concerning the Faith. Indeed the Sticklers for Infallibility must either give up that Prerogative, or allow all the Fathers to have talked Nonsense. [Sidenote: _A Mistake of_ Baronius.] _Baronius_ is certainly mistaken, and so was _Ruffinus_[1100], whom he follows, in asserting the Heresy of _Apollinaris_ to have been first condemned by the Council of _Rome_, since it is manifest, that the Doctrine of that Heresiarch had been condemned long before by _Athanasius_, _Basil_, and _Epiphanius_, in their Writings, and by the Council held at _Alexandria_ in 362. But _Ruffinus_ probably meant no more, than that those Errors were first condemned by the Council of _Rome_, under the Name, and together with the Person, of _Apollinaris_; which is undeniable. [Sidenote: _Another Mistake of the same Writer._] I cannot help observing here another Mistake of _Baronius_, pretending that _Damasus_ (for whatever was done by the Council is by him ascribed to _Damasus_ alone) in condemning _Apollinaris_ condemned all the Errors he held; and consequently the Opinion of the _Millenarians_, holding that _Christ_ was to return upon the Earth, and reign over the Faithful a Thousand Years before the End of the World. [Sidenote: _The Doctrine of the_ Millenarians _held by the greatest Men in the Church_.] This Opinion was first broached about the Year 118. by _Papias_ Bishop of _Hierapolis_, a Man of great Piety, honoured by the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint[1101]. He declares, in the few Fragments of his Works, which have been conveyed to us by _Eusebius_[1102], that, as he lived near the Times of the Apostles, he made it his chief Business to learn of their Disciples whatever they could recollect to have been done or said by them, on different Occasions, that was not recorded in Holy Writ. Thus he learned the above-mentioned Doctrine[1103], which, upon the Authority of such a Tradition, countenanced by some Passages in the _Revelations_[1104], and one Text in St. _Paul_, was embraced and held by the most eminent Men for Piety and Learning, at that time, in the Church; and, among the rest, by _Irenæus_, and _Justin_ the Martyr. And yet such a Doctrine is now rank Heresy in the Church of _Rome_. But, by declaring it such, have they not overset their own System, which places Tradition upon a Level with the Canonical Books of the Scripture? [Sidenote: _How little Tradition to be depended upon._] Can they allege a more antient Tradition, one more universally received, or equally countenanced by Scripture, in favour of the many traditional Articles of Faith, which they have obtruded upon the World? _Papias_ declares, he received the above-mentioned Doctrine of those who had learned it immediately of the Apostles. If such a Tradition be rejected as false, what other has a Right to be admitted as true? If we deny or question St. _Peter_’s having been at _Rome_, Tradition, and the Authority of _Irenæus_ (for all the others have copied from him), are immediately