebant, boni habet, illud ex vetustiori scriptore 
hausit, et male plerumque expressit. Scriptorem autem 
vetustiorem ilium non alium fuisse censeo, quam auc- 
torem veteris Catalogi, per Cuspinianum primo editi. 
Hunc primum catalogum, quod ad rem chronologicam 
spectat, exprimere conatus est auctor secundi catalogi 
sive libri pontificalis ; quod ex certissimis conjecturis 
colligi posse videtur. Nam cum primi catalogi auctor 
omnium a S. Petro usque ad Liberium episcoporum 
tempora per consules tradidisset, secundi, sive libri 
pontificalis, auctor, iisdem fere consulibus usque ad 
eundem Liberium utitur. Et cum primus ille in Li- 
berio desineret, et quia eo vivente scriptus est, initium 
ejus pontificatus tantum describere potuit, " a con- 
" sulibus Constantio V. et Constantio Caesare," secundi 
auctor absurde satis inquit, " Fuit temporibus Con- 
" stantii usque ad Constantium Augustum vn." Nam 
cum primi catalogi auctor consules, sub quibus mortuus 



CAP. xii. Quaf.de dignus Liber Pontificalis. 423 

est, non addidit, qui erant Lupicinus et Jovinus, sub 
imperio Valentiniani et Valentis; utque tarn abrupte 
duce suo destitutes in Liberio defecit ; sic post Li- 
beriura per annos fere CLX. usque ad Joannem papam 
nullos consules nominavit, cum a Constantio vn. ad 
consulatum Maximi, sub quo Joannes sedere dicitur, 
anni intercesserint CLXVIII. Praeterea ubi auctor se- 
cundi hujus catalogi priraum, quod ad consules attinet, 
sequitur, tarn absurde id facit, ut simul et prioris 
simiam se profiteatur, et inscitiam suam prodat. Nam 
cum primi catalogi auctor S. Petrum vixisse post as- 
censionem Domini annos tantum xxv. tradidisset, auc 
tor libri pontificum eundem apostolum anno post 
passionem Domini xxxvui. passum esse docuit; et 
tamen Lino ejus successori eosdem Coss. tribuit, quos 
prior tribuerat. Et rursus cum prior Lino Clementem, 
Clementi Cletum successisse tradidisset, posterior Lino 
Cletum, Cleto Clementem successisse docuit ; et tamen 
mira securitate vel stupiditate potius eosdem utrique 
consules assignavit, quos prior assignaverat : imo Cle 
mentem ex primo tradit sedisse usque Vespasiano vn. 
et Tito, hoc est, an. Dom. LXXVI, quern tamen statim 
ex Hieronymo scribit obiisse tertio Trajani, id est, an. 
Dom. centesimo. Ex his aliisque hujus generis 111. 
annalium Conditor conjecit librum a diversis aucto- 
ribus scriptum fuisse, ego potius libri auctorem unum 
fuisse, et duos auctores sine judicio sequutum esse, 
auctorem scilicet primi catalogi, et Eusebii in Chronico 
interpretem Hieronymum : adeoque sententias de tem- 
poribus pontificum plane diversas atque dissentaneas 
commiscuisse. Denique ne eum quidem catalogum 
primum integrum vidit, sed ut opinor alicubi eodem 
modo mutilum et mancum, quemadmodum nos eum 
nunc habemus: quod vel ex illis colligere licet, quae 



424 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

quasi de Hygino et Pio scripta videntur. Ubi supplevit 
locum misere affectum sine ullo judicio, et consules 
notissimos duos Augustos, quos non intellexit, omisit : 
quam rem latius in secunda Dissertatione tractabimus. 
Cum igitur libri pontificalis auctor tempora priorum 
pontificum ex primo catalogo desumserit, et plerumque 
male expresserit, et cum iis alia plane dissona miscuerit, 
siqua primorum temporum certitude a Latinis ex- 
pectanda sit, ea ex primo catalogo eruenda erit. De 
quo nunc agendum. 



CAP. XIII. 

I. De primo catalogo per Cuspinianuraet Bucherium edito. II. Mag- 
ni faciendus, si quidem iucorruptum haberemus. III. Quails hodie 
extat non ubique fide dignus. IV. Binse Baronii regulae refel- 
luntur. In primis Ecclesiae Roman* traditionibus, Graecis potius 
acquiescendum, quam ipsis Romania. Nee ullam faciunt, hac in 
causa, fidem adjecti, nullo tamen idoneo teste, Coss. V. Refellitur 
Heinschenii conjectura Anterum prioris partis auctorem statuentis 
usque ad Urbanum. VI. Anterum prioris partis auctorem fuisse 
non est verisimile. 

I. "pRIMUM inter Latinos Catalogum Romanorura 
J- Pontificum eum fuisse omnino censeo, quern Cus- 
pinianus commentariis per partes et sparsim suis inser- 
tum edidit : de quo ille hoec ad annum U. C. DCCLXXXI. 
habet, " Oblatum est mihi pervetus opusculum anonymi 
" auctoris, quo pontifices maximi, sub quibus consu- 
" libus fuerint, enumerantur ; in eo ita scribitur, Im- 
" perante Tiberio Caesare passus est Dominus noster, 
" &c." Idem opusculum, ut apparet, ex codice paulo 
integriori a Bollando sibi communicato edidit ^Egidius 
Bucherius in commentario ad Victorii Canonem Pas- 
chalem, et post eum nuperrime Heinschenius in diatriba 
praeliminari ad Acta Sanctorum Aprilis*. Hunc catalo- 



B Dodwellus in Dissertatione " pater." Unde id sibi notum 

sua, c. xiii. mentione facta de habuerit, non video, cum Hein- 

hujus catalogi editione Buche- schenii editionem a Bucheriana 

riana, " quam quidem editionem" diversam passim in hoc capite 

ait " solam viderat eruditissimus citat Pearsonus. 



426 De Successione primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

gum proculdubio exprimere conatus est secundi cata 
log], sive libri pontificurn auctor. 

II. His observationibus prsemissis auctorem secundi 
catalogi neminem, quern in assignandis consulibus se- 
queretur, nisi illius catalogi auctorem habuisse sine 
controversia patebit. Siqua igitur apud Latinos chro- 
nologos certitude istorum temporum haberi posse vi- 
deatur, non aliunde quam ex isto vetustiori catalogo 
petenda erit : ut nos cum Petavio, Bucherio, et Hem- 
schenio judicamus. Enimvero eum magni nunc pretii 
esse fateor, et si unquam integer et incorruptus pro- 
dierit, multo pluris faciendum fore : neque dubitandum 
mini videtur, quin propter liunc catalogum speciosum 
Damasi nomen libro pontificum primo inditum sit. 
Quam vis enim non ab ipso, illius tamen aetate scriptus est 
hie catalogus sub pontificatu Liberii,cui successit Dama- 
sus. Fuit igitur ejus auctor ipso Hieronymo paulo anti- 
quior. Non placet tamen lemma illud ab Heinschenio 
praefixum, " Elogium ex catalogo priore a S. Damaso ad 
" S. Hieronymum misso." Hoc enim ex duabus epistolis, 
quas praefixit, tantum collegit; eas auteni fictas esse 
sciunt eruditi : neque quicquam ad earum defensio- 
nem affert, prseter duas alias epistolas illis similes, 
quas Sarazanius inter opera Damasi edidit, cum etiam 
illas jamdudum supposititias et ineptissimas ^pronuntia- 
verit Bellarminus. 

III. Huic tamen catalogo tarn vetusto, primo inter 
Latinos, sed post Eusebianum Graecum nato, et in 
ipsa Romana Ecclesia ante Latinam Eusebii versionem 
edito, (quod omnino observandum est,) in digerendis 
annis Romas episcoporum haud temere fidendum esse 
arbitror. Observat quidem Valesius non semel, annos 
pontificum a Callisto usque ad Liberium in hoc catalogo 
optime digestos esse ; quod tamen usquequaque verum 



CAP. xiii. Primus Catalogue Latinorum quando scriptus. 427 

esse non puto. Nam annos pontificum, sub quibus 
floruit S. Cyprianus, male digestos esse constat, quod 
fortasse ex libelli corruptione contigit: verum ante 
Callisti pontificatum non tantum codex mancus et 
mutilus est ; sed etiam si suppleatur, mil lam in his 
rebus certitudinem parere potest. Queritur Heinsche- 
nius Bucherium "non parum fuliginis" huic primo 
catalogo " adjecisse, dum eum, quern confusiorem et 
" vitiosum judicabat, non satis aestimavit." Sed haec 
mihi querela nimis injusta videtur; neque ille qui 
alterum accusat, eum catalogum aut minus confusum, 
aut minus vitiosum reddidit ediditque. Nam auctor 
ipse quisquis fuit nullis adminiculis suffultus, nulla 
tabularum auctoritate nixus, prioribus episcopis consu- 
les tanquam conjector tantum tribuisse deprehenditur ; 
illisque male dispositis, cum ad Hygini, Pii, et Aniceti 
tempora pervenisset, in tantas angustias redactus est, ut 
quid scriberet, non haberet. Quid quod SS. Petrum et 
Paulum simul passos esse docet, primo Neronis anno, 
coss. Nerone et Vetere, quod et Actis Apostolorum 
a S. Luca conscriptis aperte contradicit, et omnes fere 
S. Pauli epistolas antevertit ? Legitur quidem in codice 
Bucheriano " usque Nervae et Veri," sed mendose, ut 
notat Bucherius ipse ; neque enim tale par consulum 
in fastis reperitur. Heinschenius edidit " usque Nervae 
" et Vestini," contra fidem sui codicis, contra codicem 
Cuspiniani, contra mentem auctoris catalogi, qui xxv. 
tantum annos numerat a consulatu Vinicii et Longini, 
ab eo autem consulatu ad Nervam et Vestinum coss. 
anni sunt xxxv. Et consules, quos proxime solenni 
more nominat, non sunt Paulinus et Telesinus, qui 
Nervae et Vestino successerunt, sed Saturninus et 
Scipio, qui Neronem et Veterem secuti sunt. Alibi 
etiam male in catalogo Bucheriano scribitur *' Veri" pro 



428 De Successions primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

" Veteris," ut in Euaristo, " a consulatu Valentis et 
" Veri," Fulvii scilicet Valentis et Antistii Veteris, 
unde etiam apud Pseudo-Isidorum ex meliori codice 
nomen Veteris retinetur. Recte igitur ad mentem auc- 
toris, " usque Neronis et Veteris" ex codice Cuspiniani 
edidit Bucherius, sed pessime illis consulibus Petrum 
et Paulum passes esse tradit auctor illius catalogi, cum 
S. Paulus eo anno Romam nondum vidisset, et multse 
Pauli Epistolae turn scriptae non sint. 

IV. Reliqua non opus est hoc loco persequi, quse 
postea commodius et particularius perpendentur : ex 
his autem, et ex iis quse nunc omittenda censui, quia 
postea dicentur, satis patebit non esse huic catalogo 
ubique credendum : nam quod ex duabus regulis a 
Baronio praescribi solitis deducere conatur Heinsche- 
nius, vim nullam habet. Quippe regula prima, " Quod 
" in his, quse sunt Ecclesiae Romanae, major fides sit 
" adhibenda ejus alumnis, quam caeteris," ab ipso Ba 
ronio minime observata est ; sed ad unum Cletum 
statuminandum, cum aliud nullurn argumentum suppe- 
teret, usurpata est ; neque hie locum habere potest, 
cum nullus Ecclesiae Romanae alumnus per tria priora 
secula, quicquam scripsisse, quod hanc rem spectat, 
perhibeatur; nisi Caium excipias, quern Grace scrip 
sisse novimus, sed et Ecclesiae Romance presbyterum 
fuisse, et Cletum ab Anacleto minime distinxisse alibi 
probamus. Alii vero nonnulla prodidere, nominatis 
Romae episcopis, sub quibus ipsi vixere ; quales fue- 
runt viri prseclari Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Dionysius, 
Bacchylides, non Romanae, sed Graecae Ecclesiae alumni. 
Et hie observatione dignum est, quod ego ex verbis 
Irenaei de Romana Ecclesia et alumnis ejus colligo, 
lib. iii. c. 3. ubi de Romanorum episcoporum succes- 
sione agit, " Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentio- 



CAP. xni. De primo Pontificum Catalogo. 429 

" rem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire 
" ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in 
" qua semper ab bis qui sunt undique, conservata est 
" ea quae est ab apostolis traditio." Conservatam 
enim docet traditionem ab apostolis in ea ecclesia, ab 
his qui sunt undique, cnro TU>V iravrayofav, Gloss. Travra- 
Xo'flev, undique, quorum scilicet ipse Irenaeus unus fuit. 
Cum autem traditionem apostolorum per successionem 
episcoporum ad sua usque tempora derivatam fuisse 
scribit, non tarn ab ipsis Romanae Ecclesiae alumnis, 
quam ab iis qui ex regionibus convenire solebant, succes 
sionem illam tune temporis observatam esse mihi vide- 
tur asserere. Ut igitur Gra?ci, quales erant Polybius, 
Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Plutarchus et Dio Cassius 
optime historiam Romanam digessisse creduntur, neque 
Romanorum quisquam cum iis conferendus esse videatur, 
qui exteri erant ; adeo ut " Livius ingens pellibus 
" exiguis arctari" facile potuisset, si ilia excerperentur, 
quae ex Poly bio aliisque Gnecis scriptoribus hausit : 
sic et mihi Graeci auctores in Ecclesia, qui ad Roma 
nam urbem "propter potentiorem principalitatem un- 
" dique convenerunt," successionem episcoporum et 
historiam rerum gestarum accuratius observasse et 
conservasse videntur, quam ipsi alumni in ea urbe 
nati, et educati Christiani; qui eo temporis tractu 
propter fidem celebres, propter doctrinam, aut litera- 
rum scientiam non adeo praeclarum testimonium nacti 
sunt. Facessat igitur prima Baronii regula, quae ipsum 
adeo abreptum tenuit, ut sententiam de natali anno 
Christi in priori editione a se promulgatam in posteriori 
revocaverit, "Cassiodoro potius acquiescens," quern ut 
sequeretur illud "maxime persuasit, quod homo Ro- 
" manus esset." Et secunda regula, " Quod tempora 
" adnumerata per consules libentioribus sint accipienda 



430 De Successions primorum Homes Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

" auribus," huic causee non favet, et a Baronio male 
posita est. Nemo enim unquam earn regulam saepius 
transgressus, nemo tarn ssepe fastos consulares turba- 
vit, et ad suam sententiam detorsit. " Vetera quidem 
" monumenta," ut ait ille, " consulibus consignata" mag- 
nam certitudinem pariunt ; quia ipsis monumentis con- 
sulum nomina adscripta sunt, quae ipsum annum, quo 
scripta sunt, signabant, quern ignorare, qui scripserunt, 
non potuere : si autem rebus ipsis gestis quispiam 
nimia diligentia consules apponat, quarum ipse ex 
longinquitate temporis non satis gnarus fuit, uomina 
consulum apposita nullam rebus ipsis auctoritatem 
arcessere possunt. Nos autem asserimus auctorem 
primi catalogi nullam temporum priorum pontificum 
certitudinem acquisivisse, aut Romas tune cum scribe- 
ret acquirere potuisse ; et hujus ignorantiae multa speci- 
mina edidisse. Unde assignatio consulum illis adhibita, 
quorum successioriem et tempora nescivit, plenam a 
nobis fidem extorquere non potest. 

V. Fateor equidem aliquid nuperrime ab Hein- 
schenio excogitatum fuisse, quod seutentiae nostrae 
aperte adversatur, et ulteriorem discussionem postulat. 
Ille enim primuni catalogum in duas partes dividendum 
esse statuit, ac partem posteriorem quarto seculo scrip- 
tarn esse fatetur circa an. Dom. CCCLIV. priorem autem 
sub initio tertii seculi usque ad Urbanum pontificem, 
qui passus est an. Uom. ccxxx. ut ipse ait. Priorem 
partem ab Antero Pontiani successore scriptam fuisse 
putat, papa Romano, non quidem sub ipsius pontificatu, 
(satis caute) sed sub pontificatu Pontiani. Jam vero 
si sub pontificatu Pontiani prior catalogi pars scripta 
sit, quis ei refragari hac aetate potest? quis contra 
Anterum tarn sero de antecessoribus ejus disputare ? 
Sed haec conjectura quantum valeat inprimis viden- 



CAP. xiii. De jrrimo Pontificum Catalogo. 431 

dum. Nomen Damasi tabulis ecclesiasticis praeposi- 
tum diu Ecclesiae imposuit ; cavendum 8olicite ne An- 
teri nomen multo antiquius nunc tandem nobis impo- 
nat. Conjecturae sua; praecipuum habet fundamentum, 
quia " in priore parte nulli consules bis repetuntur, 
" in secunda passim majora pontificum elogia referun- 
" tur, iidem consules repetuntur, dies ordinationis et 
" mortis pontificum assignatur." Sed nimis infirma 
est haec observatio, quam ut ex ea argumentum sumi 
possit, quo probetur duos hos esse catalogos, a diversis 
auctoribus scriptos, quorum unus alterum praecessit 
annis ferme cxxx. Satis enim facit ad methodum 
ejusdem auctoris discriminandam, quod posteriora pon 
tificum tempora ipsi auctori notiora ex Ecclesia? monu- 
mentis fuerint quam priora. Inde enim ratio optima 
et firmissima petitur, cur dies obitus pontificum in 
posteriori parte catalogi, non autem in priori assignen- 
tur ; quia idem auctor habuit depositiones episcoporum 
et martyrum eodem tempore cum catalogo editas, 
priorum temporum depositiones non habuit. Et hsec 
clara sunt. Legimus in Catalogo de Fabiano, " Passus 
xiii. Kalendas Februarii." Pariter in Depositione Mar 
tyrum, *' Decimo tertio Kalendas Februarii Fabiani in 
*' Callisti." Rursus in Catalogo legitur de Lucio, 
" Decessit tertio Nonas Martias." Et in Depositione 
Episcoporum pariter, " Tertio Nonas Martii Lucii in 
" Callisti." Sic in Catalogo Sixtus passus esse dicitur 
viii. Idus Augusti, et in Depositione Martyrum, " Mense 
" Augusto Octavo Idus Systi in Callisti.'' Rursus in 
eodem Catalogo Dionysius sedisse dicitur " usque in 
" diem septimum Kalendas Januarii." Et in Deposi 
tione Episcoporum primo loco legimus, " Sexto Kalen- 
" das Januarias Dionysii in Callisti." Has depositiones 
episcoporum et martyrum habuit auctor qui sub Liberio 
scripsit, et ex iis dies obitus in posteriori parte su 



432 De Successions primorum Romce Episcoporum. mss. i. 

catalog! notavit : nullius episcopi ante Lucium, nullius 
martyris ante Fabianum depositionem penes se habuit ; 
solos igitur Pontianum et Anterum addidit, qui minor! 
quam annuo spatio ante pontificatum Fabiani decesse- 
rant, quorum obitus notatos aliunde hausit ; nullius 
ante eos obitus meminit, quia certam dierum quibus 
mortui sunt notitiam non habuit. 

VI. Praeterea ut priorem partem Antero ascribat 
Heinschenius, notat cum "Gesta Martyrum diligenter 
" a notariis exquisivisse, et in Ecclesia recondidisse." 
Quod primo verum esse nihil est quod suadeat. Nam 
Maximinus ipso statim imperil initio gravissimam per- 
secutionem Romae excitavit, qua intra paucos menses 
duo episcopi Romani passi sunt, Pontianus et Anterus. 
Hunc Anterum " Gesta Martyrum recondidisse'' volunt. 
Sed unde hoc habent ? A secundo scilicet catalogo, qui 
sexto seculo primum, si forte, prodiit. Cujus auctori- 
tas ut hie potissimum vacillet necesse est ; nam qui 
tradit Anterum Gesta Martyrum recondidisse, docet 
etiam eum per undecim annos pontificatum tenuisse ; 
quern uno tantum mense et decem diebus sedisse 
fatetur Heinschenius. Secundo, si daremus Anterum 
Gesta Martyrum collegisse, eo minus credibile erit, 
eundem etiam priorem catalogi partem edidisse. Nam 
si ilia ab eo diligenter collecta sunt, unde factum est 
ut in ilia opusculi parte, quae ipsi auctori ab Hein- 
schenio tribuitur, nullius martyris aut pontificis obitus 
memoretur? Certe multo verisimilius est, eum qui 
obitus episcoporum non novit, dies omisisse, quam 
eum qui Gesta Martyrum ante suam aetatem diligenter 
conquisiverat, et recondita habuit, eadem minime me- 
morasse. Quis putabit Anterum Gesta Callisti con- 
scripsisse, et diem obitus ejus in catalogo omittere volu- 
isse, cum, ipso vivente et florente Antero, non tantum 
Callistus, sed et ante eum Zephyrinus obierit ? 



CAP. XIV. 

I. Hygini, Pii atque Aniceti tempora justo serius detrudunt recepta 
hactenus rationes tarn Latinorum quam etiam Graecorum. II. 
Kx.-tunt tamen tertiae Eutychii patriarchae Alexandrini ab utrisque 
diversse. III. In quibus, ut oportuit, horum pontificum tempora 
ad anteriora promoventur. IV. Is itaque, quamvis alioqui fide 
parum dignus, hac tamen in causa, auctorem aliquem secutus 
videtur minime spernendum. 

I. /^UM igitur tempora veterum pontificum Roma- 
^J norum i nil la certa ratione, aut apud Graecos, aut 
Latinos in chronicis aut indiculis hactenus constituta 
esse reperiantur; nihil omnino hac aetate restat, nisi ut 
alia chronologiae ratio investigetur, quae et historiac 
ecclesiastics et dictis antiquissimorum Patrum maxime 
consona videatur : illis clare refutatis, quae cum dis- 
cutiuntur stare nullo modo possunt. Et quoniam hae- 
reticorum veterum historica relatio praccipue ad Hygini, 
Pii et Aniceti tempora, quod Romam spectat, ab 
antiquis refertur, horum pontificum tempora turn ex 
priorum, turn ex proxime sequentium temporibus eru- 
enda sunt. Nam si priorum pontificum aetas aequo 
justius deorsum extendatur, (de qua re maxime que- 
rimur,) et sequentium tempora, ut par est, ne usquam 
hiatus appareat, sursum promoveantur, necesse est ut 
Hygini, Pii et Aniceti aetas in arctum compingatur, 
ac pene in nihilum redigatur ; praesertim siquis post 

PEARSON, VOL. II. F f 



434 De Successione primorum Romte Episcoporum. DISS. i. 

Hygini mortem integrum vacationis quadriennium 
somniaverit. 

II. Primo igitur pontificum Hygino priorum tempora 
limitanda sunt, ut quo anno post martyrium Telesphori 
ipse ordinatus est, statuatur ; dein Soteris aetas eruenda 
est, ut quamdiu Anicetus vixerit, cognoscatur. Porro 
si fieri possit, alterius veteris indiculi vestigia quserenda 
et eruenda sunt, qui illis multo verier et historiae ec- 
clesiasticae magis conformis apparere possit. Et sane 
extat Chronicon a Latino et Grseco longe diversum, non 
diu abhinc editum, et hactenus neglectum. Nempe 
Said Ebn Batrick, patriarcha Alexandrinus, Eutychius 
vulgo appellatus, brevem historian! scripsit Arabice ab 
initio mundi usque ad an. Dom. DCCCCXXXVII. In qua 
de patriarcharum Romanorum aetatibus clare et dis- 
tincte agitur, eorumque ordinationes et exitus ad annos 
imperatorum Romanorum particulatim rediguntur. Hsec 
Eutychii Historia, dicta yfcj.il ^ noc est > Contextio 
Gemmarum, cum Latina viri doctissimi Edvardi Po- 
cockii versione Oxoniae edita est an. Dom. MDCLVIII. 

III. Cum autem ego vulgarem Romanorum ponti 
ficum praecipue priorum chronologiam valde suspectam 
haberem, eamque ad veritatem histories ecclesiastics 
reformandam esse sentirem, idque aliquo modo propria 
industria prsestitisse me putarem ; vidi Annales Eutychii 
aliam priorum Romas pontificum chronotaxin, et turn a 
Latinis turn a Graecis insigniter discrepantem exhi- 
buisse, et, quod mihi mirum videbatur, cum observa- 
tionibus meis ex historiae monumentis magno labore et 
diligentia, sine duce, sine comite deductis maxime con- 
spirantem. Unde sua hauserit Eutychius, sane nescio ; 
ab antiquiore aliquo nobis prorsus incognito ea sine 
dubio habuit, qui annos pontificum cum annis impera 
torum ad modum Chronici Eusebiani contexuerat, sed 



CAP. xiv. Eutychius quamjidem mereatwr. 435 

cum maximo ab ipso principio discrimine, turn in initio 
pontificatus Lini, tuin in annis Anacleti, ex quibus male 
dispositis reliqui errores apud Eusebium praecipue di- 
mauasse videantur. 

IV. Haud equidem ignore quid hactenus viri docti 
de Annalibus Eutychianis senserint, eorumque judi- 
ciuin video ex Labbeo recte percipi posse, qui ad 
calcem Concilii Antiocheni haec liberrime, ut solet, 
annotat. " Tarn crassi porro tamque frequentes in rebus 
" praesertim chronologicis errores Eutychianorum An- 
" nalium hoc apud erudites lectores hactenus effece- 
'* runt, ut vix unius assis aestimentur, cum ab Socrate, 
" Sozomeno, Evagrio aliisque probatis Graecis Latinis- 
" que scriptoribus dissentiunt." Neque ego ab hac 
sententia multum dissentio. Ut enim in Vindiciis 
Ignatianis late ostendi % erat hie Batricides veteris 
historiae valde ignarus, neque cum priorum seculorum 
scriptoribus ipse decimi seculi scriptor conferendus. 
Sed non dubito quin auctorem vetustiorem aliquem in 
chronologicis habuerit quern secutus est. Hujus itaque 
vestigia eruenda, et in iis temporibus tantummodo 
premenda esse censui ; quorum neque Graecorum ve- 
terum neque Latinomm quisquam satis certam noti- 
tiam habuisse deprehenditur. In summa, hujus Euty- 
chii auctoritate haud leviter confirmatus, sed observa- 
tionibus nostris ex historia veteri ecclesiastica petitis 
praecipue fretus, prioribus Romae episcopis annos suos, 
eo qui sequitur modo. in posteriori Dissertatione tri- 
buendos esse putavi. 

Vind. Ign. P. L c. x. p. 171. ed. 1671. 



rf 2 



DISSERTATIO POSTERIOR 

DE 

ANNIS PRIMORUM ROMS EPISCOPORUM SIGILLAT1M, EX 

VETUSTIS HISTORIC ECCLESIASTICS MONU- 

MENTIS, ET RECEPTA ARABUM CHRO- 

NOLOGIA RECTIUS DISPONENDISa. 



CAP. I. 

I. In catalogo successionis id imprimis curandum est, ne aut falsi 
inserantur, aut veri e catalogo excludantur episcopi. II. Cletus 
male in catalogum intrusus. Eum non agnovit Ignatius. III. 
Non agnovit Irenaeus, non Caius, non Eusebius, &c. nee vere 
Epiphanius. IV. Sed nee in ecclesia Latina Cyprianus, Optatus, 
Augustinus, Hieronymus, aliique vetustissimi. V. Discrepant 
inter se qui Cletum intrudunt, quo tandem ordine fuerit inseren- 
dus. VI. Gesta Cleti et Anacleti invicem diversa pro arbitrio 
conficta. VII. Erroris occasio. 

I. TN hac posteriori Dissertatione idem mihi pro- 
JL positum est, quod vetustissimi catalogi auctor 
sibi proposuit ; ut scilicet ostendam " per successionem 
" quis episcopus et quot annis praefuit, vel quo im- 
" peratore." Hoc autem fieri non potest, nisi habea- 

a Hoc lemma reliquimus, ut neque eo nomine Eutychii ra 
in editione Dodwelli scriptum tiones dignatus est ; quibus neque 
reperimus ; ease vero Dodwelli, ullam auctoritatem tribuit, nisi in 
non Pearsoni, arbitror ; cum quantum " ex vetustis ecclesias- 
Pearsonus nihil habet de "re- " ticse historise monumentis" con- 
" cepta Arabum Chronologia," firmentur. 



CAP. i. Cletus non alius ab Anacleto. 437 

mus definitum et certum numerum episcoporum qui in 
antiquissima successions tabula repraesentabantur. Nam 
si aliqua persona admittatur, quae ab initio in ea non 
continebatur, aut aliqua inde excludatur quae ab ex- 
ordio adraissa est, ut manifesta temporum perturbatio 
inde oriatur necesse erit. Quippe quotcunque anni 
episcopo extra ordinem inserto tribuuntur, totidem 
episcopus ille, qui ejus locum occupare debuit, ordine 
suo detrusus ad inferiora tempora deprimetur, succes- 
soresque suos loco suo dimovebit, ac in sequiora 
tempora pariter detrudet. Et eodem modo quotcunque 
anni episcopo e vera successionis tabula excluso as- 
signati fuerant, totidem sequeus episcopus ad superiora 
tempora evehetur, successoresque suos secum ad al- 
tiorem locum efferet. Quocirca praecipue curandum 
est, ne episcopi Romani in successionis tabula rite ab 
initio positi suo loco dimoveantur, et aut per indebitam 
extranei 'cujuspiam intrusionem deorsum premantur, 
aut per injustam veri pontificis exclusionem sursum 
evehantur. Cujus observationis summa necessitas ab 
ipso initio statim apparebit. 

II. Ac priores quidem quatuor hi passim numerantur, 
Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anacletus; et eorum tempora 
ad an. Dom. cxi. a Baronio, ad ex. a Petavio et Labbeo 
extenduntur, gravi, opinor, avurropijcriQ ; utpote quae 
vetustissimorum temporum et sequentium rationes 
prorsus conturbaverit, et plurium errorum in historia 
ecclesiastica foecunda mater extiterit. Nam primo, 
quatuor hi pontifices revera tres tantum sunt ; Cletus 
et Anacletus ejusdem hominis nomen diversimode 
prolatum. Recte Valesius, " Cletus ex mutilato Anen- 
" cleti vocabulo fictus mihi videtur." Verum hoc esse 
multa sunt, quae persuadent : et quidem si S. Ignatius 
idem docuisset, quod vult Halloixius, alio argumento 



438 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

non egeremus ; sed quse ex Epistola ad Mariam Cas- 
tabalitin ille adduxit, spuria esse certo cognoscuntur ; 
nee omnino quicquam probant, cum tarn Grseca, quam 
Latina nomina in illius epistolae codicibus MSS. varie 
legantur. De qua lectionum varietate suo loco di- 
cemus. 

III. Nam cum priores Romae episcopos perspicui- 

tatis gratia per tetradas considerandos esse dtiximus, 

in primo omnium quaternione hujus observationis uti- 

litatem maximam perspeximus. Quippe quatuor pon- 

tifices post S. Petrum et ante Euaristum vulgo com- 

memorantur, et numerus ille non tantum diserte et ex 

professo statuitur, sed etiam prsefracte a chronologis 

maximi nominis defenditur. Primus omnium, quos 

nunc habemus, successionis horum episcoporum memi- 

nit rerum ecclesiasticarum curiosissimus indagator 

Irenseus, apud quern hoc numero et ordine collocantur, 

" Linus, Anencletus, Clemens," lib. iii. cap. 3. et 

Clementi mox Euaristus successisse dicitur. Post apo- 

stolos igitur et ante Euaristum tres tantummodo Romae 

pontifices agnovit Irenseus, qui tanta secundi seculi 

parte in ecclesia occidentali floruit, et tarn frequens 

cum episcopis Romanis commercium habuit, et Hege- 

sippo harum rerum maxime curioso suppar fuit ; a quo 

denique successionem Romanam, viri turn secundi, turn 

tertii seculi, turn sequentium temporum doctissimi tan- 

quam certain et indubitatam tarn in occidente quam in 

oriente receperunt. Irenseo consonus est Anonymus, 

sive Caius, apud Eusebium lib. v. cap. 28. ipsi suppar, 

et Romanse Ecclesise presbyter, qui adversus Artemonis 

haeresin sub Zephyrino scripsit. Ille enim Cletum et 

Anacletum non distinxit, qui dixit Victorem fuisse post 

Petrum xm. cum affirmet hsereticos ab apostolis ac- 

ceptam et conservatam aXjOeiav tradidisse 



CAP. i. Cletus non aliut db Anacleto. 439 

B//CTODO9 ^ooj/tov, o? rjv TpuTKaiSeicaTOS CLTTO llerpov ev 
'Puny eirto-KOTros. Hunc " anonymum" vocat Blondellus, 
cum constet eum Caium fuisse, eumque ut a Caio 
distinguat, quern sub Antonino filio Severi scripsisse, 
dixit Hieronymus, sub Victore ea scripsisse affirmat, 
quod aperte falsum est. Nam verbis proxime sequen- 
tibus, OTTO <Je TOW SiaSo-^ov avrov Ze(f>vpivov TrapaK"^apa- 
xOai rtjv aXqOeiav, idem auctor eosdem haereticos tradit 
affirmasse " a Zephyrino Victoris successore adulte- 
" ratam fuisse veritatem ;" quae verba scribi non po- 
tuerunt sub Victore, sed vel sub Zephyrino, vel Ze- 
phyrini successore. Praeterea cum in prima pericope 
ab Eusebio excerpta meminisset Theodoti coriarii 
a Victore excommunicati, in secunda pericope dis- 
cipulorum ejus meminit Asclepiodoti et alterius Theo 
doti, qui Natalem presbyterum suae sectae episcopum 
constituerant, qui rediens ad ecclesiam ad pedes Ze- 
phyrini episcopi sese abjecit ; et rursus in tertia peri 
cope, alios etiam duos condiscipulos addit, Hermo- 
philum et Apollonidem, hosque omnes prioris Theo 
doti discipulos edidisse tradit varia S. Scripturae 
exemplaria, et veritati et sibiipsis contraria. Haec 
igitur vel sub extremis Zephyrini temporibus vel paulo 
post scripta sunt. Et quin idem hie scriptor fuerit qui 
sub Antonino Severi filio disputationem cum Proculo 
Montanista iniit, nempe Caius, dubitari non debet. 
Quamvis enim Eusebius nee nomen auctoris nee libri 
titulum ex quo excerpta verbatim transcripsit, com- 
memoret, titulum tamen libri cognoscimus nucpov \a- 
ftuptvOov fuisse. Nam non tantum Nicephorus lib. iv. 
cap. 20. affirmat TOV /uticpov eiptjfjLevov \a@vpivQov redar- 
guisse absurditatem Artemonis et Theodoti quern 
beatus Victor depugnavit ; sed et Theodoretus Hae- 
reticarum Fabularum lib. ii. cap. 5. trium pericoparum 



440 De Annis primorum Homes Episcoporum. DISH. 11. 

apud Eusebium summam ex parvo Labyrintho deducit, 
de Theodoto agens. Parvum autem hunc Labyrinthum 
Photius codice XLVIII. Talov ir6vrnj.a agnoscit, rfj a\ij- 
Oeia avTov a-vvrera^oro^ " quod revera ille composuit," 
qui et SiaXefyv contra Proculum Montanistam edidit 8 . 
Hunc Caium turn Eusebius turn Photius Romanae 
Ecclesia? presbyterum fuisse asserunt. Habemus igitur 
Romanae Ecclesiae alumnum, qui asseruit Victorem 
episcopum Romas decimum tertium, adeoque Cletum 
ex numero pontificum rejecit, fatente Blondello, quique 
longe antiquior fuit alio quocunque Ecclesiae Romanae 
alumno qui duos nobis Cletum et Anacletum protulit. 
Neque ille " vestigiis Irenaei institisse" dicendus est, 
qui cum vir esset doctissimus ut ex ipsius scriptis patet, 
et in urbe ipsa viveret presbyteratus ordine insignitus, 
episcoporum Romanorum successionem, eorumque ve- 
rum numerum, non minus quam Irenaeus, cognitum et 
perspectum proculdubio babuit. Irenieo etiam con- 
sentit Eusebius turn in Chronico turn in Historia ; et 
Eusebium sequuntur Graeci omnes, Pseudo-Ignatius, 
qui Graecorum primus post Epiphanium in Epistola ad 
Trallianos interpolata episcoporum hujus successionis 
nominatim meminit, Georgius Syncellus, Indiculi Nice- 
phoro patriarchse tributi auctor, Photius, Nicephorus 
Callistus : nee, quod ad hanc rem spectat, dissentit 
Epiphanius, qui tres tantum hie cum Irenaeo agnoscit, 
quamvis Anencletum, Cletum vocet : imo quern Cletum 
prius vocaverat, postea cum successionem enumerat, 
Anencletum vocasse videtur. "O/xw? % rwv ev 'Pu>^ 
ravniv l^et TTJV aKoXovOiav, Tler/oo? KOI 



a Eadem fere de Caio anno- deris. De Proculo, sive Proclo, 

tavit Valesius ad loc. Eusebii. vid. Euseb. Hist. vi. 20. et supra 

Cui quse reponunt recentiores Dissert, i. c. vii. 4. 
quidam critici, nihil habent pon- 



CAP. i. Cletus non alius ab Anadeto. 441 



ITauXo?, Aii/of KOI KXJJrof, KXtf/uj;?, Eudpeoro?. Ubi 
non male Cotelerius KOI redundare observavit ; sed ego 
potius mendum esse puto, et pro /ecu KXiJroy legendum 
esse 'Ave-y/cXirroy. Ubi enim ea tradit Epiphanius, quce 
in Commentariis quibusdam viderat, Cletum appellat ; 
cum autem statim ad sententiam Eusebii redeat, sine 
dubio eodem nomine Anencletum appellare voluit. 

IV. Inter Latinos eundem numerum servant in 
Africana ecclesia S. Cyprianus, Optatus et Augustinus 
in Epistola ad Generosum, licet in uno codice Vaticano 
haec addantur, " Lino Cletus, Cleto Clemens," ut tes- 
tantur nuperi editores, cui cseteri MSS. refragantur. 
Eundem in Gallia Prosper, in Romana Ecclesia S. Hie- 
ronymus, et ut diximus Caius ; inter Arabas Eutychius ; 
in Ecclesia Hispanica Pseudo-Dexter. Et tametsi 
veteris catalogi auctor cum secundo catalogo, sive 
Libro Pontificum, et Pseudo-Tertulliano, Cletum et 
Anacletum tanquam duos pontifices nominet ; Valesius 
tamen testatur se duos vetustissimos indices sive cata- 
logos vidisse, in quibus nulla fit Anacleti mentio, sed 
soli us Cleti. Quibus concordat ipse Canon Missse, qui 
Lini, Cleti et Clementis meminit, nulla Anacleti men- 
tione facta. Nee non vetus Litania Ordinis Romani, 
" S. Line, S. Clete, S. Clemens, ora pro nobis." Et 
nuperrime Joannes Mabillon in egregio opere, De Re 
Diplomatica, specimen scripturae seculi vi. ex vetusto 
catalogo Romanorum Pontificum qui in Vigilio desinit, 
nobis exhibuit : 

Petrus sedit annos xx. mens. n. dies in. 

Linus sedit an. xi. mens. in. d. xn. 

Clytus sedit an. xn. mens. i. d. n. 

Climens sedit an. ix. mens. x. d. I. 

Euaristus sedit an. vm. mens. x. d. n. 
Ubi nulla mentio Anacleti tanquam pontificis a Cleto 



442 De Annis primorum Momce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

diversi. Idem etiam aliud specimen scriptures seculi 
vin. ex indice affert qui desiriit in Joanne VI, et deest, 
inquit, in illo indice Anacletus. Quod nunc omnibus 
apparet, postquam uterque index inter Vetera Analecta 
ab eo editus est, quorum posterior sic incipit : 

Linus sedit annos xn. menses v. dies xn. 

Cletus sedit an. vin. mens. n. d. v. 

Clemens sedit an. vi. mens. I. d. xiv. 

Euaristus sedit an. xiv. mens. in. d. xn. 
Viderint igitur qui in breviariis reprsesentant Cletum 
Romanum de regione quinta, Anacletum vero Atheni- 
ensem : et qui Marty rologium Romanum tantopere 
praedicant, quod agit de Cleto Aprilis xxvi. de Ana- 
cleto Julii xn. 

V. Praeterea primi illi scriptores, qui quatuor pon- 
tifices ex tribus fecere, de ordine successionis nunquam 
convenire potuerunt. In Catalogo Bucheriano hoc 
ordine quatuor recensentur, " Linus, Clemens, Cletus, 
" Anacletus ;" in catalogo secundo et Libro Pontificum 
alio, " Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anacletus;" apud 
Pseudo-Tertullianum rursus alio, " Linus, Cletus, Ana- 
" cletus, Clemens." Unde apud posteriores Graecos, 
qui de martyrio dementis scripsere, nunc T^O/TO? r>?9 

'Ptoftaitov eKK\rj<ria$ Trpoea-rr] SCribitur, liunc SevTepos, Ut 

observat Cotelerius. Qui etiam triplicem lectionem 
notat in Clementina Epitome, Tpiros, Sevrepos, Trpwros. 
Et caute satis Primasius seculi sexti scriptor, in Prse- 
fatione ad Commentarios meminit " dementis discipuli 
" apostolorum, et post eos episcopi Romanse Ecclesioa 
" ordinati." Nam haec incertitude ordinis in succes- 
sione quarto seculo introducta, et quinto sextoque 
continuata, magnam confusionem peperit turn in Graecis 
codicibus ex eo tempore descriptis, turn in eorum 
versionibus postea factis. Cujus exemplum memorabile 



CAP. I. Cletus non alius ab Anacleto. 443 

extat in Epistola Pseudo-Iguatii ad Mariam Casta- 
balensem, ^Enrep-^erat of pot \eyetv, ori aXijOivos IJLOL Xo'yos', 
ov %Kov<Ta Trepi (rou, on oua-ris <rov ev Ty 'Poj/xp irapa TO> 
fjiOKapiu) Traira 'Ave'yffX^TW, ov oifoefcaTO TO vvv 6 a^tofJLa- 
KapKTTOS KXiJ/uj/9 6 \\erpov KOI IlayXou aKOVo-Trj?. Nam 

pro hoc 'Ai/ey/cXi/Toj non tantum in Augustano codice 
legitur ' Ai/ay/cXjJrw, in Leicestrensi ' Ai/a/cXjyra), sed etiam 
in Mediceo AJ/V&) vel AtVy legitur. Vulgatus Interpres 
habet Anacletum, vel Anencletum, vetus Cletum. Ita 
in uno loco triplex dementis decessor babetur, Linus, 
Cletus, Anacletus, ex varia scilicet sententia librariorum 
aut interpretum. Quamvis igitur de Cleto ab Anacleto 
pontifice distincto valde soliciti sint Baronius et Blon- 
dellus, et nuperrime Heinschenius, his tamen diutius 
immorari minime necesse est ; cum jam viri doctissimi 
Halloixius, Carolus a S. Paulo, H. Valesius, Cotelerius, 
et Natalis Alexander per ista duo nomina unicum 
tantum pontificem intelligi debere doceant. 

VI. Neque audiendus est hie Onuphrius, qui nullo 
pacto audiendos esse vult auctores tarn Graecos quam 
Latinos, qui Cletum cum Anacleto confundunt, quia 
Cletum ab Anacleto diversum nomine, patre, patria, 
rebus gestis, mortis tempore et die referunt Damasus 
et traditio. Nam quae traduntur de patre, patria 
et rebus gestis, non sunt a Damaso, sed ab auctore 
secundi catalogi, sub seculo sexto confecti, nulla his- 
toriae fide aut probabilitate subnixa ; et diversitas 
dierum obitus a martyrologis pro arbitrio excogitata 
est, ne paparum ullum omitterent; illique cum duos 
dies quasi duobus martyribus assignassent Aprilis xxvi. 
et Julii xn. vel. xin. utroque die alii Cletum, alii 
Anacletum celebrant : adeo apud eos omnia incerta et 
confusa. Quis euim putet patrem et patriam, et dies 
obitus eorum pontificum cuipiam post quadringentos et 
amplius annos innotuisse, de quibus nihil veterum quis- 



444 De Annis primorum Momce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

quam scripsisse cognoscitur ? '* Magnum autem," inquit 
Heinschenius, " nobis videtur pond us adferri ex antiquis 
" missalibus et breviariis Romania ;" sed ea mihi nullius 
ponderis sunt ; quippe eorum lectiones plerumque ex 
Libro Pontifical! excerptae sunt, adeoque auctoritatem 
omnem, siquam habent, ab illo mutuantur. 

VII. Hoc tantum addo, quod origo hujus erroris 
Cletum et Anacletum, tanquam duos pontifices in 
Catalogo nominandi, hsec mihi fuisse videatur. Cy- 
prianus Irenaeum secutus dixerat Hyginum, " qui in 
" urbe nonus fuit," intelligens Petrurn fuisse episcopum 
primum ; illi Latini, qui Irenaeana nesciebant, et Linuni 
primum Romse episcopum numerare solebant, coacti 
sunt septem distinctos pontifices inter Linum et Hy 
ginum ponere. Quos cum invenire non potuerunt, et 
Anencletum nomen inusitatum jam ante in Cletum 
converterant, Cleto Anacletum addiderunt, sicque se 
numerum, quern Cypriauus exhibuerat, optime implesse 
putaverunt. Petrum enim tantum cathedram posuisse 
et in ea sedisse, Linum autem tanquam episcopum 
primum in ea sedisse docuerunt. Incertus auctor sub 
nomine Tertulliani, lib. 3. 

" Hac cathedra Petrus qua sederat ipse, locatum 
" Maxima Roma Linum primum considere jussit : 
" Post quern Cletus et ipse gregem suscepit ovilis." 

Ex hoc autem ordine Cleto Anacletum adjungit, 
Alexandrum sextum, Hyginum denique nonum ap- 
pellat, cum an tea Linum primum appellasset. Ubi 
obiter notanda est magna Baronii hallucinatio, qui cum 
hanc Tertulliani simiam pro vero Septimio haberi voluit, 
ad hunc ejus locum statim subdit : " Haec ille numerans 
" Romanes pontifices ad Anicetum tantum, quando 
" opus illud ipse Tertullianus scribebat, quo tempore 
" Marcion Romam ad Anicetum venitV 

c Vid. Baronii Annal. torn. i. p. 743. 



CAP. II. 

I. Intruso Cleto, male collocatur initium Lini. II. Linus, supersti- 
tibus etiamnum apostolis, in sede collocatus, et ante illos etiam 
mortuus. III. Idem aliunde confirmatur. 

I. T AM vero tempora trium horum pontificum vulgo 
*J ultra limites suos deorsum extenduntur, non 
taut inn, quia unius pontificis anni, qui nimquam fuit, 
a quibusdam Latinis adduntur; sed etiam quia Lini 
initium cum Eusebio ponunt, ubi finis pontificatus 
ejus poni debuerat : quod temporis spatium primo male 
positum, et mox supposititio pontifici additum, immane 
chronicon duaprniJ-a. de quo diximus peperit. Lini 
pontificatum a morte S. Petri incepisse volunt turn 
Eusebius et Syncellus, turn Theodoretus ad 2 Tim. iv. 
turn ex Latinis plerique recentiores, eique annos xi. 
aut xii. tribuunt, quern, vivo adhuc Petro, Romae 
sedisse, nee post ejus mortem in vivis fuisse potius 
credendum est ; aut eodem anno cum eo passum esse, 
ut vult Onuphrius, aut etiam priori, quod verisimilius 
est. 

II. Nam primo ordinationem Lini ita diserte tradit 
Irenaeus, 0e/ieAto><ravTe9 ovv Kai oiKoSonqa-avTes ol /u.aicdpioi 
a-TTOoroXoi Tt]v fKK\T)<rtav A.iva> Ttjv TV? eirt(T/co7r^9 XeiTovp- 
ytav ev-)(eipri<Tav. Vetus interpres, " Fundantes igitur 
" et instruentes beati apostoli ecclesiam Lino episco- 
" patum administrandae ecclesiae tradiderunt." Non 
meminit Irenaeus mortis apostolorum, aut ut jam prae- 
teritae, aut ut mox secuturac, cum Linus ordinaretur : 



446 De Annis primorum Roma Episcoporum. DISS. 11. 

sed cum SS. Petrus et Paulus fundarent Ecclesiam, 
Linum ei praefecerunt ; dum ipsi scilicet in alias 
regiones transcurrerent. Ut S. Epiphanius Haeresi xxvii. 
IlX7V aXXa Kai ovrws eSvvaro, ert irepiovrcov T>V aTroo-roXwv, 
(brifjii Se TWV Trepl TleTpov /ecu TLavXov, eTTKTKOTrovs aXXovs Ka- 

i, ia TO TOV$ aTrocrroXov? iroXXaKis eirt ray aXXa? 

rrjv Tropelav a-reXXearOai Sta TO Kypvy/uLa TOV XjOt- 
(TTOV, fjirj SuvacrOat $e TIJV 'Pw^ta/toi/ ir6\iv avev eTrtcr/coTrou tlvcu' 
" Veruntamen etiam sic potuerunt alii episcopi con- 
" stitui, adlmc superstitibus Petro et Paulo ; eo quod 
'* apostoli ssepe in alias provincias profecti sint, ut 
" evangelium prsedicarent, Roma autem non potuerit 
" sine episcopo esse." Eodem modo Irenaeum hie in 
terpreter, quo ipse alibi loquitur, lib. iii. cap. 1. 
*O yuei/ rj Mar^aFo? ev TO<"? 'E/3|Oa/of9 TJJ iSta diaXsKTia 
avTuiVy KOI ypcKprjv efcrjveyKev evayyeXiov, TOV TleTpov KOI 
TOV TlavXov ev 'Pco/xj? evayyeXi^o/nevcav ical Oe/u-eXiovvTonv Tt]v 
eKK\tj(fiav. Mera ^e Ttjv TOVTCOV e^oSov MajO/coy o /u.a6t]T*]S 
Koi ep/ULyvevTr)? TleTpov KOI airro? TO. VTTO TleTpov Ktjpvar- 
frofjieva, eyypa(p<a<i fj/Mv TrapaSeSioKe. Vetus interpres, 
" Ita Matthseus in Hebrseis ipsorum lingua scripturam 
" edidit Evangelii, cum Petrus et Paulus Romae evan- 
" gelizarent et fundarent ecclesiam. Post vero horum 
" discessum/' vel (ut in MS. Vossii legitur) excessum, 
" Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri, et ipse quae a 
" Petro annunciata erant, perscripta nobis tradidit." 
Unde vel oscitantia vel fraus Petavii manifesta est, qui 
lib. v. c. 5. Rationarii Temporum, " Petro a Nerone," 
inquit, " interfecto, Romanam Ecclesiam Linus regen- 
" dam suscepit, ut antiqui scriptores asserunt ; quibus 
" suffragatur vetus Indiculus Romanorum pontificum 
" Liberii tempore contextus, quern penes nos habe- 
M mus :" nam inter antiques eos scriptores numerat 
Irenaeum, qui tamen non " Petro a Nerone interfecto 



CAP. ii. Linus, vivis Apostolis, Episcopatu decessit. 447 

" Romanam Ecclesiam regendam suscepisse Linum," 
sed Petmm et Paulum Lino episcopatum tradidisse 
scribit ; et in hac re non Eusebio, sed Irenaeo consen- 
tire veterem Indiculum certum est, qui Linum mor- 
tuum esse tradit Capitone et Rufo coss., hoc est, an. 
Dom. LXVII. cum Petrus et Paulus passi non sint ante 
an. Dom. LXVIII. coss. Italico et Turpiliano. Et 
revera qui, praeter Graecos, Linum mortuo Petro suc- 
cessisse volunt, Petrum ipsum passum esse simul tradunt 
secundo Neronis anno aut circiter, quod ad calculum 
chronologicum perinde est ; nee inde controversia recte 
institui potest de pontificatu Lini, sed de passione 
Petri. 

III. Secundo, Catalogus Bucherianus notat tempus, 
quo mortuus est Linus ; " Fuit," inquit, " temporibus 
" Neronis, a consulatu Saturuini et Scipionis usque 
" Capitone et Rufo :" Capito autem et Rufus coss. 
fuere an. Dom. LXVII. quo passus esse S. Petrus puta- 
tur. Contra haec disputat Baronius, non ut ex anti- 
quissimo catalogo referuntur, sed ut extant in ponti- 
ficali, cujus auctor ordinem catalogi pervertit ; unde 
argumentum ejus non contra rem ipsam, sed tantum 
contra perversionem ordinis in catalogo valet, et Li- 
brum Pontificalem ferit, sententiam Eusebii minime 
confirmat ; quod est imprimis observandum. Tertio 
Eutychius, qui tradit S. Petrum a secundo Caii per 
xix. annos sedisse, Linum autem post eum xn. si pro 
inchoatis non exactis accipiuntur, in idem fere tem 
pus finem pontificatus Lini conjicit : imo Eutychius 
primo catalogo recte congruit, dum primo ait, 



" Occisus est Petrus sub annum xxn. post Domi- 
" num nostrum Christum." Quippe xxn. annus Eu- 
tychii idem plane est cum xxv. catalogi. Tertio enim 



448 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. 11. 

ille post consulatum Geminorum anno obiisse Christum 
ante docuerat, quern passum esse putavit auctor 
catalog! Geminis coss. Secundo idem Eutychius, 



,U 5 " Erat vero post Petrum Linus patriarcha Romse, 
** qua functus dignitate duodecim annos obiit." Jam 
si annos xn. addas annis xxn. Eutychii, sive annis 
xxv. catalogi, pervenies ad ultimum Neronis annum 
ineuntem, hoc est, ab an. Dom. LV. quo passum esse S. 
Petrum uterque credebat, ad an. Dom. LXVII. Capitone 
et Rufo coss. Quern calculum recte pridem Onu- 
phrius, et nuper Vendelinus, Blondellus, et Heinsche- 
nius secuti sunt. Neque eum diu postea superstitem 
fuisse docet Sixtus Senensis, qui de Lino loquens, 
" Moritur," inquit a , " Romae sub Galba imperatore 
" anno Christ! septuagesimo post expletos pontifica- 
*' tus sui annos undecim, menses tres, dies duodecim." 
Qui cum esset Onuphrii cosetaneus, sine dubio eodem 
anno cum apostolis sub Nerone obiisse Linum dixisset, 
nisi prava opinione imbutus fuisset, quod nempe Linus 
libros duos de agone SS. Petri et Pauli scripserit. Et 
Chronicon Metense non male, " Nisi tempora pon- 
" tificatus Lini atque Cleti sub spatio praesulatus 
" B. Petri comprehenderis, non sibi consone responde- 
" bunt anni pontificum Romanorum annis imperato- 
" rum." Hsec observatio de Lino peropportuna est, 
sed quod ad Cletum spectat, difficultas non aliter recte 
solvitur, quam ipsum e numero pontificum eliminando, 
aut in ejus locum Anencletum, a quo male distinguitur, 
substituendo. 

a Sixtus Senensis in Biblioth. Sanct. lib. ii. p. 82. ed. Lugd. 
Scripsit ille A. D. 1566. 



CAP. Til. 

I. Unde ortum habuefit opinio dc pluribus Romae uno temport 
sedentibus episcopis. II. Ita sensere Rufinus et Beda. III. 
Hures simul epi scopes non agnoverunt vetustiores, Irenaeus, 
Cyprianus, Cornelias, Novatianus, Pacianus. IV. Nemo ante 
Rufinum, cui occosionem errandi dedit supposititia dementis 
Epistola a se Latine versa. 

I. TTIC autem observatio quaedam ad haec recte 
J--I- intelligenda, et ab aliorum assertionibus vin- 
dieanda prorsus necessaria est. Cum enim tres priores 
pontifices a morte apostolorum successive in Hierony- 
miano chronico describerentur, in catalogo autem 
Romano unus illis tribus additus apj>areret, et ad 
brevrora tempera quatuor reducerentur in catalogo 
quam in chronico, (ultimus enim eorum quatuor mor- 
tuus est an. Dom. xcv. juxta catalogum, cum trium 
ultimus vixerit ad annum c. juxta Hieronymum) 
aliquos ex his quatuor simul ecclesiae praesedisse non- 
nulli arbitrabantur ; et suas sententias Gestis Pontificum 
inseruere, ut ex MSS. coddi Libri Pontificalis apparet : 
in quibus omnibus CL Vossius hax; reperiri de Petro 
testatur : " Hie ordinavit duos episcopos Linum et 
" Cletum, qui praesentialiter omne ministerium sacer- 
*' dotale in urbe Roma populo supervenienti exhi- 
" berent ; B. autem Petrus ad orationem et praedica- 
" tionem i>opulum erudiens vacabat." Priora verba 
aliter ex MSS. refert Blondellus : *' Hie ordinavit tres 

PEARSON, VOL. II. O g 



450 De Annis primorum JRomce Episcoporum. wss. n. 

" episcopos Linum, Cletum et Clementem, ex quibus 
" Linus et Cletus prsesentialiter, &c." pag. 28. Imo 
Liber ipse Pontificalis, " Clemens ex prsecepto B. 
" Petri suscepit ecclesise pontificatum gnbernandum, 
" sicut ei fuerat a Domino Jesu Christo cathedra 
" tradita vel commissa : tamen in epistola, quae ad Jaco- 
" bum scripta est, qualiter ei commissa est a B. Petro 
" ecclesia, reperias : ideo Linus et Cletus ante eum 
" conscribuntur, quia ab ipso principe apostolorum ad 
" ministerium sacerdotale exhibendum sunt episcopi 
" ordinati." Haec quidem in Libro Pontificali extant, sed 
in secundo catalogo non apparent, ut constet non nisi 
sero addita fuisse. 

II. Ille autem qui ista inseruit, occasionem nactus 
est a Ruffino in Praefatione ad Recognitiones Petri, ubi 
ait, " Quidam regemnt, quomodo, cum Linus et Cletus 
" in urbe Roma ante Clementem fuerint episcopi, ipse 
" Clemens ad Jacobum scribens sibi dicat a Petro 
" docendi catbedram traditam? cujus rei hanc ac- 
" cepimus rationem, quod Linus et Cletus fuerint 
" quidem ante Clementem episcopi in urbe Roma, sed 
" superstite Petro, ut illi episcopatus curam gererent, 
" ipse vero apostolatus impleret officium." Ex his 
catalogo additis Venerabilis Beda in Vita Abbatum 
Weremuthensium, duorum abbatum in eodem mo- 
nasterio praesidentiam hoc argumento approbat : " Nam 
" et beatissimum Petrum apostolum Romae pontifices 
" sub se duos per ordinem ad regendam Ecclesiam 
" constituisse, causa instante necessaria, tradunt his- 
" toriae." Et idem Historise Ecclesiasticae lib. ii. cap. 4. 
" Successit autem Augustino in episcopatum Lauren- 
" tius, quern ipse idcirco adhuc vivens ordinaverat, ne 
" se defiincto status Ecclesiae tarn rudis vel ad horam 
" pastore destitutus vacillare inciperet. In quo et 



CAP. in. Rcfettitttr Opinio de pluribus Episcopis, Sfc. 451 

" exemplum sequebatur primi pastoris ecclesiac, hoc est, 
" beatissimi apostolorum principis Petri, qui fundata 
" Romae Ecclesia Christi, Clementem sibi adjutorem 
*' evangelizandi, simul et successorem consecrasse per- 
" hibetur." 

III. Et hsec quidem a posterioribus Latinis excogi- 
tata sunt ; neque tale quicquam Ircnaeo notum fuit, ut 
ex ejus catalogo patet. tmo nee Cyprianus, nee Cor 
nelius, nee Novatianus, duos simul Romae episcopos 
ante sua tempora unquam sedisse putarunt. Certe 
Cyprianus semper unitatem a Petro petit, unitatem 
autem intelligit sacerdotalem, hoc est, episcopalem, 
unius scilicet episcopi in una ecclesia pracsidentiam. 
Cornelius, Epistola ad Fabianum, de Novatiano, 'O 
ficSuctfTrj? ouv TOV evayyeXiov OVK rfrritrraTO eva CTTI^KOTTOV 
Sctv effat ev Ka6o\iKtj e/cK\7<T/a, ev y OVK qyvoei, &C. Quod 
Maximus et reliqui confessores ad Ex;clesiam reduces 
nuper agnoverant his verbis: " Nee enim ignoramus 
" unum Deum esse, unum Christum esse Dominum, 
" quem confessi sumus, unum Spiritum Sanctum, unum 
" episcopum in catholica Ecclesia esse debere." Cy 
prianus de Unitate : " Monet Ipse in evangelic suo et 
" docet dicens, Et erit unus gr&r, et unus pastor ; et 
" esse posse in uno loco aliquis existimat aut multos 
" pastores, aut multos greges ?" Ep. XLI. " Agnoscant 
" atque intelligant, episcopo semel facto et collegarum 
" ac ])lebis testimonio ac judicio comprobato, alium 
'* constitui nullo modo posse." Ep. XLIV. ad Confessores : 
*' Cum vos illic comperissem contra dispositionem Dei, 
" contra evangelicam legem, contra institutionis ca- 
" tholicae unitatem, alium episcopum fieri consensisse, 
" id est, quod nee fas est, nee licet fieri, ecclesiam 
" alteram constitui." Ep. LII. ab exemplis Cornelii et 
Novatiani plene hanc rem exj)licat : Nisi si episcopus 

og2 



452 De Annis primorum JRomte Etpiscoporum. DISS. 11. 

" tibi videtur, qui episcopo in ecclesia a sedecim co- 
" episcopis facto, adulter atque extraneus episcopus 
" fieri a desertoribus per ambitum nititur ; et cum sit a 
" Christo una Ecclesia per totum mundum in multa 
" membra divisa, item episcopatus unus episcoporum 
" multorum concordi numerositate diffusus; ille post 
" Dei traditionem, post connexam et ubique con- 
"junctam catholicae Ecclesise unitatem, humanam 
" conetur ecclesiam facere." Inde Pacianus diligens 
Cypriani lector unum hunc episcopatum " sacerdotium 
" singulare" vocavit, et Novatiano tanquam principale 
crimen objecit, quod " sedente jam Romse episcopo, 
" adversus fas sacerdotii singularis alterius episcopi sibi 
" nomen assumserit." Epist. iii. c. 6. 

IV. Ita postea cum Constantius turn Felicem, turn 
Liberium simul Romae episcopos sedere voluit, populus 
exclamavit, V 0eo9, e*V XjOto-roy, 19 ex/o-KO7ro9, Theo- 
doret. lib. ii. cap. 14. Ita Optatus contra Parmenianum 
lib. i. " In Africa sicut et in cseteris provinciis, una erat 
" Ecclesia, antequam divideretur ab ordinatoribus Ma- 
" jorini ; cujus tu haereditariam cathedram sedes : vi- 
" dendum est, quis in radice cum toto orbe manserit ; 
" quis foras exierit ; quis cathedram sederit alteram, 
" quae ante non fuerat ; quis altare contra altare 
" erexerit ; quis ordinationem fecerit, salvo altero or- 
" dinato." Novum igitur erat hoc commentum de 
duobus aut tribus episcopis simul Romae president! bus, 
nee veterum cuiquam cognitum ; antequam Ruffinus 
ex Epistola supposititia Clementis, quam uti genuinam 
verterat, et Romano orbi intulerat, hoc efrugium ex- 
cogitavit, ut merces suas vendibiles faceret. Certe si 
Linus et Cletus duo episcopi ab initio Romse simul 
sedissent, Novatianus nunquam illud argumentum omi- 
sisset : nam eadem ratione probare potuerat duos simul 



CAP. in. Refettitur Opinio do pluribus Episcopis, fyc. 458 

episcopos in eadem urbe admitti posse, qua Beda duos 
abbates in eodem monasterio ; si eo tempore idem 
tradidissent historic. Sed haec nescivit vera antiquitas. 
Certe Cl. Salmasius in Apparatu, p. 51. " Ne hunc 
" quidem Clementem liquet fuisse specialem Romae 
" episcopum, ut tota antiquitas credidit," Quod si tota 
antiquitas Clementem specialem Romae episcopum 
fiiisse credidit, idem etiam de Lino et Anacleto re- 
liquisque sentiendum est : neque enim quisquam inter 
antiques aliter de Clemente quam de reliquis opinatus 
est. Et nimis jam serum est in rebus Ecclesiae anti- 
<jiiiuaimi<i A into. 



CAP. IV. 

I. Prsedictam de pluribus eandem sedein possidentibus episcopis 
sententiam in usus suos detorquent episcopalis regiminis adver- 
sarii. II. Commenta Blondelli. III. Aliter de successione sensit 
Clemens ipse episcopus Romanus. IV. Hausit e Libro Ponti 
fical! paradoxa sua Blondellus, quern nee ipse tamen bonae fidei 
testem agnovit ; nee, si aguosceret, causse suae favere depre- 
henderet. V. Commenta Salmasii ex eodem Libro Pontificali. 
VI. Mirum est Librum Pontificalem tanti, hac in causa, fecisse 
utrumque, tarn Blondellum quam Salmasium. 

I. i~\ UAMVIS haec de duobus vel tribus episcopis 
^C\; simul Romae sedentibus tarn infirma sint, et 
nullo veterum testimonio suffulta; multa tamen hinc 
comminiscuntur viri doctissimi, D. Blondellus et Cl. 
Salmasius, ad convellendam ordinis episcopalis antiqui- 
tatem, quae hoc loco opportune ad examen revocanda 
esse duxi. Ac primo quidem Blondellus in Apologias 
Praefatione sententiam suam novam atque singularem 
de presbyteris TrpwTOK\t)6ei<riv, qui reliquis ex ordine et 
jure praesidebant, tueri et illustrare conatur. Ab initio 
fere Eeclesiae antiquioribus in Christo regimen plebis 
commissum est. Ex illis senioribus, quibus regimen 
fuerat commissum, ille qui caeteris prior vocatus est, 
reliquis sui ordinis praefuit quasi presbyterorum praa- 
positus, aut capituli decanus. Penes hunc seniorem 
presbyterum primoe in presbyteriis cathedrae ac potes- 
tatis jus orbe toto fuit. Hanc ille hypothesin ex 
obscuris quibusdam incerti scriptoris Ambrosiastri 



CAP. iv. Commenta Blondelli et Scdmasii refelluntur. 455 

verbis, iisque a mente auctoris aliena expositione de- 
tortis, expiscatus est. Et tune ille, auctori, qui Ecclesiae 
tabulas ordinavit primus, " hoc unum propositum" fuisse 
putat, ut doceret tres primum a Petro, qui Romae una 
episcopatu fungerentur, urbicique cleri collegium con- 
stituerent, ordinatos fuisse ; hac tamen lege, ut Linum 
seniorem, ac exinde Clementem proxime adlectum, 
presbyterii primatus contingeret. 

II. Haec de primi catalogi uno proposito mire philo- 
sophatus est, cum illius auctor Linum post obitum 
Petri sedisse tradiderit. Vult enim Petrum passum 
esse Nerone et Vetere coss. anno serae vulgaris LV. 
Linum sedisse a consulatu Saturniui et Scipionis anno 
LVI. Hoc tamen uno proposito a mente auctoris Libri 
illius Pontificals prorsus alieno animatus Blondellus 
tandem hanc nobis fabulam propouit : Primo Linus 
TrpurroxeiprjOeis, eoque inter collegas senior sedit: proxime 
ex iis, qui a S. Petro ordinati sunt, adlectus Clemens : 
dementi Chersonam deportato successit Cletus a Petro 
tertio loco ordinatus : Cleto mortuo Anacletus antiqui- 
tate proximus successit, post Cletum a Petro ordinatus : 
Anacleto mortuo, Clemente Chersonae adhuc haerere 
jusso, Euaristus cctate proximus ad collegarum irpoeSpiav 
euo loco et ordine evectus est : Euaristi martyrio coro- 
nati locum Alexander, Sixtus, Telespborus, Hyginus 
ordine tenuerunt. Haec Blondellus ex tabulis Ecclesiac 
Romance hausisse se profitetur, quarum nulla ullam 
talis praerogativae prioris ordinationis mentionem facit, 
aut ullo modo innuit ; cum nemo veterum Linum 
inter collegas seniorem tradiderit, nemo Clementem aut 
Cletum aut Anacletum, nemo denique Euaristum suo 
ordine evectum fuisse dixerit. Putidam illam fabulam 
de Clemente Chersonae martyrium passo non tantum 
amplectitur, sed et amplificat. Vult enim cum an. 



456 De Annis primorum Roma Episcoporum. DIBS. H. 

LXXVI. Chersonain deportatum esse, et an. xcv. Cher- 
sonae adhuc haerere jussum, ac denique an. Dom. c. 
Chersonrc passum, atque ita per xxiv. annos in exilio 
fuisse, quod nemo unquam aut dixit aut cogitavit. 
Post Clementem reliquos suo ordine promotes esse sine 
ullo teste, sine ulla verisimilitudine tradit. 

III. Hanc quidem ille, sed aliam nobis rationem 
successionis tradit Clemens Romauus, qui ignorare non 
potuit quomodo ipse ad episcopatum promotus est, aut 
qua ratione alii post eum jure successuri erant. Sic 
enim ille, C. 44. Kcu ol a-jr6<rro\oi >7/zcoi> eyvcaa-av Sia TOV 

V r/fJLU)V 'I>?(7OV XpHTTOV, OTl pl$ 6<7TCU Trl TOV OVO- 

Ttjs Tri(TK07rrj$' Sia ravrtjv ovv Trjv airiav irpoyvuxriv 
i\t]<poTes reXeiav, KaTeimja-av roy? irpOiprnj.evovs, 
SeScoKaariv (MS. e^co/cacrtv) OTTO)?, eav 

erepoi SeSoKifjiaarfJievoi avSpe? rt]v \eiTOvpyiav 
avrwv. Tow? ovv /caracrTa0ej/Ta9 UTT' CKCIVODV, rj /nera^v v(f> 
erepwv eXXoyt/Acoj/ avSpwv, crvvevOKt]<ra(rt]$ T^? KK\t]<rias 
Tracr^pj ^co. " Et apostoli nostri per Jesum Christum 
*' Dominum nostrum cognoyerunt, contentionem de 
" nomine episcopatus oborituram; ob hanc igitur causam 
" cum perfecta prsescientia praediti essent, constituerunt 
" praedictos, et deinceps prasceperunt, ut cum illi ob- 
" dormiverint, in eorum munus succederent alii probati 
" viri. Constitytos itaque ab illis, yel deinceps ab aliis 
" viris celebribus, cum consensu totius Ecelesioe," &c. 
Ex his Clementis Romani yerbis, non diu post obitum 
Petri et Pauli, et diu ante mortem Joannis apostoli 
scriptis, liquido constat ipsos apostolos prsescientia futuri 
ecclesiarum status^ et controversies de nomine episco 
patus oriturae praeditos,non tan turn episcopos constituisse 
pro vitae cujusque spatio ecclesiae praefuturos, sed insuper 
in mandatis dedisse, ut quoties ex iis aliquis e vita 
migraret, alius ei succederet a viris praestantissimis 



CAP. rv. Commenta Blondetti et Salmasii refettuntur. 457 

electus, et a tota Ecclesia cui pracfdturus erat compro- 
batus. Nihil hie de successoris TrptoroKXijo-ia, nihil de 
ordine et succedendi jure; de probatione personae 
idoneae et consensu ecclesiae tantum agitur. 

IV. Anacletum post Linum, Clementem et Cletum a 
Petro ordinatum esse credit, '* ex aperto Libro Pontifi- 
" calis testimonio." Cum nee illius libri testiinonium ad 
fidem in re adeo antiqua satis valeat, nee sit per se satis 
apertum. Quod non satis valeat illius libri testimonium, 
habeomihi ipsumBlondellum consentientem. Cujushaec 
verba sunt Apologise pag.221. " Extant sane de Euaristo 
" hsec in libello pontifical! verba, Hie titulos in urbe 
" Roma divisit presbyteris. Nemo autem nescit longe 
" post Damasi, cui vulgo adscribitur, tempora, anno 
" circiter DC. ab Euaristi passione fere D. farraginem 
" illam aSeo-TTOTov, sero natum de re antiquissima tes- 
" tern, congestam fuisse." Neque vero illius sero nati 
testis satis apertum est testimonium. Certe locus ille 
turn in catalogo secundo, turn in Pontificali adeo ob- 
scurus est, ut nullum videatur sensum fundere. Scrip- 
tor uterque id voluit docere, Anacletum memoriam 
Petri construxisse ; csetera vix intelligas. Primus ita 
de Anacleto : " Hie memoriam B. Petri construxit et 
" composuit, dum presbyter factus fuisset B. Petro, 
" ubi episcopi reconderentur." Recte editores docue- 
runt, legendum esse " factus certior." Quod ad prac- 
sens negotium spectat, unicum illud de quo nunc ago, 
satis omnes ejus rationes convellit. " Graecos omnes," 
inquit, " ut et ex Latinis veteribus multos, Cleti et Ana- 
" cleti nominum affinitas et episcopatuum continuatio 
" eo compulere, ut ex duobus unum urbis papam con- 
" flarent." Siccine vero ? An nominum affinitas S. 
Irenocum et Eusebium compulit, ut ex duobus unum 
papam conflarent? Quis setate Irenaei, aut etiam Eu- 



458 De Annia primorum Hornet Episcoporum. mss. 11. 

sebii audivit nomen Cleti tanquam episcopi Romani? 
Nemo sane. Ex Graecis nemo ante Epiphanium Cle- 
tum nominavit, nee post eum Groccorum quispiam. 
Et fortasse apud ipsum Epiphanium KX^ro9 corrupte 
legitur, ubi catalogum sic recitat, IIeT|Ooy KOI Ilai/Xo?, 
Aw>? Kal KX?T09, KX^i;?, Eva|oecrTO9. Expungendum 
enim esse KOI Cotelerius censet ; sed fortasse pro KOI 
KXJ/T09 legendum est 'Ai/e^Xj/Toy, ut apud Irenseum 
et Eusebium, quos Epiphanius sequi solet, scribitur a . 
An continuatio episcopatuum eompulit quenquam aut 
Graecum aut Latinum, ut Cletum et Anacletum pro 
uno pontifice haberet, cum qui ita senserunt, Eusebium 
et Hieronymum ejus interpretem sequuti sint ? Imo 
Cleti et Anacleti nominum diversitas sensim intro- 
ducta compulit Latinorum aliquos ut ex uno duos 
episcopos facerent, contra vetustissimam successionis 
tabulam, quam, ut puto, Hegesippus, certe Irenseus 
habuit. Nee igitur vera sunt, quae de his quatuor 
pontificibus tradidit Blondellus; neque si vera essent, 
novitiam illam de praesidentia et cathedra presbyte- 
rorum conjecturam stabilire possent. 

V. Ex his primis Romae pontificibus Cl. Salmasius 
commentum suum de duobus generibus episcoporum, 
sive presbyterorum tuetur. " Duum generum," inquit 
ille de Trapezitico Foenore pag. 407. " sub apostolis 
" presbyteri, iidemque episcopi, fuere." Haec duo 
genera ita distinguit, ut aliqui essent episcopi sive 
presbyteri, quorum munus erat orationi et praedicationi 
vacare ; alii, qui sacramenta administrabant, et exhibe- 
bant plebi. Hanc distinctionem, omnibus inauditam, 
auctoritate Damasi, cujus inter episcopos Romanos 
magnum, nee immerito, nomen fuit, tueri conatur. 
Sic enim ait, " Darnasus in Vita dementis tradit 

a Hoc observatum prius, c. i. 3. 



CAP. iv. Commenta Blondclli et Salmasii refettuntur. 459 

" Petrum, cum eum episcopum consecrasset, eique 
" cathedram et ecclesiani disponendam committeret, 
" dixisse, Sicut rnihi gubenianti tradita est a D. Jesu 
" Cbristo potestas ligaudi solvendique, ita et ego tibi 
" committo, ut ordines dispositores diversarum causa- 
" rum, per quos actus ecclesiasticus profligetur, et tu 
" minime in curis seculi deditus re])eriaris ; sed solum- 
" modo ad oratiouein et proedicationein populi vacare 
*' stude." Sed quis nescit Damasum nihil horum scrip- 
sisse, quae tanto viro prorsus indigna jam ab omnibus 
judicautur ? *' Haec omnia desunt," inquit Salmasius, 
" in editione a Sociis Moguntinis procurata, sed le- 
" guntur in omnibus scriptis codicibus." Fortasse ; 
in codicibus Anastasii, non Damasi. Et nuno quidem 
in editione Anastasii a Fabroto adornata inter varias 
lectiones ex MSS. depromptas eadem verba de Cle- 
mente extant. Reliqua de Lino et Cleto in Libro 
Pontificali semper extabant: ut haec annotatio nihili 
sit, quamvis a Salmasio saepe inculcata, ut in Apparatu 
ad libros de Primatu. Sed et verba ipsa, cujuscunque 
sunt, neque sensum, quern illis tribuit Salmasius, neque 
iilluni sanum fimdunt. An enirn potestas ligandi 
et solvendi ullam siuiilitudinem babet cum potes- 
tate ordinandi dispositores diversarum causarum? An 
uuquam inemorati sunt dispositores per quos actus 
ecclesiasticus profligetur? An qui administrabant sa- 
cramenta et exhibebant plebi, in curis seculi reperti 
sunt ? Adeo hsec a Salmasii Damaso tradita ab oinni 
ratione remota sunt, ut plura dicere pudeat. 

VI. Quae post argumentum tarn intirmum, tarn nul- 
lum, ex duobus S. Pauli locis, quasi lucem aliquam ab 
bis tenebris accipientibus, affert, ad hoc institutum non 
pertinent, nisi quia si vera esseut, aliquam occasiouem 
sive praetextum inde quispiam formare posset profitendi 



460 De Annis primorum Romm Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

similem expositionem Damasi. Nihil enim hie ago, 
nisi ut ostendam, quam immerito Clementem et Linum 
et Cletum simul Romse sedisse dicunt Blondellus et 
Salmasius, et quam prodigiosas inde conclusiones fu- 
tiliter eruant. Et sane mirum mini semper videbatur, 
quod Blondellus et Salmasius, statim postquam contra 
episcopos scribere decreverant, in admirationem Damasi 
prorumperent, et " solis radios" in Libro Pontifical! 
repente perspicerent, et fundamentum sententiae suae in 
illo mustaceo collocarent. 



CAP. V. 

I. Ad annos trium primorum episcoporum acceditur. II. Sedem 
tenuit Linus ab an. Dom. LV. ad i.\\ n. III. Corrupta sunt e 
Platina, hoc in loco, Romana Breviaria recentius edita. IV. 
Linum ante apostoloa decessisse credidit auctor Constitutionum 
Apostolicarum. V. Anencletus ab an. LXVII. ad LXIX. VI. Non 
longe inde discedit Heinschenius. VII. Clemens ad an. LXIX. ad 
LXXXIII. quo anno Euaristi ingressum ponit Eutychius, cujus inde 
vestigia premit auctor. Tertius Trajani annus fatalis veterura 
erroribus. * * 

1. TTIS prselibatis, et turn presbyterorum TrparroicXri- 
J.J. Oevrwv cathedra dejecta, turn duplici presby 
terorum genere exploso, turn recto successions ordine 
et successorum numero stabilito, anni primorum triura 
episcoporum Lini, Anencleti, et dementis, ex sen- 
tentia Graecorum Eusebio vetustiorum, et Latinorum 
etiam sic recte mihi digerendi videntur. 

II. Cum Petrus et Paulus ftmdarent Ecclesiam, hoc 
est, apostolis illis adhuc superstitibus, Linus Romae 
episcopus constitutus est, ut docet Irenacus : sedit 
autem usque ad annum Domini LXVII. jam vergentem, 
imperii Neroniani xiv. ineuntem, coss. Capitone et 
et Rufo, ut tradit Catalogus Bucherianus ; cui conso 
nant catalogus secundus, Liber Pontificalis, Anastasius 
et breviaria vetera in quibus haec verba de Lino con- 
servata erant : " Fuit temporibus Neronis, a consulatu 
" Saturnini et Scipionis usque Capitone et Rufo." 
Unde Florus Lugdunensis asseruit, " S. Linum tempore 



462 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. H. 

" Neronis martyrio coronatum." Observanda etiam 
hie sunt quae Nicephori Chronicon habet ad hanc rem 
spectailtia, Herpos aTroorroXo?, en; ft. AiVoy, ert] ift' 
" Petrus apostolus, annos 2. Linus, annos 12." Cum 
enim biennium S. Petro, Lino annos 12. tribuit, mani 
festo respexit imperil Neronis annos 14. et traditionem 
illam, quae statuebat Petrum primo Romam venisse 
circa initium imperil Neronis, ibique sedisse usque ad 
secundum Neronis annum, coss. Nerone et Vetere. 
Observandum porro Chronologiam Eutychii primo ca- 
talogo exacte congruere, dum primo ait, " Occisus est 
" Petrus sub annum xxn. post Dominum nostrum 
" Christum." Quipffe xxn. anntis Eutychii idem plane 
est cum xxv. catalogi. Tertio enim ille post consula- 
tum Geminorum anno obiisse Christum ante docuerat, 
quern passum esse putavit auctor catalogi Geminis 
coss. Secundo idem Eutychius, " Erat vero post 
" Petrum Linus patriarcha Romae, qua functus digni- 
" tate duodecim annos obiit." Jam si annos xn. addas 
annis xxn. Eutychii, sive annis xxv. catalogi, pervenies 
ad ultimum Neronis annum ineuntem, hoc est, ab an. 
Dom. LV. quo passum esse S. Petrum uterque crede- 
bat, ad an. Dom. LXVII. Capitone et Rufo coss. Quare 
non immerito statui potest, Linum an. Dom. LXVII. 
exeunte decessisse, anno Neronis xiv. ineunte, quo 
tempore consules ordinarii erant L. Fonteius Capito et 
C. Julius Rufus. 

III. Cum vero verba ilia, quae modo recitata sunt, in 
breviariis Romanae Ecclesise antiquis, tarn excusis quam 
manuscriptis legerentur, auctoritate Sixti V. et Gregorii 
XIII. extrita sunt, fabulis quibusdam ex Platina, et 
quidem nominate, eorum loco, repositis : cujus nomen 
proxima correctione authentica pariter extritum est, et 
quidem prudenter. Nam revera in his Platina toto 



CAP. v. Lint Tempera, ct Anendeti, et dementis. 463 

coelo erravit, dum ait, " Linus natione Tuscus patre 
" Herculaneo, ab ultimo Neronis anno usque ad Vespa- 
" siani tempora pervenit, a consulatu Saturnini et 
" Scipionis usque ad Capitonem et Rufum coss." Duo 
enim hi consulatus sub uno imperio Neronis gesti sunt. 
Quomodo igitur idem pontifex ab ultimo Neronis anno, 
et a consulatu Saturnini et Scipionis, qui partim secundo 
partim tertio Neronis anno consules fuerant, sedere, 
quomodo idem ad Vespasiani tempora, et ad Capitonem 
et Rufum, qui ejusdem Neronis partim decimo tertio, 
partim decimo quarto anno consules erant, pervenire 
potuit? Haec sunt ab omni ratione prorsus aliena. 

IV. Nimis acerbe Labbeus ad A. C. LXVII. ubi de 
SS. Petri et Pauli martyrio agit, " Successit S. Linus, 
" ut quidem doctiores quique chronologi sentiunt, hoc 
" certe tempore. Nam novatores non moror, qui ut in 
" caeteris, sic in successione Romanorum pontificum 
" omnia perturbant." Novatores enim non sunt, nee 
minus docti, qui veteres tabulas consulunt, et succes- 
sionem episcoporum caeteraque ad vetustissimorum 
patrum scripta et ad antiquissimsc historiac monumenta 
disponere, simulque errores receptos detegere, et le- 
gitimis argumentis refutare conantur. Certe ante apo- 
stolos Petrum et Paulum complures, ante Neronem 
mortuum fuisse Linum omnes pene crediderunt. Con- 
Stit. Apostol. lib. Vli. C. 46. T^y <$e 'PwyucttW at\i7<r/as 
AFi/oj nev 6 KXai/5/a? Trpurros viro Ilav\ov, KX^/to/y Se /xera 
TOV A.IVOV Qavarov vir efj.ov Ylerpov Ke^eiporovtjTai' 
" Romanorum ecclesiae primus quidem Linus Claudiae 
" films a Paulo, secundus autem a me Petro post mortem 
" Lini ordinatus fuit Clemens." Qui dixerunt post mor 
tem Lini a Petro Clementem ordinatum esse, putabant 
Linum ante apostolorum excessum obiisse. 

V. Lino successit Anencletus, ut ostendimus, sedit- 



464 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. oiss. n. 

que annos duos. Ita certe Eutychius de Vespasian! 
imperio agens, " Porro anno imperil ejus tertio patri- 
" archa Romoe constitutus est Dacletius" (ita Anen- 
cletum sive Anacletum nominat) " et cum biennio 
" sedisset mortuus est." De biennio recte eum scrip- 
sisse non dubito ; duos enim testes habeo, qu> ei in 
annorum numero diserte consentiunt. Quippe idem 
tradit vetus auctor Indiculi Nicephoro patriarchae attri- 
buti, quern ita reprsesentat prima editio Scaiigeri, et 
secunda editio Parisiensis, 'Ave'-y/tXjp-o? er^ /3'. " Anen- 
" cletus, annos duos ;" et utrique edition! consentiunt 
MSS. codices duo, Oxoniensis et Londinensis. Huic 
adjungendum est Georgii Syncelli testimonium, cujus 
ll86C verba SUnt, Ty 'Pw/maitav e/c/cX^cr/a e-TT/cr/coTro? yeyove 
/mera TleTpov TOV KOpv(paiov 'Ai/ey/cX^roy err} Svo. Hoc 
est, interprete Goaro, " Romance Ecclesiae post Petrum 
" coryphseum fiiit episcopus Anacletus annis duobus." 
Hsec cum sint ab Eusebianis tantopere diversa atque 
dissonantia, unde ea habuerit Syncellus nescio, nisi 
forte ex Africano, cujus brevis Historia a Christo ad 
sua tempora penitus deperdita est. Cujus nuspiam 
meminit Eusebius nisi sub imperio Macrini, his verbis 
in Chronico, " Abgarus vir sanctus regnavit Edessae, ut 
" vult Africanus." Unde justa suspicio est fuisse earn 
brevem Africani Historiam ab Eusebiana valde diversam. 
Sive autem Africanum, sive anonymuin, qui paulo 
post Africanum scripsit, sive alium aliquem, quern 
viderunt auctor Indiculi et Eutychius, sequebatur 
Georgius, eum habenms pro sententia nostra testem 
locupletem. Quare cum Linus obierit, ut dictum est, 
an. Dom. LXVII. Capitone et Rufo coss. quod fatetur 
Heinschenius, sequitur Anencletum mortuum esse an. 
Dom. LXIX. exeunte, Vespasiani priniOj coss. Galba et 
Rufino. 



CAP. v. Lint tempora, et Anencleti, et dementis. 465 

VI. Mira haec fortasse videbuntur, iis praMsertim qui 
Cletum et Anacletum duos pontitices faciunt, et Ana- 
cletum non statim post Linum, sed demum post Cle- 
mentem et Cletum sedisse putant. Sed qui Cletum et 
Anacletum unum pontificem fuisse arbitrantur, et or- 
dinem ab Irenaeo positum amplecti volunt, ut certe 
debent, mirari confestim desinent. Bene Heinschenius, 
" Si aliqui arbitrentur Cletum prseponendum esse Cle- 
" menti, nolumus funem ea de re contentiosum ducere." 
Ponatur igitur Cletus, (qui idem est Anacletus, ut 
probavimus,) post Linum et ante Clementem ; cum 
ipse Heinschenius fateatur Linum obiisse an. Dom. LXVII. 
et Cleto, quern concedit a S. Petro fuisse ordinatum, 
anni tantummodo sex in antiquissimo catalogo tri- 
buuntur; sequetur Cletum sive Anacletum an. Dom. 
LXXIII. obiisse, Vespasiani quinto, solius quadriennii 
metachronismo. 

VII. Anacleto successit Clemens an. Dom. LXIX. 
exeunte vel LXX. ineunte, seditque ad an. Dom. LXXXIII. 
Domitiani secundum, Domitiano ix. et Rufo n. coss. 
Eo certe anno ordinatum esse Euaristum tradit Euty- 
chius, quern jam sequor. Certe Baronii Chronologia 
hoc maxime confirmatur, quod,, ut inquit, " Eusebius ac 
" caeteri omnes tarn Graeci quam Latini auctores tes- 
" tentur Clementem subiisse martyrium tertio anno 
" Trajani imperatoris," idque " S. Hieronymus firmiter 
" asseveret, imo et ipse liber de Romanis Pontificibus 
" aperte doceat." Sed neque Eusebius neque Hie 
ronymus martyrii dementis meminit a ; et ilia apud 
Nicephorum Callistum et Martyrologium Bedae attri- 
butum putida fabula est. Auctor Libri Pontificum 
secutus est Hieronymum, Hieronymus Eusebium, Eu- 

R Vide quse adnotavimus in fin. cap. vi. 

PEARSON, VOL. II. H ll 



466 



Be Annis primorum Roma Episcoporum. DISS. n. 



sebius si forte _catalogum aliquem, certissime vitio- 
sum, unde ex sola supputatione tradit Clementein 
tertio Trajani anno obiisse. Et quidem tertius hie 
Trajani annus chronologis quasi fatalis fuit; unde 
errores in historian! varii redundarunt. Scaliger asserit 
Vitam Josephi ab ipso scriptam esse sub imperio, non 
Domitiani, sed Trajani : " Nam," inquit, " in ea 
" Agrippae regis mentio fit, ut de eo qui adhuc in vivis 
" non esset. Decessit autem Agrippa anno tertio 
" Trajani." Certe post mortem Agrippse Vitam suam 
scripsit Josephus, sed ante mortem Epaphroditi, cui 
extremis illius libri verbis Antiquitates suas dedicavit. 
Occisus est autem Epaphroditus a Domitiano an. Dom. 
xcv. C. Valente et C. Antistio coss. ut accurate notat 
Dio. Ante igitur eum annum Agrippa mortuus est. 
Eusebius ad postremum Domitiani annum in Chronico 
notavit, eum omries ex genere David interfici praece- 
pisse, " ut nullus Judseorum regni reliquus foret." Ad 
quae verba rursus Scaliger, " Atqui reliquus erat ejus 
" regni rex Agrippa, quamvis non ex stirpe David, 
" regnavitque usque ad annum tertium Trajani b ." 



b Vidit hoc in loco vir erudi- 
tissimus e Photio natam Scaligeri 
erroris occasionem, cujus proinde 
verba repetenda duximus atque 
expendenda. Sic autem ille de 
Originibus Judaicis a Josephi 
semulo Justo Tiberiensi descriptis : 
KaroA?7y 6e eiws reXevn?? 'Aypimra 
fo\> ((38dfjLov fj,fv ra>v OTTO TTJS oiiclas 
, vffTaTov 8( tv rois 



f$a<ri\fv<Tiv. os 7rapeAa/3e pev TT)V 
r\ KXavdiov, Tjvgridr) 8e rt 
Kal tTi /LtaXXoi/ tVt Ovnra- 
<riavov' Tt\vra 8( (Tft rptrta Tpa'i- 



avov, ov Ka rj crropa 
Justo itaque auctore tertio Trajani 
anno Agrippae mortem assignavit 
Scaliger. Nee vidit Criticus alio- 
qui perspicacissimus lectionem il- 
lam quse in Photio hodierno ob- 
tinet, a mente Justi esse alienis- 
simam. Quorsum enim attinet 
tantus ille saltus a Vespasiano ad 
Trajanum, preetermissis tot inter- 
mediis annis atque principibus ? 
Quasi vero si ad Trajanum usque 
superstes fuisset Agrippa, nullam 
habuisset in tanta fortuna, seu 



* Phot. Bibl. cod. xxxiii. 



CAP. v. Lint tempora, ei Anencleti, et dementis. 



467 



, seu f\dTTua-iif. hie utique 
commemorandam. Credidit ita- 
que doctissimus pater pro Tpaiavov, 
reponendum esse rov avrov, ut 
tertio nimirura ejusdem, cujus 
antea meminerat Justus, Vespa- 
siani anno decesserit Agrippa. 
Id quod erit sane verissimum si 
xxin. annos regni Agrippae assig- 
nemus cum Syncello. Herodem 
regem Chalcidis vin. Claudii 
anno defunctum constat e Josepho 
sub finem anni, ut videtur, aerae 
vulgaris XLVIII. vel initium XI.IN . 



In illius locum suffecit Claudius 
Agrippam, cujus proinde anni ab 
an. Dom. XLIX. numerandi sunt. 
DODWKLL. 

Plura de temporibus Agrippae 
hue contulerat Dodwellus. Reti- 
nuimus ea quae videtur vir doctua 
a Pearsono vivo didicisse. Di- 
gressionem bene longam de morte 
8. Joannis, qui creditur a quibus- 
bam eodem tertio Trajani anno 
decessisse, lectori consulentes, ne 
argument! nos credat oblitos, 
omittendam duximus. 



Hh 2 



CAP. VI. 

I. Ad dementis tempora ab Eutychio designata propugnanda 
propius acceditur. II. Tria in contrarium argumenta propo- 
nuntur. * * 

I. O<ED cum hsec de fine pontificatus dementis et 
O initio Euaristi a nobis ex Eutychio tradita aliis- 
que testimoniis ad decessores ejus pertinentibus aliquo 
modo confirmata, non nisi difficillime fidem apud viros 
doctos inventura prsevideam ; cumque ea non tantum 
chronologic omni hactenus receptse adversentur, sed et 
historian! ecclesiasticam (quam ego sartam tectam hac 
tota dissertatione conservari maxime cupio) perturbare 
et convellere baud paucis videantur : paulo latius hie 
disserendum esse duxi turn de obitu, turn de ordinatione 
dementis, turn de iis quse historice ad ejus pontificatum 
referuntur, ut vel sic maximum sententise nostrse prse- 
judicium tollatur. 

II. Tria praecipue sunt quse ad historian! pertinent, 
et plerosque si non omnes in earn sententiam dedux- 
erunt, quae Eutychianoe sive nostrse aperte contradicit. 
Primum est de Domitilla, cui velamen virginitatis sub 
extremis Domitiani Clemens dedisse fertur. Secundum 
de martyrio dementis, quod Chersonae anno Trajani 
tertio sustinuisse dicitur. Tertium de persecutione 
Domitiani, qua sseviente Epistolam ad Corinthios eum 
scripsisse volunt. 



Summo literarum detrimento periit hujusce Dissertationis pars 
ista, in qua rationes suas expositurus erat Pearsonus de temporibus 
Clementis. Habebamus quidem Dodwellum respondentem sigillatim 



CAP. vi. S. Clementis tempora. 469 

ad objecta, de Domitilla, de martyrio Clementis et anno martyrii, et 
de tempore quo scripta sit Epistola ad Corinthios ; sed eundem per 
paginas quadraginta et ultra excurrentera, et argument! filo vix ser- 
vato ad alias et incertas quaestiones digredientem. Etenim noa 
possumus aliquando non cogitare de sententia quam protulit J. L. 
Mosheimius de Dodwello: " Vir ille doctus," ait, " et inultie lec- 
t ion is. verum praeceps et ad extrema semper propendens*." Multa 
veterum testimonia nimis exquisite tractat ; multa concludit, quae 
unde sibi comprobata habuerit, nullo indicio constat. Adeo ut 
Diatriben ejus huic capiti olim annexam in compendium redigere, 
plura omittere, caetera diverse modo constituere, ne multa a Pearsoni 
mcnte aliena immisceamus, plane necessarium arbitrati simus. 

I. Flaviam Domitillam, de qua mentionem facit Eusebius in 
Chronico ad an. Dom. 98, et in Hist. iii. 18. eandem esse ait cum 
cognomine Domitilla Flavii Clementis uxore, quam Dio, lib. Ixvii. 14. 
testatur, post mariti csedem, a Domitiano in Pandatariam insulam 
fuisse relegatam. Utrisque vero, et Clementi consulatum turn 
gerenti, et uxori Domitillae, atheismi vel Judaismi crimen intentatum, 
una cum multis aliis, quorum alii vita, alii nummis plectebantur. 
Hos omnes fuisse Christianos probabile est ; atheismi enim nomine 
atque Judaismi Christianos accusatos fuisse patet ex ipsorum Apo- 
logiis. Ita judicat Baronius, ita Dodwellus ; ita inter nuperiores 
Lardnerus, et Reimarus, editor Dionis. Utrum vero Flavia Clementis 
eadem fuerit cum ilia, quam Eusebius, ex auctore Bruttio, diserte 
vocat Clementis e sorore neptem, licet post Scaligerum affirmaverit 
Dodwellus, nimis incertum nobis visum est, neque ex identitate 
nominis determinandum. Quinetiam matronam Flaviam in Panda 
tariam Dio, juniorem in Pontiam exsulasse ait Eusebius; et post 
Eusebium Hieronymus, Epist. cviii. 7. qui " celltdas" ibi suo 
tempore exstantes commemorat, " in quibus ilia longum martyrium 
" duxerat." Sint ergo diversae, cum possint, sine jactura temporum 
quae statuit Pearsonus. 

In Martyrologio vero Romano plura habemus de juniore Domitilla, 
ilium " a sancto Clemente sacro velamine consecratam ;" deinde 
" in persecutione Domitiani ob testimonium Christi in ins. Pontiam 
" deportatam ; novissime Tarracinam deductam, cum doctrina et 
" miraculis plurimos ad fidem Christianam convertisset, jussu judicis 
" incenso cubiculo, in quo simul cum suis virginibus Euphrosyna et 
" Theodora morabatur, cursum gloriosi martyrii consummasse." 

De rebus ante Coiutantin. sec. i. . 33 



470 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. 11. 

Hsec ad Maii vii. Quae plurima recentioris aevi esse commenta et res 
ipsa indicat, et inde colligi potest, quod in Venerabilis Bedae nostri 
Martyrologio nusquam apparent. Vid. ed. Smith, p. 367. Ipse 
Beda in Chronico suo Eusebii de Domitilla notitiam exscribit, nihil 
addit de velamine, nihil de reditu Tarracinam, nihil de martyrio, 
nihil omnino habet, nisi quse in Eusebio hodie leguntur. De fontibus 
vero, unde Beda Martyrologium hauserit, quaedam habet H. Valesius 
in Dissert, de Martyrolog. Romano, et Pearson us infr. c. vii. 5. 
Genuinum opus a Flori additamentis summa accuratione discriminat 
Smithius in edit, sua, Cantab. 1722. 

De isto quidem " sacro velamine" multa congessit Baronius ; sed 
inter scriptores ecclesiasticos, quos adhibet, nemo ante S. Ambrosium 
virgines ab episcopo velatas commemorat. Vid. S. Ambr. de Virg. 
lib. iii. i. Exhort. Virg. c. vii. 42. Csetera ex Gelasii P. R. Epist. 
ad Episc. Lucan. c. 12. ex Hieronymo et Augustino, seriora omnia, 
quam qua? hanc consuetudinem ex Ecclesiae primordiis receptam esse 
convincant. Nondum invaluisse, quum scribebant Tertullianus, 
Cyprianus, et Origenes, arguit ipsorum silentium, ubi expectanda 
erat velaminis induendi mentio. Tertull. de Virg. Veland., Cyprian, 
de Habit. Virg., Origen. contr. Cels. vii. p. 365. Comment, in Rom. 
lib. x. 17. et 20. Quinetiam ex Tertulliano patet, comarum dis- 
positione et habitu ad matronas con verso, non velamine sumpto, 
illius aevi Deo devotas virgines se distinxisse : velandi se legem 
docet ille omnibus fceminis fuisse unam ; et qui alibi queritur de 
secularibus, quod aperta fronte " adversus virgines Dei" insurgerent, 
alibi et virgines sacras reprehendit, quod in ecclesia se " ante Deum 
" denudarent." (De Virg. Veland. c. 3. De Orat. c. 22. ed. 
Routh.) Ut vero Tertullianus vultum " obumbrare," ita Clemens 
Alex. TO TTpoa-anrov eVfcr/ciao-^at ait fceminis Christianis injunctum ; 
quod interpretatur Schoh'astes nuper a Klotzio editus ; 
TO> KfKf>v<f)a\(p (iri<riudovari TO irpocrmTrov, a>s pi) irpo^fipats 
dtfffiiro8i(TTtos /Sadifrti/ t) OTIOVV aXXo irparrtiv, a KaraKaXv/x/^eVou TOV 
irpoaramov OVK tarn iroidv. Ubi in posteriore clausula Constantinus 
Schinas legere proponit KoAu/x;ieVov vel dTroKfKa\vnfj.fifov. Sed non 
intellexit, Scholiasten vetustiorum virginum velamen a recentiorum 
monialium cucullo distinguere. His enim praeceptum erat TO Trpdo-- 
amov KaTaKfKa\vfj.iJL(vov gerere, Kara vevov, ut videre est apud Auctor. 
Tract, de Virg. in App. Athanas. i. 1050. b. ed. Colon. Confer 
Theodoret. de Marana et Cyra. Relig. Hist. c. 29. 

At respondeat aliquis, Etiamsi Martyrologium ex serioris aevi 



CAP. vi. S. dementis tempera. 471 

more recepto ritum consecrandi descripserit, non tamen inde se- 
quitur iiullani omnino fuisse consecrationem vel professionem. Imo 
vero, ipsa ilia consecratio ex serioris aevi instituti- orta est. Con- 
cedimus, etiam nascente Ecclesia, complures exstitisse utriusque 
sexus, qui apostolicum consilium sequuti sanctimoniam in coelibe vita 
sibi elegerint ; at patet ex S. Ignatii Epist. ad Polycarp., ex 
S. Justini Apol. i. c. 15. et ex ipso, de quo haec quaestio est, 
S. Clemente, in Epist. ad Cor. c. 38 ; ut nihil dicamus de Epistolis 
ad Virgines, proximo seculo a Wetstenio Syriaca Versione editis, 
quas aliqua ex parte Clementem referre ex Epiphanii et Hieronymi 
testimoniis credibile est; neque enim satis firmis argumentis eas 
omnino spurias pronunciavit Lardnerus. Ills? vero canonicae in 
primaeva Ecclesia virgines, ut ad Cyprian. Epist. iv. notant Rigalt. 
et Fellius, nullo voto adstrictae, nulla publica professione facta, 
animi tantum proposito se Cbristo dicaverunt; apud parentes 
plerumque custoditae remanserunt, aliquando fortasse in collegia 
viduarum vel inter diaconissas receptae ; nulla enim adhuc fundata 
erant monasteria, ubi foeminae sub regula congregarentur. Vid. 
S. Ignat. ad Smyrn. c. 13. Tertull. de Vel. Virg. c. 9. 

Deest igitur omnino ratio, quae Martyrologio in hac re fidem 
faciat. Ca?tera autem ex medio fabularum acervo, de martyrio 
Domitillae cum virginibus suis Euphrosyna et Theodora, quarum 
nomina Hieronymus ne fando quidem audierat, non opus est 
persequi ; cum parum inde profici possit ad tempora S. Clementis 
determinanda. 

2. Quod vero objicitur de martyrio S. Clementis, quod Chersonae, 
sive in Chersoneso Taurica exsulanti contigisse referunt Acta 
Martyrii, id planissime inter fabulas recensendum agnoscunt omnes 
hodie viri KptTutotrtpm. Clementem martyrem fuisse omnino parum 
constat, nee credidit Pearsonus ; (vid. supr. Dissert, i. c. iv. a.) 
cum neque Irenaeus, nee Clemens Alexandrinus, qui verba ejus 
saepius exscribit, eo nomine appellat; (at veteres, ait Dodwellus, 
" quoties martyrem testem advocant, id solent notare plerumque 
" diligentissime ;") nee sane Eusebius; quamvis id suspicatur Dod- 
wellus in mente fuisse Eusebio, ut martyrem eum credi voluerit, 
nulla alia causa, nisi quod tertio isto Trajani anno narrat ille 
Clementem decessisse. Id vero nihili est. Martyrem primus 
disertis verbis nominat Rufinus, Apol. Origen. i. 778 ; deinde Zo- 
simus papa, Epist. ii. 2. " fidem" ait " martyrio consecrasse." 
(An legend. " consignasse ?") Post hos Concil. Vasense I. A. D. 



472 De Annis primorum Homes Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

442. Gregorius Turonensis De Glor. Martyr, i. 50. et alii. Ve- 
rissime autem de Turonensi observat vir in historia ecclesiastica 
optime versatus, " scriptores, hoc genus, quum Vitas Sanctorum 
" describunt, eodem vitio laborare, quo imperiti tragoediarum con- 
" ditores, qui nihil sibi efficere videntur nisi heroum personas 
" violenta morte conficiunt *." De testimoniis priorum tenendum 
quod notavit Rem. Ceillier, martyris appellationem aliquando iis 
tributam esse, qui aliquid pro Christi passi fuerant, licet cruciatibus 
intererapti non fuissent. Ita, ut modo vidimus, Hieronymus lo- 
cutus est de exsule Domitilla, quasi " longum martyrium" sus- 
tentante. Ita idem intelligendus, ut opinor, in Comment. Isai. Ixiv. 
ubi S. Irenaeum inter martyres adnumerat. Ita certe Theodoretus, 
Hist. i. c. vi. de episcopis ex recenti persecutione ad Concil. Nicae- 
num congregatis, r\v I8flv dfjfiov papTvpav crvvrjdpoia-fjLfvov. Adhuc 
latius Clemens Alex. Strom, iv. p. 570. TLava f] Ka6ap5>s no\iTv<ra- 
p*vr) 'fyvx*1 /* er> fJftyvu>(Tfo>s TOV Qtov, -f) Tais eVroXals (iraKrjKov'ia, pdprvs 
e'orl Kal /3i'a> KOI Xdy<w, OTTWS irore TOV trco/naroy aTraXXarr^Tat. At satis 
est si in altero sensu accipimus Rufinum et Zosimum, quemadmodum 
intellexit Gottfr. Lumper, in Hist. Theol. Crit. i. p. 1 6 : vix enim 
credendum est Clementem, Pauli adjutorem, qui nullum in evan- 
gelio laborem recusabat, persecutionis omnino immunem perstitisse f. 
Quae ratio etiam melior est, quam Dodwelli et Gul. Wakii, archiep. 
Cantuar. quibus visi sunt hi scriptores Clementem consulem cum 
pontifice confudisse. 

3. Restat tertia objectio de tempore quo scripta sit ilia ad 
Corinthios Epistola. Tillemontius et alii plures sub Domitiano ar- 
bitrantur scriptam : Pagius, Dodwellus, Grabius, et inter nuperos 
Gallandius, Neronis persecutione desinente, proxime post aposto- 
lorum Petri et Pauli martyrium. Nee multum discrepat judicium 
Florii, qui refert ad ann. Dom. 69. post motus civiles composites, et 

* R. W. Evans. Biogr. of the Early " Carthagine, Athanasium in Alexan- 

Church, i. 248. " dria, qui sub paganis imperatoribus 

f Bonifacius, sive Winfridus noster, " navem Christi, docendo, defendendo, 

archiepiscopus Moguntinus, ipse postea " laborando et patiendo usque ad san- 

martyrio coronatus, nescio quid lama " guinis efFusionem, gubernabant." 

acceperat, seculo octavo, de Clemente. Epist. LXXUI. ad Cuthbertum Cantuar. 

' Ecclesia," ait, " quae velut navis Panim accurate Athanasium nominal 

' magna per mare inundi hujus ena- inter episcopos qui sub paganis impe- 

' vigat, quae diversis tentationum flue- ratoribus gubernabant. Ueinde, cum 

' tibus tunditur, non est tamen relin- neque Cornelius neque Athanasius inter 

' qiienda, sed regenda. Cujus rei in martyres, sed inter coufessores locum 

' exemplo priores habemus, Clemen- habent, idem fortasse intelligi voluit de 

' tern, et Cornelium, et cseteros com- Clemente. 

< plures, in urbe Roma, Cyprianum in 



CAP. vi. S. dementis tempora. 478 

imperium ad Vespasianum recens translatum, stante adhuc templo 
Hierosolymitano. Et stetisse quidem templum eo usque dum 
scripserit Clemens, credidit Dodwellus, quod in Epist. c. 40, 41. 
loquitur " de templi officiis, quasi adhuc in usu essent," et de urbe 
Hierosolymitana, quasi " nee primis belli initiis agitata." At bene 
notat Florius, " Tout ce discours n'est qu'une comparaison ; et il 
" est assez ordinaire dans les comparaisons de proposer les choses 
" comme pre"sentes, quoique passe"es." Nobis videtur Clemens ibi 
ideo tantum loqui de institutis Veteris Testament!, ut Ecclesiae 
Christian* regimen et cultus ordinem necessarium doceat, neque 
iiiinium respicere ad statum Judaeorum sub Nerone vel Vespasiano. 
Nee quidquam certi afferri posse crediderim ex internis Epistolae 
notis, unde tempus scriptionis determinetur. Nam quae ex adverse 
urgentur, quod in c. 44. innuitur episcopos quosdam jampridem 
v</>* Ttp<av \\oyip<ov dvSpStv, non omnes ab apostolis, constitutes, et 
quod in c. 47. Corinthiorum Ecclesia vocatur apxaia, nihil valent ut 
credamus haec sub Domitiano potius quam sub Vespasiano scripta. 
Bene COnfert Dodwellus Act. xxi. l6. Mvd<ra>va, dp\aiov \ui6rfrr]v, Et 
ap\aiav certe potuit Clemens vocare Corinthiacam Ecclesiam, ubi 
erat domtts Stephana dirapx*) rf)t 'A^aiaj, et unde Fortunatum sibi 
remitti postulat, eundem proculdubio qui D. Paulo una cum Stephana 
et Achaico ministraverat. c. 59. Illi vero avSpes AXdyi/xoi, quales 
erant Timotheus, Sylvanus, Titus, et alii, quibus Paulus adhuc 
superstes auctoritatem apostolicam delegaverat, potuerunt et alia 
quce deessent corrigere, et episcopos, ubi opus esset, creare. Nisi 
ergo validiora sint quae objiciantur, placet Florii sententia, quam 
prior protulit Is. Vossius in Epist. ii. ad Blondellum ; qui " uno aut 
" altero anno ante eversam Hierosolymam scriptam esse," ait, " istam 
" Clementis Epistolam." Idem censuisse Pearsonum vidimus, supr. 
c. iv. 3. 

Ad summam tamen fatendum est, Irenaeus, cujus testimonium 
praecipue pro antiquitate et viri dignitate respiciendum, videri potest 
de Clemente locutus, ut qui apostolis diutius mortuis in episcopatu 
superfuerit. Verba ejus pensitent, quibus curse sit hanc quaestionem 
penitius introspicere. Difficultates alias, quae non solum criticos 
modernos, sed et veteres torsere, ut patet ex Epiphan. Haer. xxvii. 6. 
nos quidem, quoniam duce Pearsono destituimur, in medio re- 
linquimus. 



CAP. VII. 

I. Euaristus sedit ab an. Dom. LXXXIII. ad an. Dora. xci. II. 
Alexander ab an. Dom. xci. ad an. Dom. ci. III. Acta Alex- 
andri non sunt sincera ; IV. Neque antiqua : V. Sed potius 
nova, nee ante vn. seculum scripta. VI. Xystus sedit ab an. 
Dom. ci. ad an. Dom. cxi. VII. Qui post obitum S. Joannis 
apostoli pascha dvaoTaa-ipov instituisse videtur. VIII. Telesphorus 
sedit ab an. Dom. cxi. ad an. Dom. cxxn. quando gloriose 
martyrio coronatus est. 

I. OEQUITUR secunda episcoporum tetras, et 
O quidem Integra; Euaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, 
Telesphorus, de quorum numero aut ordine nulla lis. 
Apud Optatum deest quidem Alexander; sed vitio, 
ut opinor, librarii ; Augustinus enim, qui Optatum 
sequitur, eum non omittit. Horum tempora eo modo 
disponenda sentio, quo apud Eutychium digesta re- 
periuntur. Hie autem de imperio Domitiani agens, 

*U'l y-fZjj ^c ^j-'.f^i u**^ 3 *",'.^ j"^ *- ~ i ^ (^ /j^^*" J 
oU 5 ^-oL*, US' " Anno," inquit, " imperii ipsius se- 
" cundo constitutus est Euaristus patriarcha Romae ; 
" ubi cum octo annos sedisset, mortuus est." Hsec 
Eutychius, qui de numero annorum, quibus sedit, a 
Graeco catalogo non dissentit. Sedit igitur Euaristus 
ab an. Dom. LXXXIII. coss. Domitiano ix. et Rufo n. 
usque ad an. Dom. xci. coss. Trajano et Glabrione; 



CAP. vii. De Euaristo, et Alexandra. 

hoc est, ad Domitiani annum decimum. Unde obiter 
observandum, quanta fides Martyrologio Romano Ba- 
ronii adhibenda sit, in quo ad xxvi. Octobris scriptum 
est, " Romae S. Euaristi papae et martyris, qui Dei 
" Ecclesiam sub Hadriano imperatore suo sanguine 
" purpuravit." Cum Liber Pontificum xi. Trajani, Eu- 
sebius xn. catalogus tertius Trajani in. eum decessisse 
tradat : neque veterum quisquam ad Hadriani tempora 
pervenisse doceat. Imo Breviaria antiqua, et illud 
etiam a Sixto V. editum, " Euaristus Graecus, ex Ju- 
" daeo patre, Domitiano, Nerva, et Trajano impera- 
" toribus, pontificatum gessit." Sed ex recognitione 
dementis vin. et Urbani vm. post editos Baronii an- 
nales, Domitiani et Nervae nomina expunguntur ; 
nomen Trajani remanet, Hadriani non adhibetur. Caute 
satis ! quia proximus papa Alexander in Breviario, sub 
Trajano Ecclesiam gubernasse, etiam post decretum 
concilii Tridentini, dicebatur. Et Pseudo-Isidorus, qui 
duas spurias epistolas Euaristo tribuit, primam datam 
vult Valente et Vetere coss., hoc est, A. D. xcvi. ante 
mortem Domitiani ; alteram, Gallo et Bradua coss., hoc 
est, A. D. cvin. Trajani undecimo. Ilium scilicet 
Euaristi priinum, hunc ultimum, ex tabulis Romanis 
hausit, et epistolis, ut solet, tanquam primum, et 
postremum pontificatus annum affixit. Quae autem 
nostrum calculum ex Eutychii annalibus conscriptum 
proprie confirmant, ad finem hujus tetradis referuntur; 
ubi ea argumenta ex historiae monumentis afferentur, 
quae aliorum errores circa horum quatuor pontificum 
tempora clare et abunde refellent. 

11. ^C ,*Jjj Jaj (j*ytXAX~.^l yj^o A/^-iLo ..- ^jA^M, yi^S. ^y 

c,Uj ^.AA^, j.^c -LiM *A-. 5 j " Anno imperii Domitiani 
" decimo patriarcha Romae factus est Alexander, qui ibi 



476 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

" decem annos sedit, dein mortuus est," inquit Eutychius. 
Sedit igitur Alexander ab an. Dom. xci. Trajano et Gla- 
brione coss. usque ad an. Dom. ci. Trajano vi. et Paeto 
coss. Et quidem Martyrologium Romanum tradit 
Alexandrum papam Mali tertio sub Trajano passum 
esse ; sed pro Trajano Hadrianum substituit Baronius, 
cum tamen ipse liber pontificum sub Trajano eum 
decessisse trad at, cum Breviario et Martyrologiis, quae 
veterem catalogum sequuntur ; et catalogus tertius 
Trajani xiv. In antiquis omnibus MSS. et editionibus 
Romani Breviarii, teste Heinschenio, et in editione ex 
decreto Concilii Tridentini et Pii V. jussu facta, anno 
Domini MDLXXXIV. Alexander sub Trajano gubernasse 
dicitur. Sed postea ex arbitrio Baronii pro Trajano 
Hadrianus substitutus est, et mine ex auctoritate 
dementis VII. et Urbani VIII. error ille manifestis- 
simus, etiam a viris Romance Ecclesioe eruditis agnitus 
et reprehensus, retinetur. Dicit quidem Baronius 
ibidem se Alexandri martyrium sub Hadriano contigisse 
in Annalibus pluribus demonstrasse a ; sed ne unum 
quidem argumentum illic affert ; et Acta quae id ipsum 
profited ait, contrarium plane profitentur, Alexandrum 
enim sub Trajano passum esse tradunt : eaque in An 
nalibus nimia antiquitate mendosa esse fatetur ; unde 
eum castigat Heinschenius, qui errore alio, nee minori, 
eadem Alexandri acta deprgedicat tanquam illustria et 
ob suam antiquitatem veneranda, et plane sincerissima 
et integerrima : unde et ex iis chronotaxin decessorum 
et successorum pontificum stabilire conatur. Neque 
dubitandum est, quin Acta vetustis catalogis consenti- 

a Vide Baronii verba in Mar- ann. Smith Dunelmensis, in not. 

tyrolog. p. 299. ed. Colon. 1610. ad Bedre sui Martyrolog. Maii 

Pearsono consentit vir in anti- iii. p. 365. 
quitate sacra bene versatus, Jo- 



CAP. vn. Act a PonJificum, non sincera. 477 

ant ; non tainen puto cum Heinschenio ea sincera esse, 
quia isti catalogi veri non sunt, et ad eorum normam 
conformata sunt Acta. 

III. Priusquam igitur de tern pore pontificatus Xysti 
quicquam statui recte poterit, de sinceritate et anti- 
quitate horum Actorum disserendum : praecipue cum 
tantopere iis confidat Heinschenius. Quod ad sinceri- 
tatem attinet, an ea Acta sincerissima dici debeant, quse 
tradunt episcopum Romanum sub imperio Trajani 
" senatorum maximam partem conveitisse ad Domi- 
" num ?" Nonne hoc tarn aperte falsum est, ut qui hoc 
asserit, fidem mereri in aliis non potuerit ? An ilia Acta 
pro siucerissimis haberi debent, quac sub Trajano nobis 
repraesentant " praefectum urbi," nescio quern, " Hennen 
" vel Hermetem, cum servis suis MCCL. cum uxoribus et 
" filiis eorum, ad fidem conversum, servosque omnes 
" confestim libertate donates, imo ingenuos esse fac- 
" tos?" An ilia Acta adeo sincera sunt, quse Euentium 
quendam presbyterum proponunt, qui " cum esset 
" viginti annorum presbyter ordinatus est," (ipsis apo- 
stolicis temporibus, secundo vel tertio Neronis anno,) 
et Alexaudrum passum esse dicunt, cum esset annorum 
xxx. adeoque cathedram Petri occupasse cum fuisset 
annorum xxn ? Quis enim feret, ut Blondellus recte 
observavit, " venerabili Ecclesiae toto orbe celeberrimae 
" presbyterio juvenculum circa annis xxn. prseditum 
" caput tune datum fuisse?" An ilia Acta pro sinceris- 
simis habenda sunt, quae docent Xystum Alexandri 
successorem ipso statim initio imperil Hadriani, in via 
Numentana in praedio Severinae " ordinasse episcopum, 
" qui omni die quac sunt sancta martyribus celebraret ?" 
An credibile est Trajanum " utriusque militias Comi- 
" tern" (si quis ea dignitate praeditus ipsi adfuisset) in 
Occidentem mittere voluisse "ad interfectionem omnium 



478 De Annis primorum Homes Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

" Christianorum," eo ipso tempore quo omnia in Oriente 
retro relapsa sunt, exercitus fusi, duces occisi, aut a 
Judseis ubique press! ? Non haec vera, non sincera, sed 
potius ficta et falsa omnia, nee tarn " mendosa" quam 
mendacia esse videantur. Idque nos decet profiteri, 
qui apud antiquissimos legimus, quid paulo ante ad 
Plinium, quid paulo post ad relationem Tiberiani re- 
scripserit, feceritque. 

IV. Ad antiquitatem horum Actorum quod spectat, 
quam volunt esse venerandam; certe quicunque anti 
quitatem ipsam venerandam esse putant, nunquam aut 
haec aut his similia aiitiqua esse largientur. Laudem 
primaevae antiquitatis ipse Actorum auctor respuit, in- 
dicatque ea omnia quae turn gesta esse narraverat, diu 
postea a se scripta fuisse : quamdiu postea, non immerito 
quaeritur. Heinschenius ea proponit " ob suam anti- 
" quitatem veneranda utpote ante persecutionem Deci- 
" anam seculo tertio conscripta." Sed quo argumento 
tanta antiquitas iis vindicatur? Nempe quia legitur in 
Actis, " Ideoque locus ipse habet proprium sacerdotem 
" usque ad hodiernum diem." Nimirum primo sup- 
ponit sacerdotem hoc loco significare episcopum, secundo 
eum fuisse episcopum Nomenti ; sed utrumque impro- 
babile est. Primo quia sacerdos qui ad eum remansit, 
opponitur episcopo, qui primo ordinatus est ; nee potuit 
esse episcopus Nomenti, erat enim tantummodo proprius 
sacerdos illius loci, hoc est praedii Severinae. Ratio 
utcunque sic procedit ; " Quandoquidem non est veri- 
" simile, quod sub S. Sylvestro habuerit locus ille 
" episcopum, verisimile fit, haec Acta esse scripta seculo 
*' tertio in ea Ecclesiae pace quae Decii persecutionem 
" praecessit." Nihil hie nisi verisimile praefertur, et 
hoc verisimile tantummodo ex alio non verisimili de- 
ductum. Idque tandem desinit vel in Deciana vel 



CAP. v,i. Testimonium S. Gregorii. 479 

Diocletianea persecutione. In corifesso igitur est, 
quicquid Alexandro episcopo contigit, id omne centum 
et viginti aut septuaginta annis factum, antequam haec 
Acta scriberentur ; unde magna pars venerationis verae 
antiquitati debitae deteritur. 

V. Mihi autem alia argumenta suppetunt quibus 
rccte probari puto, Acta base non ante Decianam, vel 
ante Diocletianeam persecutionem esse conscripta. 
Quirinum tribunum, ut Acta referunt, " Christiani in 
" via Appia sepelierunt in ccemeterio Praetextati b ." 
At haec Actorum auctor scribere non potuit ante obitum 
Praetextati. Ille autem non ante Diocletianeam per 
secutionem, sed in ipsa sub Maximiano passus est. 
Nominant Acta Aurelianum " Comitem utriusque 
" militia- ;" quisquis autem ille fuit, eo titulo describi 
non potuit, antequam talis titulus inventus est, hoc est 
antequam magna formae reip. Romanae mutatio per 
Constantinum facta est, post quern tandem Comitatus 
rei militaris mentio saepe fit. Hanc Comitatus digni 
tatem durasse notat Heinschenius ad tempora Arcadii 
et Honorii, quod nemo negat. Sed ad suam sententiam 
propugnandam ostendere debuerat, summam illam dig 
nitatem sub imperio Trajani, aut saltern ante perse 
cutionem Decianam, in usu fuisse. Denique non tantum 
post primum catalogum et primasvum Martyrologium 
Romanum, in quibus nulla harum rerum memoria est ; 
sed et post catalogum sccundum, nee ante septimum 
seculum scripta haec Acta fuisse puto. Scripsit ad 
Gregorium Magnum sexto seculo exeunte Eulogius 
patriarcha Alexandrinus, petiitque ut sanctorum mar- 



b Haec exstant in Martyrolog. p. 363. Floras aliquid de Qui- 

Bedse secundum ed. Colon, torn, rino episcopo et martyre, non 

iii. p. 302. Nihil de Quirino tribuno ; Baronius nihil omnino. 
genuinus Beda. Vid. Smith, ed. 



480 De Annis primorum Roma Episcoporwn. DISS. n. 

tyrum Gesta ab Eusebio collecta ad se transmitteret. 
Respondit Gregorius lib. vii. Ep. 29. se adhuc nescivisse, 
an ea ab Eusebio collecta fuerint. " Praeter ilia enim," 
inquit, " quae in ejusdem Eusebii libris de gestis sanc- 
" torum martyrum continentur, nulla in archivis hujus 
" nostrae ecclesiae, vel in Romanae urbis bibliothecis 
" esse cognovi, nisi patica quaedam in unius codicis 
" volumine collecta." Hoc igitur tempore nullum 
Martyrologium vel sub Eusebii, vel sub Hieronymi 
nomine Rom 93 extabat 6 . Interim quale fuerit quo 
Romani utebantur, sic describit; " Nos autem pene 
" omnium martyrum distinctis per dies singulos pas- 
" sionibus collecta in uno codice habemus nomina, 
" atque quotidianis diebus in eorum veneratione mis- 
" sarum solennia agimus. Non tamen in eodem volu- 
" mine, quis qualiter sit passus indicatur, sed tantum- 
" modo nomen, et locus, et dies passionis ponitur." 
Cum jam Gregorius codicem Romanum tarn diserte 
explicuisset, in caeteris ecclesiis occidentalibus ad earn 
amussim conformata sunt Martyrologia, et plerumque 
sub Eusebii vel Hieronymi nomine edita. In his 
Martyrologiis, die tertio Maii haec legebantur ; " Alex- 
" andri, Euentii, et Theodoli ; vel, " SS. Alexandri, 
'* Euentii, et Theodoli;" vel, " Romae natalis Ebenti, 
** Alexandri, Theodoli.'' Haec secundi catalogi auctor 
sub initio septimi seculi statim arripuit, et ad Alexan- 
drum primum Romse episcopum retulit. Unde secundus 
catalogus in Gestis Alexandri papas haec habet, " Mar- 
" tyrio coronatus cum eo Euentius presbyter et Theo- 
" dolus diaconus." Quae cum brevissime scripta essent, 
in secundo catalogo, demum eodem septimo seculo, ex 
zelo pietatis isti aetati convenientis in Acta hsec omnibus 

c Confer Valesii Dissert, de Eusebii Version. Latin. Paris. 
Marty rolog. Romano in App. ad 1677. p. 23. 



CAP. vii. Tempora Alexandri et Xysti. 481 

circumstantiis et loci, et temporis, et personarum vestita 
prodierunt. 

Hanc ego legitiraam horum Actorum antiquitatem 
fuisse sentio, si modo antiquitas potius quam novitas 
dicenda sit, qua auctor ignotus mira quaedam et plane 
incredibilia de Alexandro, ante quingentos annos denato, 
tradidit ; et simul etiam largior Martyrologiorum con- 
fectores ex his Actis sua hausisse, sive Bedam seculo 
octavo, sive Rabanum et Adonem seculo nono, aut 
etiam Notkerum. Cum enim constet eorum Actorum 
exemplaria per occidentem ubique fuisse dispersa, ex 
illis omnino excerpta fuisse par est credere, quae hi 
martyrologi breviter tradiderunt; praesertim cum ea 
talia sint, qualia aliunde habere nullo modo potuisse 
videntur. Nee igitur Actorum horum exemplaria ante 
sexcentos annos scripta, nee Martyrologia ante octin- 
gentos aut nongentos forte anuos ex antiquioribus 
exemplaribus desumpta probant horum auctorem ante 
septimum seculum vixisse. Et quamvis Eutychius 
post eum scripsit, ea tamen chronologiae suae non 
intexuit quae sunt ab omni ratione aliena. Sub eodem 
quidem imperatore Alexandrum obiisse narrat, sed 
multo maturius, adeoque verius, quod proximo capite 
demonstrabitur. 

Interim omittenda non sunt quae nuperrime d scripsit 
in nova sua Collectione Conciliorum eruditissimus Ba- 
luzius, qui ut operi suo -n/Aayyey irpoa-unrov apponeret, 
sic incijtir. 

"CONCILIUM SICULUM 
" habitum circa annum Christi cxxv." 



d Baluzii Nova Collectio pri- Haeresibus edidit Sirmondus, 

mum prodiit A.D. 1683. Videndn Paris. 1643. Exstat in Gallandii 

sunt quae exscribit Pearsonus, in Bibliotb. torn. x. p. 357. 
torn. i. p. 3. Libellum istum de 

PRA.MON, VOL. II. I 1 



482 De Annis primormn Homce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

Hoc concilium celebratum fuisse vult, et an. Dom. 
ex xv. et sub pontificatu Alexaridri. Quae si vera sint, 
nostra chronologia admitti nullo modo potest, quse 
docet Alexandrum xxiv. annis antea obiisse. Sed hsec 
aut vera esse aut verisimilia nemo concedet, qui noverit 
quam inidoneus auctor sit ille, a quo haec Baluzius 
hausit, ad fidem de tarn antiquo concilio Siculo, cujus 
nulla apud veteres memoria extat, faciendam ; et simul 
reputaverit, quantum res ipsa ab illo tradita ab omni 
antiquitate discrepet atque dissentiat. Nam primo 
unicus hujus inauditi alias concilii conditor et inventor 
est anonymus nescio quis Libri Categorici de Haeresibus 
auctor, Hyginus perperam ab Hincmaro dictus, quod ex 
Hygino nescio quo multa descripsit, (quern forte Hy- 
ginum papam credi voluit,) ab aliis Primasius ex inani 
conjectura cognominatus ; qui cum Praedestinatorum 
Hseresin publicare institueret, omnium haereticorum in 
unum librum sectas collegit, ut scirent Praedestinati 
ipsum cunctis haeresibus adversari. Secnndo, historia 
ipsa quam narrat plane incredibilis est. Post Ptole- 
maeum, Marcum, et Colarbasum, Augustini methodo 
usus, Heracleonem nominat decimae sextae Haereseos 
patrem, eumque sub Alexandro episcopo Romano virus 
suum sparsisse in Sicilia scribit. At post Alexandrum 
in Romana cathedra sedit Sixtus, post Sixtum Hyginus, 
post Hyginum Pius, ante cujus pontificatum non ap- 
paruit haeresis Heracleonis, prsesertim in occidente. 
Praeterea nominat episcopos Siculos Eustachium Lily- 
baeorum et Panormeorum Theodorum, " qui omnium 
" per Siciliam episcoporum synodum exorabant V' 
quorum nulla mentio est apud veteres. Neque mirum 
videri debet haec ab eo tradita fuisse, qui docere veritus 
non est Marcum decimac quartae Haereseos patrem ante 

e Lib. de Hseres. c. xvi. 



CAP. vii. Xysti tempora. 483 

Alexaiulrum et Euaristum u Clemente apostolorum 
discipulo, fuisse " coram omni plebe in Ecclesia detectum 
et aeterna damnatione punitum f ." De anno quidem 
cxxv. nihil habet Anonymus ipse, ideoque de eo aliunde 
judicandum. 

VI. 



CiLoj (jt**" V*-* flJ'l *f*3.> s^ " Anno imperil 
" Trajani quarto Xystus patriarcha Romae constitutus 
" annos decem sedit, dein moritur," inquit Eutychius. 
Sedit igitur Xystus ab an. Dom. ci. Trajano iv. 
et Paeto coss. usque ad an. Dom. cxi. Pisone et 
Rustico coss. Hunc obiisse volunt Baronius, Petavius, 
et Labbeus, sub Antonino Pio an. Dom. cxxxix. 
immani metachronismo. Quern Eusebius et Mar- 
tyrologia omnia obiisse tradunt sub Hadriano, et 
quidem, secundum vetustissimi catalog! auctorem, Vero 
et Ambiguo coss. an. Dom. cxxvi. Barouius Martyro- 
logium suum hie manifeste interpolavit, in hunc mo- 
dum, "Romae natalis B. Sixti papae et martyris, qui 
" temporibus Hadriani imperatoris [regens Ecclesiam, 
" demum sub Antonino Pio] ut sibi Christum lucrifa- 
" ceret, libenter mortem sustinuit temporalem." Ilia 
enim verba quae unculis inclusa sunt, Baronius ipse 
inseruit, ut suam chronologiam omnibus dissentaneam, 
auctoritate Martyrologii Romani, hoc est sua, stabiliret. 
Ego Xystum I. Romae episcopum, nee Antonini, nee 
Hadriani tempora vidisse sentio ; et Eutychio nostro 
prorsus adhaereo, qui eundem numerum annorum cum 
Graecis et Latinis, decem scilicet, pontificatui ejus 
assignat. Et Heinschenius cum appendiculam men- 
sium et dierum addit, nihil aliud obtinet, quam ut 
diligentius et accuratius errare videatur. Ex illis eriim 

f Ib. c. xiv. 
I 12 



484 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporwn. DISS. ir. 

cum diebus obitus Alexandri et Xysti collatis, statuit 
Xystum, superstite adhuc Alexandro, " fuisse episco- 
" pum, circa xm. diem aut proxime sequentes mensis 
" Decembris anni cvi. consecratum, et vicarium egisse 
" S. Alexandri." Immemor sane hie fuit Actorum 
Alexandri, quae hunc vicariatum prorsus respuunt. 
Xystus enim, cum Alexander erat in carcere, et cum 
passus est, Romae non fuit, si illis Actis fides habenda 
sit, sed in Oriente. Nam Severina uxor Aureliani, 
quae sepelivit Alexandrum, cum Euentio, " vestivit se 
" cilicio et tarn diu jacuit ante limina sanctorum 
" quos ipsa sepeliverat, donee venisset ex Oriente 
" sanctus Sixtus episcopus." Recte fecit Heinsche- 
nius quod obitum Alexandri ad tempora Trajani retu- 
lerit, et initium pontificatus Xysti sub ejusdem imperio 
posuerit ; sed in anno assignando multum ab Eutychio 
et veritate dissentit, dum Xystum pontificatum iniisse 
vult anno vel ultimo, vel pen-ultima Trajani, quern 
sedisse diximus ab anno Trajani quarto, an. Dom. cr. 

VII. Haec de Xysto vera esse videntur, quia paulo> 
post mortem S. Joannis eum sedisse verisimile est. Id- 
que inde colligi posse puto, quod eum Irenseus inter epi- 
scopos Romanos primum ponit, qui festum Paschatis ali- 
ter,quam Asiani, observabant. UK enim suum observandi 
modum a S. Joanne recepisse se dicebant ; Xystusautem 
et qui eum sequuti sunt, eum morem non observabant, 
neque Romanis eo uti permittebant. Xystus igitur 
primus post S. Joannis obitum Romas episcopus con- 
stitutus Romanae Ecclesise morem stabilivit : quod ante 
S. Joannis mortem nemo facere ausus est. Haec ega 
observanda duxi ex epistola Irensei ad Victorem, in 
qua ostendit Anicetum Polycarpo persuadere non po- 
tuisse, ut non observaret diem pascbatis Judaici, quern 
acceperat a Joanne aliisque apostolis, quibuscum ver- 



CAP. vii. Xysti tempora. De Festo Paschatis. 485 

satus est, neque Polycarpum Aniceto persuadere potu- 
isse, ut eum diem observaret, \eyovri Ttjv o-uvqOeiav TU>V 
irpo OVTOV irpe<r(3vTpiov o^e/Xe/f ^care^eiv, " dicenti 86 
** morem praedecessorum debere retinere." Nullam 
ab apostolis in ea re traditionem asserebat Anicetus, 
sed tantuminodo morem apud praedecessores suos ob- 
tinentem. Quiuam autein illi, et quot praedecessores 
Aniceti fuerint, apud quos mos iste obtinuit,Irenseus ipse 
etiam ostendit his verbis, Victorem alloquens, 'Ei/ of? 
Kal ol Trpo 2<0Tty>O9 Trpeo-ftvrepot 01 Trpo<rrdvT<i T/9 e/r/cXi;- 
<na?, ^9 vvv a^ij'yp, 'AWtnfTOV Xe-yo^tei/, KOI TIiov, '\ylvov re, 

KUl l\<T(f)OpOV, KOI AV(TTOV t OVT aVTol CTrfp^fTaVy OUT TOl? 

fier' avTovs eTrerpcTrov' " Presbyteri ante Soterem qui 
" Ecclesiae, cui tu jain priaces, praeficiebantur, Anicetum 
" dico, Pium, Hyginum, Telesphorum, Sixtum, licet 
" neque ipsi hoc festum eo die quo episcopi Asiae, 
" observarent, neque aliis post se ita observare permit- 
" terent." Sic ego interpreter ilia Anatolii verba, 
quae in Canone ejus Paschali Latine tantum extant; 
" Non acquiescentes auctoritati quorundam, id est, 
" Petri et Pauli successorum, qui omnes ecclesias, in 
*' quibus spiritalia evangelia solennitatem resurrectionis 
14 Domini in die tantum dominica posse celebrari 
44 docuerunt." Clare enim morem Pascha celebrandi 
die dominico non esse ipsis apostolis Petro et Paulo, 
sed quibusdam eoruui successoribus tribuendum. 

V 111. jLwJJa AA? A^aJL ^-<o XX*M -Xic **Jjt ^>^ 



c. *>, j+s. r. A^CV, .3jjjaj " Anno 

" imperii Trajani decimo quarto Romae patriarcha 
** factus est Telesphorus, qui cum annos undecim 
* sedisset, diem obiit," inquit Eutychius. Sedit 
igitur Telesphorus ab an. Dom. cxi. Pisone et 
Rustico coss. usque ad an. Dom. cxxn. Aviola et 
Pansa coss. Atque hie est, quern primum inter epi- 



486 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. visa. 11. 

scopes Romanos " martyrium gloriose subiisse" apud 
veteres legimus : et quidem, ut videtur, anno Hadri- 
ani sexto, quo tempore imperator ille Christianos per- 
secutus est, post famem, pestilentiam, et terrae-motum. 
" Quarta sub Hadriano persecutio numeratur, quam 
" tamen post exerceri prohibuit," ut loquitur Severus. 
" Post Hadrianum, Antonino Pio imperante, pax Eccle- 
" sise fuit," ut idem aits. Sub Hadriano igitur Teles- 
phorum obiisse tradit auctor antiquissimi catalogi Cae- 
sare et Balbino coss. an. Dom. cxxxvu. et verba ilia 
" Antonini Macrini" nihili sunt : unde eum obiisse 
fatetur Heinschenius A. D. cxxxvm. Tertius catalogus 
A. D. cxxxi. Prosper cxxn. ut editur, ut Victorius 
cxxxvm. Eusebius in Chronico, Antonini Pii secundo 
an. Dom. CXL. Nuperi Chronologi Antonini xv. an. 
Dom. CLII. ut diserte Petavius et Labbeus. Hie primo 
pedem figere placet, et quid quantumque haec ad 
historiam praestent considerandum proponere. Non 
sunt gratis hsec a nobis dicta, aut ex sola auctoritate 
Eutychii scriptoris aevi sequioris, sed quam vere quam- 
que necessario infra patebit. Certe Telesphorum ultra 
an. Dom. cxxn. non sedisse liquet ex iis, quae in 
historia de ejus successore Hygino traduntur. Nemo 
enim adhuc Telesphoro Hyginum successisse negavit. 

g Sulp. Sev. Hist. Sacr. ii. 31. 



CAP. VIII. 

I. Tempora priorum Romae episcoporum confirmantur. II. Ante an. 
Demi. CLII. quo mortem Telesphori statuunt alii, haereses suas 
vulgarunt Valentinus, Cerdo et Marcion. III. Quod verum esse 
de Marcione omnium recentissimo concedit ipse etiam Petavius. 

IV. Post mortem Hygini haeresin suam primo docuit Marcion. 

V. Non vixit Hyginus ad annum CLII. ut existimat Petavius. VI. 
Sed nee usque ad annum CXLII. ut putat Blondellus. VII. Ex- 
plicatur locus Tertulliani. Epocha Tertulliani, de ortu Marcionis, 
in initio Pii terminanda est ; et quidem Pii imperatoris, non 
pontificis. VIII. A Tiberii xn. aer. vulg. xxv. inchoanda IX. 
Varia tempora, variique gradus, quibus haeresin suam vulgavit 
Marcion. * * * 

I. A D confirmationem temporum prioribus episcopis 
-t*- attributorum, et alterius cujuscunque chrono- 
taxeos hactenus notae refutationem, opportunius aliquod 
aut certius excogitari nequit argumentum, quam quo 
probari possit B. Telesphorum post an. Dom. cxxn. 
superstitem non fuisse. Neque hoc probari melius 
potest quam ostendendo ejus successorem Hyginum eo 
anno in cathedra Petri sedisse. Nam post initum 
Hygini pontificatum sedisse adhuc Telesphorum nemo 
dixerit. Et si tarn mature quam volumus Hyginum 
ordiiiatum esse etiam aliunde constiterit, Eutychii 
chronologiae in priori tetrade disponenda refragari 
nemo debet. Nulla enim ratio afferri queat, quae 



488 DC Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

ullius, ex illis quatuor episcopis proxime prioribus, 
armos in dubium vocare merito potest. Quare sen- 
tentiam Eutychii contra aliorum omnium opiniones, a 
seipsis et a veritate plurimum discrepantes, sic cor- 
roboramus. 

II. Dicimus Telesphorum martyrio coronatum an. 
Dom. cxxn. Alii CLII. Ingens discrimen ! Nostram 
sententiam dicimus esse veram, aliorum falsissimam. 
Falsitas eorum sententiae plurimis ex historia argu- 
mentis, iisque certissimis, convincitur. Primo, si Te- 
lesphorus ante an. Dom. CLII. non est mortuus, turn 
Valentinus ante annum (ut Petavius inde docet) CLIII. 
Romam non venit, et Cerdo ante annum alterum, et 
Marcio ante annum CLVI. Romam non vidit. Nam sub 
Hygino Romam venit Valentinus, et post eum Cerdo 
ejus discipulus ; ac non nisi post mortem Hygini urbem 
adiit Marcio, cum jam nondum haereticus, sed adulter 
tantum esset. Haec sunt ex historise monumentis ex- 
plorata : hsec Irenseus et Epiphanius diserte tradunt, 
quae ab aliis confirmantur. Irenasus lib. iii. cap. 4. 
OvaXevTivos /mev yap ij\6ev et? rl Pa>/ui.t]v eTrl 'Yyivov, " Va- 
" lentinus enim venit Romam sub Hygino." Kepdw 
Se, 6 irpo Mapa'wvo?, KOI auro? eTrl 'Y'y/i/ou, " Cerdon 
" autem, qui ante Marcionem, et hie sub Hygino." 
Eusebius haec ex Irenaeo notat. Epiphanius, Ana- 
cephalaeosi de Cerdone, ^O? a?ro r^? 'Svplas e/V 'Pco/m.rjv 
ay TO Kypvy/u.a avrov e^eOero ev xpovois 'Yylvov 
, " Qui e Syria Romam profectus dogma suum 
" Hygini episcopi temporibus exposuit." S. Hiero- 
nymus a , " Sub Hygino Romance urbis episcopo Va- 
" lentinus hseresiarches et Cerdo magister Marcionis 
"Romam venerunt." S. Cyprianus b , " Cujus (Mar- 

a In Chronico ad ann. 140. b Epist. Ixxiv. 



CAP. vui. Quo tempafe ffaresm mam doctterit Marcion. 489 

" cionis) niagister Cerdon sub Hygino tune episcopo* 
" qui in urbe nonus fuit, Romam venit." Nee ilia 
adlmc in dubium vocata sunt, ne ab iis quidem, qui 
haec de aetate Telesphori decent. Jam vero Valenti- 
num Roraam nonnisi anno demum CLIII. pervenisse, 
pro monstro haberi debet : diu enim ante eum annum 
scripsit Justinus contra Valentinianos, quos a Valentino 
nomen traxisse ait, mortuumque tune satis Valentinum 
significat, cum priorem apologiam scripsit, dum Mar- 
cionem adhuc vivere testatur. Si igitur Valentinus 
Romam venerit an. Dom. CLIII. ab inferis excitatus 
illuc venit. Multo magis mirum est Marcionem non 
ante annum CLVI. haeresi infectum esse, quern haeresi- 
archam vidit Polycarpus ille, qui diu ante eum annum 
mortuus est, ut postea probabimus, et contra cujus 
haeresin tot libros scripsit ante eum annum Justinus 
Martyr. Hujus argument! vis ex ipso Petavio clarius 
elucescet. 

III. Ille enim in libro de Doctrina Temporum 
decimo tertio, qui chronologiam et usum doctrinae 
fructumque continere dicitur, ad an. Dom. cxxxiv. 
Hadriani imperatoris xvn, xvni, Sixti papae quinto, haec 
habet, quae et repetit in Rationario Temporum : " Marcio 
" per id tempus haeresin suam vulgare coepit." Et rursus 
ad an. Dom. CXLVI. Antonini ix. Telesphori vn. " Sub 
" hoc tempus Marcio Ponticus dogma suum vehe- 
" mentius propagare coepit." Ac demum ad an. Dom. 
CLII. Antonini xv. " In locum Telesphori creatus est 
" Hyginus." Annis igitur xvni. ante pontificatum 
Hygini, secundum Petavium, haeresin suam vulgare 
coepit Marcio; quern constat non haereticum fuisse, 
cum Hyginus post Sixtum et Telesphorum mortuus 
'est; et dogma suum vehementius propagavit sub Te- 
K'sphoro, secundum eundem Petavium ; cum Irenaeus 



4-90 De Annis printorum Ro-mce Episcoporum. DISS. 11. 

doceat eum floruisse sub Aniceto. Quis enirn credet 
Marcionem sub Sixto suam haeresin vulgasse, sub Teles- 
phoro vehementius propagasse, sub Hygino, sub Pio 
etiam perstitisse, et cum per tot aniios notissimus 
haeresiarcha fuisset, demum sub Aniceto floruisse, (ut 
diserte tradit Irenaeus, qui et Marcionem pro setate et 
Anicetum noscere potuit) sub Sotere etiam et Eleu- 
thero, si modernis credamus? " Marcionis magister 
** Cerdon sub Hygino tune episcopo, qui in Urbe nonus 
" fuit, Romam venit ; quem Marcion secutus est," in- 
quit Cyprianus Epistola ad Pompeium. Ita Cyprianus 
ex Irenseo lib. iii. c. 4. KejtxW <5e irpo M.apKiu>vos KOI 
avTos eTrl 'Yyivov, 09 yv GVCLTOS eTr/cr/coxo?. Quomodo 
igitur Marcio discipulus Cerdonis sub Sixto papa, ante 
Hyginum, imo ante Telesphorum haeresin suam vulgare 
potuit, ut asserit Petavius ? Quis crederet virum adeo 
oculatum in tarn manifestum tamque immanem erro- 
rem incidere potuisse ? Sed hujus erroris fundamentum 
aeque manifestum est. 

IV. Initium haereseos Marcionis ex bistoria, et qui- 
dem certissima, hausit Petavius, et ad annum suum quam 
proxime redegit ; erroremque Baronii optime correxit ; 
sed dum Chronologiam Pontificum vitiosissimam a 
Baronio acceptam secutus est, plane aa-ua-rara scripsit. 
Et cum in Animadversionibus ad Epiphanium nonnulla 
enucleate de Justino scripserat, et ex ipso de Marcione 
aliqua etiam bene observaverat et modeste protulerat ; 
unum tamen, quod erat falsissimum, asseveranter cen- 
suit, " Hygino vero demum mortuo primitus dogma 
" Cerdonis interpolasse Marcionem, nullo modo censeo." 
Illud autem omnino censendum fuit : neque enim quic- 
quam aut certius, aut exploratius in historia. Epi- 
phanius Haeresi xlii. de Marcione : 'ATroSiSpda-Kei rfc 
r^f ai/r^f, KOI avetariv e/? Ttjv 'Pw/uLtjv avTrjv /uera TO 



CAP. vin. Quo tempore Hceresin suam docucrit Marriott. 



T\VTtj(Tai '\y~tVOV TOV Tri<TKOTTOV 'Potyil/y' " Fugit CX 

** eadem urbe (Sinope) et ipsam Romam profectus est 
" post obitum Hygini episcopi Romani." Idem Epi- 
phanius eadem Haeresi, "Iva eXeyfy TOV MapKtwva TOV 
Hera Toa-avra CTIJ rJKovra /uera xpovov? TOV xaXov/mevov 

'AviKJTOV TOV '"P(0fA.aiU)V CTTKrKOTTOV, TOV KCtTCl StaSo^TJV 

evciTov yevo/JLcvov airo TJ/? TU>V a.Tro<rrd\(ov Herpov KOI Tlav- 
Xov reXewo-ea)?. Hoc est, interprete Petavio, " Ex quo 
" Marcion refellitur, qui tanto intervallo prodierit, 
" nimirum post Aniceti Romani pontificis tempus ; qui 
" ab apostolorum Petri ac Pauli passione norms ordine 
" numeratur." Mirum est eruditum ilium interpretem 
ha?c concoquere potuisse, eademque in Animadversio- 
nibus intacta reliquisse. Qui ferre non potuit, ut post 
Hygini mortem Marcion prodierit ; quomodo post Pii, 
imo post Aniceti, mortem ejusdem haereseos initium 
referentem tulit ? Sed idem hie docet Epiphanius, quod 
prius docuerat, et pro 'AviKJTov legendum est omnino 
'Yytvov, quern hoc loco, ut priori, nonum Romoe epi- 
scopum vocat. Quod et in Haeresi xli. fecerat ; 
Ouroy TOIVVV 6 KepScov ev xpovoi? '\yivov yeyovev TTI- 

(TKOTTOV TOV CVdTOV K\tjpOV ajOVTOS OTTO T^J TU>V TTpt 

'la/tft^Sov Kcii Tlerpov KOI TlavXov aTrooroAwi/ StaSo^tj^' 
" Hie igitur Cerdo extitit tempore Hygini episcopi, qui 
" nonum locum a successione Jacobi et Petri et Pauli 
" tenuit." Haec Epiphanius babuit ex Irenaeo, cujus 
verba Greece extant apud Eusebium, quae Interpres 
vetus sic expressit, " Cerdon cum venisset Romam sub 
*' Hygino, qui nonum locum episcopatus per succes- 
" sionem ab apostolis habuit." Haec Irenaeus lib. i. 
cap. 28. eademque repetit lib. iii. cap. 4. /ecu auroy CTT} 
'Yyli/ov, oy yv evaroy eTrtV/coTroy. Ubi minus recte Inter- 
pres, " Et hie sub Hygino, qui fuit octavus episcopus." 



492 De Annis primortim Rotnce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

Unde ad chronologiam nostram conlirmandam fir- 
missimum ducitur argumentuin. 

V. Cum priinum Romam venit Marcio, nondum 
haereticus aut haeretici cujuspiam discipulus fuit ; imo 
rejectus a presbyterio Romano fuit, priusquam de 
haeresi cogitavit : extra Ecclesiam positus Cerdoni se 
adjunxit, et quidem Romae. Cerdo autem Romam 
adiit sub Hygino pontifice, et quidem post Valentinum 
magistrum suum, qui ad urbem sub eodem pontificatu 
etiam venit. Sub initio Pii pontificis Cerdoni con- 
junctus haeresin ejus didicit et Cerdonianus fuit : turn 
vero haeresi Cerdonis in characterem suum translata, 
extitit Marcio haeresiarcha, et virus suum sparsit, ut 
Petavius, circa annum cxxxiv. Quis igitur hinc non 
colligit non vixisse Hyginum usque ad annum CLII. 
quod tamen idem Petavius statuit, qui quantum esset 
in Chronologia xxx. fere annorum discrimen, satis 
novit. Sed perversa de annis pontificum persuasione 
praeoccuputus, quam absurda inde sequerentur perspi- 
cere non potuit. 

VI. Blondellus quidem negat Telesphorum ultra 
annum cxxxvm. vixisse, et recte admittit Marcionem 
Romam venisse post mortem Hygini et ante pontifica- 
tum Pii ; et melius quam Baronius et Petavius, Hygi 
num defunctum esse dicit an. Dom. CXLV ; longe tamen 
etiam adhuc a veritate abest. Tertullianum quidem 
advocat, chronologiam ejus de initio haereseos Marcio- 
nis usquequaque a vero alienam esse pronunciat ; 
ut autem ad suum propositum trahat, nuuc hoc, nunc 
illud initium, nunc hunc, nunc ilium finem, Tertulliani 
computo assignat; et tandem mentem Tertulliani ad 
normam Pseudo-Tertulliani exponit, Apologias sect. ii. 
. 5. Enimvero ipse Tertullianum minime intellexit. 



CAP. viii. Locus Tertulliani explicatur. 

Quoniam autem locus ille, quern adduxit, insignis eat, 
et a nemine, quantum scio, recte explicatus, et ad sen- 
tentiam nostram non labefactandam, sed confirmandain 
potius facit, eum baud gravatim hie explicabo. 

VII. Verba Tertulliani sunt lib. i. adversus Marcio- 
nem, cap. 19- '* A Tiberio autem usque ad Antoninum 
" anni fere cxv. et dimidium anni cum dimidio inensis ; 
" tantundem temporis ponunt inter Christum et Marcio- 
*' nem." Pamelius quidem, diligentissimus scriptor, pro 
cxv. scribendum putavit cv. sed perperam. Locus ille 
non correctione, sed iuterpretatione indiget : unde in- 
cipiat, ubi desinat ilia computatio, ex mente Tertulliani 
quaerendum est. Ilia igitur verba " usque ad Antoninum," 
non ad hunc aut ilium imperii ejus annum ; non ad sep- 
timum (quod amplexus est Alexander) aut decimum ter- 
tiuni, aut alium quemlibet. Patet hoc primo ex verbis 
antecedentibus; "Marcionis salutem, qui ita voluit, quoto 
" quidem anno Antonini majoris de Ponto suo exhalave- 
" rit aura canicularis, non curavi investigare." Non igi 
tur ad ullum certum annum imperii Antonini com put um 
suum perducere cogitavit. Neque ad praecisum initium 
haereseos Marcionis respicere voluit quo primum a 
Cerdone earn accepit; sed cum constaret eum sub 
Antonino prsecipue virus suum evomuisse, satis esse 
putavit si tempora ab initio computaret ad initium 
imperii Antonini. Et hanc fuisse men tern Tertulliani 
satis aperte ostendunt verba qua? sequuntur : " De quo 
" tamen constat, Antoninianus haereticus est, sub Pio 
" impius. A Tiberio autem ad Antoninum, &c." 
Et quamvis ilia verba, " sub Pio impius," duplicem in- 
terpretationem admittant, 1111:1111 de imperatore, alteram 
de episcopo, (Marcion enim sub utroque, turn episcopo 
Romap Pio, turn imperatore Pio, impius, hoc est haere- 
ticus fuit,) puto tamen Tertullianum ad Antoninum 



494 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. IT. 

Pi um potius respexisse ; quia episcopi Romani sub eo 
nomine nusquam meminit, Antoninum autem solo Pii 
vocabulo indigitavit, in Apologetico, cap. 5. " quas 
" nullus Pius, nullus Verus impressit." 

VIII. Secundo, verba ilia " dimidium anni cum 
" dimidio mensis" initium imperil ejus aperte respici- 
unt. Nam ut Spartianus testatur, Hadrianus, accersito 
Antonino, in conspectu ejus apud ipsas Baias periit die 
sexto Iduum Juliarum. Cum igitur mense Julio fere 
medio, qui est anni Juliani mensis Septimus, Antoni 
nus Hadriano successerit ; ideo " dimidium anni cum 
" dimidio mensis" apposuit, ut ad ipsum initium im- 
perii computum deduceret. Quod autem ad epocham, 
a qua computus incipit, spectat ; ilia verba " a Tiberio" 
neque initium neque finem ejus imperii respiciunt ; 
quod primo patet ex verbis sequentibus " tantundem a 
" Christo," cujus neque nativitas, neque baptismus, 
neque passio cum initio vel fine Tiberii convenit. A 
Tiberio igitur ad Antoninum dixit, ut libro adversus 
Judaeos cap. 13. " Ab illis enim incepit infamia et 
" tempus medium a Tiberio usque ad Vespasianum ;" 
id est, ab illo anno Tiberii, quo passus est Christus, ad 
primum annum Vespasiani, quo Hierosolymorum exci- 
diurn alibi posuit ; adversus Judaeos cap. 8. " Ves- 
" pasianus anno primo imperii sui debellavit Judaeos." 
Praeterea ipse Tertullianus idem indicat, cum docet 
hanc supputationem ideo a se factam esse, ut probaret 
Deum Marcionis non fuisse in Christo Jesu revelatum, 
sed a Marcione computatum. Vulgo quidem putant 
respexisse Tertullianum xv. annum Tiberii, quia paulo 
ante dixerat, "anno xv. Tiberii Christus de coelo 
" manare dignatus est :" sed his verbis perstrinxit Mar- 
cionem, ut ex proxime sequentibus patet, "qui ita 
" voluit :" nam ab illis verbis apud S. Lucam incepit 



CAP. viii. Marcionis initium, auctore Tertuttiano. 495 

ejus evangelium, ut testatur Epiphanius; et sententiam 
ejus, quod Christus tune de coelo emanaverit, late 
refutat Tertulliauus, lib. iv. cap. 7. Incipit igitur ab eo 
anno, non quo Marcion, sed quo ipse, putavit Christum 
fuisse revelatum, et evangel ii praedicationem inchoasse. 
Quis autem annus ille fuerit, ipse satis indicat lib. i. 
cap. 15. " At nunc quale est, ut Dominus xn. Ti- 
" berii Caesaris revelatus sit ;" quare omnino ab illo 
anno ad initium imperii Antonini supputatio facta de- 
prehenditur. Jam duodecimus Tiberii in annum vul- 
garis aerse Christi xxv ; initium imperii Antonini in 
annum cxxxvm. incidit ; intervallum sunt anni fere 
cxv. si uterque terminus includatur, quod fit saepissime. 
Neque mirum est Tertullianum, qui putavit Christum 
xv. Tiberii passum esse c , asseruisse xn. Tiberii bapti- 
zatum esse : nam sine dubio, cum alios sequeretur 
in anno passionis, Irenaeum tamen secutus est in anno 
baptismi. Irenacus autem tria paschata diligenter obser- 
vaverat inter baptismum et passionem Christi ; quod qui 
non animadverterunt, in graves errores inciderunt : verbi 
gratia, Georgius Syncellus Africanum aocusavit, quod 
ab Adam ad baptismum putaret annos 5530 ; ad pas 
sionem 5531 : ad quam observationem Syncelli haec 
annotat Scaliger in Prolegomenis. " Recte quidem," 
inquit, "Georgius Syncellus ab Adam ad baptismum 
" 5530. annos putavit ; sed quod erroris de anno uno 
" inter baptismum et passionem interjecto auctorem 
" facit Africanum, ostendit se ignorasse non aliter 
" omnes, qui ante Africanum scripserunt, sensisse ; 
** qui ex illis verbis eroy SCKTOV Kijpvai colligebant ero? 
" ev fjiovov T?y Ktipv&w Christi fuisse." Sed mire hie 
Scaliger ut Africanum aliquo modo excusaret aut 
sugillaret Georgium, omnes qui ante Africanum scrip 

c Vid. ejus lib. adv. Judaeos, c. 8. 



496 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

sere, idem sensisse affirmabat : cum Irenseus multo 
senior Africano non tantum idem non senserit, sed 
etiam earn sententiam accurate refutaverit : erat enim 
hoc Valentini commentum ad confirmationem J^onum 
suorum excogitatum tarn de speciali xn. ^Eonum, 
quam de generali xxx. ^Eonum numero ex Isaia peti- 
tum ; quod Irenaeus lib. ii. cap. 38, et 39. late et accu 
rate refutat, et JISnTOtp eviavrov SCKTOV Isaiae melius 
interpretatur. Sed et Tertullianus cum Irenaeo tres 
annos prsedicationis agnoscit, quamvis eos ponat ante 
annum xv. Tiberii, neque enim ubi poneret, novit ; 
cum Irenaeus qui complures annos praeter illos tres 
Christo attribuit, xv. Tiberii annum nusquam observat. 
Sed neque quisquam inter catholicos, qui ante Africa- 
num scripsit, meminit illius anni acceptabilis eo sensu, 
quo eum usurpaverat Valentinus, praeter Clementem 
Alexandrinum d , qui haereticorum scriptis nimium addic- 
tus fuit, eosque sequi nonnunquam solet : restat igitur 
Tertullianum statuisse Christum xir. Tiberii baptiza- 
tum fuisse, et xv. ejusdem imperatoris passum esse. 
Haec mens Tertulliani, qui concedit Marcionem ab 
initio imperii Antonini majoris haeresin suam vulgasse ; 
quod post mortem Hygini factum est. Ita historia 
Marcionis maxime confirmat Chronologiam Eutychii. 

IX. Venit Marcio Romam post mortem Hygini an. 
Dom. cxxvu. nondum haereticus, et a presbyteris re- 
jectus se mox adjungit Cerdoni, anno cxxvm. Pii pon- 
tificis primo : qui nunc per exhomologesin in Ecclesiam 
receptus, nunc haereseos convictus et abstentus est. 
Ab hoc Cerdone hseretico suae doctrinae principia hau- 
riens, Cerdonista fuit ; cum autem ilia in suum proprium 
characterem transtulisset, circa annum cxxxiv. haeresin 
suam vulgare coepit, ut recte observat Petavius. Circa 

J Vid. Strom. 1. i. ci. xxi. p. 407. Pott. 



CAP. vin. Martyrium Telesphori. 4-97 

annum cxxxviu. vehementius propagavit, Antonini im- 
peratoris primo, Pii pontificis undecimo. Inde Justinus 
an. Dom. CXLII. Antonini v. ut vult Eusebius, vel 
paulo post (puta anno CXLIV. vel CXLV.) cum jam 
invaluerat Marcio, ac diu virus suum sparserat, adversus 
eum scripsit, KOI vvv en, inquit, eWt StSdcrKwv, " mine 
" usque docet," Apologia prima, pagina 7, et 92 d . Et 
Irenaeus Marcionem sub Aniceto invaluisse refert, sub 
quo contra eum. scripsit Justinus. Haec chronologize 
nostrae maxime consentanea sunt, nee aliam ferre pos- 
sunt. Et hinc satis jam manifeste patet Telesphorum 
an. Dom. cxxn. et non serius martyrio coronatum esse. 
Unde ulterius patet, quam imprudenter Baronius Orosii 
et Zonarae sententiam, (qui putabant Antoninum Pium 
Justini Apologia permotum pro Christianis edictum 
scripsisse) refellere conatus est in Annalibus, hac ratione 
proposita, quod post earn Apologiam " Romae religionis 
** causa patratae sint caedes, ut Telesphori Roman! pon- 
" tificis et aliorum." Mira haec sunt de Telesphoro 
post Apologiam Justini passo ; cum etiam ipse ad 
Martyrologium haec habeat e , " Respondemus martyrium 
" Telesphori contigisse ante scriptam a Justino Apo- 
" logiam." Quisenim ferre potestAnnalistam martyrium 
Telesphori referentem post Apologiam S. Justini ? Ex 
his, ut opinor, satis elucescit, Telesphorum, qui Hygini 
decessor fuit, non ad annum Domini CLII. aut cxxxvm. 
superstitem fuisse, sed potius cxxn. gloriose martyrium 
obiisse. Unde ego, qui antiquissimorum lectione diu 
occupatus fui, non immerito queri mihi videor Teles 
phorum tain insignem martyrem nullum ab ea ecclesia, 
cui prsefuit, honorem obtinuisse ante pontificatum 
dementis vm. qui j)rimus omnium Romanos B. Teles 
phori annua solennitate laetificare conatus est, inserta 

d c. 26, et 58. e Martyrol. ad Jan. v. not. c. 

PEARSON, VOL. U. K k 



498 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. rass. 11. 

breviario commemoratione hujus martyris ad Vigiliam 
Epiphaniae f . 



f Ultimam Pearsoni manum 
huic capiti defuisse prsetendit 
editio Dodwelli. Equidem non 
video quid addere potuisset Pear- 
sonus ; nee quidquam ad rem ad- 
didit Dodwellus ; sed admodum 
infeliciter tentavit locum Tertul- 
liani " minus ad mentem," ut ait, 
" sed magis ad causam Cl. Auc- 
" tons explicare." Censuit sell, 
ex errore librarii ortum numerum 
" xii." in lib. adv. Marc. i. 15. 
Interim non meminerat ipsum 
Tertullianum, qui anno Tiberii 
xv. Christum passum esse cre- 
didit, ut notavit Pearsonus, hunc 
numerum confirmare. "Erratum" 
ait, " certe ostendunt verba ipsa 
" sequentia. Sic enim habent, At 
" nunc quale est ut Dominus a xn. 
" Tiberii Ceesaris revelatus sit, 
" substantia vero ad xv. jam Se~ 
" veri imperatoris nulla comperta 
" sit, 8fC. ? Ecquis est quin videat 
" committi hoc in loco similes 
" Seven imperatoris annos atque 
" Tiberii ? nee respondere xv. 



" Seven anno annum Tiberii ah' um 
" quam qui fuerit et ipse Tiberii 
" decimus quintus ?" Quasi vero 
numeros chronologicos sibi in- 
vicem respondere oporteat, sic- 
ut arbores in quincunce dis- 
positas ! Deinde de Pio impera- 
tore concedit Tertullianum " in 
" eadem, qua fuit Cl. Cestriensis, 
" sententia fuisse ;" ipse tamen 
et Tertullianum et Cestriensem 
corrigens, auctorem nescio quern 
excogitavit vetustiorem de Pio 
episcopo locutum, quern sequi 
Tertullianum, nee tamen intellex- 
isse, arbitratur ! Nos sane virum 
doctum refellere superfluum cre- 
dentes, ne videamur, ut in pro- 
verbio est, aj/a7roAeu TOVS w/xovy, 
v8a>p TriWojres, Tertullianum po- 
tius audire volumus revocantem, 
" ad lineas rursum et in gradum." 
Haec tantum monuimus, ne quis 
suspicetur nos, ultra quod decet, 
priori Operum Posthumorum edi- 
tori spatium disserendi resecuisse. 



CAP. IX. 

I. Proponitur locus Epiphanii de ortu Cataphrygum. II. Sententia 
Petavii. Male ille Montanum undevicesimo anno IMarci Aurelii 
ortutn existimavit. III. Episcopus Romanus, quern ait Tertul- 
lianus a Praxea in Montanistas fuisse excitatum, erat Eleutherus. 



I. A D illustrandam ulterius hanc historiam locus 
~t\. Epiphanii valde notabilis hie explicandus et a 
Petavii Animadversionibus vindicandus est. Initio 
Haereseos XLVIII. sive Cataphrygum, haec habet Epi- 
phanius ad Chronologiam imprimis spectantia. 
TOVTCOV erepa iraXiv aipea-ii avaicvTrTet T<av Qpvywv 
(rvyyjpovo? yevofj-evr) roi/roty, KCU avrov? StaSe^o/Jievr]. Ourot 
yap yeyovcuri ire pi TO evveaKaioeKarov eroy ' 'Avrtovivov TOV 
Ei/o-e/Soyy /uera 'ASpiavov. KaJ 6 "M.apici<av Se, xai ot irep] 
Tarmi/ov, KOI 01 a7r' avrov SiaSe^ajmevoi eyxpareiav ev xpovoi? 
'ASpiavov, Koi /zero 'ASptavov. Interprete Petavio : " Ab 
u his alia rursum efflorescit haeresis, quae Phrygum 
" dicitur, sub idem fere producta tempus, eique succes- 
" sione proxima. Nam isti sub Antonini Pii, qui post 
'* Adrianum imperavit, annum xix. emergere creperunt. 
u Marcio vero, Tatianus, et Encratitae horum discipuli 
" sub Adriano, ac post Adrianum prodierunt." 

II. Ex his verbis hanc ego chronologiam eorum tem- 
porum recte institutam esse puto. Circa annum Anto 
nini Pii xii. Christi CXLIX. passus est Justinus Martyr. 
Circa annum Pii xin. Christi CL. Tatianus hasreticus 

K k 2 



500 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

factus in Mesopotamiam se contulit. Circa annum 
Antonini Pii xix. Christi CLVII. Tatianus aliis haeresibus 
adhuc infectus cum Priscilla et Maximilla sibi adjunctis 
Encratita factus est, et circa idem tempus Montanus 
coepit evulgare novam haeresin. Haec ego ex mente 
Epiphanii dicta puto, quae et veritati consentanea esse 
non dubito. Petavius autem profitetur manifestam bic 
esse temporum perturbationem, idque ex triplici capite 
se deprehendisse. Primo, quod Justinus, post cujus 
martyrium Tatianus haereticus evasit, sub Marco Anto- 
nino passus est. Secundo, Cataphryges orti non sunt 
ante xi. annum Marci secunclum Eusebium, aut etiam 
xix. secundum Epipbanium. Tertio, Encratitse post 
Cataphrygas orti sunt. De priori agimus ex institute 
in Vita Justini, ubi probamus eum'sub Antonino Pio 
obiisse. De secundo hie agendum est. Petavius lib. iL 
de Doctrina Temporum haec habet : " A. C. CLXXIX. 
" Marci Aurelii xix. Eleutheri in. Montanus cum 
" Priscilla et Maximilla haeresi Kara Qpvya? initium 
" dedere. EPIPHASTIUS." Mira haec mihi primo vide- 
bantur, quod tarn serum illius hsereseos ortum tradiderit,, 
eum ipse Eusebius octennio ante incepisse dixerit^ 
Illud vero multo magis, quod ex auctoritate Epiphanii 
ejus initium xix. Marci tribuit, cum Epiphanius ipse 

XIX. Pii idem assigliet. Kara TO eweaKai&eKaTOV ero? 
'AvrcowVov TOV EucrejSoy? /uera TOV 'ASpiavov' " Sub An- 
" tonini Pii, qui post Adrianum imperavit, annum xix.' r 
Utcunque sit, haec sententia ferri non potest. Primo,. 
quia ipse Petavius an. Dom. CLXXVIII. dicit Irenseum 
Lugduni episcopum factum esse. Constat autem Mon- 
tani haeresin extitisse, dum Irenaeus adhuc presbyter 
fuit. Hoc enim ipsae Lugdunensium literae testantur. 
Unde Labbeus Eusebium potius secutus est: sed neuter 



CAP. ix. Ortus est Montana* sub Aniceto. 501 

persecutionis Lugdunensis in Chronico suo meminit, 
quia nullum annum habebant cui earn affigerent. 
Secundo, exortus haereseos Montani pessime sub ponti- 
ficatu Eleutheri statuitur. Nam Tertullianus, qui sub 
Eleuthero vixit, et postea acerrimus Montanista fuit, 
sic ad versus Praxeam loquitur cap. 1. " Nam idem 
" tune episcopum Romanum, agnoscentem jam pro- 
" phetias Montani, Priscae, Maximillae, et ex ea ag- 
** nitione pacem ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae inferentem, 
" falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando, 
" et praecessorum ejus auctoritates defendendo, coegit 
" et literas pacis revocare jam emissas, et a proposito 
'* recipiendorum charismatum concessare." 

III. Hunc episcopum Romanum putat Baronius 
Anicetum fuisse ; sed omnino male, ut recte observavit 
Valesius : qui et Eleutherum huuc episcopum fuisse 
putat, et quidem recte. Praxeas enim Anicetum 
vidisse minime putandus est. Et Eleutherum pacem 
intulisse ecclesiis Asianis quis dubitat, postquam ad 
eum perlata est Lugdunensium epistola in favorem 
Montanistarum, sive quod idem est, pro pace ecclesiarum 
scripta. Orta est enim ea tempestate seditio propter 
Montanum et Alcibiadem et Theodotum, ut narrat 
Eusebius. Martyres in Gallia, dum adhuc in carcere 
erant, plures literas dedere ad fratres in Asia et Phrygia 
degentes; et ad Eleutherum pariter pro pace ecclesi 
arum legatio instituta est. Eleutherus his permotus 
pacem ecclesiis intulit agnoscendo prophetias Montani, 
Priscae et Maximillae, ut loquitur Tertullianus Monta 
nistarum errore penitus imbutus. Jam vero Tertul 
lianus ostendit, ante hunc episcopum scil. praecessores 
ejus Montanistas rejecisse ; hi autem erant Anicetus 
et Soter Anonymus de Cataphrygibus agens. " Scrip- 



502 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. 11. 

" sit contra eos," inquit, "librum S. Soter papa urbis a ." 
Sub Eleuthero igitur hseresi suae initium non dedit 
Montanus, cum Montanistse non tantum a Sotere, sed 
et ab Aniceto refutati fuerint; et eodem tempore 
pontificatus Eleutheri cum Prisca et Maximilla, turn 
Alcibiades et Theodotus Montano se adjunxerant : 
quod diu factum est postquam Montanus ipse prophe- 
tare coepit. 

a Sell. Auctor Praedestinati, de quo supr. c. vii. 5. Lib. de Hser. 
c. xxvi. 



" Vitam Justini" a Pearsono vel scriptam, vel certe inchoatam, 
discimus supr. p. 500 ; quam quidem inter deperdita recensendam 
doleo. Interim chronologiam Justini placet describere,, ut quae huic 
dissertationis parti lucem aliquam impertiat, ex ipsius Pearsoni 
notulis in fronte et margine ed. Justini Paris. 1615, quae hodie in 
Biblioth. Publ. Cantab, servatur : pp. i. 41. 53. 99, 100. 217. 

Natus videtur, ait Pearsonus, A. D. 1 18, 1 19. Christianus factus, 
A. D. 140 ; Antonini, 2, 3. Scripsit contra Grsecos "EXfy^ov A. D. 
141. Cohort, ad Grsecos A. D. 142. Apolog. (quae in ed. Paris, 
secunda) in qua extat mentio Lib. adv. Haereticos, (Vid. Apol. i. 
c. 26.) A. D. 144, 5 ; anno setatis 25, 6 ; ante Dialog, cum Try- 
phone. (Vid. Dialog, c. 120. sub f.) Aristidem imitatus est. (Hieron. 
Ep. ad Magn. LXX. 4.) Nullum rescriptum ediderat Antoninus, cum 
haec scripsit Justinus ; aliter ejus meminisset, qui meminit rescripti 
dati ab Adriano : plura autem edidit postea. Eodem anno Tatia- 
num habet Justinus discipulum. Scripsit Dialog, cum Tryph. 
Ephesi A. D. 146. post Apolog. priorem. (Paullo aliter in Vind. Ign. 
P. ii. c. 7. p. 78.) Contra Marcion. A. D. 147. Psalten, A. D. 148. 
Apolog. secundam, ad Antonin. A. D. 149, 150. Eodem anno Tatia- 
num Romae audit Rhodon. 

Patitur, A. D. 150; Antonini 12, 23; setatis suae, 31. Tatianus 
deinde Mesopotamiam petit, et doctrinam ^Eonum profitetur. 

Epistola ad Diognetum, ait Pearsonus, non videtur esse Justini, 
sed illo junioris, veteris tamen. 



CAP. X. 

1. Commentum Blondelli de translate in electitios prsepositos, sub 
Hygino, seniorum primatu. II. Interpontificii quadriennium, 
quod renixus argumentum credidit Blondellus, inter Hyginum et 
Pium, nullum. III. Falso observavit e Libro Pontifical! Blondellus 
nullos, ante Euaristum, in Ecclesia Romana fuisse diaconos. 
IV. Varia archontum Atheniensium genera. V. Nulli Athenien- 
sium archontes similes Christianorum episcopis. VI. Quo sensu 
episcopos archontas dixerit Origenes. VII. Episcopi collegas, 
quales habebant archontes, in eadem urbe nullos habebant. 



H 



I. TTIC iterum examinanda est nova Blondelli sen- 
tentia de presbyteris sive episcopis 



ut enim consuetudinis illius fictae initium refu- 
tavimus, ite, hie finem ab eo assignatum refellemus. 
Veterem illam consuetudinem seniorem presbyterum 
in locum defuncti subrogandi durasse ait usque ad 
Hyginum, sed illo sedente " novum quid" admissum 
esse docet ; et post ejus tempora Romse episcopum uon 
ulterius ex successione sed electione factum esse. 
Multa ad hauc rem observat, sed ex libro Pontificali 
omnia, quern " solis radio scriptum" fiiisse autumat. 
Quid autem est illud " novum quid," quod sub Hygino 
admissum est ? Nempe hie, Pontificali teste, " coin- 
" posuit clenim, et distribuit gradus." Fortasse. Quid 
autem inde sequitur ? audiamus oraculum. " Quae 
** verba," inquit ille, (novus Pontifiealis interpres,) " in- 
auditum antea inter Latinos de seniorum primatu in 
" electitios praepositos deinceps transferendo decretum 



504 De Annu primorum Romce Episcoporum. DIMS. n. 

" innuere videntur." Certe si inauditum antea fuit 
tale decretum, etiam turn inauditum fuit : nullum enirn 
his verbis inest decretum, nihil omnino hie dicitur quod 
vel successionem vel electionem, vel significet vel 
innuat. In eodem libro Pontifical! sub Hormisda dicitur, 
" Hie composuit clerum." An igitur ille decretum 
fecit de seniorum primatu transferendo ? Quid Hor- 
misdas fecerit in componendo clero haud satis scio : 
illud autem quidquid fuit Hygino ascribere veritus non 
est auctor secundi catalogi. Sic tamen Romae anno cir- 
citercxL.novam regiminis formam introductam esse vult, 
cum nulla novae regiminis formae, episcopi tune locum 
tenente Hygino, mentio fiat. Neque vero eo anno 
Hyginus episcopus fuit, ut ostendemus. Certe Blon- 
dellus, qui hie Hyginum sedisse dixit Camerino et 
Magno coss. ; ad epistolam Pseudo-Isidori eidem papse 
attributam, et iisdem coss. signatam, haec annotavit, 
" Ad finem uotam temporis mendosissimam addidit 
" plagiarius." Sit autem Pseudo-Isidorus ille plagiarius, 
sit Baronianus calculus vitiosissimus, quern turn secutus 
est Blondellus ; fiat istius chronologiae reformatio, et 
reducatur plagiarius ad Libri Pontificalis auctorem, unde 
sua haurit, tempora Hygini utriusque tenebrionis auc- 
toritate (quantacunque ilia sit) confirmentur ; neuter 
tamen decretum de seniorum primatu in electitios 
praepositos deinceps transferendo, aut tradere aut in- 
imere videtur. 

II. Porro ha3c regiminis mutatio, quocunque tandem 
decreto stabilita fuit, " Sine pertinaciori," inquit, 
" prisco regimini assuetorum renixu haud obtinuit." 
Sed unde hie renixus apparet ? Unde viro docto in- 
notuit? An hunc etiam ex Pontifical! didicit? Imo 
certe. " Quandoquidem abruptum Romse successions 
" filum obiter insinuat Liber Pontificalis, quadriennii 



CAP. x. Blontlelli cotnmeuta de Hygino. 505 

" solidi interpontificium fuisse notans." Novum etiam 
hoc est de quadriennii solidi interpontificio, et quomodo 
illud in Pontificali notatur nondum didici. Sed tradit 
ille Hyginum fuisse episcopum usque ad Orphitum et 
Priscum, (annum scilicet CXLII.) et idem docet Piura 
fuisse a consulatu Clari et Severi, ab anno scilicet 
CXLVI. Ergo post Hyginum quadriennii solidi inter- 
pontificium fuit; idque ideo contigit, quia Roman i 
novae regiminis formae renitebantur, et electionem novi 
pontificis tamdiu impediebant. Fabulosa omnia. Liber 
quidem Pontificalis refert Hyginum sedisse usque ad 
Orphitum et Priscum ; sed nee illius libri auctor, nee 
alius quispiam dixit Orphitum et Priscum consulatum 
gessisse an. Uom. CXLII. Illo enim anno Fasti nobis 
exhibent Rufinum et Quadratum. Orphitum autem et 
Priscum septennio postea, an. Dom. CXLIX. Sed de 
hac re latius postea disserendum est. 

III. Expositionem prseterea suam sic confirmat, 
" Nequa compositum ab Hygino clerum gradusque 
" distributes ob institutes novos clericorum ordines, et 
" assignatas functiones suspicio sit, diversimode ca- 
" vetur." Cautus igitur admodum scriptor fuit auctor 
Libri Pontificalis. Sed unde hsec cautela apparet? 
Inde nempe, quod " docet constitutes Euaristo sedente 
" (id est post annum LXXXIII.) in Romano clero 
" diaconos septem." Quam hoc verum sit nescio : 
quid hide sequatur baud scio ; me doceat novus in- 
terpres, qui hinc clare colligit, " veteris Ecclesiee 
" Romanae primordialem formam adeo simplicem fuisse, 
" ut per annos xxx. diaconis (sub solo presbyterorum 
" regimine constitutis) caruerit." Ut ecclesia aliqua, 
praesertim Romana, per tot annos nullum diaconum 
haberet, mirum hand immerito videatur. Prseclare ab 
Euaristo factum est, ut ordinem ab apostolis institutum 



506 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

in urbem induxerit. Sed haec laus Euaristo non de- 
betur. Nam ante Euaristum Anacletus pontifex fuit, 
de quo Liber Pontificalis haec habet, " Hie fecit or- 
" dinationes dims per mensem Decembrem, presbyteros 
" quinque, diaconos tres, episcopos per diversa loca 
" numero sex." Ante Anacletum, ut illi volunt, Cle 
mens pontifex fuit, de quo Liber Pontificalis, " Hie 
" fecit ordinationes duas per mensem Decembrem, 
" presbyteros deceni, diaconos duos, episcopos per di- 
" versa loca quindecim." Solus deinde Cletus, qui, ut 
ab Anacleto distinguitur, nullus fuit, nullos diaconos 
fecit. Apage igitur illam primordialem regiminis for- 
mam, in qua nullus ordo sacer praeter presbyteros fuit. 
Neque mirum est eum nullos ante Euaristum in Pon- 
tificali diaconos vidisse, qui in Epistola Cornelii nullos 
subdiaconos vidit, quique asserit " de subdiaconorum 
u creatione vel nullum a Fabiano decretum conditum, 
" vei si conditum est ullum, necdum an. Dom. CCLI. 
" execution! mandatum fuisse." Quique hoc constare 
ait ex Epistola Cornelii, in qua diserte scriptum est de 
Ecclesia Romana, 'Ey OVK yyvoei, TTW? yap ; irpea-- 
fivrepov? elvai Tecra-apaKovra e, SIO.KOVOVS eTrra, VTroSta- 
KO'I/OU? cTTTa. Interprete Rufino, " Ubi videbat esse 
" presbyteros quadraginta et sex, diaconos septem, 
*' subdiaconos septem." Apage igitur totam illam 
sententiam, quam ex Pontificali collegit mali libri 
malus interpres. Episcopi aut presbyteri TrptoToicXrjOev- 
rey non sub Hygino finierunt, qui nunquam incepisse, 
nusquam durasse, leguntur; si eo nomine viros in- 
telligas singulares qui Tr^coro/cX^o-m? jure reliquis om 
nibus prsesiderent in eodem presbyterio constitutis. 

IV. Qui nunquam, inquam, fuerunt ; nam ut ad 
originem Blondellianam horum Tr/owro/cX^OeVTwi/ redeam, 
quos archontum Atheniensiurn similes fuisse statuit, ex 



CAP. x. BlondeUi commenta refutantur, 507 

ipsa similitudine facile refiitatur. Nam presbyter ille 
TrptoroK\tjOei? t quern ipso TrparroroKia^ jure reliquis ejus- 
dem ordinis presbyteris prsesedisse vult, ea potestate 
dum viveret gavisus est; neque illo jure aut loco 
excidere potuit, quia consortes omnes illo posteriores 
esse supponuntur, neque potuit quisquam evadere primo 
prior. Jam quaeramus quis huic similis archon apud 
Athenienses, vereor ne inveniamus nullum. Nam si 
quis collegas in officio habuit, eo officio, durante vita, 
functus non est ; si quis dum viveret archon fuit, 
collegas in officio nullos habuit. Nullus igitur archon 
praesidi Blondelliano similis fuit. Tria archontum ge 
nera diversis temporibus Atheniensium rempublicam 
administrasse legimus ; ex quibus intelligere possumus 
quam verum sit, quod affirmat Blondellus, " unicum 
" Athenis archontem nunquam fuisse." " Athenienses," 
inquit S. Augustinus de Civitate Dei lib. xviii. cap. 20. 
" habere deinde reges post Codri interitum destiterunt, 
" et magistratus habere creperunt administrandae rei- 
" publicae." Qui qualesque hi magistratus fuerint sic 
accepimus. Velleius Paterculus lib. i. cap. 2. " Hujus 
" (Codri) filius Medon primus archon Athenis fuit. Ab 
" hoc posteri apud Atticos dicti Medontidse : sed ii 
" insequeutesque archontes usque ad Charopem, dum 
" viverent eum honorem usurpabant.'' Nempe quia 
" dum viverent" rempublicam administrabant ; ideo 
dicti sunt archontes perpetui, interprete Hieronymo, 
" quos mors finiebat." Hi Graecis dicti sunt apxpvrcs 
Sia /8/ou, ut Plato loquitur de Cyro, eotxev t veov 
(rrpareveo-Oai Sia piov et vetus auctor apud Suidam, v. 
Nou/ia? de virginibus Vestalibus, ^a /3iov rqv irapQeviav 
e<j>v\cerrov. Quam phrasin sic explicat Hesycbius, Am 
/8/ov, Sia -ran-oy, ael. Hi autem tredecim erant qui 
successive Athenis praeerant, quorum nomina, et annos 



508 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DIBS, n. 

accurate describit Eusebius in Chronico. Hos per- 
petuos archontas quorum ultimus erat Alcmason, se- 
quuti sunt decennales, quorum primus fuit Charops. 
Velleius lib. i. cap. 8. " Turn Athenis perpetui archontes 
" esse desierunt, curn fuisset ultimus Alcmaeon, coepe- 
" runtque in denos annos creari ; quae consuetuclo in 
" annos LXX. mansit." Nam septem erant hi archontes, 
Graecis ^e/caere?? dicti, quorum nomina apud Eusebium 
extant, eorundemque anni in ejus Can one digeruntur. 
Velleius primi et ultimi meminit : " Ex iis qui denis 
'* annis prsefuerunt primus fuit Charops, ultimus Eryx," 
sive Eryxias. Post hos decennales annui archontes 
facti sunt Graecis dicti eftotwrctubt. Velleius, " Dein 
" annuis commissa est magistratibus resp." Annui hi 
magistratus erant numero novem, quorum unus spe- 
cialiter in modum praecedentium archontis nomen re- 
tinebat, cum reliqui octo aliis nominibus distingue- 
rentur. Et sic nova plane reip. forma instituta est, 
in qua novem archontes prsesidebant. De qua Hesy- 

chillS, 'Ej/i/ea ap^ovTes, apx*1 ^ evvea ap^ovTow. De his 
Georgius SyncellllS, Mera TOUTOU? (<5e/caere?y) ap-^ovrey 
evtavvioi evpeOrjarav e euTraTptSoav. Interpres, " His Sub- 

" latis annui magistratus excogitati sunt, et ex pa- 
" triciis assumpti." Sed pro evpeOrja-av legendum fuit 
fipeQrivav, vertendumque, non " excogitati," sed " electi 
" sunt." Pergit Syncellus ex Africano, ewea re ap- 
"Xovrwv 'A6yvy<riv ap-^t] KaTefrraQrj. Ad quae verba Goar, 
" Qui novem isti magistratus, incognitum. Planior 
** lectio TI vea re apxovrtav, nova magistratuum potestas 
*' Athenis instituta." Perperam omnino. Qui fuerint 
novem illi magistratus, omnibus notum ; arch on scilicet, 
et jSao-iXeuf, et Tro\efjLap%os, et sex 6<r/u.odeTat' etc TOVTWV 
<5e ol evvea ap-^ovre^ arv/uTrXtipouvTai, " Ex his autem 
** novem archontes complentur," inquit Pollux. Eu- 



TU)V evvea 



CAP. x. De Archontibus AtheniLiisibus. 509 

sebius in Canone, " Novem principes ex nobilibus urbis 
" electi praefuerunt annuo imperio reipub." Ex his no- 
vem unus vetus nomen archontis retinuit, et quia 
quotarmis ut reliqui electus, non tantum eviavmos, sed et 
signanter Tru>w/mos dictus est, nee eo sensu quo alii 
apud Athenienses eVoW^oi dicebantur, sed restricte 
evtaurov e7ro>i/y/ixoy, ut loquitur Pollux, qui a Philone 
.Judreo sic describitur, "Ap-^cav 'AAftfgpw 6 Tra>t>v/uLos KOI 
ovTU>v api<rro$, a<p* ov 01 -^povot KarapiO- 

Cujus noininis ratio sic explicatur in argu- 
mento secundo Orationis Demosthenis adversus An- 
drotionem, ef? eirutvvnos e^ oi> KOI o eviauTO? CTTWV o/xa^ero^ 
cujus nomine annus in Fastis signabatur. Sic sub quo 
archonte idem Atheniensibus quod quo anno. Clare 
jEschines contra Ctesiphontem, Kcu /zot avayvwOi CTTI 

Ttvos ap^oi/TO?, KCLI iroiov /ii/j/09, KU\ ev Ttvl jj/uepa, ac si 

dixisset, " quo anno, quo anni mense, quo mensis die." 
V. Haec ego prolixius explicanda putavi, ut quivis 
facile judicare possit an episcopi qui unquam in succes- 
sionum tabulis nominati sunt, his archontibtis assimi- 
lari debuerint. Ex tribus his generibus archontum 
unicum amplectitur Blondellus, reliqua duo negat con 
tra omnia veterum testimonia qua3 adduximus, quod 
facere coactus est, ut hjpothesin de collegis a se inven- 
tam tueretur, quae tamen contradictionem manifesto 
involvit. Nam hi archontes annui uno tantum anno 
magistratum eum tenuerunt, eoque absolute exierunt, 
aliisque eligendis locum vacuum reliquerunt, cum ra- 
tionem officii gesti apud \o7rTa9 decem reddiderunt, 

orav ra? ap^ay cnroOwvTai ol ap^ovTes, " cum praefec- 

*' turas suas deponerent," ut loquitur Harpocration sive 
Julius Vestinus. Blondelli autem episcopi TrpurroK\rt~ 
Sevres ex ipso TrparroTOKicK; jure, durante vita, suani 
auctoritatem qualisciinque ilia fuit, nocessario retinue- 



510 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. 11. 

runt, nee successores ipsis superstitibus habere potue- 
runt, quia primo prior nemo esse potuit, sed quisque 
primo posteriorem se agnoscere debuit. Jam si velis 
episcopum aliquem in Successionis Tabula nominatum 
fuisse archonti Atheniensi similem, nulli archonti similis 
dicendus erit nisi archonti perpetuo, sive Sia (3iov. Sed 
hie archon Sia /3/ou nullos unquam collegas in eo officio 
habuit, primus enim fuit Medon Codri films, qui 
reliquis Codri filiis in alias orbis partes profectis solus 
eum magistratum tenuit, et qui post eum eundem tenue- 
runt, erant omnes MeSovrlSai, hoc est Medontis posteri. 
Neque igitur Medon, neque ejus posteri, collegas in 
officio habuerunt. Sed neque nomen anno certo in 
Fastis dare potuerunt, quia annuatim non praesidebant, 
ideoque chronologi, qui ad eorum magistratum actio- 
nem aliquam referebant, non inde voluerunt certum 
aliquem annum designare, nisi quando annum certum 
illius magistratus nominarunt. Ut in Marmore Arun- 
deliano, . . . TO? AtV^uXou 'A.Qtjva>v eroi/? CIKOO-TOV KOI evo?, 
" ^Eschyli archontis anno xxi." qui Athenis praefuit 
annis xxm. teste Eusebio. Ita de decennalibus 
archontibus statuendum, quod archonte nominato nihil 
certi inde colligi potuit, nisi annus SeKaerlas indigi- 
taretur, ut Dionys. Hal. 1. i. "Ap^ovro? ' 
7TO? eroy T/9 ^e/caer/a? TrpwTOv. Pausanias, 
'AOrjvatos npx ev A.ta"xy\ov Tre/mTTTOv eroy. Nempe 
annus Charopis decennii primus, et ^Esimedis quintus 
satis certi habebantur. 

VI. Agnosco quidem episcopos dictos fuisse ali- 
quando apxovras, ut loquitur Origenes contra Celsum 
1. viii. sed qualis ap^wv in Ecclesia fuerit, ipse explicat 
in Homil. xi. in Jeremiam, ubi describit episcopum 

tanquam TOV TravTdov ^/JLWV eyKe-^eipta-imevov ap^v avrt]v 

Est igitur ajo^^ ecclesiastica et o 



CAP. x. Episcopi altquando dicti Archontes. 511 

ap-^ov episcopus, ut ex eo loco clare constat. Sed qui 
episcopum in ecclesia archonti annuo Atheniensium 
comparaverit, inventus est nemo. Tlesiam quidem 
corarainiscitur Blondellus, tanquam qui cum Creonte 
uno anno inter reliquos octo collega fuerit, ei postea 
successerit in loco archontis CTTCOVVHOV, sed contra 
omnem fidem historiae. Nam omnes archontes annui 
ad finem anni praefecturam posuerunt. Et Solon postea 
ex iis qui archontes fuerant, constituit concilium Areo- 
pagitarum. Quae consuetude postea viguit, neque 
unquam apparet aut regem aut polemarchum, aut 
thesmothetam aliquem fuisse archontem f-jruvvnov. 
Tales igitur collegae quorum unus alteri succederet, 
neque Athenis, neque in Ecclesia, usquam reperti sunt. 
VII. Episcopi quidem Romani habuerunt suos colle- 
gas, sed non in urbe ; in aliis civitatibus, ut in Antio- 
chena, Hierosolymitana, Alexandrina, caeterisque, illo- 
rum collegae extiterunt ; hoc est, episcopi ejusdem 
ordinis in sua urbe collegam habuere neminem. Iniqua 
igitur postulatio est ut nos ostendamus episcopos, in 
successionum tabulis nominates, non fuisse presbyteros 
TrporroicXtjOevTas Atheniensium archontibus annuis simi 
les, cum iis similes esse nullo modo potuerint, quippe 
qui omnes, qualescunque essent, praefuerint Sia /3/ov, 
nee quisquam successorem admiserit, dum ipse viveret. 
Proinde ilia regiminis forma postea cum Hygino mo- 
riente expirare non potuit, quae neque sub Hygino, 
neque ante eum vitalis fuit. 



CAP. XL 

I. Hygino successit Pius, Pio Anicetus, Aniceto Soter. II. E vero 
horum pontificum ordine convincuntur imposturae Epistolae Pii ad 
Justum Viennensem. III. E commentitia Pii Epistola prodiit De- 
cretum apud Gratianum ipsum quoque commentitium. IV. Erant 
etiam e Latinis qui ordinem horum pontificum prsedictum seque- 
rentur. 

I. CJ EQUITUR tertius pontificum quaternio, de quo- 
O rum ordine successionis rursus inter Grsecos et 
Latinos discrepantia est. Apud Grsecos omnes hoc 
ordine recitantur ; Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter : 
apud Latinos aliter ; Hyginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter : 
ita Optatus, Augustinus, Liber Pontificum, et Gesta 
Pontificalia priora nuper ab Heinschenio edita, et for- 
tasse antiquissimus catalogus, qui his omnibus prceivit. 
Nee tainen de successionis ordine dubitandum est ; 
neque eurn parvi pendere debuit Heinschenius, cum illius 
controversise determinatio sit ad veram chronologiae et 
historiae ecclesiasticae intelligentiam imprimis neces- 
saria. Grrecorum enim successio, quaB Pium Hygino, 
Anicetum Pio subjicit, pro certissima haberi debet. 
Quippe Irenseus, qui sub Pio et Aniceto vixit, et cum 
Ecclesia Romana magnum sub Eleuthero et Victore 
commercium habuit, eum successionis ordinem diserte 
tradit lib. iii. cap. 3. "EnretTa 'YyiVoy, eira Hfo?, /meff 
ov 'Aviicr]T09, SiaSe^a/JLevov rov t AvtKtfrov Scor^jOO?. Vetus 
Interpres, " Deinceps Hyginus, post Pius, post quern 
" Anicetus : cum an tern success! sset Aniceto Soter." 
Idem postea in Epistola ad Victorem papam eandem 



I-AP. xi. Hygino successit Phis. 513 



successionem ordine retrograde sic expressit ; ' 
XeyofJLev *col Tliov, '\ylvov re, KOI TeXe&fyopov KOI EV 
" Anicetum dicimus et Pium, Hyginumque et Teles- 
" phorum et Xystum." Neque dubitari potest, an 
apud eum successio his locis cormpta sit ; cum ipse 
alibi doceat Valentinum Roniam venisse sub Hygino, 
viguisse sub Pio, et permansisse usque ad Anicetum. 
Idem etiam Marcellinam Romam venisse ait sub Ani- 
ceto, cui addit Epiphanius rov /txera TJJV SiaSo-^v Tllov, 
KCU T>V avwrepw, " qui fuit post successionem Pii, et 
" superiorum." Pio igitur proxime successit secundum 
sententiam Epiphanii, cui in catalogo hi tres hoc ordine 
numerantur ; Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus. Practerea He- 
gesippus, qui sub Aniceto Romam venit, testatur Ani- 
ceto non Pium, sed Soterem successisse, KOI irapu 
'Ai/fKj/TOu Sia^e^erai 2&n-^|0, fjieff ov 'EXeu^ejOoy, " Post 
" Anicetum succedit Soter, post quern Eleutherus." 
Verba sunt Hegesippi apud Euseb. lib. iv. cap. 22. 
Cum duo scriptores adeo celebres Hegesippus et Ire- 
naeus, qui Pii et Aniceti et Soteris temporibus vixere, 
et sub Eleuthero scripsere, hunc successions ordinem 
de industria tradiderint ; quos Eusebius secutus est, et 
eum omnes Graeci : " prope stultus habeatur is, qui 
" horum testimonio non acquiescit." Et tamen Sal- 
masius, " post mortem Hygini," inquit, " Anicetus erat 
" presbyterorum Romae primus presbyter, cui Pius in 
" illo primatu successit." Quibus verbis non tantum 
j)rimatum presbyterorum post tempora a Blondello 
designata deducit, sed et contra vetustissimorum et 
contemporaneorum patrum apertissima testimonia ordi 
nem perturbat. 

II. Primus omnium, quos novimus, Optatus Pio 
Anicetum praeposuit, (nisi antiquissimus catalogus ei 
prreiverit) cum nondum Eusebii Chronicon in Latinum 

PEARSON, VOL. II. I. 1 



514 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

sermonem versum fuit : primus inter Latinos qui Pium 
suo loco posuit, erat Prosper in Chronico a Labbeo 
edito, quern secutus est catalogus ; tertius Pseudo-Ter- 
tullianus, cujus aetas ignota est, lib. iii. 

" Jamque loco nono cathedram suscepit Hyginus, 

" Post hunc deinde Pius, 

" Aque Pio suscepit Anicetus ordine sortem." 

Lego enim " aque," non " atque," ut editur. Nihil 
igitur certius hoc ordine successionis haberi debet, quo 
Hygino Pius, Pio Anicetus sufficitur ; et quicquid alio 
ordine nititur, vel inde falsum esse deprehenditur. 
Verbi gratia: In tomo tertio Bibliothecse Patrum ex- 
stant duae epistolae Pii papae ad Justum Viennensem, ut 
aiunt, episcopum ; quas Baronius in Annales suos, 
Binius in Concilia transtulit, easque miris commentariis 
uterque illustravit ; has constat esse fictas et supposi- 
titias, non plane aureas, ut Baronius. Quod cum 
multis facile probatu sit, inpraesentiarum hoc tantum 
dico, fictum ilium Pium reprsesentari tanquam Aniceti 
successorem : " Salutant te," inquit, " Soter et Eleuthe- 
*' rus digni presbyteri :" Anicetum non nominat, quasi 
jam mortuum, Eleutherum nominat quasi sub se pres- 
byterum jam existentem ; cum Eleutherus sub Pio 
presbyter esse non potuit, qui sub Aniceto, Pii indubi- 
tato successore, adhuc diaconus erat, ut testatur Hege- 
sippus oculatus testis apud Eusebium lib. iv. cap. 22. 

rWo/xei/o? Se ev 'Pw/xj; SiaSo^rjv etroiria'afj.riv /xe^oty 'Avi/cjyroy, 

ou Sidicovo? ?tv 'EXeu^epo?. Unde etiam in Breviario 
Romano Maii xxvi. " Eleutherius, Nicopoli in Graecia 
" natus, Aniceti pontificis diaconus, Commodo impe- 
" rante praefuit Ecclesiae." Ab aliquo igitur impostore 
haec epistola conficta est, qui vel ex secundo catalogo 
vel ex Libro Pontificum, solenni illo imposturarum 
fundo, falso didicerat Pium Aniceto successisse. Et 



TAP. xi- Epistolce Pit, supposititice. 515 

liber iste " soils radio" scriptus a adeo praestrinxit Blon- 
delli oculos, ut perspicere non posset epistolas illas esse 
plane spurias; sed ex ipsis tanquam authenticis Pii 
tabulis disputat contra ordinera episcopalem, Apologias 
sect. 2. . 4. ut et ex Victoris Epistolis ad Dionysium 
et Paragodam Viennenses episcopos, qui nunquam 
fiiere, conscriptis, pariter disputat .10. Etiam Walo 
Messalinus pag. 155. " Pius in Epistola ad Justum 
" Viennensem episcopum, senatum Christi apud Ro- 
" mam constitutum, presbyterium Romanum vocat :" 
imo pag. 176. mira hinc colligit, eadem in Apparatu 
repetit. Ex hac Blondelli incuria et Salmasii consensu 
disputat cardinalisBonapro antiquitate nominis "missae:" 
" Exstat primo loco Epistola Pii ad Justum Viennen- 
*' sem episcopum quam recipiunt orthodoxi, nee audent 
" omnino reprobare sectarii, scripta, ut Baronio visum 
** est, anno Christi CLXVI." Certe si a Pio scripta est, 
largior nomen missae antiquius esse quam Bona ipse 
ponit ; si enim a Pio data sit ilia Epistola ad Justum 
Viennensem episcopum, scripta est ante annum CXLIII. 
et vocabulum missae eo anno antiquius fuisset. Verum 
ilia non est Pii, sed impostoris epistola post Pontificale, 
ut opinor, certe post quartum seculum aut etiam quin- 
tum et catalogum secundum scripta, cujus aetas ex 
falsa successione episcoporum satis innotescit. Im 
postor ille cum videret Eleutherum in Rufino Aniceti 
diaconum, et perspiceret in Pontificali sive secundo 
catalogo Pium successisse Aniceto, statim eum facit 
sub Pio presbyterum, et sic imposturam suam prodit, 
et Pium producit nescium antecessoris sui. Salmasius 
qui tantam vim in Epistolis Pii ponit, semper Anicetum 
ante Pium collocat, unde ilia apud eum iraperitissima 

* Vid. supra Dissert, i. c. xi. r. Dissert, ii. c. x. i. 
Ll 2 



516 De Annis primorum Roma. Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

episcoporum enumeratio, " Episcopi Romani sub duo- 
" bus Antoninis Hyginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleu- 
" therius, Victor." Apparatu pag. 59. 

III. Ex eodem fonte et alia non absimilis impostura ; 
nam cum " missae" vocabulum in Epistola Pii legeretur, 
maleferiatus aliquis etiam Decretum condidit, quod a 
Gratiano distinctioni secundae de Consecratione insertum 
est, in quo altare cum omni sua paratura, et cum qua- 
tuor linteis proponitur ; sed explicatio illius Decreti, et 
vocis ipsius " altaris" significatio viros tres doctissimos 
vehementer torsit, Latinum Latiriium, Franciscum To- 
letum et Franciscum Turrianum, ut patet ex epistolis 
Latini Latinii. Latinius autem ipse, cum attulisset 
quidquid potuit ad altaris illius explicationem, satis 
modeste concludit, " Pii autem pontificis tempore an 
" ita usus obtineret, aut qua omnino ratione sacra per- 
" ficerentur, in tanta temporum obscuritate non facile 
" quisquam affirmarit : ego quidem nihil unquam cer- 
" turn de ejusce rei observationibus ritibusque memini 
" legere." Cui illud addendum, Certissimum illud 
commentum est, de quatuor linteis super altare Pii 
pontificis aetate positis. cum cc. ferme annis postea 
Sylvester papa constituent " sacrificium altaris non in 
" serico neque in panno tincto celebraretur, nisi tantum 
" in lineo." Prsesertirn si considerare placeatquid fieri 
solebat in Africa, etiam post Sylvestri tempora, quod 
satis indicat Optatus lib. vi. c. 1. his verbis, " Quis 
" fidelium nescit in peragendis mysteriis ipsa ligna 
" linteamine cooperiri ? Inter ipsa sacramenta velamen 
" potuit tangi, non lignum. Aut si tactu potuit pene- 
" trari velamen, ergo penetrantur et ligna." Nam si 
plura fuissent linteamina sive velamina, multitudinem 
eorum non omisisset Optatus, quippe fortius argu- 
mentum contra Donatistas praebuisset. 



CAP. xi. Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus^ Soter. 517 

IV. Haec adeo certa sunt, ut etiam inter Latinos 
Pseudo-Tertullianus Pio Anicetum substituerit, et 
multi codices Libri Pontificum MSS. Pium Aniceto 
pneposuerint, quales sunt Regius, Mazarinus, et Thu- 
aneus. Et cum Baronius putet Hieronymum Lati- 
norum sententiae astipulari, dum post Petrum decimo 
loco numerat Anicetum, fugit eum ratio. Nam Hie- 
ronymus in libro de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis sequitur 
Eusebium, cujus Chronicon decennio ante verterat ; 
Eusebius autem Pium numerabat post Petrum, nonum ; 
adeoque decimum Anicetum. Denique eundem suc- 
cessionis ordinem cum Graecis secutus est inter Arabas 
Eutychius. Quare ordo successionis apud Latinos lux- 
atus, nullo modo probandus est. 



CAP. XII. 

I. Hyginus sedit ab an. Dom. cxxu. ad an. Dora, cxxvi. Non 
martyr. II. Vacatio fere annua. Inde Pius ab an. Dom. cxxvn. 
ad an. Dom. CXLII. Nullum erat, post Hyginum, interpontificii 
quadriennium, ut credidit Blondellus. III. Solus, hoc in loco, 
verisimilia tradit Eutychius. 

I. T~\IXIMUS de successionis ordine ; jam de annis 
-L'quatuor horum pontificum quid statuendum sit, 
videamus. urj^W^ ^ *^X* ^ ^^ C~~ ^ 9 
,U, ^j^, j\ -LSI Ju.^ ^s L^jj^tu " Anno imperii 
" Hadriani sexto constitutus est Eugenius (sive Hy- 
" ginus) patriarcha Romanus, qui cum annos quatuor 
" sedisset, mortuus est," inquit Eutychius. Sedit igitur 
ab an. Dom. cxxu. Aviola et Pansa coss. usque ad an. 
Dom. cxxvi. Vero et Ambiguo coss. Hsec mihi vi- 
dentur veritati maxime consentanea, et ad veterem 
Ecclesiae historiam recte intelligendam optime com- 
parata, ut ante diximus. Decimo Hadriani mortuus 
est Hyginus. Baronius, Petavius et Labbeus ordina- 
tum esse statuunt Antonini Pii xv. triginta scilicet 
annis serius quam Eutychius. Qui immanis meta- 
chronismus maximam in historia ecclesiastica confu- 
sionem peperit, de qua etiam ante diximus. Quantula 
igitur fides Martyrologio Romano adhibenda; ex quo 



TAP. xii. Hygini et Pit tempora. 519 

legiraus ad undecimum Januarii, " Romse natalis S. 

" Hygini papae, qui in persecutione Antonini gloriose 

" martyrium consummavit." Cujus rei nee vola nee 

vestigium extat. An martyrium Hygini tacuisset Ire- 

nacus, qui Telesphori passionis meminit ? An hoc 

ignorare potuit, qui persecutioni Antonini interfuit? 

an ille aut episcopus aut presbyter sub Hygino fuit ? 

Haec nullo modo ferri possunt. Martyrologorum nemo 

antiquior ista docuit, non Beda, non Florus, non 

Usuardus, non Ado. Unde Molanus et Onuphrius, 

qui de ejus martyrio nihil legerant, martyris titulum 

Hygino dari putant, quod multa pro Christi confessione 

passus fuerit, ut videtur, scilicet. Baronius ad Mar- 

tyrologium suum, " Sub persecutione Antonini Hygi- 

" num coronatum esse martyrio, liber de Romanis 

" Pontificibus, Eusebius in Chronico, et alii omnes 

" testantur." Sed illi neque de persecutione Antonini 

loquuntur, neque de martyrio Hygini quicquam habent 

aut illi, aut alius quispiam. Paulo modestius Hein- 

schenius ; " Forsan inelius diceretur martyr, quod quad- 

" riennio inclusus carceri vitam finierit, quo tempore 

" S. Pius ejus vicarius Ecclesiam rexit." Sed unde 

habuit Hyginum toto quadriennio carceri inclusum 

fuisse ? Ex qua historia hausit episcopum Romanum 

carceri mancipatum tarn diu misere vixisse? Unde 

habuit S. Pium toto eo quadriennio ejus vicarium 

Ecclesiam rexisse? Certe sperandum non fuit, ut hsec 

hacteims inaudita, sub uno vocabulo forsan ab eruditis 

admitterentur. Blondellus satis acutus, haec non vidit, 

quamvis alias oculatus satis. 

II. <> l^jjloj (joSy* j*> A^ii-* ^ (jt *~. Xj-ix ^ 

vi.Lc 5 xLw. j^c *- vt ^ f U) *>-j '' Anno Hadriani decimo 
" constitutus est Marcus (pro Pio) patriarcha Romanus, 



520 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. u. 

" qui annos quindecim sedit, dein mortims est," inquit 
Eutychius. Ubi observandum sedecim revera annos ei tri- 
buere, cum post dicat Anicetum anno Antonini quinto 
coustitutum esse patriarcham ; unde annum vacationis 
sedis post obitum Hygini hie inserendum esse omuino 
censeo,astipulante Epiphanio. Anno igitur cxxvi. Hygi- 
no denato, per annum fere unum sedes vacat. Ab an. 
Dom. cxxvu. Hadriani xi. Gallicano et Titiano coss. 
sedet Pius usque ad an. Dom. CXLII. Antonini quintum, 
Rufino et Quadrato coss. Blondellus quidem Lie quad- 
riennium vacationis statuit, sed ex conjecturis maxime 
infirmis et minime tolerandis : docet enim Hyginum 
seclisse ab an. Dom. cxxxvm. Camerino et Magno 
coss. usque ad an. Dom. CXLII. Orphito et Frisco coss. 
Rufino et Quadrato suffectis : sedem vacasse ab anno 
CXLII. ad anno CXLVI. Pium ordinatum esse an. Dom. 
CXLVI. Claro et Severo coss. martyrio coronatum an. 
Dom. CL. Gallicano et Vetere coss. Hsec se hausisse 
ex veteribus Ecclesiae Romanae tabulis in dicat, ex Libro 
scilicet Pontifical!. Sed neque illi libro, hoc in loco, 
ulla fides adhibenda est ; neque ex illo ista, quae docet 
Blondellus, ulla arte exculpi possunt. Non animad- 
vertit Librum Pontificum coss. suos ex auctore catalog! 
multo vetustioris insertos habuisse, qui quid hie scri- 
beret, non habebat. Unde qui Gesta Pontificum scrip- 
sit, quid hie diceret, minime novit ; coss. tantum pro 
more apposuit ; ultimos tamen duos, scilicet, Augustos, 
omisit. Sedisse Hyginum dicit a consulatu Magni et 
Camerini usque Orphito et Prisco, quos coss. sine 
dubio habuit a vetustissimo auctore catalogi, qui Hy- 
gino duodecim annos tribuebat, totidem enim a Magno 
et Camerino orsi in Orphito et Prisco desinunt. Dum 
autem coss. ab eo acciperet, annos pontificatus in Eu- 
sebianos convertit, et cum Hieronymo quatuor tantum 



CAP. xn. Hygini et Pii tempora. 521 

Hygino assignavit, ac proinde plane atryWara, ut solet, 
scripsit ; ac si dixisset, Hyginum quatuor tantum annis 
pontificatum administrasse, nempe ab an. Dom. 
cxxxvin. ad an. Dom. CXLIX. quod quam absurdum 
sit, quis non videt? Blondellus, ut Libri Pontificum 
tueretur auctoritatem, Orphitum et Priscum, (qui con- 
sulatura ordinarium an. Dom. CXLIX. gessisse nos- 
cuntur,) an. Dom. CXLII. coss. fuisse, Rufino et Quad- 
rato suffectos, docuit, nulla auctoritate fretus, sed pro 
arbitrio ordinarios consules in suffectos vertens, aliosque 
ex suo loco longe dimovens. Post hanc importunam 
conjecturam, Pium cum Libro Pontificum sedisse docet 
Claro et Severo coss., obiisse autem sub Gallicano et 
Vetere, contra illius tidem. Auctor enim Libri Pon- 
tificalis tradit a Claro et Severo per annos xvin. cum 
aliquot mensibus sedisse Pium, usque scilicet duobus 
Augustis, qui in primo catalogo diserte iioininantur, 
eosdemque spectasse auctorem Libri Pontificum con- 
stat, quia Soterem, quern Pio successisse vult, sedisse 
ait a consulatu Rustici et Aquilini, qui duobus Au 
gustis in consulatu successerunt. Revera ilia confusio 
nulla arte sanari potest. Nam tempus illud a consulatu 
Gallicani et Veteris usque Prsesente et Rufino, quod 
tribuitur pontificatui Aniceti, intra illud tempus con- 
tinetur, quod tribuitur Pio. Unde certissime evincitur, 
quod ante diximus, auctorem catalogi annos priorum 
pontificum deorsum extendisse, ut cum ad ilia tempora 
perveniret, quid sen beret non haberet. 

III. Gratis igitur et sine ullo fundamento vacationis 
quadriennium hinc exculpsit Blondellus ; gratis Hein- 
schenius Hyginum quadriennio integro carceri in- 
clusum vitam finivisse docuit : frustra uterque Librum 
Pontificum appellavit, qui turn suis, turn catalogi er- 
roribus adeo scatet, utjmlli veritati patrocinium praebere 



522 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. u. 

possit. Quare relinquamus hoc ulcus apud Latinos 
prorsus insanabile, et sequamur potius Eutychium, qui 
Pio suum ordinem restituit, et annos xv. pontificatui 
ejus cum Eusebio tribuit ; cujus tempore Valentinum 
maxime invaluisse tradit Irenaeus, quod ad annos pau- 
ciores minime restringendum videtur. Quse autem de 
vicariatu ad hunc locum nuperrime excogitavit Hein- 
schenius, adeo inaudita sunt, ut refutatione non in- 
digeant, suo indicio statim, ut puto, peritura. Neque 
simplicem hie adhibet vicariatum Heinschenius, sed 
duplicem, unum vicariatum alio tegens ne perpluat. 
Pium enim sub Hygino tanquam ejus vicarium sive 
chorepiscopum statuit ; dein eundem Pium, toto Ani- 
ceti pontificatus tempore Aniceti vicarium sive chorepi 
scopum fuisse vult, ac defuncto demum Aniceto, eum 
verum et ordinarium pontificem creat. 



CAP. XIII. 

I. Coepit Anicetus ab an. Dom. CXLII. sub Pio, aliis etiam suffragan- 
tibus praeter Eutychium. II. Tarn mature ccepisse in sequentibus 
probandum. 



Xxx>^, " Anno imperil Antonini quinto factus est 
" Anicetus patriarcha Romanus," inquit Eutychius. 
Ordinatus igitur est an. Dom. CXLII. Rufino et 
Quadrato coss. Hucusque Eutychium sequor : neque 
enim dubito quin Anicetus tarn mature pontificatum. 
inierit, ex scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, qui ejus aetate 
vixerunt, decessoribus suis multo nobis notior. Baronius 
quidem ingressum ejus deprimit ad an. Dom. CLXVII. 
Marci Antonini quintum, et eundem annum imperatoris 
agnoscit Petavius, immani metachronismo ; quern tamen 
hujua aetatis chronologi fere sequuntur, ut Labbeus et 
Ricciolus. Haec a me nunquam probata sunt, ut in 
Vindiciis nostris obiter subinnui his verbis, " Scripsit 
" autem ille [Justinus Martyr] ante Eleutherium, ante 
" Soterem, imo ante Anicetum, ut nunc Aniceti tern- 
" pora a chronologis ex Eusebio disponuntur 8 ." Quern 
autem illi quinto Antonini junioris anno ordinatum 
volunt, hunc ego Antonini senioris quinto sedisse 
arbitror, xxm. fere annorum intervallo. Et habeo 
quidem ego quern sequor Eutychium, illi vero neminem. 

Part. ii. c. 7. 



524 De Annis primorum Romas. Episcoporum, mss. n. 

Ante Baronium Onuphrius statuit Anicetum sub An- 
tonino Pio an. Dom. CLIII. pontificatum iniisse, mortuum 
autem esse Rustico et Aquilino coss. triennio ante- 
quam eum ordinatum putavit Baronius : ita inter Onu- 
phrianum et Baronianum calculum xm. fere annorum 
discrepantia est. Neque veterum quisquam Aniceti 
initium sub Marci imperio collocavit. Eusebius in 
Chronico, anno Antonini Pii xvi. Anicetum episco- 
patum tenuisse dicit. Hieronymus in Catalogo de 
Polycarpo scribens Eusebio suffragatur ; " Hie," inquit, 
" propter quasdam super die paschae qusestiones sub 
" imperatore Antonino Pio, Ecclesiam in urbe regente 
" Aniceto, Romam venit." Latini quidem Anicetum 
Pio male praeposuerunt ; neutrius autem infra consu- 
latum vel Clari et Severi, hoc est, Antonini Pii ix. vel 
Gallicani et Veteris, hoc est, Antonini Pii xm. initium 
ponunt. 

II. Pro certo igitur haberi debet Anicetum sub An 
tonino Pio pontificatum iniisse ; quoto autem ejus 
imperii anno inierit, quaeri potest, et quidem non in- 
utiliter : interim tarn mature eum sedisse ex certissimis 
ecclesiasticse historic monumentis probatum dabimus. 



CAP. XIV. 

I. Romara venit sub Aniceto Polycarpus, et quidem imperante Pio, 
quo ctiam imperante passus est. II. Scripsit Irenaeus adversua 
Haereses circa an. Dom. CLXXX. post aliquas tamen a Polycarpo 
in sede Smyrnea successiones. III. Vidit Irenaeus Polycarpum, 
sed puer ipse admodum senem. IV. Multis proinde, antequam 
scriberet, annis. 

I. TTffiC autem quaestio de pontifieatu Aniceti diu 
J-JL mihi visa est ex aetate S. Polycarpi optime deter- 
minari posse, et multo antequam Eutychii chronologiam 
consideratione dignam putaveram ; et nunc rationes 
nostras afferam, rem ipsam, ut puto, certissime confec- 
turas. Constat enim Polycarpum Romae fuisse sub 
Aniceti pontifieatu : hoc assent Irenaeus, qui Polycarpi 
discipulus fuit, et sub Aniceto vixit, lib. iii. cap. 3. *O? 

KOI eVl ' A.VIKYITOV TTlrjfJI.^(raf T*j 'PtO/il? TTOXXOV? O.7TO TWV 

TrpoeipijfjLevdov aipertKwv eTrecrrpc^rev et? Ttjv eKK\rj<rtav TOV 
Qeov. Vet. Interp. " Is enim est, qui sub Aniceto cum 
" advenisset in urbem, multos ex his quos praediximus 
*' haereticos convertit in Ecclesiam Dei." Idem etiam 
affirmavit in Epistola ad Victorem papam Romanum 

SCripta, Ken TOV fJLaKapiov \\o\VKap-jrov eTr 

'Pu>fJLt} e-jrl 'AviKqTov, tcai Trepl a\\<av TIVWV /uuicpa 

irpos aXXiyXovy evQv? ciptjveva-av' " Et cum beatus Poly- 

" carpus sub Aniceto Romam venisset, atque inter 

" illos de quibusdam aliis rebus modica esset contro- 

" versia, statim inter se pacem fecerunt," apud Euseb. 

lib. v. cap. 24. Adventum hunc sub Antonino Pio 



526 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. it. 

collocat Eusebius lib. iv. cap. 14. quern sequitur Hie- 
ronymus (ut diximus) in Catalogo. Et Fasti Siculi 
ponunt sub Tertullo et Sacerdote, qui an. Dom. CLVIII. 
hoc est, Pii xx. consulatum gessere. Hieronymus in 
Catalogo, " Romanse Ecclesise episcopatum tenet Ani^ 
" cetus annos xi. sub quo Polycarpus Romam veniens 
" multos ab hseretico errore correxit." Unde et Hal- 
loixius et Valesius et Heinschenius merito Baronium 
reprehendunt, quod Aniceti initia tarn sero, ad Marci 
quintum referat. Verum non adventum kunc tantuni, 
sed et martyrium Polycarpi sub Antonino Pio conti- 
gisse niemoratur. Certe apud Chronographum veterem 
MS. quern mihi commodavit vir eruditissimus Isaacus 
VossiUS, haec legi, Mera <Je 'ASptavov efiaarlXeva-ev 'Ai/rto- 
vivo? Tt] /r/3'j (> ov IIoAwcajOTro? o /na6t]T^ 'Loawov TOV 
evayyeXiCTTOv, ical 'lovarTivos 6 <pt\6<ro<po$ e/u.apTupt](rai>' 

" Post Hadrianum autem imperavit Antoninus annos 
** xxn. sub quo Polycarpus Joannis evangelistae disci- 
*' pulus, et Justinus philosophus martyrium subierunt." 
II. Vera haec esse de Justino putat doctissimus 
Valesius ; ego etiam de Polycarpo, ut ex sequentibus 
patebit. Irenaeus scripsit libros contra Haereses circa 
an. Dom. CLXXX. extremis Marci temporibus et sub 
initio Commodi ; neque enim omnes simul scripsit. 
Priores quidem duos primo exaravit, et ad amicum 
transmisit, dein tertium, et ad eundem misit; postea 
quartum addidit transmisitque ; denique quintum qua- 
tuor prius editis subjecit, ut ex Prologis patet. Ter 
tium autem librum sub pontificatu Eleutheri scripsit, ut 
ipse OStendit Cap. 3. Am^e^a/xej/ou <Je 'AviKtjTOv 2cor^jOO9, 

VVV OWOe/CCtTft) TO7TO) TOV T^9 eTTHTKOTrtjS O.7TO TU>V a7TO(TToXft)J/ 

Kare-^et K\rjpov 'EiXevOepo?. Vet. Interp. " Cum autem 
" successisset Aniceto Soter, nunc duodecimo loco 
" episcopatum ab apostolis habet Eleutherius." Eleu- 



CAP. xiv. Romam venit Polycarpus temp. Aniceti. 527 

therus autem an. Dom. CLXXXV. coss. Materno et 
Bradua obiit. Unde verissima mihi videtur sententia 
Feuardentii ; et Marca longe aberrat, qui put at eum 
scripsisse an. Dom. cxc ; ante quern annum defunctum 
fuisse Eleutherum satis certum est. Vixit enim tan- 
turn usque Materno et Bradua, hoc est, usque ad an. 
Dom. CLXXXV. ut ex antiquissimo catalogo constat. 
Qui bus observatis vulgaris sententia de anno obitus 
S. Polycarpi facile refutatur. Vel enim statuunt viri 
docti cum Eusebii Chronico anno Marci Aurelii vn. 
an. Dom. CLXVII. vel anno Marci ix. an. Dom. CLXIX. 
S. Polycarpum martyrio coronatum esse ; ut Bucherius 
et Usserius voluerunt; vel denique an. Dom. CLXXV. 
ut probare nititur Samuel Petitus Var. Lect. lib. iv. 
cap. 7- At tarn sero passum esse Polycarpum ut 
putemus vetat Irenaeus ejus discipulus. Ipse enim 
lib. iii. cap. 3. de Polycarpo sic scribit, Tavra <Waay 
aet, & KOI irapa rfav a7rooToAa>j> e/ma6ev t a Kal q eKK\t](ria 
TrapaSiSaxriv, a Kal /mova e&Tiv aXqOy' napTvpovtri Se 
TOVTOI? at Kara TIJV 'A<r/ai> KK\ti<ricu Traerat, KOI ol pe^pi 
vvv StaSeSey/jievoi TOV IIoXi;*ca/07ro', ut habet editio Va- 
lesii, ut autem prior Roberti Stephani, TOV TOV IIoXu- 
Kapirov Opovov. Vetus Interpres, " Hsec docuit semper, 
" quae ab apostolis didicerat, quae et Ecclesia tradidit, 
" et sola sunt vera : testimonium his perhibent, quaa 
" sunt in Asia, Ecclesiae omnes, et qui usque adhuc 
*' successerunt Polycarpo." Plures igitur novit Ire 
naeus successores Polycarpi, qui ab obitu Polycarpi 
usque ad illud tempus, quo ipse scripsit, in cathedra 
Smyrnensi sederant, et quorum auctoritas magnum 
doctrinae catholicas contra haereticos patrocinium prae- 
buit. Qui quidem erant, opinor, Papias Camerius 
aliique fortasse inter Camerium et aetatem, qua scripsit 
Irenaeus. 



528 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. 11. 

III. Haec ad arctum quinquennii aut duodecennii 
spatium nullaverisimilitudine restringi possunt ; sed ad 
triginta minimum extend! et possunt et debent. . Quod 
ex iis, quse ab Irenaeo eodem capite et alibi dicuntur, 

facile intelligitur ; Kcu TIoXvicapTro? $e ov /novov VTTO 
onro(TTO\(i)v naQriTevQeis /ecu <rvvava<rTpa<pi$ TroXXofr TOV 
XOKTTOV kdopaKocriv, aXXa KOI VTTO aTrocrroXuiv /caracrTaOeJ? 
elf rrjv 'A<r/av v rrj ev ^/nvpvrj eKK\t](ria eWcr/coTro?, ov Kal 
e(0paKaiu.v ev Ty Trpwry fj^wv fi\iKia' eiwroXv yap 
KOI Trdvv yqpaXeos ei/^o'^cop Kal eTrKpavea-rara 
^\0e rov (3iov. Vet. Interp. " Et Poly- 
" carpus autem non solum ab apostolis edoctus et 
" conservatus cum multis ex iis, qui Dominum nostrum 
" viderunt, sed etiam ab apostolis in Asia, in ea quae 
" est Smyrnae Ecclesia, constitutus episcopus; quern et 
" nos vidimus in prima nostra estate ; multum enim 
" perse veraverat et valde senex gloriosissime et no- 
" bilissime martyrium faciens, exivit de hac vita/' Duo 
hie dicit Irenaeus, Polycarpum fuisse apostolorum dis- 
cipulum, se autem eum vidisse, et ea quse docuit no- 
visse. In libro, quern scripsit de Octonario, referente 

Eusebio, lib. V. cap. 20. eTnonf/xcuVeTCU rrjv irpcartiv TCOV 
(nroa-ToXutv KaTciXtjcfievai eavrov StaSo^v. Rufinus Inter- 
pres, *' In quo significat consecutum se esse quosdam 
" ex successoribus apostolorum :" multo cautius Va- 
lesius ; " primam se apostolorum successionem conti- 
" gisse significat." Quod ad unum fortasse Polycarpum 
pertinebat. Solebat quidem Irenaeus saspius presby- 
terorum, quibuscum conversatus fuerat, testimonia 
proferre ; " sed eorum, qui audierant ab illis, qui 
" apostolos viderant." Ut autem doctrinam aliquam 
ab eo, qui ab apostolis ipsis edoctus et episcopus 
factus est, ipse suis auribus hauriret, non potuit non ea 
aetate, qua scripsit, mirum yideri : ut igitur id verum 



CAP. xiv. Aniceti tempm e passione Polycarpi indagatur. 529 

esse, quod dixerat, apparere posset ; duo iterum dixit, 
turn se " puerum" fiiisse, turn Polycarpum " diu pcr- 
" mansisse," cum eum videret. Quis haec unquam 
dixisset, qui quinquennio aut duodecennio circiter post 
tam clarum tanti viri martyrium scripserit ? Polycarpum 
senem audivit Irenaeus puer, nunquam postea. Ag- 
noscit Halloixius, " Irenaeum fuisse quidem discipulum 
" Polycarpi, et (ut ipse scribit) admodum juvenem 
" valde senis." Sed vulgar! chronologia misere de- 
ceptus eundem a Polycarpo primo diaconum, dein 
presbyterum ordinatum esse asserit ; cum Irenaeus 
nunquam Polycarpum vidit, postquam ad ephebos trans- 
ierat ipse. 

IV. Patet hoc, turn ex iis, qua? diximus, turn pneci- 
pue ex Epistola ad Florinum scripta, cujus fragmentum 
exstat apud Euseb. lib. v. cap. 20. In qua docet hae- 
reticum ilium non ab aliquo apostolorum discipulo sua 
hausisse, non certe a Polycarpo, quern aliquando au- 

diverat : ~El$ov yap <re Traf? wv eri ev Ty KaTdo 'A<r/a irapa 

TW IToXwa/o-Tro), " Vidi enim te, cum puer adhuc essem, 
" in inferiore Asia apud Polycarpum." Et ne quis 
dubitaret, an et intelligere doctrinam ejus et retinere 
posset, statim subjungit, /uaXXov yap TO. rore Sia/uivt)- 
/uLoveva) TWV eva'y^o? -yei/o/xeVwi/, " Etenim ea, quse tune 
" temporis gesta sunt, melius memoria teneo, quam ea, 
" quae nuper acciderunt." Cujus effati philosophicam 
reddit rationem. Turn vero profitetur posse se adhuc 
dicere, quomodo Polycarpus in eo conventu se gesserit, 
quales sermones ad populum habuerit, qualem con- 
suetudinem se cum Joanne habuisse dixerit, et cum 
aliis, qui Dominum viderant; ac tandem haec addit, 
Tavra <a\ TOTC $ia TO e\eo9 TOV Qeov TO ex' e/nol 
cnrovSaltos "JKOVOV, VTronvqimaTtKo/JLevos avra OVK ev 
a\X' i> Ty ffjii) KapSla, /cal aet Sia Ttjv \npw TOV Qeou 

PEARSON. VOL. II. M 111 



530 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. mss. IT. 

yvti<ria><s aura aya/xapwcayxar " Haec ego per Dei erga me 
" misericordiam studiose tune audiebam, non in chart a, 
" sed in corde audita describens, eademque per Dei 
" gratiam assidue repeto ac revolvo." Notanda obiter 
ea verba sunt <nrovSaiu)? %KOVOI>, " studiose audiebam ;" 
hinc enim Eusebius Historiae lib. v. cap. 5. haec de 
Irenaeo SCripsit ; TloXvicdpTrov ^e rovrov OLKOVO-T^V ye^e<^0at 
Kara ryv veav eju-avOavo/uiev qXucidv' Rufinus Interpres, 
" Quern Irenaeum Polycarpi auditorem in pueritia com- 
" perimus." Idem etiam vel ex iis colligi posse vi- 
detur, quae habet Irenaeus lib. v. cap. 33. " Haec autem 
" et Papias Joannis auditor, Polycarpi autem contu- 
" bernalis, vetushomo, per scripturam testimonium per- 
" hibet;" quaa Graece exstant apud Eusebium. Male 
igitur vir eruditus nuper asseruit Irenaeum ipsum dixisse, 
" vidisse se modo Polycarpum," cum multa se ab eo 
audivisse tarn diligenter tradat. An Irenseus haec 
dixisset, si adultior factus Polycarpum audiisset, si ab 
eo diaconus et presbyter ordinatus in Galliam missus 
fuisset? An misericordise Dei, quod eum puer adbuc 
studiose audiverit, et gratise etiam imputasset, quod 
qu83 ab eo tune audierat, assidue recoluerit, si ejus 
doctrina et institutis per multos annos postea fuisset 
imbutus ? Ferri haec non possunt. Irenaeus Polycarpum 
audivit adhuc puer et in prima aetate ; admiratione tarn 
venerandi viri captus, ejus personam gestus et verba in 
animo semper habuit, ejusque auctoritatem omnibus 
haereticis opposuit. Sive a . 



a Desunt hoc in loco nonnulla, IMoneo itaque deinceps lectorem 
sed nee multa ilia, nee novum, ut ne in istiusmodi locis nostras 
videtur, argumentum praebentia. additiones expectet. DODWELL. 



CAP. XV. 

I. Polycarpi martyrium maturius suadet aetas, LXXXVI. vitae annum, 
cum pateretur, agentis. II. Annos illos de professione Christiana, 
aut ministerio, intelligunt qui martyrium ejus recentius existimant. 
III. Qui annum egerit, cum pateretur, LXXXVI. recte dici potuit 



I. T^ENIQUE ego censeo S. Polycarpum non xv. 
J-^vel ix. vel vn. Marci Antonini, sed diu ante, 
ix. scilicet Antonini Pii anno, Per. Jul. 486o. Cyclo 
Lunae 15. Solis 16. L. Dominicali B. passum esse ; 
idque ex ipsis Actis Passionis demonstrari posse con- 
tendo. Viri hujus aetatis sane doctissimi aliter sense- 
runt : nos igitur sententiam et rationes nostras cum 
eorum sententia et rationibus conferemus, unde veritas 
clarius elucescat. Optimus Usserius constare ait ultra 
LXX. annos episcopatum Smyrnensem obtinuisse Poly- 
carpum ; et in Appendice Ignatiana asserit " inter 
" Polycarpum et Clementis Alexandrini excessum non 
" multo plures quam triginta annos intercessisse :" quod 
veterum quisquam nunquam asseruit. Imo auctor Fas- 
torum Siculorum diserte asserit S. Polycarpum LXXXVII. 
aetatis anno, (ita enim ille, e/cdi/ Tu>v <av erwv TT^', " vivus 
" combustus est, cum esset annorum LXXXVII,") passum 
esse : ipsa Passionis Acta ita interpretatur, 'OySo^Kovra 

KOI % T>; e-^h) <$ov\ev<av avru>. Vet. Interp. " OctOgesi- 

" mum jam et sextum annum ingredior nomini ejus 
" probatus et serviens semper." Sed auctor Chronici, 

llepi of TWV avTov eitre Tta avOvTraTw eiTrovri, 
M in 2 



532 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

TOV XOiOTOv 6 e e?7re, TT<? eri/ SovXevoo TW XOt<rTa> /rou 



ou<5eV /ue jdiKrjo-e, " De annis autem suis, proconsuli 
" dicenti, Blasphema Christum, dixit, Per octoginta 
" sex annos servio Christo, et nunquam mihi injurius 
" fuit." Ita Grseci veteres de aetate Poly carpi, cum 
pateretur, ex ipsa passionis historia judicabant. Ita 
etiam Latini, ut Gregorius Turonensis lib. i. Hist. 
Franc, cap. 28. " Octogesimo sexto aetatis suae anno, 
" velut holocaustum purissimum per ignem Domino 
" consecratur." Plane ut Polycrates in Epistola ad 
Victorem apud Eusebium lib. \. cap. 24. 'E-yw ovi/, 

aoe\<poi, e^qKovTd Trei/re Ttj e^cav ev KujO/o). RufintlS, 

" Unde, fratres charissimi, sexaginta et quinque annos 
" setatis gerens in nomine Domini." Et ante Rufinum 
Hieronymus, " Sexaginta quinque annos setatis mea& 
" natus in Domino." Certe haec de annis setatis, quos 
jam moriturus egerat Polycarpus, intelligebant veteres. 
Jam vero si anno setatis suse octogesimo septimo pas- 
sus est, sub Marco Antonino pati non potuit. Cum 
enim constet eum ab apostolis edoctum, et a S. Joanne 
episcopum ordinatum esse ; si plures quam septua- 
ginta annos post S. Joannis mortem vixisset, ut illi 
volunt, ante annum aetatis decimum sextum " totius 
" Asiae princeps fuisset," ut loquitur Hieronymus. Imo 
si sententiam Petiti admittamus, vix decennis esse 
potuit, cum episcopus fuit. 

II. Primus omnium, cum videret haec cum vulgari 
stare non posse sententia, Halloixius locum hunc inter- 
pretatus est non de annis aetatis, sed Christianae pro- 
fessionis ; et exemplum Hilarionis adducit, sed minus 
idoneum : constat enim Hilarionem habuisse " paren- 
" tes idolis deditos," et Alexandria in schola gram- 
matica ad annum vitae decimum quintum gentilem 
plane fuisse, quale nihil de Polycarpo traditur. Archi- 



CAP. xv. Martyr turn Poly carpi. 538 

episcopus Armachauus Halloixium hie secutus " con- 
'* stare" ait " ultra LXX. annos episcopatum Smyrnen- 
*' sem obtinuisse Polycarpum ;" quod veterum quis- 
quam nunquam asseruit, quodque tantummodo ex 
sententia, quarn de tern pore martyrii ejus defendunt 
viri eruditi, gratis dicitur. De suo quidem adducit 
exempla eorum quos a Christo sanatos, aut ex mortuis 
suscitatos, ad sua usque tempora vixisse in Apologia Ha- 
driano imperatori oblata Quadratus testatur. Sed haec 
nihil omnino probant. Nam Quadratus ille aposto- 
lorum discipulus ab Eusebio dicitur x. Hadriani, hoc 
est Christi cxxvn. anno earn Apologiam obtulisse, et 
ex iis verbis antiquitatem suam ostendisse : quare diu 
ante imperium Hadriani, imo diu ante obitum S. Jo- 
annis eos videre prae aetate potuit. Neque necesse est 
eorum quern piam ultra annos LXXXVII. vixisse, ut ad 
Quadrati tempora durasse dicantur. Blondellus vero 
et Halloixium et Armachanum longe superat, et Poly 
carpum " exactis in sacro ministerio annis LXXXVI. 
" anno Christi CLXVII." passum esse tradit, quasi an. 
Dom. LXXXI. presbyter sive episcopus factus sit. Ad 
has angustias viri docti redacti sunt, qui Polycarpum 
tarn sero passum esse crediderunt : neque alium suae 
sententiae fundum habent, quam quod Irenaeus eum 
valde seneni vocat, et Acta debilem fuisse, cum pate- 
retur, referunt. 

III. Sed neque quia Irenaeus eum irdw y^aXeoi/, 
*' valde senem" appellavit, inde concludi potest ultra 
annum LXXXVII. vfxisse. Ita Dionysius Halicarnasseus, 
scriptor accuratus, de Dinarcho rhetore in ejus Vita, 
TiOefiev $e avrov e/3<5oyu7/coo"roi/ f^ovra eroy O.TTO 
KaT\t]\vdfi>ai, toy KOI ai/roy <f>*]Gt, yepovTa. avrov ei 
L(J> ou "xpovov Koi KaXeiv royy cv qXiKta TavTij /xaXzcrra 
. Adiit Josephum quendam Epiphanius ex 



534 De Annis primorum Ttomce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 



Judaeo Christianum factum, T?? yypaXea avrov qXiKia, o>? 
Trepi TTOV T<av eftSo/urjKOVTa yeyovoTOS avrov rj KGLI TrAetoi/coc, 

" in senili ejus aetate, utpote qui natus esset annos 
" LXXVII. aut etiam plures." Si autem septuagenarius 
yqpaXeos recte dicatur, certe qui annum octogesimum 
sextura transegit, recte dicetur TTO.VV ^^aXeo?, " valde 
" senex." Ipse Epiphanius in extrema senectute dici- 
tur Hieronymo, an. Dom. cccxcu. cum octogenarius 
esset. Doctissimus Valesius hie haerebat, ad Euseb. lib. 
v. cap. 24. " Mortuus est," inquit, " Polycarpus, cum 
" sextum et octogesimum aetatis annum jam exegisset ; 
" ita enim scribitur in Epistola Ecclesiae Smyrnensis, 
" oySoqKOvra KCU e^ ertj SovXevw avrw' quod si tnnos 
" illos non a primo statim ortu, sed a pueritia ordiri 
" lubet, quando prirnum homines ratiocinari incipiunt ; 
" sequetur omnino Polycarpum centenario majorem aut 
" proximum e vivis abiisse." ^Etatem martyris vir per- 
spicacissimus secundum veteres libenter amplexus est ; 
eed cum martyrium ejus septimo Marci anno alli- 
gaverat, novam expositionem superaddere coactus est, 
quam alibi tueri noluit. Nam cum Publium Athena- 
rum episcopum secundum sub Marco Antonino passum 
esse male putaret, contend it eum contra communem 
sententiam, Dionysio Areopagitae haud proxime suc- 
cessisse, quia plusquam LXX. annis in episcopatu eum 
vixisse dicendum esset. Nos veteri exposition! adhae- 
remus, quam omnia, quse sequentur, ex iisdem Actis 
desumta confirmabunt. Reliqui autem temporis cha- 
racteres ad martyrium Polycarpi pertinentes summa 
cum cura et diligentia examinandi et explicandi sunt ; 
quia vir maximus Henricus Valesius omnia hie nobis 
adversa amplectitur, et characteres omnes magna indus- 
tria aliorsum trahit. 



CAP. XVI. 

I. Idem colligitur ex aetate Nicetae, et L. Statii Qradrati proconsulis. 

I. T3ROXIMUS autem temporis character in nota 
J- proconsulis Asiae continetur. Nam Herodis 
irenarchae Niceta pater ibi nominatur valde senex, ut 
videtur, et in curru sedens ; et de Niceta Smyrnaeo 
legimus apud Philostratum, qui sub Nerva floruit ; pot- 
est ipse esse, si nostros calculos quis sequatur ; si 
communes, minime. Sed buic baud insistendum reor. 
Cum proconsularis annuus magistratus sit, quanta certi- 
tudo erit proconsulis in Actis nominati, tanta erit et 
anni, quo Polycarpus mortuus est. Erat autem eo 
anno Asia? proconsul Statius Quadratus, ut Acta tes- 
tantur. Nequis dubitationi locus sit, sententiam 
nostram verbis exprimere statui H. Valesii, quia me- 
lioribus uti non possum. Sic enim ille ad haec Eusebii 
lib. iv. cap. 15. av^pwra 6 avQinraros. " Hie proconsul 
" Asiae vocabatur Statius Quadratus ; sic enim recte 
" scribitur in veteri interpretatione Latina hujus Epi- 
** stolae, quam primus edidit Jac. Usserius Armachanus : 
" male in Graeco textu Zr/oartof, nee rectius in Cbronico 
** Alexandrine Tartoy exaratur. Is est, ut opinor, 
" L. Statius Quadratus, qui consul fuit principatu 
" Antonini Pii, anno urbis conditae 895. ut legitur in 
*' Fastis Onuphrii." Certe ex ipsis Actis statuendum 
est ipsum Statium Quadratum et non alium, eo anno 
Asiae proconsulem fuisse, quo passus est S. Polycarpus : 
Statius Quadratus Romae consul fuit cum Cuspio 



536 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. u. 

Rufino, quinto Antonini Pii, anno Domini CXLII. 
Quorum consulum mentio facta est in antiqua inscrip- 
tione, turn apud Panvinium, turn apud Gruterum 
MLXXXII. 18. 

DEDICATVM . K . OCTOBR. 
L . CVSPIO . RVFINO 

COSS. 
L . STATIC . QVADRATO 

Et hi fuere ante Torquatum et Herodem coss. ut Fasti 
referunt: sed paulo serius, si ante eos Bellicius et 
Herodes consulatum gesserint : quod Falconerius vir 
eruditus demonstrasse se nuper putavit, de qua re nos 
alibi egimus a . Interim pro certo haberi debet Torquatum 
et Herodem immediate ante Avitum et Maximum 
coss. fuisse: id enim constat ex inscriptione apud 
Gruterum p. ccci. ubi hsec duo paria consulum saepius 
repetuntur. At post Avitum et Maximum, nemo 
Rufinum et Quadratum numerabit. Statuendum igitur 
est secundum ordinem Fastorum Statium Quadratum 
consulatum gessisse an. Dom. CXLII. consules autem ex 
jure ad quinquennium proconsulatum sortiti sunt : non 
immerito igitur statuendum censeo Statium Quadratum 
proconsulatum Asise gessisse an. Dom. CXLVII. 

a Annal. Cypr. Prsef. .7. 



CAP. XVII. 

I. Tituin Quadratum in Chronico Alexandrine scriptum fingit 
Petitus, et de T. Numidio Quadrato Asiae proconsule intelligit ; 
Titum Numid. Quadratum intelligit etiam Blondellus, sed non 
Asiae procos. sed Romae cos. cum L. Vero Aug. in. cos. De 
eodem Veri imp. collega intellexerunt Bucherius etiam et Usserius. 
Perperam. II. Quadratus Vari magister erat Numidius Qua- 
dratus. Incertum est quod e peste collegit Valesius, Quadrat i 
rhetoris proconsulatum in vn. Marci incidisse. III. Numidius 
Quadratus, cujus meminit Aristides, erat Asise proconsul anno 
CLXX. Pollio an. CLXXI. Severus an. CLXXII. IV. Recapitulatio. 

I. "1 TULTA hie, et viris doctis prorsus indigna, 
-Lf_L comrainiscuntur illi, qui sub Marco passum 
esse Polycarpum volunt. Samuel Petitus Chronicon 
Alexandrinum Titum Quadratum scripsisse fingit, et 
secure de Numidio Quadrato interpretatur, quern pro- 
consulem Asiae post quinquennium exactum an. Dom. 
CLXXV. fuisse et martyrii coronam Polycarpo impo- 
suisse statuit. Blondellus verba agnoscit, sed mira 
correctione utitur, Apologise sect. ii. $. 8. " Tatii seu 
" verius Lucii Statii Quadrati, qui an Dom. CXLII. 
" Antonini Pii quinto, L. Cuspium Rufinum collegam 
" habuit, proconsulatus in annum CLXIII. a consulatu 
" vicesimum primum, nulla ratione differtur." Recte 
haec quidem et admodum apposite, dum contra Chronici 
Alexandrini auctorem disputat, qui Polycarpum et sub 
Static Quadrato proconsule et sub imperio Marci Anto 
nini passum esse statuebat : quae autem inde elicit, 



538 De Annis primorum Ronne Episcoporum. DISS n. 

pessimi commatis sunt. " Non igitur," inquit, " quo 
" mortalitatem exuit Polycarpus tempore Quadratus 
" ullus Asiano proconsulatu functus est" (mira hsec sunt) 
'* sed Titus Numidius Quadratus cum L. Vero Augusto 
" tertium consulatum administravit, adeoque in Fastis 

TT\ avdvTTClTOV TctTlOV, Sed 67T( UTTCtTe/a? T/TOU Ko- 

ov scribendum fuit." Primo pro Tatio vel Statio 

Titum legit, Ut Petitus ; secundo pro avOvTrdrov, inrareias. 

Docet igitur veterem auctorem quid scribere debuerit ; 
docet eum, qui ipsa Acta viderat, quomodo ea inter- 
polare oportuit ; docet denique ea scribere, quse nemo 
unquam scripsit ; scilicet ne nomine proconsulis ilia 
quae gesta erant in provincia proconsular! signaret, quod 
solenne est ; sed nomine unius eorum, qui Romae con- 
sules tune temporis fuerunt, quod insolens est. ^Egidius 
Bucherius qui primus ad an. Dom. CLXIX. passionem 
Polycarpi deduxit, multo modestius, sed nihilo verius, 
Acta correxit : " Proconsul," inquit, " sub quo passus 
*' dicitur, Tatius Quadratus, poterit esse T. Numidius 
" Quadratus biennio ante consul, L. Aurelio collega, 
" qui peracto consulatu proconsul Asise administrandae 
" commode mitti potuerit." Reverendus Usserius 
Statium Quadratum in Actis agnoscit, " Est autem," 
inquit, " idem quern suo tempore Asiae prsefecturam 
" suscepisse memorat Aristides, idemque ut videtur, 
" qui ante biennium cum L. Aurelio Vero Aug. Romae 
" ordinarium gesserat consulatum." Est autem ille, qui 
cum L. Aurelio Vero Aug. consulatum gessit T. Numidius 
Quadratus ; et ut idem et L. Statius Quadratus et Titus 
Numidius Quadratus esset, mirum videbatur. 

II. Quare H. Valesius paulo cautius Statium Qua 
dratum, ut Acta referunt, proconsulem Asiae tune fuisse 
statuit, cum Polycarpus passus est, eundemque esse, 
qui consul fuit cum Rufino an. Dom. CXLII, et cujus 



CAP. xvii. Variorum de Martyrio Poly carpi setitentice. 539 

meminit Aristides: sed ex Aristide probare conatur 
eum proconsulatum Asiae gessisse an. Dom. CLXVII. 
Haec quidem ad mentem Eusebii, qui eo anno passum 
esse Polycarpum tradit, optime excogitata sunt, sed 
nulla ratione constant. Nam proconsulate, ut recte 
aiebat Blondellus, " in annum CLXIII. a consulatu vice- 
" simum primum" male differtur, pejus vero in annum 
CLXVII. a consulatu vicesimum quintum. Praeterea Qua- 
dratus, cujus meminit Aristides, Statius Quadratus non 
dicitur. Rhetorem eum vocat Aristides, et ideo eundem 
esse putat Valesius cum eo, quern Vari magistrum dixit 
Philostratus ; sed nee ille Statius appellatur, et revera 
Numidius esse videtur. Varus enim ille Philostrati Per- 
gaeus, juvenis mortuus est; audivitautem Quadratum jam 
consulem, et Alexandro junior fuit, qui erat Marco ab 
epistolis in bello Marcomannico, quod susceptum est 
post consulatum Numidii Quadrati. Multis probare 
nititur Valesius Quadratum ilium Asiae proconsulem 
fuisse an. Dom. CLXVII. quo anno Numidius Quadratus 
Romae consul fuit, atque inde concludit Polycarpi 
mortem in eum annum necessario conferendam esse. 
Sed nimis debili fundamento hoc argumentum nititur; 
sic enim procedit: Severus fuit proconsul Asia3 anno 
post pestem, quse ibi grassata est ; Quadratus proconsul 
fuit biennio ante; Eusebius earn pestem confert in 
annum octavum Marci (annum scilicet, qui intercessit 
proconsulatum Quadrati et Severi) ergo Quadratus pro 
consul Asiae fuit anno Marci septimo. Sed hoc argu 
mentum prorsus invalidum est ; nam ilia pestis per 
multos annos grassata est ; Romae maxime invaluit xn. 
Marci, eodem Eusebio teste : in Oriente coepit, et per 
provincias grassata est ; quando circa ^sepum saeviit, 
nescitur: nullius igitur anni character certus ex ista 
lue deduci potest. 



540 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

III. Cum autem Valesius rursus colligit Severum 
nono Marci proconsulatum Asise administrasse, quia eo 
proconsule Aristides literas accepit ab Augusto et ejus 
filio, hoc mihi minime probatur. Verba Aristidis sunt 
Sermonum Sacrorum quinto, 'H/A^oou? oi5 TroXXa?? vcrrepov 
e 'lTaX/a9 cKpiKvovvrai exitrroXat irapa. TU>V /SacrtXewv, 
TOI; re avTOKpdropo? avrov, KOI TOV TratSo? " Post paucos 
" dies venerunt ad me ex Italia literae a regibus, turn 
" imperatore ipso, turn ejus filio." Quibus satis clare 
indicatur duos tune temporis tantum reges Romam 
tenuisse, Augustum unum, alterum Caesarem. Impera- 
torem et Caesarem duos reges vocat, ut Libanius in 
Panegyrico Juliani de Constantio Augusto et Gallo 
Caesare, Mecro? Svoiv ftacriXeoiv iSiun-q$ ev acrracr/a KaBrj- 
imevos, evOev fjiev ave^fiov TOV TO TTOLV KpaTO$ e^ovro?, ere- 
pwOev $e aS\(j)ov Sevrepav rdiv etXi/^oro?. At anno 
nono Marci duo Augusti fuere: Lucius enim mortuus 
est anno imperii nono exeunte, medio hyemis (i. e.) 

mense post cujus mortem aliquamdiu duo Cae- 

sares fuere Commodus et Verus ; et post mortem Veri 
Marcus in Pannonia fuit, mansitque Sirmii anno 
imperii xi. Non igitur anno x. Marci Severus Asiae 
proconsul fuit, sed neque xi. tune enim ipse consul 
iterum erat. Verisimillimum igitur mihi videtur Se 
verum xii. Marci proconsulem Asiae factum esse an. 
Dom. CLXXII. cum fuisset secundum consul anno priori ; 
Pollionem euin prsecessisse in consulatu anno Marci 
undecimo, cum consul fuisset anno Marci sexto ; Qua- 
dratum praecessisse Pollionem in proconsulatu anno 
Marci decimo, qui consul fuerat (ut Valesius putavit) 
anno Marci septimo. Quadratus igitur Aristidis anno 
Dom. CLXX. proconsul Asiae fuit ; proinde L. Statius 
Quadratus ille non erat, qui consul fuit ordinarius an. 
Dom. CXLII. annis prius cluodetriginta : sed potius 



CAP. xvn. Quadrati COM. dtw, diversis temporibu*. 541 

T. Numidius Quadratus, qui consul ordinarius fuit an. 
Dom. CLXVII. Nam si, ut observat Bucherius, " T. Nu- 
" midius Quadratus biennio ante consul peracto con- 
" sulatu proconsul Asiae administrandae commode mitti 
" potuerit, an. CLXIX. ;" certe triennio ante consul 
mitti an. CLXX. Ilaec cum sermonibus Aristidis 
maxime cohaerent, qui tradit Severum anno morbi 
decimo proconsulem fiiisse, ipsum vero ab ipso morbi 
sui initio multa de Vologeso somniasse, quod illi 
maxime tempori congruit, quo Lucius in Vologesum 
exercitum duxit, decennio fere ante Marci duodecimum. 
Quare nihil obstare deprehenditur, quin Statius Qua 
dratus, sub quo passus est Polycarpus ex veteri jure 
proconsul Asiae fuerit an. Dom. CXLVII. 

IV. Cum igitur argumentum a peste deductum nihil 
probet, nostrum autem a certo morbi Aristidis anno 
sit certissimum, 



CAP. XVIII. 

I. 2a/3/3arov pr-ya Sabbatum illud quod diem paschatis proximo prse- 
cedebat. II. Sic etiam e sententia Judseorum III. Incidit hoc 
Sabbatum in vn. Kal. April, quo anno passus est Polycarpus. 
Aliae lectiones exploduntur. IV. Incidit etiam in secundum 
Xanthici. V. Secundus Xanthici non incidit in Februarium, con 
tra Valesium. VI. Emendatur fortasse locus Epiphanii. VII. 
Cum sequarentur mensibus Julianis menses Macedonici, ad eum 
mensem Julianum accommodatus est totus mensis Macedonicus 
quern longe maxima ejus parte antea occupabat. Aprili autem 
non Martio respondebat aequatus Xanthicus. 

I. l^ENIQUE illi ipsi anno Domini CXLVII. optirae 
-L^ congruit diei, quo passus est S. Polycarpus, in 
ipsis ejus Actis descriptio : dies enim ille triplici cha- 
ractere insignitur, M^i/o? ^avQiKov devrepa tcrra/xevou, TTJOO 
eTT-ra KaXavSwv 'A.Trpi\i(ov, 2a/3/3ara> /txeyaXw' " Xanthici 
" mensis die secundo, septimo calendas Apriles, Sab- 
" bato magno." Hi autem characteres primo expli- 
caudi, dein cum opinionibus aliorum, et cum nostra 
sententia conferendi sunt. Incipiam a Sabbato magno, 
qui temporis character in ipso Actorum corpore dili- 
genter expressus est, T*)$ Wjoa? eXdova-^? rov 
avTov yyov e/? rr/v TTO\IV, ovros 
" Cum jam hora adesset exeundi, asino eum 
" imponentes in civitatem deduxerunt, die magni Sab- 
" bati." Perperam omnino Blondellus, " Magnum Sab- 
" batum est festum quodcunque in feriam septimam 
" incidens." Nam ea phrasi nihil indicassent Smyrnaei 




CAP. xviii. Sabbatum Magnum, quod sit. "> I-:} 

de die, quo passus est Polycarpus, si sic intelligi debe- 
ret. Scripta est epistola a Smyrnaeis aliquanto tern- 
pore post martyrium S. Polycarpi, sed ante anni finem. 
Cum igitur significant eum Sabbato magno passum 
esse, unum aliquem illius anni diem, illumque omnibus 
notissimum indicabant. Hujus igitur Sabbati magni 
vera notio hie necessario indaganda : Sabbatum autem 
magnum semper dicebatur Sabbatum illud, quod diem 
paschatis proxime prsecedebat, neque ullus alius dies 
Sabbati eo nomine insignitus est. Constitutions Apost. 
lib. V. cap. 19- Tlep] T/9 iravvvxlSo? TOV fjteydXov 2a/3/3a- 
TOV, KOI Trepl TJJ? avacTTacTifJiov rujLepa?' " De pervigilio 
" magni Sabbati, et de die resurrectionis." Canon 
Apostolicus LXVI. Sabbato, praeter unum solum, jejunare 
vetat ; ita hunc Canonem explicat Aristenus : 
peiTat 6 e/fTO? TOV neyaXov Za/3/3ctTOu eTepov, / 
vrja-revwv' " Deponitur qui aliud praeter magnum Sabba- 
" turn, aut Dominicam jejunat." Et Balsamon, Kara 
movov TO peya Za/S/SaTov, pariter interpretatur " secun- 
" dum solum magnum Sabbatum." Unum igitur tan- 
tum et solum magnum Sabbatum. Quod et hodierni 
Graeci TO ayiov KO\ ^eya 2aj8/3aToi/, " sanctum et mag- 
" num Sabbatum" vocant. Et vetustiores TO v-TrepcvXo- 
yrinevov 2a/3/3aToi/- in Nomo-canone nuper per Cotele- 

rium edito, Nrjarrevovres fKaTOVTpiaKOvra foepas TO. e/CTO9 
TOU ei/oy fjL&yaXov 2aj8/8aTOu, ijyovv TO virepevKoyrnj-evov 
SajS/SaTov fjLi/j.ovvrat AaTtVou?, p. 137. et S. Chrysosto- 
mus Oratione de magna Hebdomade torn. v. Orat. 78. 

"Qcnrep auTt] Ke<f)aXatov TU>V e/SSofJLciSwv, OVTW Tavrqs Kc<paXt) 

TO 2a/8/SaToi/ TO neya. Et in vita S. Chrysostomi, nuper 
Greece edita, p. 82. 'Ev TOVTOIS eirea-Ty *\ TOV /meydXov 
2aj8/3ctTOu ij/uepa ev ; 6 ^urrtjp o-TavpwOel? <TKvXev(re TOV 

aSqv. Cum de eadem re pag. 18. ita locutus esset, 
aQpoov (TTpaTtODTwv TrXtj6o$ avrw TW fjLydXu> 



544 De Annis primorum Romtp Episcoporum. DISS. n. 
TTjOO? ecnrepav \OITTOV T^? y/nepas eTretyo/xei/^? raft eKK\r)<riai? 

TTi(rtj\6ov. Recte igitur Josephus Scaliger hoc loco mag 
num Sabbatum Trpoeopnov TOV iraa-fta dixit, male autem 
ad pascha avaa-TaarifjLov restrinxit ; maleque argumen- 
tatus est, " Si Sabbatum fuit 7. kal. ergo pascha 6. 
" kal. in litera B." Nam ubi pascha non semper, 
imo raro die Dominico celebrabatur, Sabbatum sive feria 
septima, quse diem paschatis proxime praacessit, " Sab- 
" batum magnum" dicebatur. 

II. Ita hodierni Judaei, ita veteres illud Sabbatum, 
" quod quartamdecimam mensis Nisan prsecedit, ratZ? 
71"inJl " Sabbatum magnum" vocant in libro Schulchan 
Aruk, Tractatu Orach Chajim D*np nDSH ^tbw rQE 
71"T^n rQU? iniM " Sabbatum quod ante pascha vocant 
" ipsum Sabbatum magnum," 1^ iUTOE? DJH *1&V 
" propter miraculum quod in eo factum est." Haec 
excerpta sunt ex Baal Hatturim, ubi ratio hujus nomi- 
nis aperte traditur : " Pascha, quo egressi sunt ex 
" jEgypto Israelitse, die quinto hebdomadis contigit, 
" ut testatur Seder Olam Rabba : decimus igitur mensis 
" dies erat tune Sabbatum. Eo die sumpsit Israelita 
" quisque agnum sibi ; quod cum intelligerent jEgyptii 
" factum esse, ut agni illi omnes mactarentur, dentes 
" eorum obstupuerunt, adeo ut Israelitis nihil regerere 
" potuerint. ^TOn nitt? iniM pip DDH DU7 by\ Et ob 
" hoc miraculum vocant hunc diem Sabbatum mag- 
" num." Idem etiam traditur in libro Lebush, et in 
libro Col Bo. At cum epistola Smyrnensium scripta est, 
illi cum Judaeis pascha celebrabant, ut notissimum est. 
Illud igitur Sabbatum hie intelligendum, quod proxime 
praecessit pascha Judaicum, quod festum paschale tune 
cum Judaeis observabat Ecclesia Smyrnensis. 

III. Secundus autem temporis character plane osten- 



CAP. XVHI. Sabbatum Magnum, quod sit. 545 

dit quis dies in anno Juliano illud Sabbatum Ante- 
paschale fuit ; nempe Tr^o eTrra KaXavStav 'ATrptXiwv, hoc 
est, "vii. cal. Apriles." Septimus autem cal. Apriles 
est vicesimus sextus dies Martii. Et cum vicesimus 
sextus Martii dies Sabbatum fuit, necesse est, ut vicesi 
mus Septimus fuerit dies Dominicus, adeoque litera 
Dominicalis ejus auni B. Quod magnam nobis lucem 
in anno indagando praefert. Sed hie nobis objicitur, in 
Actis Polycarpi non legi irpo ' xaXavSwv 'AirptXlwv, ut 
in Fastis Siculis, sed irpo % Ka\av<av Maiiov, "vii. cal. 
" Maii." Et praeterea H. Valesius legendum censet 
jrpo ' KaXavSwv MajtmW. Sed sine dubio Chronici 
Alexandrini auctor sua habuit ex correction Actorum 
codice ; cum neque vulgati codicis Graeca lectio, neque 
Valesii emendatio admitti ullo modo possit. Nam 
vn. cal. Mail esset xxv. Aprilis ; vn. autem cal. Martii 
esset xxni. Februarii. At Sabbatum magnum, quod 
pascha Judaicum proximo prsecedit, nunquam tarn ma 
ture potuit contingere, ut in xxin. Februarii incideret, 
nunquam tarn sero, ut cum xxv. Aprilis concurreret. 
Valesius quidem pro nova sua lectione hactenus inau- 
dita auctoritatem affert Veteris Interprets Latini : sic 
enim ille, " In Epistola Smyrnaeorum diserte scribitur 
" Polycarpum passum esse die secundo mensis Xanthici, 
" id est, ante diem vii. cal. Martias, ut recte vertit Vetus 
" Interpres." Et rursus, " In Epistola Smyrnaeorum de 
" Martyrio Polycarpi scribendum est irpo eir-ra KaXavSjbv 
" Ma/cmW, ut legit Vetus Interpres." Sed hoc merum 
est niaximi viri ira.p6pa.fjia.. Nam vetus Versio ex tribus 
veteribus Latinis MSS. a Bollando adornata habet 
" vii. cal. Maias," ut Graeca. Eadem etiam Versio ex 
codicibus Sarisburiensi et Cottoniano ab Usserio edita 
habet pariter " vn. cal. Maii." Nullibi aut in Graecis aut 

PEARSON, VOL. II. N II 



546 De Annis primorum Homes Episcoporum. mss. ir. 

ill Latinis calendarum Martiarum mentio fit. Cum 
igitur lectio Valesii ex errore manifesto orta sit ; et 
cum lectio turn Graeca, turn Latina de die vn. cal. Maias 
a nemine jam defendatur, aut defendi possit ; tutissime 
lectioni Fastorum Siculorum acquiescimus, et Poly- 
carpum passum esse die vu. cal. Apriles, hoc est, xxvi. 
Martii affirmanus. 

IV. Tertium addo characterem, qui in iisdem Actis 
exprimitur, et turn rem ipsam, turn lectionem Fas 
torum Siculorum maxime confirmat. Ille enim dies, 
qui et Sabbatum magnum et vu. cal. Apriles dicitur, 
a Smyrnaeis etiam ftiivos ^avQiKov Sevrepa f<rraftevov t 
" dies secundus mensis Xanthici" appellatur. Vetus 
Interpres " mense Aprilio" male transtulit, et post 
eum Halloixius, " secundo mensis Aprilis," perperam 
et pejus adhuc, " hsec ab ignaro quopiam ad calcem 
" Epistolse Martyrii adjecta censeri debere" asseruit ; 
cum haec potius explicanda quam rejicienda fuerint. 
Xanthicus autem mensis tune incepit die Martii vice- 
simo quinto : secundus ergo Xanthici dies fuit Martii 
vicesimus sextus ; qui eo anno erat magnum Sabbatum, 
quo passus est S. Polycarpus. Hoc ab Usserio pritno 
assertum, mox a Gulielmo Lango confirmatum, et a 
Beveregio nostro explicatum, ac tandem ab Acciolio in 
Chronologia Reformata laudatum atque confirmatum 
est. Sed doctissimus Valesius secundum Xanthici 
diem, non in septimum cal. Apriles, sed in septimum 
cal. Martias, Februarii vicesimum tertium incidisse 
contendit : pro sententia sua nihil affert, prseter auc- 
toritatem Veteris Latini Interpretis, quam nullam esse 
jam ostendimus, et passionem Pionii, de qua mox 
disputabinius. Interim sententia nostra duplici argu- 
mento confirmatur, quorum ])rimum ab iis petitur, qui 



CAP. xvni. Mensis Macedonicus, Xanthicus. 547 

nomina mensium Macedonicorum usurpabaut, mensibus 
Julianis inoequalium ; secundum ab iis, qui eosdem 
menses postea Julianis aequabant. 

V. Primo si secundus meusis Xanthici dies incidisset 
in aliquem Februarii diem, turn vicesimus tertius Xan 
thici incidisset in Martium: non incidit in Martium, 
sed in Aprilem, ut testatur Marcus in Vita Porphyrii. 
Certissimum est in Laterculo mensium Macedonicorum 
Xanthico Artemisium proxime successisse. Quare si 
Xanthicus inceperit vn. cal. Martias, Artemisius incepit 
vii. cal. Apriles : sed Artemisius non incepit ante vn. aut 
vin. cal. Maias. Epiphanius Libro de Ponderibus et 
Mensuris, obitum Valentiniaiii junioris contigisse tradit 
idibus Maiis ; diem proximum ita describit, ut fuerit, 
'AprefjLto-iov ntjvos rpiTt] KOI Vay, /cara 
Se irpo SeKaeTrra Ka\av8u)v 'lowW, " secundum 
" Gnecos Artemisii mensis xxm. ; secundum Romanes 
" xvn. kal. Junias," hoc est, xvi. Maii : ergo Arte 
misius non incepit ante vin. cal. Maias, et proiude nee 
Xanthicus ante vn. cal. Apriles. Petavius quidem hoc 
Epiphanii loco pro rptr^ KCU e</cay legi vult e/c-n; KOI 
<$e/caT/, cum ante eum Scaliger legendum esse mo- 
nuisset Tre/A-m-i? KU\ <5e/ca?. Voluit enim ille Artemisium 
apud omnes tune fuissepurum putum Maium Julianum. 
Quod falsum esse deprehenditur. Ipse Scaliger ibidem 
vidit Epiphanium docuisse Apellaeurn Macedonicum 
non fuisse purum putum mensem Julianum Hacresi li. 
ubi vi. id. Novembris dicit fuisse diem Apelkei xvi. 
Unde hsec verba statim subjungit, " Nam hie decem 
" dies supra formam Julianam sunt, ut supra septem. 
" Quare non intelligo." Ubi maximum virum hal- 
lucinatum esse clare perspicitur. Nam vi. idus est vui. 
dies Novembris : xvi. igitur Apellan vin. tantum 
diebus formam Julianam superat. Ideo autem nihil 

N n 2 



548 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. mss. n. 

hie intellexit Scaliger, quia menses Macedonicos et 
Syro-Macedonicos semper fuisse vere Julianos putavit. 
Hie enim primus dies Apellsei Macedonici idem est 
cum xxiv. Octobris Juliani. Rursum Artemisio Dae- 
sius, Daesio proximus mensis erit Panemus, ut omnes 
norunt : si igitur Xanthicus inceperit vn. cal. Martias, 
Panemus incepit vn. cal. Junias : non incepit ante vn. 
cal. Julias, ut apparet. Nam extat martyrium S. Pauli 
Oecumenii Commentariis prsefixum, quo traditur apo- 
stolum passum esse Tre/mirr*] ^/uejOa Kara 

fJ.rjvo$, Trapa Se 'Pw/xa/ot? TJ; TTJOO rpiu>v 
Mvl 'Iovi//a> *0', " quinto die Panemi mensis 
" secundum Syromacedonas, apud Romanes autem in. 
" cal. Julias, mensis Junii vicesimo nono." Quod si 
quintus Panemi dies fuit in. cal. Julias, primus erat vn. 
cal. easdem, sive Junii dies xxv. Scriptum est hoc Mar 
tyrium an. Dom. cccxcvi. Arcadio iv. Honorio in. coss. 
cccxxx. anno, ut inquit, post passionem S. Pauli. Ubi 
obiter observanda est magna Scaligeri hallucinatio, qui 
male excusum esse tradit TpiaKoa-ta rpiaKovra pro rpia- 
Koa-ia ktyiKovra. Nam auctor ille diserte tradit apo- 
stolum passum esse an. Dom. LXIX. a quo tempore 
post annos cccxxx. Arcadii et Honorii consulatus con- 
tigit, hoc est, an. Dom. cccxcix. Quod si pro triginta 
legas cum Scaligero sexaginta, jam illi non erunt con- 
sules ante an. Dom. ccccxxix. quos consulatum ges- 
sisse ipse Scaliger agnoscit anno cccxcvi. Atque hsec 
certissima est numerandi methodus apud eos Grsecos, 
qui veteres menses Macedonicos unius mensis spatio 
sequebantur, neque eos alio modo mutabant. 

VI. Rursus si Xanthicus inceperit vn. cal. Martias, 
Audynaeus incepisset vn. cal. Decembres : nam inter 
Xanthicum et Audynseum duo erant menses Macedo 
nici. Non incepit vn. vel vi. cal. Decembres, sed vi. 



CAP. xvin. Mensium Macedonicorum ratio. 549 

cal. Januarias. Marcus in Vita Porphyrii Gazensis 
episcopi apud Bollandum, " Pluit autem Dominus nos- 
" ter assidue ab octavo Audynaei usque ad decimum. 
" Est autem Audynaeus apud Romanos Januarius. Prae- 
" ceduiit autem quinque diebus eorum menses Ro- 
" manos. Undecimo vero die peregimus diem Theo- 
" phaniorum." Unde nostra emendatio Epiphanii, quam 
ex conjectura aliquando fecimus, manifesto confirmatur. 
Sic enim ille Haeresi li. de Nativitate Christi. Tewtj- 
Oevros yap avrov Trept TOV 'lavovapiov ntjva, TOVTC&TI Trpo 
OKTU> etSu>v 'lavovapicov %TI$ e<rrt KCLTO. 'Payxa/ou? TrefnrTtj TOV 
'lavovapiov /xi;j/o9, Kara AiyvTrralovs Tv/8i evSeKart], Kara 
Zi^oouy etrow "EXXi;j/ay, AvSvvalov eicrt]. In quo loco 
ut viri docti pro Trenirrn legunt ?/CT^, ita ego pro e/cri; 
legendum putavi evSeKarij. " Cum enim Januario mense 
" natus esset vm. Id. Jan. qui est apud Romanos 
" Januarii dies vi. ^.gyptiis Tybi xi. Syris sive Graecis 
" Audynaei xi." Sed dubito. Nam postea vm. Dii 
secundum Graecos est vm. Nov. Idem rursus in eadem 
Vita, " Navigavimus Gazam vicesimo tertio Xanthici, 
" qui est apud Romanos octavus decimus Aprilis." 

VII. Secundo idem probatur ex iis, qui menses Ma- 
cedonicos mensibus Julianis aequabant, et initia utro- 
rumque eadem fecere. Nam ubi haec aequatio facta 
est, mensis Macedonicus, qui aliqua sui parte menses 
duos Julianos attingebat, ad eum mensem totus ac- 
commodatus est, quern longe maxima ejus pars ante 
occupabat. Quare si Xanthicus inceperit vn. cal. Mar- 
tias, post hanc acquationem incepisset ab ipsis calendis 
Martiis, et Xanthicus mensis Macedonicus idem om- 
nino fuisset cum Martio Juliano. Verum non idem 
fuit cum Martio, sed cum Aprili. Ante igitur non vn. 
cal. Martii, sed vn. cal. Aprilis incepit, et maximam 
turn partem Aprilis occupabat. De mensibus Mace- 



550 De Annis primorum Roma Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

donicis, postquam Julianis aequati sunt, res est ex- 
plorata. De his mensibus Graecorum Macedonicis 
optime disserit Venerabilis Beda, lib. de Temporum 
Ratione cap. 12. ubi laterculus mensium Macedonicorum 
et Romanorum valde corruptus, sed a cl. Seldeno ex 
codice Cottoniano MS. bene restitutus est. Vocatur 
autem apud eos ipse December Apileos (id est 'A-TreX- 
Xafo?) Januarius Eudynios, (id est Au<Wa/"o?) Februarius 
Peritios, Martius Dustros, Aprilis Xanthicus, Maius 
Artemisius, Junius Desios, Julius Panemus, Augustus 
Lous, September Gorpiseus, October Hyperberetaeos, 
November Dios. Haec ad mentem Bedae reformata 
esse constat ex ipsius Epbemeride, in qua unicuique 
mensi Romano sigillatim mensis Graecorum iisdem 
plane verbis apponitur; eademque prorsus apud Ra- 
banum libro de Compute nuper cura Baluzii edito 
reprsesentabantur. Ordo et conspiratio horum mensium 
innumeris locis ex antiquorum scriptis confirmari pos- 
sunt. Ex his duo ad hanc controversiam praecipue 
spectant, Avcrrpo?, qui et Martius, et Xanthicus, qui 
Aprilis. Sic Aetius Amidenus, M^l AiW/)a>, o ea-n 
Major/a)* et Mi/fl JEaj/0//cw, Tovrearnv 'ATrpiXlui. Suidas, 
ovojma MVOS Trapa Ma/ce^oo-ti/, o 'A-TT^o/Xto?. Et 
6 Mcfymo? ftijv Trapa Ma/ce^oVii/. Sic vicesimus 
secundus Dystri concurrit undecimo cal. Apriles, sive 
vicesimo. secundo Martii apud Euseb. Hist. lib. vii. 
cap. 32. ex Canone Paschali Anatolii. Et apud ipsum 
Eusebium lib. de Martyribus Palscstinae cap. 3. pariter 
xxiv. mensis Dystri idem est cum ix. cal. Apriles ; et 
cap. 11. quintus Dystri cum tertio Nonas Martii, et sep- 
timus Dystri cum ipsis Nonis Martii. S. Chrysost. Horn, 
in Diem Nat. "Ecrrtv ovv o 7rpS>TO? /u^i/ T^? crtXXi;\|/eft)9 TOV 
Seo-TTOTov 'A7T|0/Xtof, o? earl AavOtKo?. Sic apud Evagrium 
legas lib. iv. caj). 9- T^ irputrtj TOV AavOixoC, ''iyovi> *Aw/wX/ow 



CAP. xviii. Polycarpus passus est die Martii xxvi. 551 



Eusebius in Prooemio libri de Martyribus Pa- 
hrstinae. "Eroy TOVTO yv evveaKaiSeKarov ri/9 AIOK\*]- 
Tiavov /3a<rAe/ay, EavOtKO? yu^y, 09 Xeyofr' av 'A.Trpi\to$ 
Kara 'Po)A*a/oi/9' " Annus hie erat imperil Diocletiani 
" decimus nonus : mensis Xanthicus, qui dicatur Aprilis 
" secundum Romanes." Quando igitur menses pares 
erant, Dystrus cum Martio, Xanthicus cum Aprili idem 
plane. Ante aequationem, aut ubi jcquatio ilia nondum 
recepta est, Dystrus Martii, Xauthicus Aprilis maxi- 
mam partem occupabat ; quorum prior vn. cal. Mar- 
tias, posterior vn. cal. Apriles incepit. Duplici ergo 
argumentorum genere demonstratum est diem secun 
dum mensis Xanthici in Actis Polycarpi memoratum, 
Martii vicesimum sextum diem fuisse. 



CAP. XIX 

I. Pionius eadem, qua Polycarpus, persecutione passus est, non sub 
Decio. II. Acta Pionii, quse vidit Eusebius, periisse videntur 
ante Metaphrastem. III. Recentiorem faciunt Polycarpum recen- 
tiores quam revera fuerit. IV. Idem de Carpo et Papylo statu- 
endum quod de Pionio. 

I. T T NICUM restat Valesii argumentum ab Actis 

\J Pionii petitum, quod nimis serio his verbis 

urget : " Cum paulo ante Pionii martyrium, principatu 

" Decii Augusti, id est, octoginta circiter annis a 

" passione B. Polycarpi constet Smyrnaeos natalem B. 

" Polycarpi celebrasse vn. cal. Martias, nefas jam esse 

" existimo de die passionis ejus amplius dubitare." Ego 

interim de passione Pionii sub principatu Decii Augusti 

dubitare nefas esse non puto. In qua re licet ab Us- 

serio nostro destituamur, tamen illo argumento nihil 

sentential nostrae derogatum iri veremur. Pionium 

beatissimum martyrem fuisse indubitanter asserendum 

est ; sed an Acta martyrii ejus, quse nunc exstant, vera 

et sincera sint, dubitari non immerito potest. Baronius 

hsec Acta aliquando Aristarchi statera expenderat et 

contemserat, sed postea sincerissima judicavit, et Anna- 

libus suis inseruit, sed prius a se " diligent! studio emen- 

" data," hoc est, resectis iis quse putavit eorum suppo- 

sitionem nimis manifeste indicare. Sed eadem Acta 

contemsit etiam postea Aristarchus melior Petavius, et 

ante eum Aristarchus alter Josephus Scaliger. Admisit 



CAP. xix. Argumentwn ex Actis Pionii. ' 553 

quidem Usserius, Valesius autem adeo amplectitur, ut 
asserat Eusebium a nemine excusari posse, qui Pionium 
non sub Decio, sed sub Antonino, passum esse docet. 
Sic se res habet. Primo in Chronicis Eusebii Latinis 
haec ad septimum annum Marci annotantur, " Perse- 
" cutione orta in Asia Polycarpus et Pionius fecere 
" martyrium." Idem Hist. lib. iv. cap. 15. agens de 
martyrio Polycarpi et aliorum, TS>v ye MV rore Treptfio- 
rjTO? yuapruy ef9 T<9 eyixaptf^ero IltoViO?. RuKims interpres, 
" Inter caeteros autem, qui per idem tempus martyres 
" extiterunt, famosissimus inibi refertur quidam Pionius 
" nomine." Ejusdem igitur temporis martyr erat Pio 
nius, cujus et Polycarpus; sed cum hoc discrimine, 
VTTO Ttjv avrrjv TreptoSov Tov ^oovof, hoc est, " intra eundem 
" circuitum anni ;" ita Nicephorus Callistus Eusebium 
interpretatur, qui TOV avrov Irouy, " eodem anno,*' 
Carpum et Papylum passes esse docet. Eusebium sic 
intellexerunt et secuti sunt Pseudo-Dexter et Ado 
archiepiscopus Treverensis. Plurima igitur martyrologia 
Latina sub Antonino passum esse Pionium tradunt, quae 
apud Bollandum videri possunt. Imo idem in Latinis 
omnibus martyrologiis positum esse ipse fatetur Baro- 
nius. 

II. Verum enimvero deceptum fuisse Eusebium et 
exinde omnes, qui eum secuti sunt, asserunt viri docti. 
Neque enim eodem anno, aut sub eodem imperatore 
passes esse volunt, sed unum sub Marco, alterum sub 
Decio. Cum tamen nemo unquam dixerit eos sub 
diversis imperatoribus passos esse. Qui dicunt Poly- 
carpum sub Marco passum, tradunt et Pionium sub 
eodem principe martyrio coronatum- esse. Qui tradunt 
Pionium sub Decio passum, sub eodem Decio et Poly- 
carpum passum esse volunt. Cum igitur Polycarpum, 
aut sub Marco, aut ante, passum esse constet, qua*cun- 



554 De Annis primorum Romas Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

que de passione sub Decio traduntur, certissime falsa 
sunt, turn quod ad Polycarpum, turn quod ad Pionium, 
turn quod ad Carpum et Papylum, spectat. Volunt 
illi Eusebium, qui Acta Pionii et vidit et apud se habuit, 
et suis commentariis inseruit, deceptum ; Simeonem 
autem Metaphrastem post sexcentos fere annos, eadem 
Pionii Acta habuisse et rectius reprsesentasse ; quod nee 
verum, nee verisimile est. Nam ilia Eusebii scripta 
tamdiu durasse, et in manibus eruditorum fuisse nihil 
est quod fidem faciat. Liber ejus de Martyribus Palse- 
stinae exstat ; sed librutn eum De Martyriis Veterum 
qui legerit aut vidisse se dixerit, post Hieronymum 
novi nemiuera. Imo an eum Hieronymus viderit ne- 
scio ; nomen enim libri ex ejus Historia, in qua saepius 
memoratur, habere potuit. Cum singula Acta in ali- 
quorum manibus essent, et tot tamque prolixa Excerpta 
ex iis Historic Eusebii insererentur, credibile est 
collectionem baud diu durasse. Ante Simeonem 
sine dubio Acta aliqua Pionii Latina prostabant; ex 
quibus ille, utpote Metaphrastes, sua concinnavit. 
Bene haec Bollandus, de his Actis Pionii : " Eadem 
" jam oliin, ante ipsius etiam fortassis Metaphrastae 
" setatem apud Latinos extitere S. Pionii Acta." Ac- 
torum ille Latinorum consarcinator, qui ante Meta- 
phrastem vixit, ad Decium omnia retulit, ut solebant 
mediae aetatis Latini, quod saepius a nobis observatum 
est. 

III. Neque mirum videri debet posteriores aut Grsecos 
aut Latinos eo erroris delapsos esse,ut Polycarpum sub 
Decio passum esse putarent. Nam post martyrium 
Irenaei in vivis eum fuisse refert Chronicon S. Benigni. 
Cum Victore Romano episcopo eum vixisse tradit 
Sozomenus, lib. vii. cap. 19. Zo^on-ora Se TTW? o?/zat 
KctraXva-ai Ttjv (rv/u.fta<rav TraXat irepi Tavrys (ptXoveiKictv 



CAP. xix. Argwnentum ex Actis Pionii. 555 

TOU? CLfJ.(p} B<Woy>a TOV TOT6 TqS 'PcOfJUJf eir/Cr/COTTOI', /CCU 

YIoXvKapTTov TOV ^fjivpvaiov' " Exortam autnn olini de 
" hoc festo paschatis controversiani sapicntissime dis- 
" solvisse mihi videntur Victor tune temporis Romae 
" episcopus, et Polycarpus Smyrnaeus." Marca quidem 
pro Polycarpo illic legit Polycratem ; sed quis Poly- 
cratem dixit Smyrnaeum, qui fuit opiscopus Ephesinus ? 
Frustra haec omnino tentantur in Sozomeno, cum 
Socrates Polycarpum usque ad imperiurn Gordiani 
vixisse tradit lib. v. cap. 22. "On HoXyKap-n-os 6 -n/y 
2/j.vpvijs e7r/<rKO7roy 6 vvTcpov Ctrl YopSiavov fj.apTvprj(Ta<i' 
" Quod Polyearpus Smyrnae episcopus, qui postea sub 
'* Gordiano martyrium perpessus est." A Gordiano 
mitissimo principe facilis ad Decii crudelissimi Chris- 
tianorum hostis tempora lapsus seu descensus est ; unde 
Menaea de Polycarpo, 'E/ ^e TW /retra AeV^oj/ $HayiJ.u> 
rrpoa'^^Otj TO> av6v7ru.Ta>, icai Sia Trvpos TOV 
Sit'}w<re' " Polycarpus in persecutione Deciana 
" comprebensus ad proconsulem ductus est, et igue 
" agonem consummavit." Hanc sententiam secutus 
est, qui Acta Pionii Latine scripsit, tradiditque eum 
C. Messio Q. Trajano Decio, Vicio Grato coss. martyrio 
coronatum : quod ex Actis primaevis Grace script is 
habere non potuit ; quas proconsulem, non autem con- 
sules, in provinciis nominare solebant. Neque minim 
est, si aliqui scriptores, martyres eos qui diu ante 
Decium passi sunt, sub eo obiisse tradant, cum ii etiam 
qui diu post Valerianum, ipsa decima persecutione, 
passi sunt, ab aliquibus sub Decio et Valeriano obiisse 
putentur. De S. Methodic Hieronymus in Catalogo, 
" Ad extremum novissimoc persecutionis, sive, ut alii 
' affirmant, sub Decio et Valeriano in Chalcide Graeciac 
" martyrio coronatus est." Scripsit multa Methodius, 
non tantuni contra Origenem diu post Adamantii 
mortem, sed et contra Porphyrium sub Diocletiani 



556 De Annis-primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. 11. 

imperio ; et tainen nonnulli etiam aetate Hieronymi, 
non verebantur passionem ejus Decii et Valeriani per 
secution! ascribere. Et Suidas cum reliqua omnia e 
Sophronio exscripsisset, earn sententiam, quae certissime 
falsa esse deprehenditur, amplexus est, *O? irepl ra re- 
Xevraia rov Siooyimov eirl Ae/c/ou KCU OvaXepiavov ev Xa\Ki8i 
Ttj<s avaroXys ftaprvpiov eo-TecfiOr], extritis illis apud So- 
phronium, rj /ca&o? rive? Siafie/Saiovvrai. 

IV. Idem de Carpo et Papylo sentiendum est, de 
quibus post epitomen Martyrii Pionii haec statim addit 
Eusebius, 'E^9 ^e KOI aXXcav ev Hepyd/mw Tro'Xet T^? 
'A<r/a9 uTTO/oci/^/uaTa /meimapTvpijKOTCDV (peperai, Ka^o-Trou Kal 
TLcnrvXov, KOI yvvaiicos 'Aya6oviKij$, /xera TrXetcrra? KOI 
SiairpeTrets oyaoXoy/a? eTrt^o^w? TeTeXeioo/u-evcov. Haec verba 
male primum a Rufino versa sunt, " Post hsec etiam 
" aliorum apud Pergamum Asiae urbem martyrum gesta 
" referuntur, Carpi cujusdam et Papyrii et Agathonicae 
" optimse foemin92 aliarumque multarum, quac pro beatis 
" confessionibus martyrio coronatse sunt." Ubi pro 
Papylo babes Papyrium, et pro " multis eorundem 
" confessionibus," multas alias foeminas martyres. Et 
bane versionem Rufini secuti sunt martyrologi Latini, 
qui etiam eos sub Marco Antonino passes esse puta- 
bant. Graeci autem sub Decio et bos et Pionium et 
Polycarpum martyrio coronatos esse tradebant. Et 
certe prodigii loco habendum est, quod Menaea docent, 
Polycarpum sub finem primi seculi fuisse S. Joannis 
discipulum (imo et episcopum) ac demum sub medio 
tertii seculi tulisse martyrium : centum annorum, ut 
ego puto, metachronismo. Tanta autem fuit apud 
posteriores ternporum confusio, ut hi Polycarpum, illi 
Methodium sub una Decii persecutione obiisse tradide- 
rint, ut diximus ; inter quorum martyria CLX. annorum 
distantia fuit. 



CAP. XX. 

I. Anni martyrii Polycarpiani lit. Dom. B. primis Marci annis non 
convenit. II. Paschatis character non convenit anno CLXIX. con- 
venit autem anno CXLVII. accuratissime, seu per tabulas fiat sup- 
putatio, seu per phasin. III. Convenit quidem anno CLVIII. 
paschatis character ; sed non conveniunt reliquae anni note quo 
passus est Polycarpus. Colligitur itaque ante annum CXLVII. 
recte ab Eutychio constitutum ease initium Aniceti. 

I. T"| JRC adeo clare et prolixe de anno et die mar- 
J_J. tyrii S. Poly carpi disputata tandem ad propo 
sition nostrum de pontificatu Aniceti applicanda sunt. 
Ac primo cum ex ipsis Actis S. Polycarpi maxime 
genuinis constet beatissimum martyrem passuni esse 
die vicesimo sexto Martii, et quidem Sabbato magno, 
constat pariter eo anno quo passus est literam Domini - 
calem fuisse B. quae vicesimo septimo Aprilis semper 
adhaerere cognoscitur. Inde autem necessaria conse- 
quentia deducitur eum passum non esse septimo anno 
imperii Marci Antonini, quod voluit Eusebius, quern 
nunc plerique viri docti male sequuntur. Septimus 
enim Marci est annus Domini CLXVII. ut ipse fatentur ; 
quo anno non B, sed E litera Dominicalis fuit, ut notum 
est. Unde Calvisius, cum recte Acta intelligeret de 
Sabbato pascha praecedente, vicesimum secundum diem 
Martii pro vicesimo sexto ex arbitrio posuit, neque 
aliter anno CLXVII. aptare potuit, cujus litera Domini 
calis E vicesimo tertio die Martii est affixa. Sed neque 
martyrium Polycarpi ulli anno imperii Marci ante 



558 De Annis primorum Roma Episcoporum. DI.SS. n. 

septimum competere potest, ob eandem ration em, quia 
eorum nullus mense Aprili vel Martio habuit literam 
Dominicalem B. 

II. Quare jEgidius Bucherius omnium primus passio- 
nem Polycarpi ad annum Marci ix. Domini CLXIX. 
depressit, turn ob literam Dominicalem B. turn ad suam 
periodum confirmandam ; sed infeliciter : periodus 
enim ab ipso confecta exhibet an. Dorn. CLXIX. primum 
diem mensis Nisan duodecimum Martii ; decimus quar- 
tus igitur dies Nisan quo pascha cum Judseis celebra- 
bant Smyrnenses, erat Martii vicesimus quintus, qui eo 
anno fuit feria sexta ; unde sequitur Sabbatum magnum 
eodem anno secundum periodum Bucherianam fuisse 
diem Martii decimum nonum. Optimus Usserius, qui 
in anno assignato ob literam Dominicalem Bucherium 
secutus est, de Tabularum ejus fide dubitat, (quod ipsi 
necessarium erat,) nullum autem alium initii Nisan 
diem assignat, quod ad rern ipsam conficiendam prorsus 
necessarium fuit. E contra periodus Bucheriana an. 
Dom. CXLVII. quo nos Polycarpum passum esse statui- 
mus, optime convenit : in qua eo anno primus dies 
Nisan est Martii decimus sextus, decimus quartus 
Nisan Martii vicesimus nonus, feria tertia : ac proinde 
Sabbatum magnum eum diem proxime prsecedens 
vicesimus sextus Martii, vii. cal. Apriles, ut Acta refe- 
runt. Neque hsec tantum per Tabulas recte procedunt ; 
sed etiam si Lunae phasin computemus, eodem res 
recidit. Nam an. Dom. CXLVII. primus dies Nisan 
erat Martii vicesimus, 

Gr. Min. 

Longitude solis 34 28 32 

Longitude lunse Y 15 01 

Distantia lunae a sole occid. 16 19 

Quare decimus quartus Nisan, sive pascha Judaicum 



CAP. xx. Conclusio arguments ex Martyrio Polycarpi. 559 

fuit secundus dies Aprilis, quern cum Judaeis celebra- 
bant Smyrnenses feria septima ; proinde Sabbatum mag 
num illud pascha Judaicum proxime praecedens fuit vice- 
simus sextus dies Martii, vu. cal. Apriles, ut Acta refe- 
runt. Et haec supputatio inde confirmatur, quod eodem 
anno CXLVII. tertius dies Aprilis fuit pascha eoprdarinov 
in Occidente celebratum. Nam eo anno Cyclus Lunae 
fuit xv. Hie aureus numerus respondet in Calen- 
dario Juliano, diei Martii xix. Ille igitur decimus 
nonus Martii fuit eo anno Novilunium paschale ; ejus 
enim quarta decima, Martii xxi. seu quodcunque aliud 
aequinoctium ea a?tate concipias, sequitur et incidit in 
Aprilis secunduin. Litera Domiuicalis eodem anno 
fuit B. quae ad Aprilis tertium apponitur. Ergo tertia 
Aprilis fuit Dominica paschalis, quam celebrabant 
Romani. 

III. Fateor equidem characteres diei omnes in Actis 
Polycarpianis etiam optime convenire an. Dom. CLVIII. 
Lunae vn. Lit. Dom. B. Antonini Pii xxn. Eo enim 
anno etiam Sabbatum magnum incidit in xxvi. Martii. 
Sed annus non tarn bene convenit proconsulatui Statii 
Quadrati, minus etiam successoribus Polycarpi, quos 
memorat Irenaius, et multo adhuc minus aetati Irenaci 
quae vidit Polycarpum senem. Quare cum characteres 
diei et anni optime conveniunt anno Domini CXLVII. 
cumque annus ille apprime congruat proconsulatui 
Statii Quadrati, qui consul ordinarius fuerat an. Dom. 
CXLII. atque etiam cum temporis illius spatio amice con- 
cordet, quod turn ex successoribus Polycarpi in episco- 
patu Smyrnensi, turn ex prima sua a?tate cum Polycarpi 
extrema senectute, satis manifesto indicat Irenaeus; 
cumque anni illi, qui vel chronologis vetustioribus, vel 
a viris doctis hujus seculi tarn illustri martyrio hactenus 
assignati sunt, nimium quantum ab his character! bus, 



560 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. 11. 

quos Acta praeferunt, et observationibus ex historia 
depromptis, discrepent atque dissentiant ; asserere non 
dubito S. Polycarpum ipso an. Dom. CXLVII. martyrio 
esse coronatum. Et cum sine omni controversia idem 
Polycarpus Romae fuerit sub pontificatu Aniceti, inde 
clare et certo deducitur Anicetum aliquanto tempore 
ante annum Domini CXLVII. pontificatum iniisse ; quod 
quinquennii fere spatium fuisse baud immerito statu- 
atur, cum jam Polycarpus a?tatis ageret annum octo- 
gesimum secundum : neque post eum annum Poly 
carpum ad urbem iter instituisse verisimile est," quern 
adeo debilem fuisse antequam passus est, ex ipsis Actis 
constat. Certe auctor Fastorum Siculorum sexennium 
posuit inter tempus quo Romae Polycarpus fuit, et quo 
passus est. Quare tandem concludo, Chronologiam 
Eutychii, qui statuit Anicetum anno imperii Antonini 
quinto, hoc est, an. Dom. CXLII. eo ipso anno quo 
Statius Quadratus consul fuit, ordinatum fuisse, reliquis 
omnibus anteferendam et omnino recipiendam esse. 



CAP. XXI. 

I. In Aniceto ab Eutychio disceditur, cui tribuit annos xviu. in- 
tegros. II. Aniceti terapus confirmatur ex historia. III. Mor- 
tuus Anicetus initio anni CLXI. 

I. TTUCUSQUE Eutychii chronologise consentio; 
-1-J- de fine pontificatus Aniceti, et Soteris initio 
non item. Aniceto enim ille undecim tantum annos 
tribuit ; Soterem autem patriarcham factum esse docet 
anno Antonini Pii decimo sexto, an. Dom. CLIII. unde 
in manifestos errores postea incidit, et historic repug- 
nantes. Quis enim ferre potest Soterem decimo sexto 
Pii anno ordinatum esse, Eleutherum vero Marci 
secundo, Victorem decimo septimo ? Quod si septen- 
iiium reddatur quod a pontificatu Aniceti abstulit, satis 
bene omnia decurrunt. Ego igitur non xi. tantum 
annos cum Eutychio, sed xviu. integros pontificatui 
Aniceti tribuendos esse plane censeo. Neque hoc ex 
meo arbitrio permotus, sed rationibus, quae mihi satis 
idoneae videntur, adductus statuo. Nam auctor vetus- 
tissimi catalogi totidem annos ei pontifici, qui Soterem 
proximo praecessit, satis diserte tribuit, ut ex consu- 
latibus eidem assignatis patet. Quippe de proximo 
Soteris decessore intelligenda sunt ilia verba, " Fuit 
" temporibus Antonini Pii a consulatu Clari et Seven 
*' usque duobus Augustis." Quae sententia in secundo 
catalogo et Pontificali truncata legitur, " a consulatu 
" Clari et Severi . . . ." et consules omissi sunt certissime 

PEARSON, VOL. II. O O 



562 



De Annis primorum Roma Episcoporum. mss. IT. 



duo Augusti ; qnia iidem decent Soterem sedisse " a 
" consulatu Rustic! et Aquilini," qui duobus Augustis 
in consulatu successere. Liquet igitur decessorem 
Soteris usque duobus Augnstis pontificatum tenuisse. 
Nihil enim ex historia certius afferri potest, quam eum 
qui in pontificatu proxime Soterem prsecessit, fuisse 
ipsum Anicetum, ut est ante a nobis abunde demon- 
stratum. Anicetus autem an. Dom. CXLII. exeunte 
ordinatus est, et defunctus duobus Augustis coss. an. 
Dom. CLXI. ineunte. Quare sedit annos xvm. et 
menses aliquot. Quod et adhuc magis confirmatur. 
Nam qui ordinem pontificum immutabant, annos mu- 
tare non solebant ; ideo quot Pio tribuuntur, tot 
Aniceto assignandi sunt. Catalogi autem duo, secundus 
et tertius, Pio tribuunt annos xvm. menses iv. dies m a . 
Pontificale annos xix. menses iv. dies in. Quod qui 
non observabant, antiqui breviarii confectores, utrique, 
Pio et Aniceto, eundem annorum numerum tribuebant, 
undecim nempe. Reformatores Baroniani Pio octo, 
Aniceto novem pro arbitrio substituebant. Prudenter 
Onuphrius, cum in has angustias incidisset, Hygino 
nullos, Pio alios consules assignavit ; sed Anicetum 
decessisse ait duobus Augustis coss. Sub iisdem etiam 
Heinschenius obiisse vult decessorem Soteris, sive eum 
Pium, sive Anicetum putes. Hie igitur auctori anti- 
quissimi catalogi recte explicate assentior ; quern, si 
opportune ubi hiulcus est suppleatur, et ubi depravatus 
est emendetur, in pontiticibus, qui sequuntur, tutissime 
sequendum esse existimo. 

a " Fefellit patrem optimum," ponit. At Pearsonum hie et alibi 

ait Dodwellus, " quod crediderit non reprsesentat, qui non vetustis- 

" auctorem catalogi vetvstissimi simum et primum, sed catalogos 

" annos xvm. Pio assignasse :" duos diversos, " secundum et 

qui ipse de temporibus Aniceti " tertium," citat. 
rationem diversam omnino pro- 



CAP. xxi. Tenuit Anicetus usque ad Marcum. 563 

II. Est praeterea aliquid in historia nobis relictum, 
quod huic chronologiae suffragari videatur. Irenaeus 
qui sub Pio et Aniceto vixit, lib. iii. cap. 4. observat 
Valentinum Romam venisse sub Hygino, increvisse sub 
Pio et permansisse usque ad Anicetum. Cerdonem 
venisse pariter Romam sub Hygino. " Marcion autem," 
inquit, " illi succedens invaluit sub Aniceto." Unde 
ego colligo Marcionem sub extremo Aniceti pontificatu 
periisse ; quia non dicit eum usque ad Soterem perman 
sisse, ut de Valentino dixerat, increvisse eum sub Pio 
et permansisse usque ad Anicetum. Colligo etiam Pio 
et Aniceto praesertim plures annos tribuendos esse, 
quam vulgo tribuuntur, quia post obitura Hygini 
Marcion nondum haereticus fuit ; sub Aniceto mortuus 
est, et tamen diu in haeresi vixit. Et hsec etiam inde 
confirmari videntur, quod Marcion ad annum Domini 
centesimum sexagesimum minime vixisse videatur. 
Certe Tertullianus agens de Valentino et Marcione 
libro de Praescriptionibus ad finem secundi seculi 
scripto, c. 30. " Adhuc in seculo supersunt," inquit, 
" qui meminerint eorum, etiam proprii discentes, et 
" successores ipsorum, ne se posteriores negare possint." 
Sic enim loqui solebant de iis qui ultra XL. imo L. aut 
plures annos ante mortui sunt. Ita Hieronymus ad- 
versus Luciferianos, c. 20. " Supersunt adhuc homines, 
" qui illi synodo [Nicaenae] interfuerunt. Et si hoc 
" parum est, quia propter temporis antiquitatem ran 
" admodum sunt." Haec ille scripsisse videtur circa 
annum CCCLXXX, LV. annis post concilium Nicaenum. 

Ita Cyrillus Catechesi, vi. 20. Ka/ /utVet fjiev iravras atpe- 
TIKOVS, e^aiperoos $ TOV Ttjs /uav/a? e7ra>>u/Aoi> b , Tt]t> irptatjv 

*> Notum est, Grsecos patres TJJS rrjs pavias firatwpov, ut loquitur 
pro genio linguae in nomen haere- Titus Bostrensis, vocasse. Sec- 
eiarchae illudentes, Manetem av- tatores ejus, ut ictum declinarent, 

O O 2 



564 De Annis primorum Homes Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

TT\ Upofiov /3a<nAeo>? ap^dftevov' irpo yap oXwv e/3So/u.qKoi>Ta 
ei<rl ^XP 1 TO ^ v ^ v J/ ^/ ft) ' 7rOf ovrots 6(f)Qa\- 
exeivov " Odio habe omnes hsereticos, 
" eum praecipue qui a mania nomen habet, qui sub 
" Probo imperatore exorsus est. Nam septuaginta 
" annos integros error ille incepit : et hucusque super- 
" sunt homines, qui hsereticum ilium suis oculis con- 
*' spexerunt." Cum Probum nominat, sine dubio se- 
cundum ejus imperil annum innuit, quern tot charac- 
teribus insignem fecerat Eusebius in Chronico; erat 
autem an. Dom. CCLXXVII. ; unde sequitur Cyrillum 
hanc Catechesin scripsisse circa annum CCCXLVII. ut 
non immerito dixerit Hieronymus eum Catecheses in 
adolescentia composuisse ; siquidem sub Theodosio 
principe octo annis inconcussum episcopatum tenuerit 
usque ad an. Dom. CCCLXXXVI. Catecheses autem 
intelligo turn Illuminatorum, turn Mystagogicas ; mihi 
enim videntur omnes eodem anno a Cyrillo nondum 
episcopo script*. Et pene sexaginta anni a nece Ma- 
nichaei effluxisse videntur, quando ilia scripsit Cyrillus, 
et etiam turn testatus est aliquos superfuisse, qui ipsum 
hgeresiarcham viderant. Sic omnino intelligendus est 
Tertullianus, aliquos in seculo turn fuisse, qui non 
tantum Marcionem, ante XL. sed et Valentinum, ante 
plures quam L. annos defunctum suis oculis conspexerant. 
III. Non igitur immerito conclude, Anicetum, cujus 
pontificatus toties in historia ecclesiastica obiter com- 
memoratur, Romse sedisse per annos octodecim et 
menses complures, ab an. Dom. CXLII. ad annum CLXI. 
ineuntem, et turn demum defunctum esse, Antonini Pii 
xxin. coss. duobus Augustis, cum jam expirasset Mar- 
cion haereticus Antoninianus, sub Pio impius. 

Manichaeum appellari voluerunt, chseum, quasi manna fundentem. 
sive, ut doctiores quidam, Manni- Vid. S. Augustin. Haer. xlvi. 



CAP. XXII. 

I. Soter tenuit annis ix. ab anno CLXI. ad CLXX. II. Numeri or- 
dinationum, in primis hisce pontificibus, nee fidem merentur, nee 
sclent annis quibus sederint pontifices, respondere. III. Soterem 
nemo unquam veterum martyrem agnovit. IV. Conclusio. 

I. A NICETO succedit Soter, ut superius dictum est, 
-A- ordinatus anno CLXI. seditque annos novem 
usque ad annum CLXX. coss. Cethego et Claro. Ita 
catalogus secundus de Sotere, " Fuit temporibus Se- 
" veri, a consulatu Rustici et Aquilini usque Cethego 
" et Claro." Per Severum intelligendus Verus im- 
perator, qui saepe Severus appellatus est, ut alibi 
ostendimus ; et in Pontifical! etiam legitur, " Fuit 
" temporibus Veri et March" Haec ex primo cata- 
logo, qui nunc hoc loco nautilus est, sine dubio de- 
sumpta sunt, ut ex antecedentibus et sequent! bus 
consulibus liquido apparet. Unde Pseudo-Isidorus pri- 
mam Soteris epistolam a se confictam datam esse ait, 
" Nonis Maii Rustico et Aquilino viris clariss. coss." 
Ad quae verba censor Blondellus, " Epistolam datam 
" fingit, an. xi. antequam Aniceto succedit Soter." 
Quod falsissimum est. Tempus satis bene ejus pon- 
tificatus convenit, quamvis Epistola Pontifici minime 
conveniat. Idem impostor more suo secundam Soteris 
Epistolam datam scribit, " Cethego et Claro coss." 



566 De Annis primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. H. 

ultimo scilicet illius pontificis anno. Ubi iterum cen 
sor, " Ad finem addita consulum nomenclatura tem- 
" pori, quo sedit Anicetus, congruit, non Soteris pon- 
" tificatui." Quod perabsurdum est. De eodem ca- 
talogus tertius a Schelstratio editus, " Soter sedit annos 
" ix. menses vi. dies xvn." Annos eidem vm. in- 
tegros in Chronico et in Historia tribuit Eusebius, vui. 
etiam Eutychius, ix. Indiculus Nicephoro tributus, et 
Syncellus, et Ado. Cum haec tanto omnium chro- 
nologorum turn Grsecorum turn Latinorum consensu 
firmarentur ; nihilominus Baronius pontificatum Soteris 
mira licentia amputavit, eique assignavit annos tantum 
quatuor minus diebus duodecim, resectis plane quinque 
annis. Et Petavius in Rationario Temporum, sola ejus 
auctoritate permotus, " Soter post Anicetum cum se- 
" disset annos quatuor, agonem implevit." Labbeus 
etiam sequax paulo accuratius, ut putavit, " S. Soter 
*' papa martyrium subiit, die xxn. Aprilis, cum se- 
" disset annis in. mensibus xi. et diebus xxi." quem 
secutus est in Chronico magno Acciolius. Neque mi- 
rum. Tanta enim auctoritas 111. Cardinalis, ob causas 
minime ignotas apud Ecclesiam, vel saltern curiam, 
Romanam fuit, ut omnia Breviaria, quae apud eos adeo 
sacra sunt, statim corrigerentur, vel potius ad ejus 
mentem corrumperentur. Nam cum Pius V. ex de- 
creto concilii Tridentini Breviarium Romanum an. 
Dom. MDLXvm. restituisset, libri omnes editi an. Dom. 
MDLXIX. ut observat Halloixius, ad xxn. Aprilis hsec 
de Sotere habuerunt, " Sedit in pontificatu annos no- 
" vem, menses tres." Eadem etiam legebantur in aliis 
editionibus post aliquot annos factis, quae milii visse 
sunt, ut in ilia Parisiis an. Dom. MDLXXXIII. Antverpise 
MDLXXXVIII. Salmanticse MDLXXXIX. Quae verba ex 
Libro Pontificum, sive Pontifical! Damasi, ut in ipso 



CAP. xxn. Baronii nimia apud Curiam R&m. auctoritas. 567 

Breviario notabatur, sumpta sunt. Sed postquam 
Baronius fidem Pontificalis elevasset, et Annales suos 
Sixto V. dedicasset, in eorum verborum locum, extrito 
Pontificalis Damasi titulo, haec irrepserunt, " Sedit in 
" pontificatu annos tres, menses undecim, dies decem et 
" octo ;" scilicet ex arbitrio 111. Cardinalis et mandato 
Clementis vm. 

II. In Annalibus quidem rationes aliquot hujusce 
mutilationis, sed tarn parce et tarn timide referuntur ; 
ut se ipsas prodere videantur. " Quod tres tantum," 
inquit, " ordinationes fecisse reperiatur, baud longiori 
" tempore sedisse possumus opinari." Plane ficulneum 
est hoc argumentum. Nam numerus ordinationum 
sexto seculo excogitatus, gratis tantummodo et sine 
ullo fundamento prioribus Romae pontificibus assignatus 
est. Ac praeterea, si daremus hunc numerum trium 
ordinationum Soteri recte tributum fuisse, nullo modo 
sequitur eum vix quatuor annis sedisse. Nam ipse 
secimdi catalogi auctor, qui tres tantum ordinationes 
Soteri attribuit, annos eidem novem assignavit ; adeo- 
que ex numero ordinationum de duratione pontificatus 
judicandum esse voluit. Et si anni Soteris, aliorum 
etiam pontificum, ob eandem rationem amputandi 
erunt. Verbi gratia, Alexander tres ordinationes fe 
cisse dicitur, sedisse autem annos decem, et idem tra- 
ditur de Sixto. Eleutherus dicitur sedisse annos quin- 
decim, ordinationes autem fecisse tantummodo tres. 
Haec igitur nihili sunt. Sed necessitas Annalistarn 
compulit ut pontificatum Soteris amputaret ; nerape 
quia constat ex historia sub persecutione Lugdunensium 
Romac sedisse papam Eleutherum. Ergo ante earn 
persecutionem Soter mortuus est. Et quidem hujus- 
modi necessitas saepe cornipit Annales Ecclesiasticos ; 
ut aera Diocletiani, et annus primus Valentiniani Ba- 



568 De Annls primorum Romce Episcoporum. DISS. n. 

ronium duos annos absorbere coegerunt. Sed haec 
necessitas de pontificatu Eleutheri ex antecedentibus 
erroribus, et quidem pluribus, nata est ; nee interci- 
dendo aliquot Soteris annos removeri debuit. 

III. Quamvis etiam hinc subdole Baronius marty- 
rium Soteris expiscatus est. Statuit enim hac per- 
secutione, qua Lugdunenses passi sunt, sublatum fuisse 
Soterem papam ; ut illud ex falsa sua chronologia 
obtineret, quod aliunde haurire non potuit. Quis enim 
unquam ante auctorem Breviarii sive correctorem So 
terem papam martyrium subiisse legit ? In Breviario 
quidem ex decreto concilii Tridentini restitute, et jussu 
Pii V. edito, ad diem xxu. Aprilis ex tat lectio ex 
pontificali Damasi et Gratiano desumpta, in qua Soter 
diserte dicitur martyrio coronatus. Sed neque apud 
Gratianum, neque in Libro Pontificali, qui illic Damaso 
tribuitur, martyrii Soteris ulla mentio facta est. Sed 
postquam ipse cum aliis viris doctis Martyrologium 
Romanum, ut vocant, restituisset, et ex jussione Sixti 
V. recognitum, et notis suis illustratum, edidisset ; turn 
demum sine ulla dubitatione lectum est, " Romae via 
" Appia natalis S. Soteris papae et martyris." 

IV. Haec habui quae dicerem de annis veterum 
Romse episcoporum, ac prsecipue Hygini, Pii, et 
Aniceti, ad quorum tempora multa qua? ad historiam 
ecclesiasticam pertinent, a scriptoribus coaevis aut sup- 
paribus diserte referuntur. Unde constat Annales Ec- 
clesiasticos maximse secundi seculi partis immanibus et 
foedis metachronismis scatere, nee sine hac similive 
nova pontificum Romanorum chronologia a tanta labe 
liberari et redintegrari posse. Et quamvis Heinsche- 
nius novam nobis pontificum Chronologiam nuperrime 
excuserit, multosque ill. Annalistae errores libere de- 
texerit, non tamen verae historiae satisfacit. Neque 



CAP. xxii. Baronii nimia apud Curiam Rom. auctoritas. 569 

cum ilia scriberet, historiae ecclesiasticae monumenta in 
consilium adhibuisse videtur ; sed tantummodo veterum 
tabularum ab alumnis Ecclesise Romanae sero deli- 
neatarum naufragia compingere, et ubi iuconstantes 
sunt conciliare, ubi manifesto falsae aut corruptse aut 
mutilae apparent, supplere atque dealbare, maxima 
supputationis habita ratione, veritatis aut etiam veri- 
similitudinis minima. 



TABULA CHRONOLOGICA 

PRIMORUM ROM^ EPISCOPORUM 

SECUNDUM RATIONES PEARSONI. 



I lane Tabulam partim ex Dodwelli Dissertatione, c. 15. exscripsimus, partim 
ad Pearsoni verba reformavimus, et in fine supplevimus. 



i. S. PETRUS. Passus est A. D. 
LXVIII. 



2. LINUS : consecratus fortasse A. D. 
LV. mortuus ante S. Petri mar- 
tyrium, A. D. LXVII. 

3. ANENCLETUS : sedit annos duos. 
Mortuus est A. D. LXIX. exeunte. 

4. CLEMENS : eedit ad A. D. 
LXXXIII. Domitiani secundum. 

5. EUARISTUS : sedit ab A. D. 
LXXXIII. ad A. D. xci. coss. 
Trajano et Glabrione. 

6. ALEXANDER : ab A. D. xci. ad 
ci. 

7. XYSTUS : ab A. D. ci. ad. cxi. 

8. TELESPHORUS : martyrio coro- 
natus est, A. D. cxxn. Hadrian! 
sexto. 



9. HYGINUS : ab A. D. cxxn. ad 
A. D. cxxvi. 



1. Nihil certi statuisse videtur Pear- 
sonus de tempore quo putandus 
est S. Petrus Roma- sedisse. Vid. 
Diss. I. c. viii. 10. Diss. II. c. ii. 
2. 

2. Diss. II. c. ii. c. v. 2. 4. 



3. Diss. II. c. v. 5. 

4. Diss. II. c. v. 7. 

5. Diss. II. c. vii. i. 

6. Diss. II. c. vii. 2. sqq. 

7. Diss. II. c. vii. 6, 7. 

8. Diss. II. c. vii. 8. c. viii. Hunc 
primum post Petrum inter prae- 
sules Romanes martyrem fuisse 
credidit Pearsonus. Diss. I. c. iv. 
2. 

9. Diss. II. c. viii. 9. c. xii. i, 2. 



Tabula Chronologica . 



571 



Intervallum unius fere anni, ml. 
A. D. cxxvu. quo primum Ro- 
inam venit Marcio. 

10. Pius : ab A. D. cxxvu. ad 
CXLII. 

11. ANICETUS : ab A. D. CXLII. I 
ad CLXI. 



12. SOTER: ab A. D. CLXI. ad 
CLXX. 

" Hucusque in hoc opere : reliqua, 
" ut suppleverit, habemus e doc- 
" tissimi Patris Adversariis." 
DODWELL. 

13. ELEUTHERIUS : ab A. D. 
CLXX. ad CLXXXV. 

14. VICTOR : ab A. D. CLXXXV. ad 
cxcvu. 

15. ZEPHYRINUS : ab A. D. cxcvu. 
ad ccxvu. 

16. CALLISTUS : ab A. D. ccxvu. 
ad ccxxn. 

17. URBANUS : ab A. D. ccxxn. 
ad ccxxx. 

18. PONTI ANIS : ab A. D. ccxxx. 
ad ccxxxv. 

19. ANTEROS : sedit A. D. ccxxxv. 
et ccxxxvi ; et eodem anno, quo 
Fabianus ordinationem suam ac- 
cepit, martyrio coronatus est. 

20. FABIANUS : ab A. D. ccxxxvi. 
ad CCL. 

Post obitum Fabiani sedes vacat 
per unius anni, mensium iv. et 
dierum xv. spatium. 

ai. CORNELIUS : mortuue est A. D. 
CCLII. 

33. LUCIUS : -edit A. D. CCLII. et 
CCLIII. 



10. Diss. II. c. xii. 2, 3. 

11. Diss. II. c. xiii. Sub Aniceto 
Romam venit Polycarpus. ib. c. 
xiv. passus est A. D. CXLVII. c. 
xv. xx. Eadem persecutione 
passus est Pionius; c. xix. Pas- 
sus est Justinus Martyr. A. D. 
CXLIX; c. ix. 2. xiv. I. 2. 

12. Diss. II. c. xxii. 



13. Hoc tempore scripsit Irenaeus, 
circa A. D. CLXXX. Diss. II. c. 
xiv. 2. 



18. Vid. Diss. I. c. iv. 2. 4. 5. An- 
nal. Cyprian, ad A. D. 250. . 3. 
Mortuus est exul in Sardinia. 

19. " Anteros sedit mense uno, die- 
" bus duodecim ; dormiit A. D. 
" ccxxxvi., tert. Non. Jan." 
Annal. Cyprian, ib. Diss. I. c. iv. 

20. Fabianus martyrio coronatus est 
die vicesimo Januarii A. D. CCL. 
Annal. Cypr. ib. 



21. 22. Vid. Annal. Cypr. ad A. D. 

252. . 12, 13. A. D. 253. . 4. 



572 



Tabula Chronologica. 



23. STEPHANUS : ordinatus est 
A. D. CCLIII. mortuus A. D. 

CCLVII. 

24. XYSTUS II. undecim menses 
praefuit, et eodem anno, quo S. 
Cyprianus, martyrio coronatus 
est, A. D. CCLVIII. 

25. DIONYSIUS, cum sedes anno 
fere uno vacaverat, electus est 
die xi. vel xn. cal. Augusti 
A. D. CCLIX. Mortuus est x. 
mensibus ante initium imperii 
Aureliani, A. D. CCLXIX. 



23. Annal. Cypr. ad A. D. 257. 
5- 

24. Annal. Cypr. et Dissert. I. c. x. 
3- 



25. Dissert. I. c. x. 7. Annal. Cypr. 
App. A. D. 259. . 4. 



APPENDIX 

CONTINENS PEARSONI QILEDAM 
SUBSECIVA. 



PROLEGOMENA 

IN 

HIEROCLEM, 

DE EDITIONS, AUCTORE, ET OPERE*. 



CUM haec opuscula, nunquam antehac simul excusa, nunc eodem 
volumine irapressa prodeant, operas pretium fore videbatur, si 
ab eo qui edenda curavit, et editionis, et auctoris, et operis ratio 
aliqua lectori redderetur. Quamobrem, ne vel novitate sua displiceant, 
vel sub Fragmentorum titulo minus ambitioso vilescant, quod de 
horum unoquoque scitu necessarium judicavitnus, breviter fideliterque 
trademus. 

Cum typographus Pythagorac Fragmenta hinc inde collecta, et in 
Aurea ejus Carmina Hieroclis Philosophi Commentarium vel auro 
pretiosiorem prelo subjecisset, monui eum exstare etiamnum alia 
Hieroclis Opuscula, neque ea adeo vulgo nota ; addidique, nihil a 
tanti nominis philosopho, magis magisque indies inclarescente, scrip- 
turn esse, quod omnibus in hoc literarum genere versatis non foret 
gratissimum exoptatissimumque. Quo monito, licet Facetiarum li- 
bellum priori imprudentius aifixisset, coepit tamen de secundo volu 
mine imprimendo cogitare. 

Primum igitur, Compendium de Providentia et Fato Parisiis a 
Frederico Morello editum ut quaereret suasi ; quod in Bibliopoliis 
omnibus, et nonnullis emditorum hominum Bibliothecis frustra quae- 

These Prolegomena were first were reprinted with an edition in 8vo. 

printed as a preface to" Hierocles de Pro- Cantab. 1673 ; and again by Needham, 

" videntia et Fato, una cum Fragmen- in his edition of Hierocles, Cantab. 

" tis ejusdem, cum notis Merici Casau* 1 709. 8vo. some of whose notes are here 

" boni ad Commentarium in Aurea Car- subjoined. 
" mina." Lond. 1655. nmo. They 



576 Prolegomena in Hieroclem, 

situm, tandem vir doctissiraus, harumque rerum callentissimus, et, si 
addere liceat, nostri amicissimus, Mericus Casaubonus, communi- 
cavit ; quod non solum a Morello primo editore, sed ab Hugone 
Grotio, qui in hac ipsa quaestione plurimum desudaverat, versum 
habes. Huic tractatus duos ex iisdem libris a Photio excerptos, et 
in Myriobiblo, stupendo eruditionis opere exstantes, adjiciendos 
curavi. Et ne quid, quod a tanto viro scriptum est, licet temporis 
injuria mutilatum, lateret, ejusdem auctoris fragmenta omnia inter 
Stobaei Eclogas sparsa, et vel sic ab interitu vindicata, ut adjungeret 
consilium dedi. Praeterea, etiamsi paucissima ex iis quae Hierocles 
ille adversus Religionis nostrae cultores scripserat, superessent, eaque 
sint, quorum a lectione Christianos omnes potius arcendos credide- 
rint forsitan nonnulli ; tamen, quoniam apud Eusebium Caesariensem 
et edita jampridem et refutata sunt, censui sine ullo religionis dispen- 
dio edi posse, et, ne quid deesset, omnino edenda b . Denique, cum 
in priori libro inter reliqua Fragmenta etiam Symbola Pythagorae ex 
lamblicho delineata conspicerem, et praeclarum Lilii Gyraldi Com- 
mentarium in magno et ingentis pretii operum volumine quasi lati- 
tantem cogitarem, iterum hortatus sum ut non omitteret libellum tarn 
paucis cognitum, a tanto philologo scriptum, summique viri Isaaci 
Casauboni elogio commendatissimum ; quern in Notis ad Diogenem 
Laertium haec verba habuisse diu est ex quo primum observavimus : 
" De Symbolis Pythagoricis multa multi scripsere, ad quos lectorem 
" rejicimus ; imprimis ad Lilium Gyraldum, virum solide doctum, et 
" in scribendo accuratum." Haecque omnia eo lubentius ardentius- 
que ut fierent urgere visum est, quod Annotationes Casauboni Filii 
in Commentarium Hieroclis prius impressum, imo evulgatum, non 
sine alio volumine edendae viderentur. Hanc editionis rationem 
habeant, qui requirunt breviusculam ; auctoris aliquanto ampliorem 
habituri. 

Nam cum in omni fere literarum genere, a quo quisque liber, qua- 
que aetate, scriptus sit, intelligere plurimum intersit, ne scriptorem 
plane alienum pro nostro substituamus, neu pro mediae setatis Philo- 
sopho vel recentiorem aliquem vel antiquiorem venditemus ; veniam 
postulare visum est. ut de iis omnibus, qui sub Hieroclis nomine 
inter literates hactenus innotuerunt, et haec commentanti praesto 
sunt, paulo diligentius disseramus. 

b Heec excerpta Eusebiana ex Hiero- ut in Praefatione ostendimus, &c. omit- 
clis Nicomediensis A6yca 4>tXaA.^0, qui tenda duxi. NEEBHAM. 
toto seculophilosopho nostro major erat, 



de Editions, Auctore, el Operc. 577 

Primus, quantum memoria teneo, qui Hieroclie nomine inter Grae- 
cos doctrina celebres insignitus est, fuit Meneclis frater, e regione 
Caria, ex urbe Alabandis', ubi Cicerone puero floruit, et oratoriam 
professus est. Aliter quidem docere nos voluit vir doctissimus 
Gerardus Joannes Vossius, Libro de Historicis Graecis Tertio ; qui 
Hieroclem quidem hunc patria quidem Alabandensem fatetur, sed 
Rhodum commigrasse tradit, testemque migrationis Strabonem lau- 
dat. Quod an veritati consentaneum sit, videamus. Verba Strabo- 
nis, Lib. xiv. in codicibus editis haec sunt : "Avtopts 8t iyivovro Xoyov 
iiioi 8vo prjTopts <18(\(po\ ' A.\a$av8( is , \l(i>(K\fjs Tt, ov (p.vrjO'drjfjLtv pucpov 

(tiUVtl), Kill 'l(pOK\rjS, Ol (Ji(TOlKr)<Tai'T(S (IS TT)V 'P68oV, O T( *A7ToXXi>l/OS Kill 

6 Mo,W'- " \'iri memorabiles Alabandenses fuerunt oratores duo 
" fratres, Menecles, de quo paullo ante diximus, et Hierocles, qui in 
" Rhodum commigraverunt ; item Apollonius et Molo." Ita inter- 
pres, et haec Vossio favent. Sed monuit Criticorum Princeps Isaa- 
cus Casaubonus locum e?se mutilum, et deesse particulam cal, legen- 
dumque omnino Tt 'ltpoK\^s, KOI ol /urrounjo-airf r (is TTJV 'PdSov ut illud 
fjLtToiict')<TavT(s non ad Meneclem et Hieroclem qui praecedunt, sed ad 
eos qui sequuntur, Apollonium scil. et Molonem, referatur. Quaiu 
ego correctionem minimc contemnendam, potius corroborandam 
sentio. Nam, primo, Apollonium et Molonem Alabandenses fuisse, 
et Rhodum postea commigrasse, fatentur omnes : deinde cum Geo- 
graphus ipse paullo ante eos qui, alibi nati, Rhodi oratoriara professi 
sunt, commemorasset, horum quidem diserte meminit, Meneclis 
autem vel Hieroclis ibidem docentis mentionem nullam facit, oratores 
adeo celebres loco tarn opportune nequaquam omissurus, si in eadem 
urbe cum Apollonio et Molone unquam docuissent. 

Ceterum Joannes Meursius, vir diligens et harum rerum praeci- 
pue callens, correctionem Casauboni emendatione alia plane evertere 
in Apollonio suo conatur. Ubi enim nos legimus o rt ' Airo\\d>vtos 
Kin 6 MdXcoi/, ac si duo essent, ut revera sunt, ille levi transpositione 
in hunc modum restituit, o re 'AwoXXawor, 6 KCU MdXwi', atque ita ex 
duobus unum facit, qui et Apollonius et Molo diceretur. Sed fugit 
eum ratio, cum diligentissimum Geographum sic emendaret, vel potius 
corrumperet. Quis enim putabit Strabonem, dum Alabandenses ora- 

c Ita hie et alibi iuferius rescripsit usitatius sit, et certissimix anctoribus 

Needhamus.proenqnodPearsonusdede- (irrnatum, Liv. xxxiii. 18. Strab. xiv. 

rat, Altiluiwia, freuiininnm sinjfiilare. p. 659. et alibi, in textiim recepi. Ea- 

Quod licet Iiexica exhibeant, et scripse- dem diversitas est in v. Abdera, Me- 

rit miperriine V. D. Svhwei^liaeuser. in damn, 7'hurii, sive Tlniriee, &c. 
Itidice Polybiaiso, tainen altenim, nun 

PKARSOX, VOL. II. l p 



578 Prolegomena in Hieroclem, 

tores enumerat, Molonem nominare, Apollonium omittere ; et cum 
ante utriusque ut Alabandis nati, ut Rhodi profitentis, simul memi- 
nisset, nunc in ipsa patriae descriptione unius tantum mentionem 
facere voluisse ? Quid quod, quicquid alii de Apollonio Molonis, ut 
Plutarchus et Porphyrius, aut de Apollonio Molone, ut Josephus, 
Suetonius, et Quintilianus scribunt, Strabo semper Molonem diserte 
distinguit ab Apollonio ? KaOdirep KOI ' ATTO\\O>I>IOS 6 MaXaAcor, KO.I 
MoXaW rffrav yap 'AXa/3ai/8ets' " Quemadmodum Apollonius cogno- 
" mento Mollis, et Molo ; erant enim Alabanclenses," Meneclis Rhe- 
toris discipuli. Non dicit 6 MaXaKos KO\ 6 MoXcov quod certe debuit, 
si utrumque Apollonium, unum Malacum, alterum Molonem dicere 
voluisset. Rursus, eVeS^/ujo-e 8e irportpov 'ATroXXwi/iof o\re 8e fjKtv 6 
M6\a>v " Prior Rhodum se contulit Apollonius ; postea autem venit 
" Molo." Si uterque fuisset nomine Apollonius, nunquam scripsisset 
irpoTtpov 'AiroXXcovios, sed irportpov 6 MoXo/cos, o^e fie 6 MoXwv. Cer- 
tissimum est igitur distingui apud Strabonem Apollonium et Molo 
nem, et correctionem Casauboni emendationi Meursii praeferendam. 

Quare u 01 [*.fToiKT]cravTfS fls TTJV 'Po8ov, o rt 'ATroXXowos KOI a 
MoXwi/, ita apud Strabonem verterem : " Memorabiles quidem. 
" Alabandenses Menecles et Hierocles, item Apollonius et Molo, qui 
" ex Alabandis patria sua, ubi Meneclem audiverant, Rhodum commi- 
" grarunt." Habemus igitur tandem Hieroclem Alabandis natum, 
ibidemque oratoriam professum. Et scripsisse eum Orationes ex 
Cicerone constat. Ita enim ille in Bruto : " Genera Asiaticse dic- 
" tionis duo sunt : unum sententiosum et argutum, qualis in historia 
" Tima?us, in dicendo autem, pueris nobis, Hierocles Alabandeus, 
" magis etiam Menecles frater ejus fuit ; quorum utriusque Ora- 
" tiones sunt imprimis, ut in Asiatico genere, laudabiles." Quod 
fuerit judicium hominum de hoc Hierocle, cognoscere licet ex Cice 
rone, lib. ii. De Oratore. " Intelligemus, ut hodie Alabandensem 
" ilium Meneclem et ejus fratrem Hieroclem, quos ego audivi, tota 
" imitetur Asia ; sic semper fuisse aliquem, cujus se similes plerique 
" esse vellent." Quse sententia Ciceronis, docet ipse in Oratore ad 
Brutum : " Tertium est, in quo fuerunt fratres illi, Asiaticorum 
" rhetorum principes, Hierocles et Menecles, minime mea sententia 
" contemnendi. Etsi enim a forma veritatis, et ab Atticorum 
" regula absunt ; tamen hoc vitium compensant vel facultate vel 
" copia." Atque haec de Alabandensi rhetore, quern nostrum esse 
non posse certissimum est, utpote qni pene quadringentis annis 
philosopho antiquior fuerit. 



de Edit/one, Auctore, et Opere. 579 

Meminit et Hieroclis cujusdam Scholiastes ad Pindari Pythia, 

Ode iv. '\fpoK\rfy 8( 0r;<7i rovs Vc Acucfdat/zoi/uf ditomiaavTas 'ATTuXXwn 
a\tTT)v (Bijpai/) uvtfpdxrai. Et paullo post : 'lpocXf; 8 <pr;<Ti Kficrdat 

TI^V rroXti/ *V Xo<pov fjuunotiBovs \tvKoydov. Hunc Hieroclem euiidem 
fuisse cum Alabandensi, unico hoc argumento, nimis fortasse levi, 
non tamen reticendo, conjicio. Menecles et Hierocles fratres erant 
in eodein dicendi genere versati : Scholiastes autem utrumque simul 
laudat. Nam cum Meneclem prius ideo nominasset, quod pro- 
babiliorem ceteris rationem reddidisset, cur Battus oraculum con- 
suleret, seditionem nempe in insula Thera ortam : statim subjungit 
verbis modo prolatis, Hieroclem docuisse, " Eos qui ex Lacedaemone 
" colonial n in Theram deduxerant, eandem A poll in i consecrasse ; 
" et urbem Cyrenem in colle uberis formam referente collocatam 
" fuisse." Hinc mini quidem verisimile videtur, fratrem utrumque 
historiam illam de adventu Batti in Cyrenaicam oratorio more per- 
texuisse. Aut si conjectura hsec minus cuiquam arrideat, potiusque 
ad aliquem, quern historica scripsisse certum est, referenda hiec esse 
autumaverit ; sit nobis secundus Hierocles ille, cujus Stephanus 
Ethnicographus meminit, qui libros scripsit, quos *tX'o-Topaj nonii- 
navit. Ita enim ille in Tapicvvia' Kai Taptwdloi f6vos'Vntpfiopt<t>v, nap 
ails ol ypvirs TOV xpvtrbv <pv\d(r<rov<TH>, wy 'lfpoK\rjs (V rots 4>tX('o - TOp<riv' 
" Etiam Tarcynaei gens quaedam inter Hyperboreos, apud quos 
" gryphes aurum custodiunt ; ut Hierocles in Philhistoricis." In- 
signe fragmentum ex eodem opere excerptum apud eundem Ste- 
phanum exstat in Bpaxpaves. 'l(pOK\i)s iv rolt 4>iXi'<TTOpo-t (prjtrf Mra 
raCra <rirov8i)s tiiov ivoft-LvBr] TO ~Kpa\yLavu>v Iftflv <pv\ov, dv&p>i> <pi- 
\o(Tu<f)a>v teal dtois (piXutv, 'HX(a) St paXicrra icadoMrtu/xcVui/. \\nf\ovrai 8f 
<rapK(Xpayias TTQCT^V, cat vrraidpioi TOV act \povov 
fit fadrJTi \ivfj. T% e'< ir(Tpu>v \i 

ij crvvvfpaivovvw t ov v(pd(rp.aTa yiyvtrai fi.TfT( irvpl 
, p-r/Tf vdari Kadaipoptva, aXX* firtibuv pvrrov KU\ KTJKlo'os fp.r:\rjff6f), 
t(ift\T)6(VTa (Is <j)\6ya \fVKa Kai Siafpavfj yiyvtTaC " Postea operae 

" pretium videbatur Brachmanas visere, homines philosophic de- 
" ditos, et Diis charos, Soli vero praecipue dedicates. Caeterum ab 
" esu carnium prorsus abstinent ; sub dio totain aetatem degunt, et 
" veritatem colunt." Quae autem sequuntur cum corrupta sint, 
prius ut emaculentur, quam vertantur, opus est. Corrigo itaque et 
lego : Xpuvrai Bt (<r6f)Ti \ivfi r;; f* itfrpotv' \idu>v yap fjLT)pvp.ara p.a\aKa 
KOI otppuTvllr) <rvi>v<pat>>ov(Tiv. Correctionem confirmant ilia Plutarchi, 
Libro de Oraculorum Defectu, p. 434. Tijr o' iv Kapvarw nirpat, 

P p 2 



580 Prolegomena in Hieroclem, 

Xpovos ov no\vs city ov irtiravTai fj.rjpvp.aTa \i6a>v p.a\aKa 
o-vvK<pepov(ra. Vides ex petra Carystia \i6<av /i^pujuiTa, eaque p.a\aKa 
KOI vt)paT(a8r), ut apud Stephanum 8fpnaru8r) reposuimus, 
etiam reposituri, nisi quod nimis a veteri lectione recedat, et 
TtaSrj ferri possit. Quod autem de lino vivo, sive asbestine, loquatur 
Plutarchus, certum est : ex eo enim mantilia, retia, et capitis in- 
volucra confecta esse dicit, ab ignis injuria tuta, iisdem pene cum 
Hierocle verbis tradens, ovre TT(piKaiop.fvovs, dXX' oo-' av pvnavQf) xp<>>- 
fievatv efiftaXotres (is <p\6ya, Xa/i7rpa *cai 8ta(f)avr) Kopiefovrai. Atque ita 
tandem reliqua apud Stephanum vertimus : " Utuntur autem veste 
" linea, ex petris facta ; lapidum enim filamenta qusedam mollia et 
" quasi cutanea contexunt ; ex quibus vestimenta fiunt, neque igne 
" comburenda, neque aqua purganda ; sed cum sordibus scatiant, in 
" flammam conjecta, pura et splendida evadunt." 

Aliud Hieroclis ejusdem fragmentum, ex eodemque opere, con- 
servatum habemus in Tzetzis Chiliadibus. Quod licet ipsissimis ejus 
verbis conceptual non sit, tamen et libri argumento, et aetati auctoris^ 
vix aliunde eruendae non parum lucis afferet : 

'lfpoK\rjs aicravToos 3>i\i(TTopcriv ev Xoyoty, 



i'o) <p\tyofifvriv T(, KOI irtpl ravryv avSpas 

ttvtortws Tf, Ttpos x^P als T ^ s ^PW*"* 
Qv ol fJifv cmtcriciaaav TO irp6<ra>Trov wriois, 
Tovs nodas 8* avaTfivovTfS, TO o-vfj-irav aXXo cra>/Lta. 
TOVT&V be "S,Tpafta>v /xe'/ij/^rat, KOI ye T>V a/tt0aXa>i/, 
Kat T>V 8fKaK((pa\(i>v Tf, Kal T(Tpax.poirob'a>v' 
Ovvirep (ya> OVK oTratna, (prjcrlv 6 'lfpoK\er]s. 
Tavra 'lepOK\(T)s pfv. 

" Hierocles similiter in libris Philhistoricis, 
" Deinde, inquit, vidimus regionem siccissimam, 
" Soleque exustam, et in ea viros 
" Nudos atque tecto carentes, locis in desertis ; 
" Quorum quidam obumbrabant faciem auribus, 
" Pedes autem extendentes, etiam corpus reliquum. 
" Quin horum Strabo meminit, necnon Acephalorum, 
" Et decem capita habentium, quatuorque manus atque 

pedes, 

" Quos ego nusquam vidi, inquit Hierocles. 
" tisec quidem Hierocles." 
Atque ista Joannes Tzelzes, Chil. vii. Hist. 144. Ex quibus 



de Editione, Auctore, et Opere. 581 

liquet Hieroclem ilium quamplurimas regiones peragrasse, resque in 
itinere visas aut aliunde cognitas scripto tradidisse, et libros, quibus 
haec omnia complexus est, QiXiaropas nominasse. Patet etiam 
Strabone Historico, qui sub Tiberio scripsit, juniorem, (ilium enim 
laudat,) Stephano etiam Ethnicographo, a quo ipse laudatur, anti- 
quiorem fuisse. 

Post oratorem et historicum, tertius nobis erit ex porticu phi- 
losophus, toties Tauro Platonico et cum Stoica disciplina non bene 
convenient! laudatus, ut trudit in Noctibus Atticis, ix. 5, Agellius. 
" Taurus autem noster, quoties facta mentio Epicuri esset, in ore 
" atque in lingua habebat verba haec Hieroclis Stoici viri sancti 
*' et gravis : 'HSovfjs TtXos iropvijs 86yp.a OVK tvrtv iropvtla' oi8tv iropvrjs 
" 86yfta." Ista Agellius de Tauro. Haec Taurus ex Hierocle, sed 
corrupta et nibili ex vitiosu editione facta, in hunc modum nitori 
pristine restituenda. 'H8oi>g TtXoj- nopvijs 807701. OVK tart irpovota 
ov&fV nopvijs 86ypa. Duo nempe Epicuri dogmata jugulat, et ex 
philosophorum scholis ad lupanaria amandat " vir sanctus et 
" gravis :" finem omnium, seu summum bonum in voluptate situm 
esse ; illud primum : providentiam, qua regi mundum vulgus au- 
tumat, nihil esse ; hoc secundum d . Et hie fortasse Hyllarimensis 
est, de quo Stephanas : 'YXXopt/xa, no\i\viov Kapias, o6tv TJV 'ifpoxXr/f 
6 d/ro a6\r]<rj)v eVt (pi\o<ro<piai> a \0fis. Xullain enim alitiin ob ratio- 
nem, quam quod philosophic dicatur, nostrum fuisse Hyllarimensem 
ilium conjecit Vossius : nos igitur potiori jure Stoicum hunc fuisse 
dicamus, quoniam noster non ex athleta, sed ex judice fact us est 
philosophus, ut mox ostendemus. Utcunque sit, Stoicus ille non 
potest idem esse cum eo quern nos edimus, quia Tauro antiquior est, 
quern Platonic-am philosophiam exponentem non solum Agellius, sed 
et Herodes Atticus, refereute Philostrato, sub Hadriano Csesare 
audivit. 

" Alius etiam a nostro videtur Hierocles, ex quo Athenaeus lib. 
" XIV. xiv. 646 B. refert quid sit arrais," inquit Ger. Vossius. Imo 
vero, si omnino fuerit Hierocles iste, non modo " videtur alius," sed 
ut sit, omnino necesse est. Scripsit enim ante Athenaeum, qui sub 
Pertinace Deipnosophistas edidit, centum et quinquaginta annis ante 
Libanium et Acacium, quibus florentibus noster obiit. Neque vero 
ille apud Athenaeum " refert quid sit oraif," sed quid aram'ra?, 

d Restabat inagno Bentleio, utobser- reponendo, OVK IOTI Ttpovota- uvSt *6p- 
vavit ad hunc lucum Needhamus, cor- i^jj 87^o. Dissert, ii. de Epist. Pha- 
rectiuuem feliciler aupicatani ]M*rliccre, laridis, p. 5 26. 



582 Prolegomena in Hteroclem, 

placenta scilicet ita Epicharmo nominata, quse (Trait tcmv vypov ds 
Trjyuvov (irixfo/jifvov, /neXtros rt/3aXXo/iVot> Kal (TJjo-a/iTjy Kal rvpov, a>s 
lepers (prjaiv. SratTtras nempe dictus est, quod sit crrais " liquidum 
" sartagini affusum, adjecto melle, cum sesarno et caseo, ut inquit 
" Hierocles." Apertissime autem fallitur vir doctissimus Dale- 
champium sequutus, cum ita explicat " quid sit a-rais, nempe liquor, 
" vinum puta, aqua, vel alius :" nemo enim unquam vinum, aut 
aquam, aut similem aliquem humorem a-rals nominavit. Revera non 

uid orals esset, sed quamobrem placenta oratr/ras diceretur, scil. 
quod (K a-rairos vypov fieret, docere voluit, quisquis est ; non enim 
Hieroclem, sed latroclem nominatum puto, et legendum omnino $ 
'InTpoKXqs (prja-tv apud Athenaeum censeo. Ut enim Harpocration 
Mendesius, ita et latrocles scripsit de placentis. Kpt/ii/ir?;?, ir\aicovs 
TTOIOS, 8ta Kpifjivcw yivo/jtfvof, a>s 'laTpOK\rjs (V rw irtpi 7r\aKOWTa>v dva- 
Athenaeus paullo ante. Et idem rursus, Kotpivac TOVT&V 
i 'larpoK\fis tv T<5 TTtpl TrXaKovvrcw. Ut igitur alibi, ETatera, 
trapa Kcbot$, as <pi)(riv 'larpoK\^s, ita hie quid sit oraiTiVai 
ostendens, ? 'larpoicXfjs tprftri sine dubio scripsit. Hunc igitur, ex 
numero eorum qui sub Hieroclis nomine innotuerunt, expungentes, 
ad alios et his et nostro juniores transeamus. 

In xvi. Geoponicorum libro tria capita sunt, viz. 9, 10, it. quse 
&fpoK\('ovs nomen prae se ferunt : sed cum liber ille ad rem ve- 
terinariam pertineat, 'IfponXfovs legendum esse ostendunt Hippiatrica e . 
Binos autem libros scripsit Hierocles irtpl T^C ITTTTC^V fepairfiaf, hoc 
est, ' De Morbis Equorum Curandis,' ut ipse testatur in prooemio ad 
secundum Hippiatricorum, cap. Ix ; eosque a Basso rogatus cum 
confecisset, eidem postea dedicavit. Suntque hi duo libri quasi 
fundamenta Collections Veterinariae, ad quorum formam methodum- 
que reliquorum Epistolae aut dnoa-rraa-fidrta redigi videantur. Fuit 
autem Hierocles ille non Inniarpos aut inter equites Csesarianos in 
armis versatus, ut Apsyrtus, et Theomnestus, sed jurisprudentiam 
coluit, et causis agendis in foro operam dedit. Locuples ipse mihi 
testis in operis prooemio : 'AXX' et KOI naraKovnv fjpds trip&v TO. vvv 
*XP*I V > * v Tf 8tK(UTTT)piois irapf'xfiv xP f ^ av T0 dfoptvois, Kal fTirov8r)V irepi 
ravras Troteitr^at Tar 8taTpi/3as' OVK drifMacrTeov -ye o/i<09 TTJV <rr)v d^iaxnv, 
apia-Tt Bd(T<rc " Etiamsi nos alios potius audire hoc tempore opor- 
" teat, et in judiciis copiam nostri postulantibus praebere, atque 

" hisce exercitiis operam dare ; non tamen negligendum fuit, optime 

" Basse, quod tu requiris." 

e Ita in edit, sua (icoj)oriiconim corrcxit Needhamus. 



de Editione, Auctore, et Opere. 583 



Praeter hunc et alius Hierocles Grammaticus, qui wMgM*, sive 
notitiam imperil Constantinopolitani evulgavit, editus ab episcopo 
Abrincatensi, sed imperfectus ; a V. Cl. L. Holstenio in Corpore 
Historiae Hyzantinae perfection edendus f . 

Tandem aliquando, recensitis illis quos a nostro plane distin- 
guimus, ad ipsum philosophum veniamus. Hunc ego pro certo 
affirmare non ausim, negare tamen non possum, fuissr ilium ipsum, 
qui adversus (Christiana* religionis syrnmystas et scripsit mordacia, et 
acerba gessit. 

Primum autem legendo observavi fuisse eum in Bithynia judicem, 
imperante Diocletiano, judici unique adversus Christianos, flagrante 
persecutione, exercuisseJ?. Auctor est oculatus tragoediae testis Lac- 
tantius : "Alius eandem materiam inordacius scripsit, qui erat tune 
" e numero judicum, et qui auctor imprimis faciendae persecutionis 
" fuit." Ita ille lib. v. De Justitia, c. 2 ; de alio nescioquopriora h , 
de nostro haec certissime locutus '. Non igitur, uti " alter, antistitem 
" se philosophies" tune temporis " profitebatur," sed sub solo judicis 
officio Christiano nomini infensus apparuit : " quo scelere non con- 
" tentus, etiain scriptis eos quos affixerat, insecutus est." Sed quem- 
admodum inter Graecos rerum naturae periti primo 2o0ol, postea 
modestiori vocabulo *<Xd<ro<ot dicebantur .; ita cum Celsus, qui pri 
mus adversus religionem nostram ex professo scripsit, inimicissimum 
veritati librum \oyuv 'AX^ nuncupasset, Hierocles titulo minus am- 
bitioso suum *tXXq$i; indigitavit. Fatetur Eusebius a^a^oviKotrtpov 

KXaou 'AXi;$i} \6yov. Et ut ad Hiero- 



i Hieroclis istius meminit Constant!- sunns hanc quaestionem in medio reli- 
nus Porpliyrogennetus, qui imperium querit, nolim his lectorem morari. Vid. 
Byzantinum capessebat A. D. 912. in Cave, Hist. Lit. in v. Anonymi Nico- 
TLematibus lib. ii. c. i. et 4. NEED- mediensis, A. D. 302. I. p. 345. 
HAM. i Tenendum, quo tempore hc scri- 
g Diversos fuisse Judicem et Philo- bebat Pearson us, I>actantii liliellum de 
sophum putat Needhamus. Rationes Mortibus Persecute rum nondum a Ba 
in Pra-fatione sna exponit. luzio fuisse editum. Prodiit in Miscell. 
b Baron ius, Annal. ii. 716. de For- torn. ii. Paris. 1679. Ibi vero Lac tan - 
phyrio accipit; " quern, contra Eusebii tius disertis verbis nominat " Hiero- 
et Hieronymi testimonia, non in Si- " clem, ex Vicario Praesidem, qui auc- 
' cilia, sed in Bithynia, impiis suis Ii- " tor et consiliarius ad faciendum per- 
' lris C'hristianam religionem oppug- " secntionem fuit." c. 16. Unde, utno- 
' nasse con'U'iidit. Baronium sequitur tavitad loc. CtJomesius, "apprime illus- 
Oxoniensis