.

The firft of thofe Writers is one John Scot, who (fay they) was called the fubtil Doctor in his Time! Speaking of St. Auguftin, he obferves, That one must carefully examine what Sort of Hereticks were attacked by the Saints; for (continues he) when St. Augustin writes against Arius, he feems to incline to Sabellianifm; and when he writes against Pelagius, he seems to incline towards the Manichees. The other Writer is Cornelio Muffe, Bishop of Bitonto, a famous Divine of the XVIth Century, who made a great Figure in the Council of Trent. He fpeaks of St. Auguftin much in the fame manner as John Scot; whereupon Cardinal Noris makes a Reflexion, which appears very material to thofe Gentlemen, viz. That John Sct and Cornelio Muffo fay only, That St. Auguftin feemed to incline to the oppofite Error; whereas Father Annat does not fcruple to say, he ran Headlong into it. The Queftion is not, fay thosẹ Gentlemen, whether or no thofe Accufations are well grounded. Cardinal Noris and you, Sir, are bound to vindicate St. Auguftin. But they infer from it, That the Proteftant Divines are not the firft, who have made fuch Reflexions upon that Father, fince the Catholick Church, and parti cularly the Jefuits, gave them the first Exam ple.

I proceed, in the next Place, to what concerns St Jerome. Thofe Gentlemen maintain ftill, as they did in your Prefence, that one cannot depend for the Sense of the Scripture upon an Author, who explained it carelessly, and even spoke difrespectfully of the Apoftles. Their Affertion is grounded upon a formal Quotation; and they are refolved to prove thofe Facts, which you denied. They affirm that St. Ferome, in his Commentary upon the IId Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, accufes St. Peter and St. Paul of Simulation, and even of Hypocrify. That Father tells us, That St. Peter, in order to please the Jews, pretended to be very willing that the Ceremonial

remonial Law fhould be obferved; and that St. Paul, in compliance to the Gentiles, pretended to have a Quarrel with St. Peter upon that Account, by which means St. Paul's Hypocrify removes the Scandal occafioned by St. Peter's Hypocrify. St. Auguftin blames St. Jerome for it: The latter made him the following Answer. "I have, Says be "followed the Commentaries of Origen, (note, fay "thofe Gentlemen, that St. Jerome was afterwards a great Enemy to Origen,) Didymus, Apollinarius * of Laodicea, who has lately left the Church, 4"lexander an Ancient Heretick, &c. And to tell you the plain Truth, I read all thofe Authors,' "and having got a great many things in my Head, "I called for my Secretary it, and dictated to

66

66

him fometimes my own Thoughts, and fometimes "thofe of other Authors, without remembring the

66

Order, nor fometimes the Words, nor even the "Senfe". The fame Father fays in his Commentary upon the Third Chapter of the fame Epiftle: "I do not ufe to write; but I call for my Copift, and dictate to him every Thing that comes into my Mouth. If I happen to think a little in "order to fay fomething that may be better, he bends his Brows; and it plainly appears by his Counte nance that he is weary of being there,

Pray, Reverend Father, what Sort of Men are we referred to for the Understanding of the Holy Scripture? I defire you to judge of it. Whom fhall I

believe, St. Jerome an Origenist, or St. Jerome an Enemy to Origen? How fhall I know what he took from an Heretick, or from an Orthodox Writer, fince he quotes both of them, Right or Wrong, without any Diftinction? How can I guess, whether he gives

us his own Thoughts, or thofe of other Authors, fince he hardly knows it himself? How can I be fure, that his Secretary was always in good Hu mour; and that having fomething elfe in his Head, the Holy Scripture did not fuffer by his Impatience ? To tell you the Truth, if it be fo, I can no more rely upon St. Jerome, than upon St. Auguftin; and I am not very much furprifed, that upon fome Occafions, when the Venerable Words, Father and Saint, are not fufficiently minded, one fhould be apt to fpeak fomewhat freely of those great Doctors of the Church.

You also mention the Councils in your Letter, and are of Opinion, that those Gentlemen did not express a due Refpect for them. I muft inform you of what they fay upon that Head; for they have fo great an Efteem for you, that they would be very forry you should think they have advanced any Thing rafhly. They fay, That if Councils were, (as they hould be,) free Affemblies, willing to confult only the Holy Scripture and Reafon, inftead of Paffions, Prejudices, and Worldly Interefts, it would be the beft way to decide Controverfies. But they maintain at the fame Time, that ever fince the Council of Ferufalem, the contrary plainly appeared by a conftant Experience. Nay, I have been fomewhat offended with a Paffage, which they afcribe to St. Gregory Nazianzen, who yet was, as you know much better than I do, a very Orthodox Father. He faid, That no Ecclefiaftical Affembly ever had a good Succefs; nay, he refolved to affift no more in thofe Affemblies of Cranes and Geefe, violently fet one against another. He spoke thofe Words upon Occafion of the Second Oecumenical Council; and he compares it with a Tavern, and other Places, which Modefty does not allow one to name. Our Divines

↑ Greg. Nazianz. de Vita fua.

Divines never went fo far in their Reflexions upon the Councils. They admit the Four Oecumenical Councils, not by Reafon of their Authority, which they don't take to be infallible, but because their De cifions appear to them agreeable to the Holy Scripture. Theodoret had no great Opinion of the Coun cil of Nice, fince he alledged it, to prove, that no Good could be expected from Councils, unless God overthrew the Devices of the Devil. Things were managed with fo much Heat and Precipitati on in the Council of Ephefus, that it should be looked upon rather like a Cut-Throat, than an Ec clefiaftical Affembly. The Second Council of Ephe fus revoked what had been done in the Firft, and were in their Turn treated in the fame manner by the Council of Chalcedon; which can be no great Sign of Infallibility.

But to conclude this long Difcourfe, confifting of what thofe Gentlemen told me, I was very much furprised to hear from them, that one of your Writers, viz. Father Halloix, a Jefuit of Liege, fpeaking of the Vth Oecumenical Council, in his Apology for Origen, made bold to affirm, That Juftinian, being infpired by the Devil, was the Author and Favourer of that pernicious Council, which met against the Pope's Will. He adds, That it were better fuch a Council had never been, and that no Footstep of it should remain. Father Halloix goes on,' and fays, The VIth and VIIth Oecumenical Councils were led into Error by the Vth, as well as Pope Pelagius II. and Pope Gregory the Great, who approved it.

But what will you think of me, Sir, for venturing upon the Ecclefiafticál Ocean? I have done it, trufting to my Pilots If I have been mifled, I

hope

hope you will be fo good a Friend, as to bring me back again into the right Way. To conclude, I pray God to keep you in Health, that you may fome Time or other return to Berlin, where you will always find Men well difpofed to enquire after Truth,' in fuch a manner at you rightly propofe at the End of your Letter, &c.

ARTICLE XXXIX,

A FURTHER Account of Dr. BENTLEY'S Edition of HORACE. (See Above Art. XXXIV.)

Dr.

I Proceed to give an Account of fome Curious and Important Obfervations, which Dr. Bentley has inferted at the End of his Preface. Tanaquillus Faber, Mr. Dacier, and Mr. Maffon pretend that Horace writ Odes, Epodes, Satyrs, and Epiftles promifcuously; and publifh'd each of thofe Pieces by itself. Bentley denies thofe two things, and does not fcruple to affirm, that the three Authors juft now mentioned, have been very unsuccessful in their Attempt Quorum equidem acumen (lays he) & eruditionem in partibus laudo; in operis vero fumma totoque conftituen do rem cos infeliciter admodum gefiffe cenfeo.

Our Author obferves, in the firft Place, that all the Ancient Poets, who compofed fuch Poems, never ufed to put them out one after another, but only in whole and complete Books. Such was the Method of Catullus, as it appears from his First Epigram, Cui

done