that none but such as are obstinate in their Error are to be treated as Hereticks and so adds what are the Conditions necessary to repute a Man an Heretick In the Fourth Book also he treats of the same Question and prescribes the means to convince a Man of Obstinacy In the Fifth he shews who may fall into Heresie and particularly whether the Pope or College of Cardinals may err In it also he treats of the Primacy of the Church of Rome and of the Infallibility of a General Council and of the whole Church In the Sixth he treats of the Punishment of Hereticks and particularly of a Pope who is either Suspected or Convicted of Heresie the Method of Proceeding against him the Judges which he may have upon Earth and the Penalties which may be inflicted on him He also considers what share Lay-Princes have in the Decisions and Executions of such Judgments as concern the Faith In the Seventh he treats of such as give Credit to Hereticks who defend and protect them and particularly of such as follow an Heretical Pope who obey him and maintain his Heretical Doctrines and Communicate with him After he has explained these Questions in the First Part of this Dialogue he opposes in the Second the pretended Heresie of John XXII concerning the Vision of God and confutes the Reasons brought to excuse him The Third Part is divided into two Treatises The First is about the Authority of the Pope and the Second about that of the Emperor In the First Book he inquires how far the Pope's Power extends it self and whether he hath any Temporal Authority In the Second he examines whether it be convenient for all Christians to be Subject to One Head and the State of the Church to be Monarchical Whether there may be several Supream Bishops or Independant Patriarchs In the Third Book he inquires what that Authority is to which Men must yield a Belief under pain of Damnation In it he handles many Curious Questions concerning the Authority of Scripture General Councils Popes and Fathers in Matters of Faith In the Fourth he discourses of the Supremacy of S. Peter viz. Whether Jesus Christ made him the Head and Prince of the Apostles and whether he had Power over them It is easie to discern that he is for the Affirmative In his Second Treatise which is concerning the Power of the Emperor he examines in the First Book Whether it is convenient that all the World should be Subject to one Prince how far the Authority of the Emperor extends whether it depends upon the Pope or God only whether the Empire may be Translated Divided or Separated In the Second he treats of the Emperor's Authority in things Temporal declares the difference between the Spiritual Power of the Pope and that of the Emperor and shews how far the Power of this latter extends In the last Books he discourses of the Emperor's Power over the Persons of Churchmen and Revenues of the Church He inquires whether the Right of choosing a Pope belongs to him or the Romans whether these last may incroach upon him if the Emperor be the Pope's Judge and have Authority over him He had promised in the Preface to the Third Part of that Work Seven other Treatises The First concerning the behaviour of John XXII whether he died an Heretick or Orthodox Person The Second of the Life of Lewis of Bavaria to shew whether he were a Lawful Emperor or no. The Third of the Carriage of Benedict XII whom several Acknowledged to be Pope The Fourth of the Life of Friar Michael Caesena The Fifth of the behaviour of Friar Gerhard Odonis whom some reputed the Lawful General of the Grey-Friars The Sixth of the demeanour of William Ockam And the last of the Conduct of the Princes Bishops and other Christians who had adhered to favoured and maintained those of whom he had spoken These Treatises 't is not certain whether they were ever finished by Ockam or whether they are lost But we have two Treatises more of this Author 's against John XXII The one Intituled An Abridgment of the Errors of Pope John XXII as well in respect to the Poverty of Jesus Christ and his Apostles as about the Vision of God the Trinity and Power of God in which he answers the Reasons brought to excuse that Pope and accuses Benedict XII to have been a Favourer of the Heresies of John XXII and to have broached a New One in forbidding that when any Question is brought to the Pope to choose either the Negative or the Affirmative Part before the Pope has decided it The other is a large Work Intituled Ninety Days because he spent so much time in Composing it in which he confutes word by word the Four Decretals of John XXII Quia Vir reprobus Ad conditorem Cum inter and Quia quorundam Lastly There is also another Treatise of Ockam's Composed upon the Occasion of the Divorce of Margaret Dutchess of Carinthia and the Son of the King of Bohemia in which he explains the Right of the Emperor and Princes in Matrimonial Causes All these Books of Controversie are found as we have observed in the First and Second Tome of the Monarchy of Goldastus and have been printed severally at Lyons in 1496. There is in the Library of M. Colbert a MS. Treatise of Ockam's against Benedict XII divided into Seven Books and a Letter to the General Chapter of the Grey-Friars met in 1334. at Assisi Marsilius Patavinus or Marsilius of Padua Sirnamed Menandrinus a famous Lawyer of his Marsilius Patavinus time stoutly defended the Party of the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria against the Pope and about the Year 1324. Composed a large Work upon that Subject Intituled A Defender of the Peace against the Jurisdiction usurped by the Pope of Rome dedicated to the Emperor It is divided into Three Parts In the First he settles the Civil and Temporal Authority and Jurisdiction its Extent and Bounds In the Second he shews the Nature of the Ecclesiastical Power what is its Extent and what are the Effects of it and how it differs from the Civil Authority In it he maintains That the Church properly speaking hath no Compulsive Authority or Jurisdiction That all the Apostles were equal in Power That all Bishops and Ecclesiastical Ministers have their Power immediately from God That all Bishops have Power to decide Matters of Faith That a General Council is the Supream Judge of the Church and that the Government of the Church belongs to that That the Bishop of Rome is not the Head of other Bishops nor has any Primacy above them That he is the first in a Council and has Power to execute its Rules and Decrees In it he also shews wherein the Popes have exceeded their Authority and Power as well in Spiritual as Temporal Things and answers the Objections that may be made against that Doctrine and the Passages of the Fathers usually against it In the last Part
infinite Number of very common Errours into which our Fathers fell for want of examining Things by the Rules of true Criticism For 't is a surprizing thing to consider how many spurious Books we find in Antiquity nay even in the first Ages of the Church Several Reasons induced Men to impose Books upon the World under other Men's Names The first and most general is the Malice of Hereticks who to give the greater Reputation to their Heresies composed several Books which they attributed to Persons of great Reputation in which they studiously spread their own Errours that so they might find a better Reception under the Protection of these celebrated Names And thus the first Hereticks devised false Gospels false Acts and false Epistles of the Apostles and their Disciples And thus those that came after them published several spurious Books as if they had been written by Orthodox Authors that so they might insensibly convey their Errours into the Minds of their Readers without their perceiving the Cheat. The Second Reason that inclined People to forge Books under other Men's Names is directly contrary to the First being occasioned by the indiscreet Piety of some Persons who thought they did the Church considerable Service in forging Ecclesiastical or Profane Monuments in favour of Religion and the Truth And this Reason prevailed with some ancient Christians to forge some Testimonies in behalf of the Christian Religion under the Name of the Sibyls Mercurius Trismegistus and divers others and likewise induced the Catholicks to compose some Books that they might refute the Hereticks of their own Times with the greater Ease And Lastly The same Motive carried the Catholicks so far as to invent false Histories false Miracles and false Lives of the Saints to nourish and keep up the Piety of the Faithful Now though the Design of these Persons seems to be commendable yet we ought not by any Means to approve of the making use of these sorts of Artifices to defend the Truth which is well enough supported by real Proofs without the necessity of inventing any false ones It would be a Shame to call Lying and Falshood to its Assistance and we must never use such sort of Methods which Truth and Sincerity will always condemn whatever good Effects they may pretend to have The Third Reason of the Forgery of some Books keeps a middle Way between those we have already mentioned for there have been some Persons in the World that have been guilty of this Imposture without any other Design than to divert themselves at the Expence of their Readers and to try how nearly they could imitate the Stile of other Men. Hence it is that some Authors have composed Treatises under St. Cyprian's St Ambrose's and St. Austin's Names But it must be confessed that this Reason has not been near so common as the other two and that it very rarely prevailed especially in the Primitive Times Only in these latter Ages there have been some who having Vanity enough to over-value their own Productions have published them under the Name of ancient celebrated Authors desiring rather as the Abbot of Billi says to appear abroad and be esteemed under other Men's Names than to continue despised and be buried in Darkness by writing in their own And these are the Reasons that may have occasioned the Forgery of Books Malice Indiscreet Piety and the Humours of Men. But besides these Reasons that have advanced this Trade of Forgery there are several others that have occasioned the setting Authors Names to several Books which they never writ The first and the most general is the Fault of the Transcribers or Printers who have frequently set wrong Names in the Title-Pages of their Books And this has happened several Ways for either they did it to raise the Price of the Copy or because they found these Tracts at the End of some other Author they therefore concluded too rashly that they were done by the same Hand or through Ignorance and Negligence or lastly some not being able to find out the Name of the true Authors upon the strength of a few feeble Conjectures have supposed they had good Reason on their side to change it From hence therefore one Book has often carried the Name of several Authors in Manuscript and this has principally happen'd to Sermons either because the Transcribers found it their Interest to publish them under the Names of Great Men to make them more vendible or because these Sermons though of different Authors by being often inserted into the Office of the Church and divided into Lessons were so interwoven and confounded one with another that it was a difficult matter to distinguish them A second Reason of the giving to some Books the Name of wrong Authors is because sometimes Men have written Books by way of Dialogue or otherwise to which in imitation of Tully they have given the Names of those Persons whom they have introduced there as Speakers After this manner Vigilius Thapsensis made five Books under the Name of St. Athanasius and perhaps too under the same Name he composed the Creed that is attributed to that Father Whence it happened that those that looked upon the Titles of these Books attributed them to St. Athanasius without examining the Reasons why they carried his Name As if we should attribute Tully's Books to Laelius Brutus or Cato Lastly The Ambiguity of Titles and the Resemblance of Names have often contributed to the ascribing of Books to those to whom they did not belong Two Authors were of the same Name though perhaps they differed in every Circumstance beside and this has given Occasion to several unwary or ignorant Readers to attribute their Books to the wrong Persons This has frequently happened and to give one remarkable Instance of it the Resemblance of the Names of Sixtus the Philosopher and Sixtus the Pope caused the Sentences that were written by the former to be attributed to the latter Having thus discovered the Reasons why we find so many Books attributed to Authors who have no just Title to them we ought to establish the Rules of true Criticism 'T is equally dangerous to be ignorant of them as to take them the wrong Way and mis-apply them for if we do not know them we may be easily imposed upon by false Monuments and if we do not understand them aright or if we abuse them by allowing our selves too great a Liberty we may very often reject the Truth it self This last Abuse has been frequent with many Criticks of our Time and particularly Protestants who upon very slight superficial Conjectures have rejected several Books that are unquestionably ancient and genuine because they contradict their Doctrine or Discipline Wherefore we may in the first place set this down for a general Rule in these Matters that we ought always to act fairly and upon the Square and that we must lay aside our Passions or our Interests and hearken only to our Reason when we pass our
all Occasions Before I conclude my Preface I am obliged to make some kind of Answer to those who have been pleased to declare that they should have been better satisfied if I had wrote my Book in Latin Some Persons have been of that Mind because they have a greater Value for Latin since it has lasted longer and is more currant in Foreign Countries Others take it ill that I have published those things in French which as they pretend ought only to be understood by Divines These Men have told me That they could not endure to see Women and ignorant People learn the most curious Parts of Divinity And that it might prove of dangerous Consequence to instruct them throughly in the Doctrine of the Fathers As for the First I shall take care to satisfie them by translating my Book into Latin some time or other if the Publick shall think it worth being preserved For the Others As their Complaint is unreasonable so I never saw any good Reasons to hinder my publishing it in French For when the Fathers themselves wrote they made use of a Language that was understood by all the World and we live at present in an Age wherein great Numbers of their Books have been translated with Applause No Man therefore ought to take it ill that I publish an Abridgment of their Doctrine to all the World On the contrary It were to be wished that every Christian could be instructed in these Matters that they might be the better confirmed in their Belief when they see that this Doctrine has been always taught in the Church of JESUS CHRIST who is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth THE CONTENTS OF THE First Volume PREFACE PRELIMINARY DISSERTATION Sect. I. Of the Authors of the several Books of the Old Testament Pag. 1 Sect. II. Of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament of Books Doubtful Apocryphal and Lost that belonged to the Old Testament 26 Sect. III. The History of the Hebrew Text of the Version of the Septuagint and other Greek Versions of the Old Testament 35 Sect. IV. Of some Authors whose Works have a relation to the Old Testament viz Philo Fl. Josephus Justus Aristeas Aristobulus Josephus Bengorion Berosus the false Dorotheus Zoroaster c. 41 Sect. V. Concerning the Authors of the Books of the New Testament 43 Sect. VI. Of the Canon of the Books of the New Testament and particularly of those Books that were formerly doubted of 49 An Account of the Lives and Writings of the Primitive Fathers c. OF the Letter falsely supposed to be sent by Jesus Christ to King Agbarus and of that of Agbarus to Jesus Christ. Pag. 1 Of some Letters falsely attributed to the Virgin Mary 2 Of the Counterfeit Gospels 3 Of the Counterfeit Acts of the Apostles and of the false Revelations 4 Of the Epistle to the Laodiceans and some others attributed to St. Paul 5 Of the Epistle of St. Barnabas 6 Of the Liturgies that are falsely attributed to the Apostles 8 Of the Apostles Creed 9 Of the Canons and Constitutions attributed to the Apostles 13 Of the several Books attributed to Prochorus Linus and Abdias of the Acts of the Passion of St. Andrew 16 Of the Books of the Sibyls Mercurius Trismegistus and Hystaspes Of the Letters of Lentulus and Pilate concerning Jesus Christ of the Epistles of Seneca to St. Paul and of a Passage in the History of Josephus concerning Jesus Christ. Pag. 17 Hermas 26 St. Clemens Romanus 27 St. Dionysius the Areopagite 31 St. Ignatius 35 St. Polycarp 44 Papias 46 Quadratus and Aristides 48 Agrippa ibid. Hegesippus ibid. St. Justin the Martyr 50 Melito 55 Tatian ibid. Athenagoras and Hermias 56 Theophilus Bishop of Antioch ibid. Apollinarius of Hierapolis 57 Dionysius of Corinth ibid. Pinytus Philippus Modestus Musanus and Bardesanes 58 St. Irenaeus ibid. Victor Polycrates Theophilus of Caesarea and Bachillus of Corinth 61 Several Writers of whom nothing remains and who were little known amongst the Ancients ib. Serapion of Antioch ibid. Rhodon ibid. Pantaenus ibid. St Clemens Alexandrinus 62 Miltiades the two Apollonii and the two Anonymous Authors who wrote against the Heresies of Montanus and Artemo 66 Tertullian 69 Caius 86 Hippolytus 87 Geminianus or Geminus 90 Alexander ibid. Julius Africanus 91 Minutius Foelix 92 Ammonius 95 Origen 96 Ambrose and Tryphon Disciples of Origen Pag. 116 Beryllus ibid. St. Cyprian 117 Pontius 144 Cornelius ibid. Novatian 145 St. Martialis 146 Sixtus 147 Gregory Thaumaturgus ibid. St. Denys of Alexandria 149 Theognostus 153 Athenogenes 154 Denys Bishop of Rome ibid. Malchion ibid. Archelaus 155 Anatolius ibid. Victorinus ibid. Pierius 156 Methodius ibid. Pamphilus 161 Lucian ibid. Phileas 162 Zeno of Verona ibid. Arnobius 163 Lactantius 165 Commodianus 169 Julius Firmicus Maternus 170 Of the Councils held in the Three First Ages of the Church 171 Of the false Decretals attributed to the first Popes 173 Abridgment of the Doctrine the Discipline and the Morals of the Three First Ages of the Church 178 A Chronological Table of the Authors of the Old Testament A Chronological Table of the Authors of the New Testament A Chronological Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors treated of in this Volume A Table of the Books Canonical Apocryphal and Lost which belong to the Old Testament A Table of the Books that belong to the New Testament A Table of all the Works of the Authors treated of in this Volume shewing which are Genuine which Spurious and which Lost. A Table of the Works of the Authors disposed in the Order of Matters on which they treat An Alphabetical Table of Authors Names An Index of the Principal Matters A Preliminary Dissertation ABOUT THE AUTHORS OF THE BIBLE SECT I. Of the Authors of the Books of the Old Testament OF all those a Paradoxes that have been advanced in our Age there is none in my Judgment more rash and dangerous than the Opinion of those who have presumed to deny that Moses was the Author of the Pentateuch For what can be more rash than to deny Matter of Fact that has been established by express Texts of Holy Scripture b by the Authority of Jesus Christ c by the Consent of all Nations d and by the Authentick Testimonies of the most Ancient Authors e And what can be more dangerous than to bid Defiance to Antiquity and consequently destroy the Authority of those Books which are as it were the very Foundations of our Religion f And yet this they do who dare affirm that the Books of the Pentateuch are not written by Moses and endeavour to prove it by such weak Conjectures that 't is impossible for a Man of tolerable sense to be convinced by them g For allowing all that they alledge were true h they could only prove the same thing has happen'd to the Books of Moses which has happen'd almost to all the Books of Ancient Authors viz. That some few Words Names and Terms have been altered or added to render the Narrative more
or Acts of S. Peter This Work tho fictitious is ancient being cited by Origen f Being cited by Origen Tom. 〈◊〉 Comment in Genes in Philocal chap. 22. and in Matth. ch 26. Euseb. lib. 3. Hist. chap. 3 and chap. 38. Athanas. in Synops. Epiph. Hâ—res 30. chap. 25. Hieron in Catalog and Lib. 1. in Jovin chap. 14. and Comment in Ep. ad Gâ—lat Lib. 1. chap. 18. Ruffinus de Adulterat Lib. Orig. Autor op imp in Matth. chap. 10. vers 15 16 24 and 42 Photius Cod. 112 and 113. Eusebius S. Athanasius S. Epiphanius S. Jerom and the Author of The Commentaries on S. Matthew ascribed to S. Chrysostom Ruffinus hath made a Translation thereof which is still extant Gelasius hath inserted it in the Catalogue of Apocryphal Books and Photius observes that there are Absurdities and Errors to be found in it And indeed it is a Writing full of Fables Tales Conferences and ridiculous Disputes feigned at pleasure and pretended to be holden between S. Peter and Simon Magus concerning certain Events and Occurrences that are related after a childish manner But that which is more dangerous is that we may easily discover in several Passages thereof the Opinions of the Ebionites tho much palliated together with many other Errors In short this Book is of no use if we reflect on the Style and Method in which it is written or on the Things that are comprised therein I shall not pass the same censure upon the Apostolical Constitutions that are likewise falsly imputed to S. Clement and which tho' written by a later Author g Tho' written by a later Author The Author of the Recognitions is not the same with the Author of the Constitutions tho' some have been of this Opinion for their style is different the later is well versed in the Principles of the Christian Religion and in the Rites of the Church but the other is ignorant of these matters moreover they maintain a contrary Doctrine The Author of the Constitutions in lib. 8. c. 46. reckons the Sun Moon and Stars in the number of inanimate Creatures whereas the Author of the Recognitions imagineth that they have a Soul in lib. 5. chap. 16. Lastly the Author of the Constitutions was not an Ebionite but he that writ the Recognitions was yet contain many things very useful to the Discipline of the Church â—t is not known by whom nor when they were composed h It is not known by whom â—r when they were composed It is certain that they do not belong to the Apostles as we have already evidently demonstrated All that can be certainly affirmed is that they are cited by S. Epiphanius i They are cited by S. Epiphanius In Haeres 45. this Father produceth a passage that is found in the beginning of the Constitutions and in Haeres 80. he cites another which we read in Lib. 1. Constitut. chap. 3. concerning the Beards of Priests In Hâ—res 25. he quotes a passage taken from Lib. 5. chap. 14 and 17. relating to the Fasts enjoyned on Wednesday and Friday as also on the Days before Easter In Hâ—res 70. he observes that the Audians made use of certain Constitutions which tho dubious ought not altogether to be rejected as containing nothing contrary to the Faith or Discipline of the Church This may induce us to believe that the Constitutions which are now extant have been corrupted since the time of Epiphanius because the same thing could not be â—ssâ—med of those Add to this that in the same place Epiphanius cites a passage concerning Easter wherein the Christians are admonished to celebrate that Feast together with the Jews and the contrary is expresly declared in Constitut. Lib. 5. chap. 1â— Moreover in the same place he produces other Testimonies out of the Constitutions that are not found therein Perhaps S. Epiphanius had not sufficiently examined this Work or perhaps he cited it without Book or on the Report of another However it be he acknowledgeth it to be dubious and the Author of The Commentary on S. Matthew falsly attributed to St. Chrysostom but the passages which are produced by them not perfectly agreeing with those that are found in the Constitutions which are extant at this day we may be induced to conjecture that they have been since corrupted and so much the rather because they are infected with the Arian Heresie k Because they are infected with the Arian Heresie In Lib. 6. chap. 25. the Author reckons in the number of Hereticks those that believe that JESUS is the same with the God of the Universe but this might have been said in opposition to the Sabellians and so much the rather since he adds and do not distinguish the Son and the Holy Ghost Many other Passages are likewise alledged wherein he affirms that the Son and the Word is the Servant and Minister of God the Father These are the Phrases used by the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers but they have been suspected ever since the Council of Nice and several other Errors This is the Judgment that was given concerning them by the Greek Bishops in the Synod that was conven'd in the Imperial Palace of Constantinople after the fifth General Council However I admire that the Learned Photius l That the Learned Photius He censures them on Three several Accounts in â—od 112. First ex malafictione from which as he says they may be vindicated Secondly by reason of some Expressions used by the Author which are Contradictory to the Book of Deuteronomy and for these he might likewise be excused and Lastly he chargeth him with Arianism from which he cannot be cleared without offering him some violence hath not made this Observation and that he hath imputed the Errors of this Book to its Primitive Author It remains only to enquire whether this Book be the same as that which is mentioned by Eusebius m Mentioned by Eusebius Euseb. Lib. 3. chap. 25. Athan. in Ep. Fest. Synopsi and S. Athanasius Entituled The Doctrine or the Precepts of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Opinion of Nicephorus n Of Nicephorus Niceph. in Stichometria Zonaras in Ep. Ath. Mat. Blastâ—res in a Collection of Canons that is not Printed Zonaras and Matthaeus Blastares but it seems to me to be most probable that The Constitutions of the Apostles and the Book called their Doctrine were two different Works which the likeness of their Titles hath caused to be confounded o Which the likeness of their Titles hath caused to be confounded There are many Reasons to prove that these are two different Books for first S. Athanasius reckons the Book of the Doctrine of the Apostles among those that were usually read to the Catechumens whereas the Constitutions were Composed rather for the use of Bishops and we find it prohibited in the last Canon to publish them or to discover the Contents thereof to all sorts of
People Secondly the Book of the Doctrine of the Apostles contained only Two hundred Verses according to the Stichometria of Nicephorus which cannot agree with the Constitutions that are more voluminous Thirdly in the Index of Scripture made by Anastasius Nicenas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are mentioned as distinct Books and in some Manuscripts the Constitutions are Entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly in the Epitome of S. Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are distinguished therefore this Work was not attributed to S. Clement Fifthly when Eusâ—bius Discourses of the Writings of S. Clement he takes no notice of the Apostolical Constitutions neither have the Ancients mentioned them The Arians might have objected them in Vindication of their Heresie and the Orthodox would have been obliged to make a Reply but this is not done by either Party therefore they are of a later Daâ—e than the Doctrine of the Apostles that was known to Eusebius and S. Athanasius These Reasons howsoever probable they may seem to be are not altogether Irreprehensible to the First it is replyed that the Constitutions were made for the use of all Christians as appears from the first Words thereof that the last Canon might perhaps be of a later Date that S. Athâ—nasius observes only that this Book was useful for the instructing of Catechumens in the Discipline and Faith of the Church tho' it was not Canonical which may be very safely affirmed of these Constitutions In Answer to the Second it is alledged that there were two Editions of the Constitutions one more large being that which is now extant and another that was an Epitome thereof and perhaps Nicephorus makes mention of this last under the Name of The Doctrine of the Apostles Besides that there are some Manuscripts wherein there are 6000 Verses and besides the Length of every particular Verse is not known Thirdly that the Distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing to the purpose the one possibly was an Abridgment of the other neither is it certain whether The Constitutions be the Books now called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly the Clementinae are a Work different from the Constitutions as well as The Doctrine of the Apostles Lastly the ancient Writers have not cited every thing that occured to them the Arians have not made all the Objections that were obvious and the Orthodox have not replyed to every particular Circumstance that might be objected against them These are the Answers that are propounded to those that distinguish this Book of The Doctrine of the Apostles from The Constitutions and I shall leave it to the Determination of the Reader whether they do not cause greater Difficulties for my part I believe the formet Opinion to be more probable It is therefore extremely difficult to determine when the Constitutions ascribed to the Apostles first appeared since the Author of them is absolutely unknown neither can it be proved whether they were at first the same as they are now We can only conjecture that it is most probable that the Constitutions ascribed to the Apostles or St. Clement belong to the third or rather the fourth Century and that they have been from time to time corrected altered and augmented according to the various Customs of different Ages and Countries p That they have been from time to time Corrected c. according to the various Customs of different Ages and Countries It is on this Account that the Ethiopians have certain Constitutions different from Ours which are cited by Anastasius Nicenus Cod. 189. in the King's Library and in his Questions Q. 160. where they are much commended Those that we have at present are not in Greek Crabb gives us a Latin Epitome of them in his second Edition of the Councils Pinted Anno 1557. The first entire Version that ever appeared was made by Bovius and inserted by Surius in the Collection of Councils which he set forth in the years 1567 and 1585. Nicolinus published another Translation of the Constitutions composed by Turrianus together with the Annotations of the same Author this was Printed at Venice in 1563 and at Antwerp in 1578. Afterwards Binius caused it to be Re-printed in his first Edition of the Councils Anno Dom. 1606. but he did not think fit to allow it a place in his second Edition of the year 1608. Fronto Ducaeus a Jesuit is the first that published a Greek and Latin Edition of those Constitutions at the end of Zonaras which was annexed to the new Collection of Councils They are divided into eight Books containing a great number of Precepts relating to Christian Duties especially to those of Pastors and concerning the Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church of all which it would be too tedious to give a particular account They that are desirous to be further informed may have recourse to the Titles of the Chapters that are prefixed to these Tracts The last Work attributed to S. Clement is a Collection of divers Pieces Entituled Clementinae and there hath been a Book under this Title for some time The Author of the Epitome of the H. Scriptures attributed to S. Athanasius mentions them and after him the Chronicle of Alexandria Nicephorus Callistus in the third Book of his History chap. 18. S. John Damascen and some others q 8. John Damascen and some others S. Epiphanius seems to quote Haeres 26. n. 16. as also Anastasius Q. 20. p. 242. Maximus in Homil. 53. and 55. Cedrâ—nus in Compâ—nd Hist. p. 170 and 171. Moreover it is cited in a Collection of the Works of the Fathers which is in the Library of the Jesuits College at Clermont and by Nicon in his Pandect Perhaps this is the second Part of the Recognitions cited by Ruffinus for it is a Continuation of the Preachings and Acts of S. Peter The Greek and Latin Collection published by Cotelerius under this Name contains divers Tracts full of Errors in Philosophy as also of the Heresie of the Ebionites and is such another Book as the Recognitions There must needs have happened some Alteration in these Clementinae as well because they do not agree with that which is cited from them by Maximus and by the Author of the Chronicle of Alexandria as because they are infected with the Errors of Eunomius besides there is a Passage cited by an Author in the Library of the College of Clermont which is not to be found there and we are informed by Nicephorus that the Clementinae are an Orthodox Work whereas this as we have already shewn abounds with Errors It contains first two Apocryphal Letters one of which is attributed to S. Peter as written to S. James wherein he adviseth him not to deliver the Book of his Preachings to the Gentiles which is followed by a Protestation of S. James The other is a Letter of S. Clement to S. James which tho' it be ancient and translated
Christ. Which he evidently makes out from the Prophets who foretold the time of his Coming and the circumstances of his Life and Death He observes that the Original of the Jews mistake arose from their confounding his last Coming wherein he will appear in great Power and Glory with his first Coming wherein he was seen in great Humility and took upon him the mean Condition of other Men. Although the Book of Praescriptions against the Hereticks is not in the order of Time the first that Tertullian has written against them yet it is so as to the Order of the Matters which it contains because it is designed against all Heresies in general whereas the others are only against some particular Heresie This Book is entituled Of Praescriptions or rather Of Praescription against the Hereticks because herein he shews that their Doctrine is not to be admitted by reason of its Novelty Before he enters upon the Matter he endeavours to obviate the Scandal of those who admire how there could be any Heresies in the World how they could have been so great and so powerful and how it comes to pass that so many considerable Persons in the Church have been seduced to embrace them by shewing that Heresies have been foretold that they are necessary Evils for the Tryal of our Faith and that we must not judge of Faith by Persons but of Persons by their Faith Ex personis probamus fidem an ex fide personas After having given this necessary Caution he lays down the first Principle of Prescription We are not allowed says he to introduce any thing that is new in Religion nor to chuse by our selves what another has invented We have the Apostles of our Lord for Founders who were not themselves the Inventors and Authors of what they have left us but they have faithfully taught the World the Doctrine which they received from Jesus Christ. Heresies have risen from Philosophy and humane Wisdom which is quite different from the Spirit of Christianity We are not allowed to entertain our Curiosity nor to enquire after any thing that is beyond what we have been taught by Jesus Christ and his Gospel Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Jesum nec inquisitione post Evangelium And when we have once believed we are to give credit to nothing any farther than as we have already believed And here it is that he Answers the Objection of the Hereticks who urged this Passage of Scripture Seek and you shall find by telling us that it is not permitted to seek when we have once found that it would be a Labour to no purpose to seek for Truth among all the Heresies and lastly that if it be permitted to seek it is after having admitted the Rule that is to say the principal Articles of Faith which are contained in the Creed But as the Hereticks did often alledge the Holy Scripture in Defence of themselves he proves that the Church was not obliged to enter into a Discussion of those Passages which they quoted that this way of confuting them is very tedious and difficult because they do not acknowledge all the Books of the Scriptures or else they corrupt them or put a false Interpretation upon them which renders the Victory that is to be obtained over them uncertain and difficult He says then that it is to better purpose to understand perfectly who it is that is in Possession of the Faith of Jesus Christ who those Persons are to whom the Scriptures were committed in Trust and who are the first Authors who have given an Account of our Religion He goes back even to Jesus Christ who is the Source and Original of this Religion and to the Apostles who received it from him He shews that it is impossible that the Apostles should preach any other Doctrine than that of Jesus Christ and that all the Apostolical Churches should embrace any other Faith than that which the Apostles had delivered to them from whence he concludes that it must of necessity follow that that Doctrine which is Conformable to that which is found to be the Faith of all the Churches must be that which was taught by Jesus Christ and that on the contrary that that which is opposite thereto must be a Novel Doctrine He farther confounds the Hereticks by the Novelty of their Opinions It is evident says he that the most ancient Doctrine is that of Jesus Christ and by consequence that alone is true and that that on the contrary which had not any Date till after his Ascension must be false and supposititious Having laid down this infallible Rule he proves the Doctrine of the Hereticks to be of a later Date than that of the Church because the Authors of the Heresies were after the Establishment of the Church from which they have separated themselves That the several Sects of the Hereticks cannot reckon their Original from the time of the Apostles nor shew a Succession of Bishops from their Times as the Apostolical Churches can with whom they do not communicate That though they could pretend to such a Succession yet the Novelty of their Doctrine condemned by the Apostles and the Apostolical Churches would convince them of being Cheats and Impostors and that what they have added taken away or changed in the Books of the Holy Scripture does farther discover that they invented their Doctrine after these Books were composed That lastly their Discipline and Conduct which is absolutely Humane and Earthly without Order and without Rule renders them every way contemptible I have exactly set down the Reasonings of Tertullian in this Work because as he himself observes they are not â—nly proper to confute the Heresies that were in his Time but also to disprove all those that sprang â—p afterwards or that should arise hereafter even to the end of the Church I shall not enlarge so much upon the Works which were written against those Heresies which â—re now extinct The most considerable is that which he composed against Marcion which is disided into Five Books This Heretick maintained that there were two Principles or two Gods the â—e Good and the other Evil The one Perfect and the other Imperfect that this last is the God whom the Jews worship who created the World and delivered the Law to Moses whereas the first 〈◊〉 the Father of Jesus Christ whom he sent to destroy the Works of the Evil One that is to say â—e Law and the Prophets which Marcion rejected He affirmed likewise that Jesus Christ was not â—loathed with true Flesh. And by consequence that he did not suffer really but only in appearance â—hese are the Errors which Tertullian confutes in this Work In the First Book he shews that the unâ—nown God of Marcion is only a Fantastical and Imaginary Being In the Second he proves that â—…at God the Creator of the World whom the Jews worshipped is the Only true God and the Auâ—â—or of all Good After having demonstrated this
Excellent Principles of Morality and is full of very profitable Instructions We may also find there several Curious Remarks relating to the Discipline of that Time But it is not absolutely free from the Errors and Defects which we have observed in the other Works of Origen As this Discourse is very Instructive and not very much known I have thought it convenient to give a Summary of it Origen begins it by a Common Place to wit that there are an Infinite Number of Things which we cannot know without being enlightned from Heaven He applies this Reflection to his Present Subject saying that it would be impossible for him without the Assistance of Heaven to explain how we ought to Pray what we ought to say when we Pray and what are the most Proper Times for Prayer That he who treats of this Matter must be enlightned by the Heavenly Father instructed by the Son and inspired by the Holy Ghost That in order to Pray as we ought 't is not sufficient to repeat some certain Prayers but we must have Good Dispositions and that our Prayer may be acceptable to God it must be accompanied with a Conscience Pure and without Blemish Afterwards entring upon his Subject he observes that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Prayer is mentioned in Scripture the first time in that Place where it is said that Jacob coming from Mesopotamia made a Vow to offer unto God the Tenth of all that he should bring from that Country He adds that the Word is often taken in this Sense to signifie a Promise or Vow of Performing a Thing if God grants us what we ask of him in our Prayers But he observes at the same time that there are other Places where it is taken for Prayer it self and he sets down some Examples wherein it is taken in both Senses After having spoken of the word Prayer he treats of the necessity of the thing it self He confutes the Arguments of those who pretended to maintain that it was to no purpose to pray he observes that this Errour could not be maintained by any but notoriously-wicked Persons and by Atheists who deny God's Providence but that the Devil endeavouring by all means to spread detestable Doctrines among those that bear the Name of Christ had put it into the hearts of some persons to reject every thing that is sensible in Religion to despise the Holy Eucharist and Baptism and to neglect Prayer as a useless thing Now these are the Reasons which these Persons bring for their Opinion First God knows every thing say they therefore what need is there of Praying Secondly He does not only know what must happen but he ordains it therefore what necessity is there of asking that of him which shall infallibly come to pass Thirdly If we are Predestinated before our Birth it is to no purpose to pray since we shall be necessarily Sav'd or Damn'd Fourthly God being immutable we do but deceive our selves in believing that we are able by our Prayers to make him alter his Decrees Origen in answer to these difficulties distinguishes Three sorts of Things which are in motion The first are those that are moved by a Foreign Power such as Inanimate Beings The second are those that are moved by their own Nature but without Knowledge as Animals and Plants The Third are those that move themselves and determine themselves as Intelligent Creatures He proves That these are free and that Prescience and Predestination does not at all destroy this Liberty because God ordains nothing relating to free Actions but what he has foreseen that intelligent Creatures would do freely And that so Prescience is not the cause of Things nor of Actions which are done freely but it only supposes that these things will be or will not be and that the knowledge which God has of them is followed by the Decree whereby he is resolved to grant or not to grant his Grace to hear or not to hear That he foresees the Good and Evil which Men shall commit That he knows whether they will repent or no and that in consequence of this knowledge he Predestinates or Reprobates them He adds That God has appointed Angels over Men to preserve them as long as they deserve it One might here take notice of his particular Opinion concerning the Sun the Moon and Stars which he says are intelligent and free Agents After having confuted the Reasons of those who reject Prayer he shews the advantage of it He says in the first place That he who prays puts himself in a condition of presenting himself before God and of conversing with him That in order to this he ought to drive away all evil Thoughts to banish all earthly Affections to raise up his mind towards Heaven to forget Injuries to pardon his Enemies and by no means to repine against God From hence he concludes That Prayer cannot be of any advantage if it be not preceded with great preparation Secondly He assures us That Christ Jesus the High-Priest of our Offerings prays with us That the Angels pray with him and that the Saints which are departed pray with us and this here is one of the most ancient and excellent Monuments to prove the Intercession of Saints His words are these The Souls of the Saints which sleep among the number of the Just pray with us as it is said in the Book of Macchabees And since the imperfect Knowledge which we have in this World is made perfect in the other Life 't is a very great Absurdity not to believe the same thing of the other Virtues and principally Charity towards our Neighbour which we ought to believe to be much stronger in the Saints than in mortal◠Men who are subject to Weaknesses and Imperfections He adds That every faithful Person has his Angel that hears him and preserves him whilst he prays Lastly He proves the necessity of continual Prayer by the Example of Jesus Christ by that of Just Persons and by the reckoning up of those Benefits and Graces which have been bestowed upon Men from their Prayers He exhorts the Faithful to pray for spiritual and heavenly Things rather than for earthly and sensual Goods such as Beauty Nobility Riches He shews the meanness and the vanity of these things He distinguishes four kinds of Prayers after the Apostle S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say Supplication which is to ask any Good of which we stand in need The second called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is according to Origen a request that is made in any danger with assurance of obtaining what we desire He observes that this kind of Prayer is commonly joined with Doxology that is to say with Praising of God's Holy Name The third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Prayer made by a Person who has great confidence that he shall obtain what he asks he being much in God's Favour The last is Giving of
Christ who is the end and accomplishment of the Law has given liberty to Men to eat of all sorts of Meats provided they don 't violate the bounds of Christian Sobriety and from thence he takes occasion to reprove the Irregularities and Disorders of some Christians who lived intemperately He observes that this is by no means fitting for those Persons who are to pray Night and Day At last out of the number of Meats that are permitted to be eaten he excepts those that have been offered to Idols from which the Primitive Christians abstained very Religiously and he concludes all with these Words that are an Abridgment of his whole Discourse Having therefore shewn what is the nature of Meats for he had before discovered the Genius of the Mofaical Law and explained the nature of the Evangelical Liberty Let us live up to the Rules of Temperance and abstain from things Offered to Idols giving thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ his Son to whom be Praise Honour and Glory forever and ever Amen Some think that Novatian writ this Letter during the Persecution of Decius before he had separated from the Church but his way of speaking at the beginning makes me rather believe that it was composed after he became Chief of the Party in the Persecution of Gallus and Volusian This Author has abundance of Wit Knowledge and Eloquence his Style is pure clean and polite his Expressions choice his Thoughts natural and his way of Reasoning just He is full of Citations of Texts of Scripture that are always to the purpose and besides there is a great deal of Order and Method in those Treatises of his we now have and he never speaks but with a world of Candor and Moderation Saint MARTIALIS SAint Martialis came into France with St. Dionysins a Under the Emperor Decius St. Gregory of Tours is the Man that fixes this Epocha of the coming of St. Denis Martialis and their Colleagues into France There is no Author extant who is either more ancient or more worthy to be believed than St. Gregory that has given us any Account of their arrival there any sooner under the Emperor Decius towards the year of our Lord 250. Two Letters attributed to him one written to the People of Burdeaux the other to those of Tholouse which were said to be found in the Vestry of b Peter of Limoges This Story is related by a Monk called Gausius in a Chronicle which is to be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum p. 288 289. first printed in the year 1521 with Abdias and afterwards in 1571 and 1614. St. Peter of Limoges in the Eleventh Century and have been since c Frequently Printed They were first printed by Badius in the Year 1521 afterwards by Bâ—rdes in the Year 1573 with the Notes of Elmenhorstius at Helmstad in 1614 at Basil in 1655 at Colen in 1560. frequently Printed and inserted into the last Bibliotheca Patrum though no man questions that these Letters are Supposititious For in the first place the Author tells us that he lived with Jesus Christ which can by no means agree with him who was Bishop of Limoges in 252. Secondly in the Eighth Chapter of the Second Letter he saith that he Baptized King Stephen and another Tyrant with his Noblemen Now in the time of Martialis there was neither King nor Tyrant in France Thirdly he tells us that in his time the Temples of the Gods were demolished and that Churches were built by the Kings Authority which does not agree with the time of St. Martialis Fourthly the Texts of Scripture quoted in these Letters follow the vulgar Translaation which was composed long after Fifthly the Author tells us that he had eaten with Jesus Christ at the last Supper though it is certain that none but the Apostles were there The Life of St. Martialis Printed at the end of Abdias which carries the Name of Aurelian Bishop of Limoges is a spurious Piece no less than the Epistles of that Bishop and full as Fabulous as the History of Abdias to which it is joyned The Author by a very gross Error supposes that Vespasian succeeded Nero immediately He tells us that St. Martialis received from Jesus Christ after his Resurrection the same Power which the Apostles had that he never suffered either Hunger Thirst or Pain and recounts several other Fables concerning him which are no less ridiculous than those that are to be found upon the same Subject in the two Councils of Limoges held in the Years 1029 and 1031. SIXTUS or XYSTUS Sixtus IT is a long time ago since under the name of Pope Sixtus who presided in the Roman Chair in the Year 257. Ruffinus published a Book of a certain Pythagorean Philosopher named Sixtus translated out of Greek into Latin a Saint Jerome often reproaches him with this Imposture Ep. ad Ctesiphont contra Pelag. in Cap. 22. Jerom. in Cap. 18. Ezechielis St. Jerome often reproaches him with this Imposture St. Austin suffered himself at first to be deceived by it and has cited it in his Book of Nature and Grace as if it had been composed by Pope Sixtus but afterwards b He retracts this Error Aug. lib. 2. retract c. 42. he retracts his Error Gelasius placed it amongst the Heretical Books supposing it to have been written by some Christian. c It is still extant In the Bibliotheca Patrum but I cannot tell whether it was ever Printed by it self It is still extant being a medley of Philosophical Sentences useful indeed in themselves and serviceable to the Truth but having little of the Spirit of Christianity in them There is no mention made in it either of Jesus Christ the Holy Ghost the Prophets or the Apostles and it is full of the Errors of the Pythagoreans and the Stoics It renders Man equal to God and affirms that he is made of a Divine Substance and would have him be without Passion according to the Principle of the Stoics and without Sin pursuant to the Doctrine of the Pelagians There are several other Pelagian Errors to be found in it Saint GREGORY THAUMATURGUS SAint Gregory whose Name at first was Theodorus and afterwards Surnamed Thaumaturgus that is to say the Worker of Miracles by reason of the great number of Miracles he is supposed to have wrought both in his Life-time and after his Death was born in the City of Neo-Caesarea in Pontus descended of a Family that was very considerable as well for its Nobility as for its great Possessions He was educated in the Idolatrous Worship having a Father who was extreamly bigotted to Paganism After he had lost him at the Age of Fourteen years his Mother would have him study Rhetoric to qualifie himself for the Bar. His Sister being married to a Lawyer who was afterwards Governour of Palaestine and being obliged to follow her Husband Gregory and Athenodorus her Brothers went along with her intending to go as far as Berytus and
the heat of his Predecessor who had written Letters to Helenus to Firmilian and to all the Bishops of Cappadocia and Cicilia wherein he sent them word that he would not Communicate any more with them because they re-baptized Hereticks which he says was determined in the Councils of the Bishops In the same Letter he speaks against the Error of the Sabellians that arose in Ptolemais a City of Pentapolis against which as he tells him there he had written a long Letter or rather a Discourse which he sent him He wrote likewise to Dionysius and Philemon Presbyters of the Church of Rome about the Baptism of Hereticks In his Epistle to Philemon he tells him That his Predecessor Heraclas caused the Hereticks to abjure their Errours without Baptizing them a-new that this was the Custom of his Church but nevertheless that he had been informed that the Africans had for a long time observed the contrary and that it was Established in the East in a very numerous Assembly of Bishops held at Iconium and Synnada and in many other places that matters standing thus his Advice was that their Customs and Decrees ought not to be reversed since it is written That we must not remove the Land mark vvhich our Fathers have given us This is the true Opinion of Dionysius concerning this matter and St. Jerome wrongfully accuses him to have been of St. Cyprian's Party since he tells us in express Terms That we ought to follow the Judgment of the Church in this Point He says the same thing in his Letter to Dionysius who was afterwards Bishop of Rome and delivers his Sentiments there very boldly against Novatian â—ostly He wrote a Letter which is his Fifth to Sixtus concerning the Baptism of Hereticks in which he maintains That if a Man has been Baptized amongst Hereticks with Ceremonies wholly different from those of the Church and comes at last to discover it after he has continued in the Church a long time participating of the Prayers and Communicating as others without having been Baptized he needs not be Baptized a new since he has received the Body of Jesus Christ several times and answered Amen with the rest of the Faithful Eusebius seems to mention a sixth Letter written upon the same occasion to the same Pope where as he tells us he has examined this Question more copiously though perhaps it is not different from this last After Sixtus's Death Dionysius of Alexandria wrote a Letter concerning Lucian to Dionysius that succeeded Pope Sixtus towards the end of the Year 258. 'T was in this or rather in the follovving Year that he wrote his Letter against Germanus in vvhich after he has described the Persecution he suffered in the time of Decius he relates what happened to him under that of Vaterian how the Prefect Aemilianus prohibited him to hold any more Assemblies of Christians how having refused to obey his Orders he was sent along with his Presbyters to a Village near Cephro in Lybia hovv these Proceedings did not hinder the Christians from holding their ordinary Assemblies Lastly how he preached the Gospel and converted great Numbers of Pagans to Christianity whilst he rarried at Cephro While he continued in this Exile he wrote some Paschal Letters that is to say Letters in form of Homilies upon the Festival of Easter in which according to the ancient Custom he ascertains the time of that Feast He sent one of them to Flavius another to Domitius and Didymus which I imagine to be different from the first that is addressed to the same Persons wherein he proves That the Feast of Easter ought not to be celebrated till after the vernal Equinox He composed a Canon or Table of Eight Years He likewise vvrote another to the Church of Alexandria and to many others Peace was no sooner restored to the Church but the returned back to Alexandria tho' he was immediately obliged to depart from thence by reason of a Sedition that arose in that City d Arose in that City 'T is undoubtedly that Commotion that was occasioned by Aemilianus Governour of Alexandria who caused that City and likewise all Aegypt to revolt from the Emperor Galienus as Pollio reports it This Aemilianus was a different Person from him that took up Arms in Maesia and marched against Gallus and Volustanus some years before These two Aemâ—lians are distinguished in the Epitome of Aurelius Victor It was during this Retreat that he wrote a Letter to Hierax a Passage out of which Eusebius has borrowed that gives an Account of a Riot that happened at that time He likewise wrote another Letter to his Church which he sent to them on Easter-day A Pestilence e A Pestilence This Pestilence began in the time of Gallus and Volusianus but it broke afresh under Gallus as it is observed by Aurelius Victor and Pollio Dionysius of Alexandria speaks of the latter Pestilence and St. Cyprian of the former Thus those Persons that imagined they spoke of the same Infection are mistaken that succeeded this War obliged St. Dionysius to comfort and encourage his Congregation with another Letter in which he describes that admirable Charity wherewith the Christians relieved and buried those that were seized with the Plague in a very lively manner In short during the whole time of his Retirement he never ceas'd to write to his Brethren and did them more good by his Letters than he could have done by his Presence Eusebius mentions another Paschal Letter of his concerning the Sabbath and one concerning Spiritual Exercises and a third to Hermammon written in the Seventh Year of Galienas which fell out in the Year 264. some Fragments of which he has preserved in Lib. 7. c. 1. 10. and 23. And yet St. Dionysius was not only content to exhort or instruct the Faithful by his Letters but he applied himself vigorously to confute and extinguish the Errours that sprung up in his time An Aegyptian Bishop named Nepos understanding the Promises of the Gospel in a gross sence and maintaining the Reign of Jesus Christ upon Earth for a Thousand Years with an inflexible Obstinacy composed a Book which he Entituled A Confutation of the Allegorists where he endeavoured to prove his Opinion out of the Apocalypse He brought over abundance of People to this Opinion in that part of Aegypt that was called Arsinoe which unhappily proved an occasion of Schism and Division in those Churches Dionysius happening to be there judged it expedient to examine this Doctrine publickly And because they generally set up Nepos's Book as an unanswerable Treatise he confuted it Viva voce and afterwards wrote two Books against it Entituled Of the Divine Promises In the First he delivers his own Opinion upon this Question In the Second he answers all the Reasons urged by Nepos and his Testimonies drawn out of the Revelations Saying upon this last Head That some Persons have rejected the Apocalypse as being the Book of the Heretick Cerinthus who admitted of
together with Sound and true Doctrine This he proves by a particular Induction of their Opinions because there is no Theology but this which teaches the Immortality of the Soul which commands Men to Adore one God only which informs them that he was the Creator of the World which teaches them that the Word is the Son of God and that the Holy Ghost is to be Worship'd with the same Worship that is due to the Father and the Son There is no other Religion but this which teaches Men that they must not Adore the Angels as Gods but honour them as the Ministers of God which gives a rational Account of the Fall of some of the Angels and instructs Man that he is made after the Image of God In a word there is none but this whose Doctrine is agreeable to Right Reason After this he subjoins a long Fragment out of a Treatise of Maximus which demonstrates that Matter is not Eternal In the Eighth Book he gives the History of the Version of the Septuagint and to prove the Authority of the Holy Scriptures he makes it appear by the Testimony of the Jews that their Law is Mystical and very Significant which he afterwards represents as worthy of all Esteem by the holiness of their Lives who have embrac'd it by the Example of the Essenes whose manner of Life he describes and by the Wisdom of Philo. In the Ninth Book he relates the Testimonies of the Pagans who have spoken in favour of the Jewish Religion and of those who allow the Truth of Moses's History In the 10th he shows that Plato and the Pagan Philosophers have taken the greatest part of what they have written from the Books of Moses In the 11th Book he demonstrates particularly that the Doctrine of Plato is agreeable to that of Moses and compares many of the Opinions of that Philosopher with those of the Jews He carries on that Comparison in the 12th and 13th Books But in the mean time he demonstrates that this Philosopher had his Errors and that no Book but the Scriptures is wholly free In the 14th and 15th Books he relates the Opinions of the Philosophers he shows their Contradictions and oftentimes confutes one of them by another From all which he concludes that the Christians had reason to forsake the Religion of the Pagans and embrace that of the Jews After he has thus prepar'd the Minds of Men to receive the Christian Religion by establishing the Authority of the Religion and of the Books of the Jews he demonstrates the Truth of it against the Jews themselves by their own Prophecies This is the Subject of his Books of Evangelical Demonstration of which there are only Ten remaining of Twenty which he compos'd In the First Book he shows that the Law of the Jews was calculated for one Nation only but the New Testament was design'd for all Mankind That the Patriarchs had no other Religion but that of the Christians since they ador'd the same God and the same Word honour'd him as they do and resembled their holy Lives In the Second Book he shows by the Prophecies that the Messias was to come into the World for all Mankind In the Third he makes it appear in favour of the Faithful that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the World and demonstrates against the Infidels that he was no Seducer as his Doctrine his Miracles and many other Reasons do evidently prove In the Fourth Book he shows that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and gives an Account of the Reasons for which he was made Man he explains the Name of Christ and cites many Prophecies wherein he was foretold by that Name In the following Books he brings abundance of Prophecies to demonstrate that the Coming of Jesus Christ the time of his Birth the Circumstances of his Liâ—â— and Passion and in a word all things that concern'd him were foretold in the Books of the Old Testament What we have of these Books ends with the last words of Christ upon the Cross And in the following Books he recited the Prophecies concerning his Death his Burial his Resurrection his Ascension the Establishment of the Church and the Conversion of the Gentiles But these are wholly lost These Books of Evangelical Preparation and Demonstration are the largest Work that has been made by any of the Ancients upon this Subject where a Man may find more Proofs Testimonies and Arguments for the Truth of the Christian Religion than in any other They are very proper to instruct and convince all those that sincerely search after Truth In fine Eusebius has omitted nothing which might serve to undeceive Men of a false Religion or convince them of the true The Treatise against Hierocles was written against a Book of that Philosopher publish'd by him under the Name of Philalethes against the Christian Religion wherein to render it ridiculous he has compar'd Apollonius Tyanaeus with Jesus Christ and says That Apollonius wrought Miracles as well as Christ and ascended into Heaven as well as he But Eusebius has prov'd in his Answer That Apollonius Tyanaeus was so far from being comparable to Jesus Christ that he did not deserve to be rank'd among the Philosophers and that Philostratus who wrote his Life is an Author unworthy of Credit because he contradicts himself very often he doubts himself of those very Miracles which he relates and he reports many things which are plainly Fabulous At the End of this Treatise Eusebius has given some Observations against Fatal Necessity In the First of the Five Books against Marcellus of Ancyra Eusebius endeavours to prove That this Bishop wrote his Book upon no other Motive but the hatred of his Brethren he charges him with Ignorance of the Holy Scriptures and rallies him for the impertinent Explications of some Greek Proverbs brought in not at all to the purpose In fine he blames him for accusing Origen Paulinus Narcissus Eusebius of Nicodemia and Asterius of Error touching the Mystery of the Trinity and endeavours to justifie their Doctrine about it In the Second Book he discovers the Errors of Marcellus and proves from many Passages of his Book That he believes the Word was not a Person subsisting before he was born of the Virgin That he denies the distinction of the Son from the Father That he is positive in asserting the Flesh and not the Word to be the Image of God the Son of God the King the Saviour and the Christ and in short That he durst affirm that this Flesh shall be destroyed and annihilated after the Day of Judgment After he has discovered the Errors and the Malice of Marcellus of Ancyra he confutes his Opinions in the Three following Books Entitled Ecclefiastick Theology and Dedicated to Flacillus Bishop of Antioch In the First Book he proposes the Faith of the Church which he explains very exactly rejecting the Errors of the Ebionites Paulianites Sabellians and Arians After this he shows that Marcellus is guilty of
long before The Letter of Jovian to St. Athanasius and that of St. Athanasius to Jovian which are in the Second Volume are much to be suspected That of St. Athanasius discovers the Forgery because it contains a Confession of Faith different from that of the Council of Nice and 't is certain that he sent no other to this Emperour The Author of this Letter writes in such terms as plainly discover that he was not St. Athanasius but rather Apollinarius since he acknowledges but one Nature in Jesus Christ and indeed Leontius testifies that Apollinarius had inserted this Doctrine in a Letter to the Emperour Jovian The Book of Definitions which are pretended to be Collections out of St. Clement and other holy Fathers cannot be St. Athanasius's since the Author cites in it Gregory Nyssen in the Chapter of the Act. Moreover he speaks of two Natures and one Person in Jesus Christ as if he had written after the Birth of the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches A good part of the Book is taken out of a Book of Anastasius Sinaita entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Guide and in some Manuscripts the Definitions are ascrib'd to Maximus under whose Name Father Combefis has Publish'd them All the Learned agree that the Seven Dialogues of the Trinity are not St. Athanasius's ll The Seven Dialogues of the Trinity are not St. Athanasius ' s. 1. The Author speaks there of an Addition made by the Council of Constantinople to the Nicene Creed Annon vos fidei Nicenae adjecistis says the Heretick and the Catholick answers Sed non ipsi pugnantia 2. He explains the Six Epithets given to the Holy Spirit by the Council 3. He treats there of subtle Questions about the Trinity which were not started in the Time of St. Athanasius 4. He opposes Eunomius and Macedonius whom St. Athanasius did never particularly attack 5. The Author of the Dialogue acknowledges Three Hypostases in Jesus Christ. 6. The Stile is wholly different from that of St. Athanasius There are cited indeed in the Lateran Council under Martin the 1st Secret 6. Three Testimonies of St. Athanasius and the 3d. under this Title In sermone Athanasii qui per modum Interrogationis Responsionis cum Apollinario fit which Title agrees well enough with these Dialogues But what is here related is no where to be found the difference of the Stile the Terms and the Doctrine are convincing Proofs of it and 't is plain that the Author of this Treatise liv'd since the Council of Constantinople at the time when the Disputes about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ were afoot in the Church Father Combefis has restor'd them to Maximus mm Father Combefis has restor'd them to Maximus In the Greek Manuscript which Beza us'd 't is observ'd on the Margin This Dialogue is not St. Athanasius ' s but some say 't is Maximus ' s. Two other Manuscripts of Rome and Venice and that of Dufresne attribute it to Maximus Gregorius Protosyncellus Veccus Acyndinus Demetrius and some other modern Greeks cite it often under the Name of Maximus and seldom under that of St. Athanasius It appears by the Stile and by all the Arguments in that Author that these Seven Dialogues are by one and the same Hand and the Authorities which we have alledg'd do plainly show that they ought to be attributed to Maximus upon the Authority of some Manuscripts and the Testimony of the Modern Greeks who cite them often under the Name of this Author Garnerius a very learned Jesuit ascribes them to Theodoret and has printed them under his Name in a pretended Supplement to the Works of this Father But he has nothing to support this Opinion but some slight Conjectures nn Garnerius has nothing to support this Opinion but some slight Conjectures He has no Manuscripts nor Citations from the Ancients All that he says to prove it is 1st That Theodoret writ against the Arians the Eunomians the Macedonians and the Apollinarists as he testifies in many Places of his Works 2. That the Doctrine the Expressions and the Reasons of this Author resemble those of Theodoret and this Author denies as well as he that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son These Conjectures are very slight when there are no Manuscripts for him for it may so happen that Two Authors writing upon the same Principles may agree very near in these Things besides the Resemblance of the Stile is not so great as Garnerius would have us believe The Proofs which he brings to show that this Treatise is none of Maximus's are not of any greater Weight He says this Book was written before the Creed of Ephesus because there is no Mention in it of the Nestorians and Eutychians That from Maximus's Time the Question was no longer treated of de Genito Ingenito That there is no Probability that Maximus should dispute against the Anomaeans without opposing the Eutychians and Monothelites 'T is easie to confute these Conjectures by saying that Maximus in these Books disputed against the ancient Heresies and that he sufficiently oppos'd those of his own Time in his other Books and he does not sufficiently refute the Assertion of Father Combefis The following Book entituled A Tragedy is falsly attributed to St. Athanasius Photius in Cod. 46. sets down all the Titles of the Questions which are handled in this Book with some others that are not found there and ascribes them to Theodoret. Garnerius upon the Credit of Marius Mercator attributes them to Etherius Tyanaeus a Disciple of Theodoret. The Questions to Antiochus and those that follow them are yet later oo The Questions to Antiochus and those that follow them are yet later In these Questions to Antiochus the Author cites many Writers more modern than St. Athanasius as Gregory Nyssen in his 8th The Author of the Book ascribed to St. Denys Ibid. St. Epiphanius Question 3. And many others in other Places They have nothing of the Stile of St. Athanasius and the Author in many Places is of a contrary Opinion In short in Athanasius's Time those kind of Questions that were more Curious than useful were not suffer'd The Questions that follow about the Explication of some Doubts upon Places of Holy Scripture and the other anonymous Questions are by the same Author as the preceding and are only a Collection of Passages taken out of St. Chrysostom St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Gregory Nyssen St. Climacus St. Maximus which are sometimes recited under their Names The Author of these Questions calls the Occidentalists by the Name of Franks and says that the Romans are a Nation of the Franks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which plainly discovers that they were compos'd by the Modern Greeks after the Empire of the West came to the Franks The modern Greeks have made many such Collections which they have put forth under the Name of ancient and famous Fathers than those Books of which we have already spoken These were made
Letter to Palladius he commends him for being Orthodox and approves of his staying with Innocent He rebukes those Monks that would not obey St. Basil but praises this Bishop saying he was the Glory of the Church for he contended for the Truth and taught those that needed Instruction and none could be good Catholicks that had any Dispute with him He adds That he had written to his Monks to obey him as their Father and that they were to blame for complaining of him Probably 't was about the Question of the Hypostases that the Monks had some Dispute with St. Basil. After we have spoken of his Historical Works let us now come to the Dogmatical The First of these are the two Treatises against the Gentiles whereof the Second is now entituled Of the Incarnation In the First of these two Books he Opposes Idolatry and Establishes the Worship of the true God he discovers the source of Idolatry that it comes from the Corruption of Man's Heart who being created after the Image of God fell under the guilt of Adam's Sin and inherited from him an unhappy Inclination to Sin which the Will does very often follow though it be free to resist it From this Principle he concludes in the first place against the Hereticks That 't is not necessary there should be two Principles or two Gods one Good the Author of Good and another Evil the Author of Evil. He refutes this Impious Opinion by Reason and Authority and concludes that Sin is not a Substance but that it entred into the World by the Fall of the First Man He observes that this is the source of all Idolatry that Men being faln from their first Estate do no longer raise their Heart and Spirit to things Spiritual but fix them on things Terrestrial and Sensible He refutes afterwards the different kinds of Idolatry and shows that we ought not to Worship nor Acknowledge for Divinities either the Gods of the Poets or the World or any part of it After he has thus overthrown all kinds of Idolatry he establishes the Existence and Worship of the true God He demonstrates that God may be known by the Light of Nature 1. From our selves that 's to say by Reflexion upon our own Thoughts that he is neither Corporeal nor Mortal 2. From the Beauty of the Universe which discovers the Existence of him as the Cause of it Then he shows that this God is the Father of Jesus Christ and that he created all things and governs them by his Word The Second Treatise against the Gentiles is that which is entituled Of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ because there he treats of that Mystery For explaining the Causes of it he goes back as far as the Beginning of the World and proves that it was not made by chance nor fram'd of an Eternal Matter but that God the Father created it by his Word After this he speaks of the Fall of Man who being created after the Image of God addicted himself to things corruptible and perishing and so became the Cause of his own Misery and Corruption He says that the Fall of Man was the cause of the Incarnation of the Word because God pitying Man resolv'd to send his Son to Save him and to give him the means of obtaining that Immortality which he had lost Upon this Principle he founds the Necessity of the Incarnation of the Word which he proves First Because the Son being the Essential Image of his Father there was none but he that could render Man like to God as he was before his Fall 2. Because as the Word is the Reason and Wisdom of his Father there is none but he can teach Men and undeceive them of their Errors From the Causes of the Incarnation he passes to its Effects and after he has described the Graces which the Word has merited for Mankind by his Incarnation he speaks of his Death and shows that he was to die as he did by the Torments of the Cross that by his Death he might conquer Death both in himself and us Lastly He proves the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by the wonderful Effects that follow'd his Death and by the contempt of Death wherewith it inspir'd his Disciples After he has thus explain'd the Doctrine of Christians he refutes the Jews and Pagans the former by proving from the Prophets that Jesus is the Messias promis'd in the Old Testament and the latter from the Miracles of Jesus Christ from the destruction of Idolatry and the Establishment of the Doctrine of the Gospel which though contrary to the Lusts and Passions of Men was entertain'd without difficulty and in a little time by the greatest part of the World He concludes these Discourses with an Advertisement to his Friend Macarius to whom they are directed That he should have recourse to the Holy Scripture which is the Fountain from whence these things are drawn to which he adds this Remark that for the better understanding of it we should lead a Life like to that of the Authors of these holy Books St. Athanasius wrote but two Treatises against the Gentiles for his other Dogmatical Treatises are either about the Trinity or the Incarnation The Four Discourses against the Arians are the chief of his Dogmatical Works In the First which is call'd the Second he convicts the Sect of the Arians of Heresie for which end he first makes use of an Argument which he employs against all Hereticks which is the Novelty of their Sect and the Name which it bears Then he explains their Doctrine and proves that 't is Impious full of Blasphemies and comes near to that of the Jews and Gentiles Lastly He refutes their Reasons and clears up a great many difficulties which they propose against the Doctrine of the Church In the Second Treatise which is the Third in the common Editions he explains some of the Passages which the Arians alledge to prove that the Son is a Creature and insists chiefly upon that in Chap. 8. of the Proverbs The Lord hath created me in the beginning of his ways c. He says towards the end That the Arians run a hazard of having no true Baptism because to make this Sacrament valid 't is not sufficient to pronounce the words but we must also have a right understanding of them and a right Faith He adds That if the Baptism of other Hereticks who pronounce the same words be null and void because they have not a true Faith 't is to be thought that we ought to give the same Judgment of the Baptism of the Arians who are become the worst of all Hereticks These words of St. Athanasius shew That in his time those that had been Baptiz'd by Hereticks were Rebaptiz'd in the Church of Alexandria though they had been Baptiz'd in the Name of the Trinity In the Third Discourse which is reckon'd for the Fourth he proves That the Father and the Son have but one and the same Substance and one
He adds That whatever Power the Bishop has he receiv'd it from the Apostles That the right of administring Unction and Baptism of Forgiving Sins of Consecrating the Body of Jesus Christ was devolv'd upon him because he is Successor to the Apostles He concludes this Letter with saying I know very well my dear Brother that the Pardon of sins is not to be granted indifferently to all Sinners and that they are not to be loos'd before there be some Signs of the Will of God that it should be done That Absolution is not to be given but with much precaution and discretion after Sinners have sighed and wept long and when the whole Church has pray'd for them that so no Man may prevent the Judgment of Jesus Christ. If you would write your Thoughts more clearly to me my dear Brother I would Instruct you more fully Sempronianus having answered this Letter St. Pacianus confirm'd the Two Parts of his Letter by Two other Answers In the First he proves what he had said concerning the Name of the Catholick Church and as to what Sempronianus had objected that the People of St. Cyprian had been treated as Apostates as Sectaries c. He shews that they did not commonly carry these Names but on the contrary were always call'd Catholicks whereas Sempronianus cannot deny but the Sect whereof he was did bear the Name of Novatian He answers afterwards to the Accusation of Sempronianus founded upon his making use of a Verse of Virgil in his Letter and shows that a Bishop is allow'd to know humane Learning and to make a profitable use of it He answers also another Accusation against the Catholicks concerning the Persecution which he pretends the Novatians had suffer'd from them He says That the Novatians must not attribute to the Catholicks the severity of some Princes who would not tolerate them That this was not done upon the Complaint and at the desire of Catholicks but by the proper Motion of Christian Princes who espous'd the Interests of the Church That the Powers had reason to Protect the Innocent and to make use of their Authority for the publick Good The rest of this Letter respects some particular Debates between them concerning the Persons of Novatian St. Cyprian and Cornelius St. Pacianus defends and praises these two last and accuses the first of Pride and Schism In the last Letter to Sempronianus he treats of Penance against Novatian He says That all the Doctrine of the Novatians explain'd by Sempronianus is contain'd in this Proposition That Penance is not allow'd after Baptism because the Church cannot forgive Mortal Sin and in short That she destroys her self by receiving Sinners Who is it says he that proposes this Doctrine Is it Moses Is it St. Paul Is it Jesus Christ No it is Novatian And who is this Novatian Is he a Man pure and blameless who has never forsaken the Church who was lawfully Ordain'd Bishop and by the common Methods succeeded in the room of a Bishop deceas'd What do you mean you will tell me It suffices that he has taught this Doctrine But still when was it taught Was it immediately after the Passion of Jesus Christ Not at all It was after the Reign of Decius 300 Years after Christ. But did this Man follow the Prophets Was he a Prophet Did he raise the Dead Did he work Miracles Did he speak all sorts of Languages For at least he ought to have these signs for establishing a new Gospel and though he had yet the Apostle assures us That though an Angel should descend from Heaven to teach us a new Gospel he should be accurs'd Was there never any Person since the coming of Christ till Novatian that understood the Doctrine of Jesus Christ and since the Reign of Decius Is there none but Novatian in the way of Salvation But you will tell me We do not acquiesce in Authority we make use of Reason But as to me who hitherto have been settled in my Religion upon the Authority and Tradition of the Church and am satisfied with the Communion of this Ancient Society I will not now dissent from it I will not seek after Disputes and you who have separated from this Body and divided from your Mother search in Books for every thing that is most secret that you may disturb those that are at rest 'T is not we but you that have raised this Dispute But still let us hear what you say let us examine your Reasons You say That the Church is a Body of Men regenerate by Water and the Holy Spirit who have not deny'd the Name of Christ which is the Temple and House of God the Pillar and Ground of Truth we say the same also But who has taken away from us this Living Water Have we it not we who draw from its Fountain But you who are separated from it how can you be regenerate by Baptism How can the Holy Spirit who has not deserted the Church come upon you who are faln off from it How can your People receive the Holy Spirit since they are not Confirm'd by Bishops who have receiv'd the Sacerdotal Unction Have not we had some Confessors and Martyrs Yes you will say you have had but they are now lost by receiving of Apostates I will not tell you that Novatian while he was yet in the Church wrote a Book to prove that we ought to receive them but how do you prove that the whole Church is perish'd by receiving Penitent Sinners If some Churches have shown too great Indulgence must others who have not approv'd them but have follow'd the old way and preserv'd Peace lose upon that account the Name of Christians He proves afterwards by many Reasons That the Church by receiving Penitent Sinners did not cease to be the Church and that the Schism of Novatian made his Disciples lose the Title of the Sons of the Church He strongly urges the Testimony of Novatian who approv'd before his Separation the Conduct of those that receiv'd the laps'd that were Penitent He describes afterwards the Origin of the Sect of Novatians and says That Novatus an African Priest being convicted in his own Country of many Crimes came to Rome to avoid the Condemnation which he had deserv'd and that being arriv'd there he perswaded Novatian who was vex'd that Cornelius was Ordain'd Bishop of Rome he perswaded him I say to procure himself to be Ordain'd Bishop and advis'd him for gaining his design to object against Cornelius the ill Conduct he observ'd in receiving Penitent Sinners St. Pacianus enters upon this Matter and justifies against the Novatians the Conduct of Cornelius by showing that we ought to receive Sinners to Penance and that God has given his Church the Power of forgiving Sins But at the same time he takes Notice That there is not the same reason of Penance as of Baptism for the former ought to be accompanied with much Labour with Tears and Sighs He confutes the Objections of
appears That Silvanus who ordain'd Majorinus had given up the Holy Books to the Heathens Zenophilus there examines a Grammarian nam'd Victor a Deacon nam'd Castus and a Sub-Deacon call'd Crescentianus and makes them confess That Silvanus had deliver'd up the Ornaments of the Church and the Holy Books according to the Deposition of Nundinarius the Deacon who was present He causes also the Verbal Process made in the Year 363. to be read by Munatius Felix Judge of the Colony of Cirtha who further confirm'd the Deposition of Nundinarius The Letters written to Silvanus by the Bishops of his own Party are set down wherein they reprehend him for his outrageous manner of treating his Deacon Nundinarius He is accus'd also of making a Simonaical Ordination of appropriating to his own use the Alms that were given for the Poor and of being ordain'd himself by the Sollicitation of some Country Fellows There are many things very remarkable in this Act For there one may see That at the Beginning of the 3d. Age of the Church they us'd Chalices of Silver and Gold Cups Lamps and Candlesticks of Silver and Copper That they kept in the Church Garments for the Poor That the Readers who were very numerous had the Holy Books That the Christians had a Library near the Church where they put their Books The Third Record is also part of a Verbal Process concerning the Justification of Felix of Aptungis made by Aelianus the Proconsul in the Year 314 in the Month of February as appears by St. Augustin There he examines one nam'd Ingentius and Convicts him of making an Addition to a Letter of Caecilian that he might falsly accuse Felix of being a Traditor The Fourth is a Letter of the Emperour Constantine to Ablabius wherein he orders him to send Caecilian to Arles with some Bishops of his Party as well as some of his Accusers that he might receive Judgment from the Council which was to assemble there The Fifth is a Letter from the Council of Arles of which we have spoken in its place The Sixth is the Letter which Constantine wrote against the Donatists when they appeal'd to his Judgment after they had been condemn'd in the Council of Arles The Seventh is another Letter of the same Emperour wherein he acquaints the Bishops of Donatus's Party That he once design'd to send Judges into Africk to determine their Differences with Caecilian but that he judg'd it more proper to make him come before himself The Eighth is a 4th Letter of the same Emperour written to Celsus wherein he acquaints him That he will quickly come into Africk to decide the Differences between Donatus and Caecilian himself The Ninth is a 5th Letter of Constantine wherein he gives the Donatist Bishops leave to return into Africk The Tenth is a 6th Letter of this Emperour about the Cause of the Donatists address'd to the Catholicks of Africk He tells them That he had done all that lay in his Power to re-establish Peace but since the Obstinacy of some Men had frustrated his good Intentions they must now wait upon God only for the Remedy of this Mischief and that till it pleas'd the Divine Mercy to remedy it they must proceed with Moderation and bear with Patience the Insolence of the Enemies of the Church That they must not render Evil for Evil since Vengeance is reserv'd to God only and that by suffering patiently the Fury of these Insolent Men they should certainly merit the Glory of Martyrdom For says he Is not this to Fight and Conquer for God to bear with Patience the Outrages and Injuries of the Enemies of God's People At last he assures the Catholicks That if they observe this Method they will quickly see their Enemies Party weakned and that God will give Grace to many to acknowledge their Error and do Penance The following Letter is a further Indication of the Meekness of this Emperour and the Moderation of the Catholicks The Donatists had invaded the Church which Constantine had caus'd to be built in Constantina a City of Numidia which the Catholicks demanded back again but they refus'd it The Catholicks to avoid all further Contention pray'd the Emperour to give them a Place in the Dependances of his Demesnes thereabouts where they might Build another Church To which Constantine answer'd That he did not only grant their Desire but he had also written to the Receiver of his Revenues to furnish them with so much Money as was necessary for the Building of this Church In this Letter he praises the Moderation of the Catholicks and condemns the Obstinacy of the Donatists and ordains That the Laws which he had made for Exemption of the Clergy from all Publick Taxes should be put in Execution The last of these Records which are added to the Books of Optatus is a Fragment of the Acts of the Passion of the Saints Dativus Saturninus Felix Ampelius and of some other African Martyrs made in the time of Anulinus and written by a Donatist This Piece contains some part of the Calumnies of the Donatists against Mensurius and Caecilian The Author of these Acts accuses them of hindring the Faithful from carrying Food to the Christians that were in Prison and of beating them back with blows of Whips and Cudgels He adds That these Martyrs would never communicate with Mensurius nor Caecilian because they had deliver'd up the Holy Books to the Heathens and that the Church of Christ being Holy ought not to hold Communion with those that are defil'd with a Crime of this heinous Nature At last he says That those Martyrs who wanted Food by the Cruelty of Mensurius and Caecilian died of Famine in Prison and went to Heaven there to receive the Crown of Martyrdom The Stile of Optatus's Books is noble vehement and close but not enough Polite or Neat. He presses briskly upon those against whom he Disputes and describes very sensibly the Transactions which he relates and explains the Passages which he produces with a great deal of Wit He gives his Thoughts a fine and delicate turn his Expressions signifie very perfectly what he means to say his Reasonings are subtile and his Relations pleasant In a word It appears that the Author of this little Book was Master of much Learning and Wit The Doctrine which he teaches is and always will be of much use to the Church for there is not the same Reason of those Questions which concern the Truth of the Church as of those that concern only some particular Doctrines These continue only so long as the Sect subsists which opposes these Doctrines and the Books which treat of them become almost useless whenever the Heresie is extinct But all Heresies all Schisms having one common Principle of opposing the Church the Books which are written in its Defence are contrary to all Heresies and will be useful as long as there shall be any Hereticks in the World whosoever they be The Books of Optatus teach us also a
the right way and are in danger of falling head-long He had not the sublime and affected Eloquence of the Bar but a Philosophical kind of Eloquence which consisted in turning his Thoughts and Reasons after an easy clear and pleasant manner Philostorgius quoted by Suidas compar'd him to St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzen and says That these three were the ablest Men of their time That they excell'd those who had written before them and that St. Athanasius in comparison of them appear'd but a Child That they were well vers'd in profane Learning and had made a great Progress in them That with all this they had all that was necessary for Reading and Understanding the Scriptures and chiefly Apollinarius who understood Hebrew That each of them excell'd in his kind That the Stile of Apollinarius was fittest for writing Books That St. Basil's Stile was best for publick Orations but Gregory Nazianzen surmounted them both in the sublimity of his Stile which was more lofty than that of Apollinarius and more grave than that of St. Basil. He adds That these three Persons had all the Qualities which were most proper for winning the Admiration of all Mankind The Life of Apollinarius was probably no less Holy than that of the other two great Men. In short he might have been equal to the greatest Pillars of the Church as Vincentius Lirinensis says excellently if his profane Curiosity had not carried him to the Invention of Novelties which made him lose the Fruit of all his Labours and made his Doctrine an occasion of Scandal rather than Edification Apollinarius's Paraphrase or Translation of the Psalms was printed in Greek at Paris in the Year 1580 and together with the Version of Sylburgius by Commelinus in the Year 1596. Since that time it has been put into the Bibliothecae Patrum The other Works of this Author are lost except some Fragments and his Error was probably the cause of this Loss The Catholicks had so great a Horror of Books of Hereticks that they would not so much as preserve those that did not concern their Heresy and which might have been useful to the Church Upon which Account it is that we have scarce any Book of the ancient Hereticks and that the Eutychians were oblig'd to publish Apollinarius's Books under the Names of Catholick Authors as we have observ'd when we spoke of the Writings of Pope Julius TITUS of Bostra TITUS Bishop of Bostra a City of Arabia Petrâ—a wrote a Treatise against the Manichees and some other Works in the time of the Emperours Julian and Jovian Julian who persecuted Titus of Bâ—stra all the Bishops who had any Reputation did all that lay in his Power to drive this Bishop out of his Country and to render him odious to his People He wrote to him that if any trouble happened in the City of Bostra he should impute it to himself and to his Clergy This Bishop answered him That he kept his People in Peace by his Exhortations and that tho' he had as many Christians as Pagans in his City yet he so ordered the Matter that there was no Contention amongst them Julian laid hold on this Occasion to write to the Inhabitants of Bostra against their Bishop endeavouring maliciously to persuade them that his Answer reproached them because it supposed that without his Exhortations they would not have continued in their Duty However this ill-natur'd Accusation of the Emperour Julian did not hinder them from putting Confidence in their Bishop so that he continued in his See till the time of the Emperour Valens under whose Reign he died about the Year 370. He assisted at the Council of Meletius held at Antioch under the Reign of Jovian in the Year 364. The Book of Titus of Bostra against the Manichees was written in Greek and divided into Four Parts There is nothing now extant but the Version of three of those Books made by Turrianus and Printed in Canisius's Collection of Ancient Pieces and in the Bibliotheca Patrum To the Text of the Author there are perfixed the Arguments of the Four Books translated out of Greek which inform us what is the Subject of them The first Book says the Author of those Arguments contains a Refutation of the principal Points of Doctrine taught by the Manichees which contradict common Sense and the Principles of natural Reason The second is intended to show That Man is not addicted to Sin by a Principle that is Eternal and without Beginning or by a Being that is contrary to the True God That there is no Substance of Evil in the World That there is not in us two sorts of Natures one Good and the other Evil That 't is Folly and Impiety to Condemn and Reprehend the manner of Governing the Universe In short This Book contains all that can be said of Providence and invincibly proves That 't is no wise necessary to admit a Second Principle contrary to God The Third Book is intended to defend the Law and the Prophets and to show that God is the Author of the Old Testament That there is nothing of Evil to be found in it That it does in every thing agree with the New and therefore there is no need for the Explication of it to have recourse to a Second Principle contrary to God The Fourth Book defends the New Testament against the Blasphemies of the Hereticks There he shews that there is nothing in the Gospel which favours their Error That they abuse some Passages of Scripture to prove their Impiety to no purpose and that the Diabolical Explications which they give of them cannot help to establish what they say against God In the First Book he propounds the Doctrine of the Manichees and detects the Absurdities of it by Metaphysical Arguments In the Second he shows That there is but one God only and that he is the only Principle That he is not the Author of Sin That he made Man free and capable of doing Good and Evil and so 't is not God but Man who is the Author of Sin which proceeds not from the Nature of Man but from his Will He explains the great difficulty that 's urg'd by the Manichees why the Just are so often Unhappy and the Wicked Happy in this World and shews that the Just are always Happy and the Wicked Unhappy because Innocence is the chief Happiness He adds That Afflictions are useful to prove and to exercise Vertue He maintains That Death is not an Evil because 't is the End of sinning to the Wicked and the Beginning of Recompence to the Good In short having survey'd all things in this World and all the occurrences of this Life he proves that they are easily reconcil'd to the Providence of God In the Third Book he shows That the Old and New Testament agree very well together and that one and the same God is the Author of them both There are in these Books much Metaphysicks and Logick the Arguments are solid
Impostures and Tricks That he allow'd the People to Abuse and use Violence to the Christians and reserved to himself the ways of moderation to allure and perswade them That he changed his Court and gain'd the Souldiers over to his side That he removed Christians from all Offices that he entic'd some by Hope of Rewards and seduc'd others That he sent some of them into Banishment and in spite of his affected Gentleness he had exercised the greatest Cruelties upon others He adds That this Tyrant had a Design to shut out Christians from all Protection of the Law and to forbid them to make use of it alledging this for a Reason That their Law commanded them to bear Injuries patiently and to render Evil for Good St. Gregory answers this Raillery by saying That if Christians had a Law which oblig'd them to bear with Evil yet there was no Law in the World which permitted any to do it And besides that there were among Christians Two sorts of Precepts that some of them do so oblige that it is absolutely necessary to obey them but there are others which do not oblige but Christians are free to fulfil or not fulfil them that all the World cannot arrive at that perfection which consists in the observation of Evangelical Counsels and that one may be Sav'd by observing only what is commanded as necessary to be done In this place he makes a Digression about the Moderation which Christians observ'd when they were in Power and this he opposes to the Cruelties which the Pagans have exercis'd There was a Time says he to the Pagans when we had the Authority in our Hands as well as you but what have we done to those of your Religion which comes near to what the Christians have suffer'd from you Have we taken your Liberty from you Have we stirr'd up the Fary of the Mobile against you Have we put Governours in places on purpose to condemn you to Punishment Have we attempted the Life of any Person Have we remov'd any Body from the Magistracy or from their Offices In a word Have we done any of those things to you which you have made us suffer and which you have threatned against us I cannot conceive how St. Gregory could reconcile all these things with what he had said before that Constantius did very ill to suffer Julian to live and leave the Empire to him because he was an Enemy to the Christian Religion and was to Persecute it and that in this Constantius made a very ill use of his Gentleness and Goodness Afterwards he speaks of the Prohibition which Julian had given to Christians to study humane Learning It belongs to us says he to Discourse it belongs to us to understand the Greek Tongue as it belongs to us to Adore the Gods But as for you Ignorance and Barbarism is your Portion and all your Wisdom consists in saying I believe St. Gregory answers him that the Pythagoreans who had no other Reason to give for what they Affirm'd but the Authority of their Master would not have jested in that manner upon what the Christians answer when they are askt about their Doctrine This is what I believe that this only signifies that 't is not lawful to doubt of what is written by Persons Divinely inspir'd and that their Authority is of greater force than all the Reasons and Arguments of the World but that it does not follow from thence that Eloquence Terms of Art and Skill in Languages belong only to those who Profess to acknowledge many Gods For says he if this be so either the Greek Tongue is confin'd to the Religion or to the Nation It cannot be said that 't is confin'd to the Pagan Religion For Where is that Commanded Who are the Priests that have enjoyn'd us to study humane Learning as an Action of Religion Neither can it be said that 't is confin'd to the Nations that profess to Adore false Gods For it will not follow because the Greek Tongue has been us'd among those that profess the Pagan Religion that therefore it is so confin'd to them who profess that Religion that others cannot make use of it This is as if one should say that working in Gold cannot be exercis'd but by Painters because there were some Painters that were Goldsmiths likewise He concludes that Languages cannot be confin'd to a Profession nor an Art nor a Religion but that they are common to all those that can make use of them He adds several Curiofities about the Invention of Letters and Sciences about the Origin of Sacrifices about Pagan Ceremonies and the infamous Actions which the Poets attributed to their false Gods He occasionally answers an Excuse which the Pagans make to cover the Folly of their Poets alledging that they invented what they said concerning their Divinities to please the People but that under these Veils there was a secret Sence and hidden Mystery St. Gregory confesses that there may be in Religion hidden Mysteries and such Discourses as all the World does not understand and he acknowledges that there are some of this nature among Christians but then he maintains that the Veils Representations the Appearances and the Figures which conceal these Mysteries and Truths ought to have the Character of Honesty and not of Infamy That otherwise this was to do like one that would conduct a Man to a fine City through a Bog or that would bring a Man into Harbour by leading him over the Rocks And besides that there was no Example produced by the Poets which excited to Vertue but on the contrary they inclin'd all Men to Vice whereas the Christian Religion teaches nothing but Vertue and Perfection The 4th Oration is also an Invective against Julian There St. Gregory represents the visible Judgments which God had made use of to punish his Impiety as well as the sensible manner of protecting his Church and defeating the Designs of this impious Man He relates first that when Julian would have had the Jews rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem there arose such a Storm as drove away those that undertook the Work and that having retir'd into a neighbouring Temple there came forth a Fire which consum'd them He adds that there appear'd a Sign of the Cross in the Heavens which was a Mark of the Victory which Jesus Christ had gotten over these Impious Men and that all those who saw it or spoke of it found their Clothes mark'd with this Sign He says that this Miracle was so publick that many who saw it embrac'd immediately the Christian Religion and were Baptiz'd But if the Power of God appear'd in this Miracle his Vengeance clearly appeared in the miserable Death of Julian Before he departed to march against the Persians he made a Vow That if he return'd Conqueror he would reduce all Christians under the Power of the Devil But God who confounds the Designs of the Wicked did not suffer him to return from this Journey For being unseasonably engag'd
seen in Facundus Ch. 3. of his 4th Book But in the following Ages Men did not give so favourable a Judgment of this Man's Doctrine for he was accus'd of Teaching in his Writings the Errors of Nestorius as they were afterwards call'd It may be for this Reason that none of his Works are preserv'd We have nothing but a very considerable Extract out of his Treatise of Destiny produced by Photius in Volume 223 of his Bibliotheca and the Argument of another Trearise of the Holy Spirit produced by the same Person in Volume 102. Theodoret also in his Commentaries upon Genesis Quest. 20. p. 22. and Quest. 21. p. 25. produces two other Fragments of this our Diodorus St. Basil in Letter 167 speaks of Two Books of this Author's writing against the Hereticks whereof the Second was compos'd by way of Dialogue St. Jerom mentions his Commentary upon St. Paul Socrates and Sozomen assure us that he made Commentaries upon almost all the Books of the Bible Leontius in his Third Book quotes a Book of this Author written against the Sunousiasts that is against the Apollinarists Suidas has given us a Catalogue of his Works taken out of Theodorus which is as follows An Explication of all the Old Testament of Genesis Exodus and upon the Psalms and upon the Four Books of Kings upon the Chronicles upon the Proverbs a Treatise of the Difference between Allegory and Contemplation a Commentary upon Ecclesiastes upon Canticles upon the Prophets a Chronicle wherein he has corrected some Faults of Eusebius Commentaries upon the Four Gospels upon the Acts upon the Epistle of St. John a Treatise to prove that there is but One God in the Trinity a Book against the Melchisedecians a Treatise against the Jews concerning the Resurrection of the Dead one of the Soul against several Errours a Treatise of Destiny against the Astrologers where he speaks of the Globe of the World and of Providence and a Treatise wherein he proves that Invisible things were made at the same time with the Elements tho' they were not made of them a Tract to Euphronius by way of Question and Answer against Aristotle's System He says nothing in this Catalogue of the Book of the Trinity nor of the Treatise against the Apollinarists The Treatise of Distiny was divided into Eight Books and 53 Chapters There he refutes all the Follies of Judicial Astrology and shows that the World had a Beginning and was Created that Man was endow'd with Free-will that God was not the Author of Evil and that the World is govern'd by Divine Providence Photius makes a particular enumeration of the Subject of each Chapter in this Work wherein he produces some part of his Reasonings He had reason to ridicule the Proposition which this Author had advanc'd That the Heaven was not round supposing that if it were so the Astrologers would have some good Ground for their Opinion of Fatality For as he observes the Figure of the Heaven has nothing in the World to do with this Question Photius observes that the Stile of this Author is pure and clear but St. Jerom says that it is not lofty and that he could never reach the Eloquence of Eusebius Emisenus tho' he endeavour'd to imitate it because he was not skill'd enough in humane Learning Facundus who quotes this Passage of St. Jerom says only Eusebius without adding Emisenus Now if one should thus read the Text of St. Jerom it would be more convenient to understand the Writings of Eusebius of Caesarea whom Diodorus rather imitated than those of the Bishop of Emesa because the Works of Diodorus have no great relation to his Books whereas they had a great affinity to those of Eusebius of Caesarea either for the Matters which he treated of or for the Manner or Stile wherein he treated of them For the Extracts which Photius has produced out of his Treatise of Destiny are very like to some Books of the Evangelical Preparation or Demonstration of Eusebius of Caesarea The Judgment which St. Basil has given of this Author's Stile may be seen in Letter 167 of which we have given an Abridgement in St. Basil's Life As to what concerns his Doctrine of the Incarnation we could better judge of it if we had his Books but there is no great probability that one who was prais'd esteem'd and cherish'd by Meletius St. Basil St. Gregory Nazianzen St. Epiphanius and even by St. Athanasius and his Successors Peter and Timothy of Alexandria who was also consider'd in a General Council as one of the most Learned and most Orthodox Bishops of all the East and in short who was Master to St. Chrysostom should be guilty of so gross an Errour as that of Nestorius 'T is true that he had for his Scholar Theodorus of Mopsuestia and that he was Accus'd of the same Errour with Nestorius and that he was Condemn'd as Convicted of this Errour after his death in the 5th Council But besides that there have been some Persons who have undertaken to justify him Yet if it should be granted that he was guilty of this Errour it would not follow that he learn'd it of his Master since we dayly see Heretical Disciples who have had Orthodox Masters Should not the Faith of St. Chrysostom rather serve to justify Diodorus than the Errour of Theodorus to condemn him HILARY the Deacon HILARY of Sardinia Deacon of the Church of Rome was deputed by Pope Liberius together with Lucifer Bishop of Calaris and the Priest Pancratius to go to the Emperour Constantius Hilary the Deacon after the Synod of Arles in the Year 353. He was banish'd after the Council of Milan and afterwards he join'd with Lucifer's Party whereof he was one of the most zealous Defenders 'T is this Hilary who is call'd in St. Jerom's Dialogue against the Luciferians The Deucalion of the World because he would Regenerate and Renew by a Second Baptism those that had been baptiz'd by Hereticks Tho' there has been no Book printed under the Name of this Hilary yet the Learned have attributed to him the Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul which bears the Name of St. Ambrose and the Questions upon the Old and New Testament which are at the end of the 4th Tome of St. Austin These are the Reasons which have mov'd them to attribute to him the Commentary upon St. Paul's Epistles First St. Austin in Ch. 4. of the 4th B. to Boniface cites under the Name of St. Hilary an Explication of this Passage of St. Paul 'T was from him that all Men sinn'd which is taken Word for Word out of this Commentary Now this Hilary whom St. Austin quotes could neither be Hilary of Syracuse nor St. Hilary of Arles since they were after St. Austin No more can it be said that the Author of these Commentaries was Hilary of Poictiers because the Stile and the Version which he makes use of are no ways like to the Stile and Version of these Commentaries
had he been adds Sulpitius Severus if he had not corrupted his fine Parts by joining with a wicked Faction He had many good Qualities of Body and Mind He endur'd with ease Watchings Hunger and Thirst. He had no desire to be Rich and liv'd with much Frugality but he was proud and profane Learning had puff'd him up intolerably 'T is said that he had formerly exercis'd the Art of Magick This Man having as we have said embrac'd the pernicious Doctrine of Marcus and Elpidus drew many Persons of his own Country after him either by persuading them with Reasons or flattering them with Caresses Women who naturally love Novelty and have commonly much Curiosity and but little Steadiness flock'd after him in great Multitudes to be admitted among his Party In a word he procured the Love and Respect of all the World by the show of Humility which appear'd in his Clothes and his Countenance Spain began to be infected with the Venom of this Heresy and even some Bishops were corrupted with it There were particularly two of them call'd Instantius and Salvianus who were engag'd by Oath into the Faction of Priscillian But Hyginus Bishop of Corduba their Neighbour understanding it informed against them to Idacius of Merida who kindled as one may say the Fire of Division by the Rigour which he us'd and irritated Men's minds without putting a stop to the growing Evil. In short after many Disputes the Synod of Saragoza was Assembled at which the Bishops of Aquitaine were present and these Hereticks not daring to appear there were condemn'd for their Contumacy Sentence was given against the Bishops Instantius Salvianus and against Elpidus and Priscillian 'T was also added That all those who should receive them into Communion should expect the same Condemnation with them Ithacius Bishop of Ossobona was entrusted with the Publication of this Sentence and with the Management of the Excommunication against Hyginus the Bishop who being the first that oppos'd Priscillian and his Disciples was afterwards himself corrupted and received them into his Communion But Instantius and Salvianus without any regard to the Judgment of the Council of Saragoza Ordain'd Priscillian Bishop of Avila Then the Bishops of the other Party had recourse to the Authority of the Emperour and obtain'd of Gratian an Edict wherein the Priscillianists were condemn'd to be driven out of the Churches and to be banish'd out of the Cities where they dwelt Instantius and Salvianus being chas'd away out of their own Country went to Rome and Milan but they were rejected by Damasus and St. Ambrose After which they had recourse to the Emperour and obtain'd of him a Rescript wherein he permitted them to return to their own Country and ordain'd that their Churches should be restor'd unto them They return'd into Spain with this Edict and having gain'd the Proconsul they forc'd away Ithacius He fled into France and carried his Complaints to the Tyrant Maximus who was enter'd as a Conquerour into the City of Triers This Prince caus'd Priscillian and his chief Disciples to be carried to a Synod held at Bourdeaux in the Year 384 in which Instantius was Depos'd and when they would have proceeded to Judge Priscillian also he appeal'd from them to the Emperour Maximus who committed the Judgment of this Affair to the Prefect Evodius who having Convicted Priscillian of Witchcraft and Uncleanness made his Report of the whole Matter to Maximus who condemn'd him and his chief Followers to have their Heads cut off which was done in the Year 385. Some have thought that Priscillian was Innocent and that he was unjustly oppress'd by the Faction of Ithacius whose Conduct was disapprov'd by the most Pious Bishops of that time It seems that St. Jerom favours this Opinion in his Catalogue where he speaks of Priscillian in these Words Priscillian Bishop of Avila was Executed in the City of Triers by the Commandment of the Tyrant Maximus having been oppress'd by the Faction of Hilatius it must be read Ithacius and Idacius He wrote many Tracts whereof some are come to our Hands Some accuse him even at this Day of the Heresy of the Gnosticks of Basilides and Marcion but others vindicate him and maintain that he held none of those Errors that are charg'd upon him 'T is true that the same St. Jerom in a Letter to Ctesiphon speaks of Priscillian as a notable Heretick which made Monsieur Quesnel think that this place of St. Jerom's Book of Ecclesiastical Writers was interpolated This Conjecture which is not founded upon the Authority of any Manuscript would be of some moment if it were not known that St. Jerom does often speak differently of one and the same Person Perhaps St. Jerom's way of speaking of him in his Catalogue gave occasion to put Priscillian and his Disciple Matronianus into some Martyrologies and to rank them among the Holy Martyrs St. Jerom speaks of this last after this manner Matronianus of Spain a learned Man and one that was comparable to the Ancients for Poetry was also put to Death with Priscillian Felicissimus Julianus and Euchrotia who were all of the same Party We have some of his Works in Verse which are Evidences of his Wit and Parts Sulpitius Severus call'd this Disciple of Priscillian Latronianus for Matronianus Tiberianus of Baetica was also an Author of this Sect Who wrote says St. Jerom an Apology to vindicate himself from the Suspicion of Heresy whereof he was accus'd together with Priscillian His Stile is swelling and affected After the Death of those of his Party being overcome by the tediousness of a long Exile he married a Virgin consecrated to Jesus Christ. Dictinius was a Priest who had been accus'd of the same Error and condemn'd for it in the Council of Langres St. Ambrose wrote Letters in his favour to procure his Restauration But upon condition that he should condemn what he had done and that he should continue Priest without being capable of rising to a higher Dignity Nevertheless he did not perform these Conditions for he continued still in his ancient Error and got himself Ordain'd Bishop of Asturica Augusta Being cited upon this Account to the First Council of Toledo in the Year 390 together with Symphosius who Ordain'd him he did not appear before the Synod but appearing afterwards at a Second Synod held about the Year 400 there Symphosius declar'd That he was forc'd by the People to Ordain Dictinius and Dictinius himself made a Solemn Recantation of his Errors whereupon they were both absolv'd He wrote some Treatises for the Error of the Priscillianists which are mention'd by St. Leo in a Letter to Turribius What we have said of the Restauration of Dictinius seems to be contrary to the Testimony of Idacius who says that Turribius was plac'd in the room of Dictinius after he was Depos'd for his Heresy but St. Leo declares very plainly in the Letter which we just now cited that Dictinius died a Catholick From whence
rather that is the only Doctrine which he opposes there It is no ways probable therefore that this Treatise should be his and we must still continue in as great uncertainties as ever concerning its Author The Book of Mysteries or Sacraments is an Instruction to the New-baptiz'd wherein St. Ambrose explains to them the Significations and Virtue of the Sacraments which they had receiv'd Here is an Abridgment of what is most remarkable in this Instruction After we have spoken every day of Morality and propos'd to you the Examples of the Patriarchs and Prophets while the Proverbs were reading that you might be accustom'd to follow the Examples of the Saints and to lead a Life becoming those Persons who are purified by Baptism 'T is now time to discourse to you of the Mysteries and to explain the Sacraments for if we had explain'd them to you before you were initiated we should have thought that we had profan'd rather than discover'd them Besides that the light of the Mysteries themselves which you did not expect has now astonish'd you more than if we had instructed you about them before Open therefore now your Ears to receive the sweet word of Eternal Life which we signified to you when we celebrated the Ceremony by which we wish'd that they might be open'd by saying Ephatha that so all those who were to come to Baptism might know what was demanded of them and what they answer'd At last you are introduc'd into the place where the Sacrament of Baptism is Administred you are oblig'd to renounce the Devil and his Works the World and its Pomps and Pleasures You found in this place the Waters and a Priest who consecrated them the Body was plung'd into this Water to wash away Sins the Holy Spirit descended upon this Water you ought not to fix your mind upon the External part of it but to consider in it a Divine Virtue Do not imagine therefore that it is this Water which purifies you 't is the Holy Spirit There are Three things in Baptism the Water the Blood and the Spirit and without these Three Things the Sacrament is not compleat neither the Remission of Sins nor Grace is receiv'd unless it be in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost The Baptism of Jews and Infidels does not purify at all 't is the Holy Spirit which descended formerly under the Figure of a Dove which sanctifies these Waters We must not consider the merit of the Priest for it is our Lord Jesus Christ who baptizes You made Profession of believing in the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost After this you drew near unto the Priest he anointed you and your Feet were washed This Sacrament blots out your hereditary Sins and the Baptism blots out the Sins contracted by your own Will After this you receiv'd white Garments to signifie that you were stript of Sin and clothed with Innocence You received the Seal of the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Wisdom of Power c. The Father hath mark'd you out the Son hath confirm'd you and the Holy Spirit hath given you assurance of your Salvation Afterwards you run to the Heavenly Feast and see the Altar prepar'd where you receive a nourishment infinitely exceeding that of Manna a Bread more excellent than that of Angels 'T is the Flesh of Jesus Christ the Body of Life 't is the incorruptible Manna 't is the Truth whereof the Manna was only the Figure Perhaps you will tell me But I see another thing How do you assure me that it is the Body of Jesus Christ which I receive That we must prove We must show that it is not the Body which Nature hath form'd but that which the Benediction hath Consecrated Which St. Ambrose confirms by an infinite number of the like Miracles and lastly by the Mystery of the Incarnation which he compares to that of the Eucharist A Virgin says he brought forth This is against the Order of Nature The Body which we consecrate came forth of a Virgin Why do you seek for the Order of Nature in the Body of Jesus Christ since Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin contrary to the Order of Nature Jesus Christ had real Flesh which was fastened to the Cross and laid in the Sepulchre So the Eucharist is the true Sacrament of this Flesh. Jesus Christ himself assures us of it This is says he my Body before the Benediction of these Heavenly Words it is of another Nature after the Consectation it is the Body So likewise of the Blood Before Consecration it is call'd by another Name after Consecration it is call'd the Blood of Jesus Christ and ye Answer Amen that 's to say 'T is true Let the Mind acknowledge inwardly that which the Mouth brings forth let the Heart be of that Judgment which the Words express The Church exhorts her Children to Receive these Sacraments which contain the Body of Jesus Christ. This is not Bodily but Spiritual Food for the Body of the Lord is Spiritual Lastly this Heavenly Meat gives us strength this Divine Drink rejoyces us Having therefore receiv'd these Sacraments let us be persuaded that we are regenerated and let us not say How can this be 'T is not by Nature but by the Holy Spirit From hence we may learn the chief Ceremonies which were observed in the Church of Milan As to the Administration of the Sacraments these which follow are remark'd The Ears of the Catechumens were touch'd saying Ephatha and after that they were bidden enter into the place where they were to be baptiz'd There they were oblig'd to renounce the Devil the World and its Pomps the Bishop blessed the Water of Baptism the Creed was repeated to the Catechumens they were anointed with Holy Chrisms their Feet were wash'd they were plung'd into the Water and at the same time the Three Divine Persons were invocated afterwards they were cloathed with White Garments the Sacrament of Confirmation was given them and the Holy Spirit was called upon for them From thence they were conducted to the Altar where they were present at the Consecration of the Eucharist and received the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ answering Amen Since these Ceremonies and the Doctrine of this Treatise do not agree with the Opinions of Protestants some among them have done what they could to raise Doubts about this Book whether it were St. Ambrose's But the Reasons which they alledge are so weak that the ablest Men among them have sincerely acknowledg'd that it is really his There are very strong Proofs that it is this Father's the beginning alone discovers that it is his for there he speaks plainly of the Sermons he had made to the Catechumens upon the Lives of the Patriarchs and Prophets This does not agree to any other Author but St. Ambrose 't is the Stile of this Father tho' he treats of things more particularly than in his other Books 'T is his Doctrine and no body doubts but it is
Letter of this Bishop against that Doctrine came in great fury to Theophilus with a design to kill him Theophilus to appease them made use of Jacob's words to Esau I see your faces as the face of God This perswading the silly Monks that his Mind was altered and that he really believed that God had a face they were quieted But they being perswaded that Origen was the greatest enemy of the Doctrine which they maintained said unto him If you be of this mind then condemn Origen ' s Books This was the Reason if we may believe the Historians of that time for which Theophilus was forced to declare against that Author and his Party at the time when Theophilus was fallen out with Isidore the Long-brethren and the other Monks of Nitria He accused them of Origenism and forced them to retire to Constantinople All this while John of Jerusalem continued in his Opinion and writ a Letter in favour of Ruffinus and of Origen to Pope Anastasius His enmity against S. Jerom lasted long as we learn by a Letter of Pope Innocent and he joined himself to Pelagius and caused him to be absolved in the Council of Diospolis as appears by the Letter which S. Augustin wrote to him He died in 416. Gennadius saith that he writ a Book against his Adversaries wherein he professed to admire the Wit but not the Doctrine of Origen That Discourse is lost There is attributed to this Author a Treatise dedicated to Caprasius of the Institution of Monkery but that visibly appears to be the work of a Latin Author who composed it of purpose to prove That the Order of the Carmelites which began in the time of the Old Law was very ancient in the Church and that many Christians were of this Order in the Primitive Church It is a heap of Fables Visions and Dreams concerning Elias and some other Prophets whom this Author feigneth to have been Monks of Mount Carmel But what is more surprizing is that upon occasion of this supposed Book there was a Carmelite that either had so little sence himself or rather believed that others were so dull as to attribute to the same Author several Books which are either without the Name of an Author or falsely ascribed to others which he hath had the confidence to collect and publish at Bruxells in Folio ann 1643 under the Name of John of Jerusalem's Works as if this pretended Author must necessarily be the Father of all these unknown Children But in one word Though this famous * Petrus Wastellus Carmelite who took the pains to collect them hath bestowed a whole Volume to shew that the Discourses contained in his First Volume were truly written by John of Jerusalem and hath endeavoured to justifie them from all sorts of Errors yet one may say that he hath done nothing less than what he promiseth in the Title and that he hath filled that long and tedious Treatise with idle Conjectures groundless Suppositions manifest Falshoods or with Matters no ways pertinent to his Subject So that this great Building failing at the foundation is quickly fallen into ruine and is become an object of Laughter to all persons that pretend to Learning THEOPHILUS of Alexandria THEOPHILUS was ordained Bishop in the Year 385 after the Death of Timotheus We have already observed that he was a politick and daring Man He took away the remains Theophilus of Alexandria of Idolatry in the City of Alexandria by causing the Temples and Idols that were left to be pulled down and by discovering to the People the Frauds and the Stratagems which the Idol-priests made use of to uphold their Superstition having hollow Statues wherein Men were hid who perswaded the People that the Statues spoke This generous Action got Theophilus much credit and reputation and gave him great power in Alexandria The Council of Capua having referred to him the judgment of Flavian's business he dealt very moderately with him but he showed much partiality in the Ordination of S. Chrysostom being desirous to have preferred Isidore to that See However they were friends in appearance for a while and they united together to procure the Reconciliation of the Eastern with the Western Bishops We have spoken before of his Carriage in the case of Origen and the Origenists of the policy of his Conduct and the passion which he shewed in the business of S. Chrysostom There is no likelihood that he ever repented of the injustice and violence which he exercised against S. John Chrysostom For though S. John Damascene saith that when he was near death he caused the Image of that Saint to be brought to him yet one cannot affirm it upon a testimony of that nature especially because S. Cyril his Successor in the Church of Alexandria persisted after his death to refuse to pay any honour to the Memory of this Saint and to insert his Name into the Diptychs It is more likely that what is related in the Lives of the Fathers in the Desert is true viz. That this Bishop being at the point of yielding up the Ghost and reflecting upon the long Penance of S. Arsenius cried out O how happy art thou Arsenius to have always had this hour before thine eyes Which sheweth saith an Author of that time that Monks who have quitted all the hopes of the World and of the Court to mourn in the Wilderness die more peaceably than the Archbishops that go out of their Dioceses to disturb the peace of the Church by caballing at Court against the most innocent and holiest of their brethren Yet S. Leo calls him Theophilus of happy Memory not that he had an opinion of his Sanctity but because dying in the Communion of the Church that Title of Honour could not be denied him He wrote saith Gennadius a large Treatise against Origen wherein he condemns both his Writings and his Person showing at the same time that he was not the first that condemned him but that he had been excommunicated by the Ancients and particularly by Heraclas He composed another Book against the Anthropomorphites who hold that God hath an humane shape and members like unto ours Wherein he refuteth their Opinions and convinceth them by testimonies of Holy Scripture proving that God is of an incorruptible and spiritual Nature whereas all Creatures are in their Natures corruptible and subject to change He likewise presented to Theodosius the Emperour a small Treatise concerning Easter where he fixes the Day and time of the Moon when it ought to be celebrated according to the decision of the Council of Nice adding some Observations touching the Solemnity of that Festival This Cycle began in the Year 380 and determined Easter Day for 100 Years consecutively as S. Leo assures us in the 94th and 95th Letters of the new Edition Gennadius saith further that he had read Three Books concerning Faith that bore Theophilus his Name but addeth that he did not believe them to be his because they
that the Council ordains that the Paulianists should be re-baptized because they baptized not in the Name of the Holy Trinity whereas the Novatians baptized as the Catholicks did in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And Lastly He declareth that this Rule concerneth those that were baptized by Hereticks but as to those who were baptized in the Church and embraced an Heretical Sect if they recover from their Apostasie they ought undoubtedly to be put to publick Penance and having done Penance they can never come into the Clergy Whence he concludes That those who left the Church after Bonosus was condemned to joyn with him and received Orders from Hereticks are not to keep their Dignity nor to be Ordained when they return again to the Church Wherefore he exhorteth the Macedonian Bishops to reform that abuse telling them That they ought not to allow that in time of Peace which Necessity commanded to be done in time of Trouble That it often happens that a fault remains unpunished because a whole People is guilty of it Upon such occasions what is past must be left to God's Judgment and care must be taken to prevent the like disorders for the time to come All this is the consequence of the same Third Canon though it be divided into Four The Last Canon is concerning a Bishop one Photinus who had been condemned by the See of Rome with too much rigour P. Innocent approves of the Admonition of the Macedonian Bishops but saith That the See of Rome was mis-informed and deceived by the Calumnies of his Enemies He owns him for a Bishop and commends the others for informing him better and desireth them to shew kindness to a Deacon called Eustathius The Twenty-third Letter is directed to the Spanish Bishops that were assembled in Council at Toledo It is about particular affairs of the Churches in that Kingdom The First Canon takes notice of a kind of Schism among the Bishops of Boetica and of other Spanish Provinces who had given the Communion to those of Gallicia P. Innocent proves that Lucifer's Severity was not to be imitated in refusing to admit converted Hereticks but on the contrary that all possible means should be used to cause them to return into the bosom of the Church The Second Canon is against two Bishops who ventur'd to Ordain out of their Diocesses The Third Canon is concerning one Bishop John who by his Deputies had approved the Condemnation of Symphosius and Dictinius P. Innocent's Opinion is That his Case ought to be examined as well as that of the others to know whether he had acted with Sincerity In the Fourth he speaks of irregular Ordinations practised in Spain contrary to the Canons He says That they are so many that it were impossible to apply a Remedy and so he thinks it convenient to leave what is past to God's Judgment But for the future to establish a Rule That whosoever shall Ordain contrary to the Canons shall be deprived of the Sacerdotal Dignity together with those that received Orders The Fifth is concerning a business of Patruinus Bishop of Merida which he saith ought to be examined and those punished that complain of his Ordination if they had unjustly accused him The Sixth containeth Rules to be observed in the choice of fit persons to be Ordained To understand well the Three following Letters of Pope Innocent it is to be noted That the Bishops of Africa and Numidia having condemned both Pelagius and Coelestius in the Councils of Carthage and Numidia assembled in the Year 416 wrote to Pope Innocent to give him an Account of the Sentence which they pronounced against both those Hereticks and their Doctrine that so they might add to their judgment the Authority of the See of Rome and so much the rather because Coelestius had thought fit to appeal and it was reported that P. Innocent countenanced them And for this reason Aurelius and Four more of the principal Bishops wrote another familiar Letter to him concerning some disadvantageous Reports that had been raised against him about that business In the Three following Letters P. Innocent answereth the other Three that were brought to Rome by Bishop Julian these are dated the 27th of January 417. The First is directed to Aurelius and the Bishops in the Council of Carthage He commends them at first for their Courage in condemning Error and for their respect to the See of Rome in consulting with it about what they had decided From which he takes occasion to exalt the Authority of the See of Rome affirming That it is of Divine Right to have its Opinion in Ecclesiastical Matters before any thing be determined in the Provinces concerning them It is probable that the African Bishops did not own that Right since they had definitively judged the Case of Pelagius and Coelestius before they acquainted him with it and they did not write to him as to a Judge that might disanull what they had done but only to get his Approbation of their Decisions as a thing which he could not refuse to doe without being suspected of Heresie And indeed this Pope who was supposed to favour Coelestius having known his Errors could not forbear declaring against them and commending the African Bishops who had condemned their Authors He subscribes to their Judgment and proves by several Reasons the Necessity of the Grace of Jesus Christ. The First is taken from Prayer which supposeth that we owe to God's Help and not to our Free-will the good that we doe He says That Man being fallen by the Abuse of his Free-will must be raised again by the Grace of Jesus Christ. That our Saviour not only delivered him from Sins past but that knowing his weakness he also prepared him Helps and Remedies to preserve him for the future and that we must of necessity be overcome if we be not succoured by him who alone can make us Conquerors Necesse est ut quo auxiliante vincimus eo iterum non adjuvante vincamur By which Principles he condemneth all those who affirm that there is no need of God's Grace to doe good and judgeth them unworthy of the Church's Communion He saith that refusing to others God's Succour they are bereaved of it themselves and ought to be cut off from the Church as rotten Members He saith further That if they acknowledge their Error and admit of God's Grace being sincerely converted it is the Bishop's Duty to help them and not to deny them the Grace which the Church grants to those that are fallen by admitting them to the Communion of the Church He speaks much to the same purpose in that Letter which follows directed to Silvanus Valentinus and other Bishops who had been present at the Council of Milevis He seems to restrain that Maxim which he established of referring all Church-affairs to the See of Rome only to Matters of Faith Praesertim quoties fidei ratio ventilatur He refutes particularly the
for the Blow without Trouble and without offering to defend themselves For every Monk being out of his own Country is also out of the World What need is there of the Prince's Authority or of written Orders Let them give us the least Summons and we will depart immediately knowing what we are and being perswaded that the Earth is the Lord's and that Jesus Christ is not shut up in any place He tells us of going to Rome to communicate with that Church from which we seem to be separated but this we need not do we are as much in Communion with the Church of Rome in Palaestine as if we were at Rome we communicate with its Priests which are in the Town of Bethlehem At last S. Jerom professes that he is ready to be reconciled to John of Jerusalem provided he would put on a charitable Spirit and prove the same towards him as he had been before We know saith he what we owe to the Bishops of Jesus Christ but let them be contented with Honour and Respect and know that they are Fathers and not Masters and particularly with relation to those who despising Ambition preferr rest and quietness before all other things After S. Jerom's 63d Letter follows Ruffinus's Preface to his Translation of Origen's Principles He saith in that Preface That several persons desirous of learning the Holy Scriptures wished that Origen might be made to speak Latin That his Collegue and Brother S. Jerom having translated two Homilies of this Author upon the Book of Canticles had so much exalted him in his Preface that Men were very desirous to see his Works That he had given this advantageous Testimony of him That he exceeded all others in his Commentaries but had surmounted himself in his Homilies upon the Book of Canticles That this same S. Jerom had promised to translate the other Works of this Author but he thought it afterwards more glorious to write himself and to be on Author rather than an interpreter We therefore prosecute and compleat a thing which he has both approved and began but we cannot render Origen ' s Words with the same Eloquence And he adds That this very thing had kept him from undertaking that Translation but at last he yielded to Macarius's earnest Intreaties however that in this Version he had followed the Rule of those who had translated that Author before him and that he had imitated S. Jerom by cutting off those things which seemed disagreeable to the Doctrine of the Church and so much the rather because in Origen's Works there were Notions quite contrary That the Reason of that seeming Contradiction might be found in the Apology that Pamphilus had written for Origen and which himself had translated and that he pretended to shew by undeniable Proofs that Origen's Works had been corrupted in several places by Hereticks or Men of ill designs and that for this very Reason he had either omitted or altered in the Translation of that Treatise those Articles wherein he seemed to speak otherwise than he did in his other Books This Preface was written in 397. when Rufinus published his Version of the Books of Origen's Principles at Rome It was no sooner published but Oceanus and Pammachius sent it to S. Jerom observing that they had found still some Errors there notwithstanding that great part was expunged intreating him that to secure them in the Truth he would make a Faithful Translation of that Work The Note which they writ to him about that Business is the sixty fourth Letter S. Jerom thinking himself indirectly affronted by Rufinus's Preface intimating that he had formerly commended Origen which might insinuate that he then approved his Errors and approved them still fell instantly to writing to let the World know in what Sence he had commended Origen He owns that he did it in two places of his Works namely in the Prologue of his Translation of the Homilies upon the Canticles dedicated to Damasus and in the Preface to his Treatise of Hebrew Names But he affirms that in both these places he had not spoken either of his Doctrine or of his Opinions I have commended him saith he as an able Interpreter and not as a man whose Dogm's ought to be followed I have admired his Parts without approving his Doctrine I have valued his Philosophy and not his Preaching He adds That if any man would know what his Opinion has always been concerning Origen's Books let him but read his Commentaries upon Ecclesiastes and his three Volumes upon the Epistle to the Ephesians whereby it will appear that he hath constantly contradicted Origen ' s Opinions Huetius is not perfectly satisfied with this Excuse of S. Jerom He says that it doth not appear by the Commentaries which he citeth that he hath contradicted Origen's Notions tho' he hath filled them with that Author's Dogm's without quoting him If he believed them false says he ought he not to have censured them Why did he not think it an Honour to Copy them as he affirms in the Preface to the second Book of his Commentary upon the Prophet Micah Why hath he asserted in his Preface to the Book of Hebrew Names That none but an ignorant man could deny that Origen was one of the Masters of the Church after the Apostles These Reasons made Huetius say That Rufinus was in the right in accusing S. Jerom of being an Origenist and upbraiding him in his first Invective that the Name of a Master of the Church cannot be given to an Heretick that S. Jerom's Excuse is pitiful that Rufinus thoroughly proves that he commended Origen's Doctrine and that at last this Father is obliged to confess that his Opinions were altered as to Origen That Sulpitius Severus had a great deal of Reason to find fault that S. Jerom having at first followed Origen did of a sudden condemn all his Works That S. Augustin did justly accuse him of Inconstancy and Lightness and that Pope Pelagius the II. is not to be blamed for putting him amongst Origen's Disciples That in a word tho' this Holy Doctor acted the part of good Catholick in abjuring Origen ' s Errors after he had owned them yet it were to be wished he had been more constant and moderate and that he had not so much indulged the Motions of his inflamed Choler so as to be carried away unto contrary Notions according to the different Circumstances of Time and outrageous railing against the greatest Men of his Age. For this must be acknowledged that Rufinus reproved him often with Reason and that he often blamed Rufinus without Ground This is the Judgment which the Learned Huetius now nominated to the Bishoprick of Soissons doth with much Reason and Justice make of the Parts and Conduct of S. Jerom. I willingly subscribe to it and do not doubt but that as many as have ever read this Father will be of the same Mind * By this it will appear that things are not always to be approved or
of Jesus Christ with their sacred Mouth Qui Christi corpus Sacro ore conficiunt In his Commentary upon Zephaniah he seems to doubt whether wicked Priests consecrate it But 't is probable that he speaks thus rather to terrifie them than to establish a Proposition whose Consequences would prove very dangerous I add an excellent Passage of this Father concerning the Sacrament of Penance taken out of his Commentary upon these Words of the 16th Chapter of S. Matthew Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Some saith he Priests and Bishops of the New Law understanding not the sence of these words doe imitate the pride of the Pharisees by ascribing to themselves a power to condemn the Innocent and to absolve the Guilty But God doth not so much consider the Sentence of the Priest as the Life of the Penitent And as the Levites did not cleanse the Lepers but only separated those that were cleansed from those that were not by the knowledge which they had of the Leprosie Even so the Bishop or the Priest doth not bind those that are innocent and loose the guilty but having heard the difference of Sins he knows whom to bind and whom to loose in the discharge of his Ministery In this place we may take notice 1. Of the Custom of declaring Sins to the Priest 2. The Power which Priests had to Absolve 3. The use Priests were to make of the Keys and the care they were to take not to Absolve but such as were truly penitent * After what has been already said of S. Jerom one can hardly esteem him a Person upon whose Authority Points of Doctrine or Matters of Discipline can safely be established He may however give the Sence of the Church in his own time in Matters wherein he personally was not concerned in which we have Reason to think that he gives a faithfull Account of things And therefore since we have no Cause to disbelieve what he says of the Eucharist and of what the Church of Rome calls the Sacrament of Penance but on the contrary may reasonably suppose that he spake the Sence of the Church The Passages themselves are to be examined Of those concerning the Eucharist we are to consider 1. That he keeps himself to the Language of the New Testament in his Answer to Hedibia's Question and only confutes the Millennaries but says nothing of the Modus of the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament 2. That his Interpretation of those Words in S. John My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed of the Spiritual and Divine Flesh of Jesus Christ shews that he understood them Allegorically for he distinguishes that from the Flesh of Jesus Christ which suffered upon the Cross Now there is equal Reason to believe that what our Saviour says in the 6th Chapter of S. John concerning Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood is literally to be understood as what he says in the Institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist And if one is Allegorically to be interpreted then they are both 3. That the Mysteâ—â—â—s of Religion were as nicely examined in that Age as in any since Jesus Christ declared it to the World and when every thing else that was Mysterious was controverted this single Article of the Real Presence as defined by the Council of Trent which is contrary to that Reason that the other Disputes concerning the Trinity and the Divine Decrees are properly above was never debated This is so strange if we suppose the Doctrine of the Church of Rome to have been then receiv'd that it is incredible especially when we consider 4. That the generality of the Fathers at that time interpreted every thing in Scripture Allegorically to which they could not assign a convenient Literal sence This the People were used to This was S. Jerom's practice very often and he had learnt it of Origen whom he seems sincerely to have follow'd till he quarrelled with Rufinus So that we have great Reason to think that Men so accustomed to Allegories as the Teachers and the People were in this Age would not be at a Loss to interpret our Blessed Saviour's meaning in any of his Words which Literally interpreted would contradict and do Violence to that Reason by which they were capacitated to understand any part of his Law The Passage produced in favour of Auricular Confession proves nothing less S. Jerom says That after the Priest had heard the difference of Sins he knew whom to bind and whom to loose that is very true but that is no Reason for Men to reveal all their Sins to the Priest because the Church in that Age put Men under Penance only for publick Sins those that had committed private ones of such a Nature as would if discovered have made them unfit to come to the Sacrament were exhorted to put themselves under a voluntary Penance and if they did so they were obliged to declare why they did it that so the time of their Penance might be regulated but this seems to have been left to themselves which makes it quite another thing from the practice of the Church of Rome S. Jerom's Works were published by Erasmus and printed in six Volumes at Basil from the Year 1516 to the Year 1526. In 1530 they were again printed at Lions by Gryphius and at Basil by Froben in 1553. The First Edition of Marianus was at Rome by Manutius in the Years 1565 1571 and 1572. The Second at Paris by Nivelle in 1579. The Third at Antwerp in 1579. The Fourth at Paris with Gravius his Notes in 1609. The Fifth is of 1624 at Paris The Last was printed in 1643. These are the Collections of all this Father's Works There are several of them printed by themselves as the Letters in Octavo printed at Rome by Manutius Dr. Cave mentions an Edition of S. Jerom's Works at Frankfort in 1684 in 12 Volumes in folio with all the Scholia Censures Index's and Collections of all sorts that had been printed till that time upon S. Jerom which are all comprized in the three last Volumes in 1566 at Antwerp in 1568 with Gravius's Notes and at Mentz in 1470 at Venice in 1476 at Paris in 1583 at Dilingen in 1565 at Louvain in 1573. The Book of Famous Men at Louvain and Helmstad in 1611 at Colen in 1580 at Lions in 1617 at Antwerp in 1639. The Epistles to Theophilus at Paris in 1546 and 1589. The Book of Virginity at Rome in 1562. The Treatise of Hebrew Names at Wirtemberg in 1626. I say nothing of the Editions of the Chronicon because they were mentioned in the Account of Eusebius his Works The Benedictines of the Congregation of S. Maura will soon undertake a new Edition of S. Jerom There is reason to hope that it will not be inferior either in Beauty or Exactness to those of S.
The Book of Origen's Principles 17 Homilies of the same Author upon Genesis 12 Homilies upon Exodus 16 Homilies upon Leviticus 28 Homilies upon Numbers 26 Homilies upon Joshua 9 Homilies upon the Book of Judges the first Homily upon the Book of Kings 9 Homilies upon the Psalms and Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Romans and a Letter of Origen's where he complains of his Book 's having been corrupted The first Book of Pamphilus's Apology for Origen The Orations of S. Gregory Nazianzen The Ascetical Rules of S. Basil and some other Treatises of both these Fathers of the Church The Sentences of Evagrius Ponticus and some other Treatises of this Author He Translated besides if we believe Gennadius a Treatise of Pamphilus's against the Mathematicians * By Mathematicians they meant Judicial Astrologers as also did most of the ancient Romans who were for the most part very ignorant of that part of Learning till towards the Fall of their Empire when Apuleius Boëthius and Cassiodorus Translated some of the Elementary Books of the Grecians into Latin And S. Jerom observes that he had published an Arian's Book under the Name of Theophilus the Martyr but neither of these Books are extant Rufinus gave himself a great deal of liberty in his Translations and kept more to the Sence which he judged ought to be given to Authors than to their Words In a word his Translations are Paraphrases rather than literal and faithfull Versions He hath used much freedom particularly in Eusebius's History and in Origen's Treatises where he hath changed added and struck out many things as he acknowledgeth himself But if these Translations be not sincere they are eloquent enough and they have that clearness which makes them pleasing to the Reader The Works of Rufinus's own Composition are these Two Books of Ecclesiastical History which he hath added to the Translation of Eusebius his Books wherein he continues the History of the Church to the Death of Theodosius the Emperor These Books are dedicated to Chromatius of Aquileia and were written at the same time that Alaric King of the Goths wasted Italy They were Translated into Greek by Gelasius of Caesarea They are pretty well written but there are many Historical faults l There are many Historical faults These are some of them He supposes that Athanasius hid himself for six years after he was condemned by the Council of Tyre He perverts the Order of Time in the History of S. Athanasius He sheweth but little favour to S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Basil. He saith that S. Hilary was Excommunicated which is false And he confounds the Time when he says That S. Hilary was Banished after the Council of Milan There are several other faults of the same nature notwithstanding which it is a very usefull Work because he is the first that has unfolded and put in order the History of that time A Discourse to prove that Origen's Books have been falsified published at Rome in 397 with the Translation of Origen's Book of Principles and of Pamphilus's Apology Two Books against S. Jerom's Apology entituled Invectives In the former to justifie his Doctrine against the Accusations of S. Jerom he produces that Creed and that Doctrine which he had learned at Aquileia above Thirty years before from Chromatius Jovinian and Eusebius he observeth that in his Church they did not only profess in their Creed to believe the Resurrection of the Flesh carnis resurrectionem but that they added of this Flesh hujus carnis resurrectionem To the end saith he that making the Sign of the Cross upon our Brother as is usually done at the end of the Creed we may make a publick profession that we believe the Resurrection of the same Flesh which we now touch He uses this Confession for his Justification against S. Jerom from the Accusation of being in an error in the point of the Resurrection of the Flesh and of not believing that Man should rise again with his whole Flesh. He affirms that he is wrongfully accused of that Error for his Opinion is that the whole Body shall rise again with its Members but that it shall be glorious and immortal and shall be no more subject to Corruption and other infirmities of mortal and corruptible Flesh. After this he answers what was objected against him that he entertained Heretical Opinions concerning the Trinity He shews that his Doctrine in that point cannot be suspected of Error That if through inadvertency he hath let pass in the Translation of Origen's Principles any passage wherein he seems to say that the Son sees not the Father and that the Holy Ghost sees not the Son he should not for all that be accused of Error since in so many places he professes the contrary That if they had charitably warned him of it he would have either blotted out or altered it as he had done the others which he found to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Trinity He complains also that Paulinianus had poisoned the Translation of that place making him say That it was neither impious or absâ—rd to say that the Son sees not the Father whereas he had only said That he would afterwards give a reason of the Sence in which it might be said That the Person of the Father was invisible After that he repelleth all S. Jerom's reproachfull Allegations declaring that S. Jerom himself had formerly commended Origen Translated his Works and that in his Commentaries there were the same Errors concerning the Nature of the Flesh when risen again the Prae-existence of Souls and the end of the Torments of the Devils and the Damned for which Reason he found fault that Origen's Books were Translated This he sheweth by long Extracts out of different Commentaries of this Father The Second Book of Rufinus's Invective is concerning the personal Reproaches which he utters against S. Jerom. First he charges him with tearing the Reputation of Christians of all States and Conditions in his Book of Virginity and with blaming their Manners at such a rate that Pagans and Apostates enquired diligently after that Book to make use of it against the Church Secondly he accuses him of Perjury because after a solemn Oath to read the Books of profane Authors no more he ceased not to read and make use of them in his Works Particularly he takes notice of a passage in his Treatise of Virginity wherein he pretends that S. Jerom spake of God after an irreverent manner He laughs at S. Jerom for boasting that he was Didymus's Disciple for having had one Month's Conversation with him He jests upon him for taking as his Teachers Porphyry the Philosopher and Barrabas the Jew He quoteth several places of his Writings to prove that he not only commended the Erudition and Learning of Origen but that he approved his Doctrine also He accuseth him of striking out of his Chronicon what he had said before in favour of Melania He reproveth him for the
he spake of Jesus Christ He had called him Homo Dominicus He disapproves that Term though he had read it in Ecclesiastical VVriters He retracts likewise what he had said That the Sin unto Death was Envy against our Brother with some other Explications that were not very just However the Treatise it self is very instructive and very useful It contains several Moral Precepts which may be of very great Use. In the Second Book he explains the Lord's Prayer Both the Books of Questions upon some Passages of St. Matthew's and St. Luke's Gospels were composed by St. Augustin with great precipitation to satisfie the Requests of a Person that read the Gospel Most of his Answers are either Mystical or Moral Explications He places this Book in his Retractations among those which he writ about the Year 400. and takes notice of some Faults of Inadvertency The First Book is upon St. Matthew's Gospel The Second upon that of St. Luke He makes no mention of the Seventeen following Questions upon St. Matthew's Gospel neither are they mentioned in the best Editions of the Catalogue of St. Augustin's VVorks made by Possidius which gives us reason to doubt whether they are St. Augustin's though Rhabanus hath quoted them under his Name and though they are written in a Style very much like his The 124 Treatises upon St. John's Gospel are of a very different Nature from the former they are Homilies preached by St. Augustin to his People wherein he followeth the Text of St. John and draws important Instructions from it upon the principal Points both of Doctrine and Morality He attacks three sorts of Hereticks principally the Arians the Donatists and the Pelagians He maintains against the First the Divinity and Consubstantiality of the VVord He oftens refutes the Reasons alledged by the Second to justifie their Separation and earnestly exhorts them to re-unite themselves with the Church and proves against the last the necessity of Christ's Grace and the free Predestination of the Elect. These are the principal Subjects treated of in these Homilies which he preached after the Pelagian Heresie broke out before the Destruction of the Donatists Schiâ—â— some time after they had found St. Steven's Body as he affirms in the 120th Sermon which makes us conjecture that they are the Sermons which he preached to his People in the Years 416. and 417. For he began with them about the end of VVinter towards February in the Year 416. as appears by the beginning of the Sixth He continued them in Lent as it is observed in the 10th and 11th They were interrupted during Easter Holy-days After the Holy-days he undertook the Exposition of St. John's Epistle and then prosecuted his Gospel He had got but to the 27th Homily about the Feast of St. Lawrence and so could not finish these Sermons before the next Year St. Augustin's Ten Homilies upon St. John's Epistle interrupted as we said just now the course of those which he composed upon the Gospel He gives notice of it himself in his Preface where he observes That having been obliged by the Solemnity of those Festivals wherein particular Lessons are yearly recited to interrupt the course of his Explications upon St. John's Gospel before he returned to it he thought it convenient to Expound during those seven or eight Days the Epistle of the same Evangelist that was most agreeable to that joyful Time because it speaks of nothing but Charity St. Augustin in his Homilies makes excellent Reflections upon this Vertue He observes That Fear brings in Charity but that Charity drives away Fear He distinguisheth two sorts of Fear that which is conceived by a dread of Punishment which goes before Charity and that which he calleth a Chaste Fear which consists in the Fear of Losing Charity He explaineth these two sorts of Fear by the different Dispositions of two VVomen whereof the one loveth her Husband and the other hateth him though both Fear him There are other excellent Instructions in these Homilies of St. Augustin concerning the Love of God and our Neighbour He speaks also occasionally concerning Grace and the Church And expounds these words of Christ to St. Peter Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church of the Faith whereof St. Peter had immediately before made Profession St. Augustin composed at Carthage in 394. his Exposition of several Passages of the Epistle to the Romans in Answer to the Difficulties that were proposed to him He had not then perfectly found his System of Grace which made him let slip some Explications different from some which he hath given since And this very thing gave Occasion for his Remarks upon this Book in his Retractations where he corrects what he had said whereby some might be made to believe That the Beginning of Faith cometh from Man and not from the Grace of Jesus Christ. He undertook also at the same time a larger Commentary upon this whole Epistle which would have been prodigiously large since the single Exposition of the Salutation with which St. Paul begins the Epistle makes up a whole Book True it is that he makes there a Digression of several Pages upon an incidental Question concerning the Sin against the Holy Ghost which he thinks to be final Impenitency but both the Extent and the Difficulty of that Work made him give it over however he left that Book and entituled it The Beginning of an Exposition upon the Epistle to the Romans At the same time likewise he made a continued Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians wherein he contents himself with clearing the whole Text with Explications and Reflections without departing from his Subject by long Digressions The Addition at the latter end of this Volume containeth several Discourses upon the Scripture which are none of St. Augustin's The First is intituled Of the Miracles of the Holy Scripture contained in the Old and New Testament One needs only read one or two Periods of this VVork to be convinced that it is not St. Augustin's so different is the Style thereof from that of this Father The Author thereof seems to have been either an Englishman or an Irishman He speaks of the Flowing and Ebbing of the Sea upon the Coasts of the British Islands and to express the same he makes use of Terms that were usual in Bede's time he fixes the time where he lived in the 4th Chapter of the 2d Book and speaking of those Islands he shews That he wrote after the Year 660. This VVork is divided into Three Books The First contains the Miracles related in the Historical Books of the Old Testament The Second Those that are contained in the Books of the Prophets And the Last Those that are mentioned in the New Testament It is ill written and of very little use The small Discourse of the Benedictions of the Patriarch Jacob belongs not to St. Augustin but is a Fragment of Alcuinus's Questions upon Genesis who took part of it from the
it afterwards doth at first justifie the Old Testament shewing That it agreeth exactly with the New in the History Morals and Allegories and that the Church puts such a sense upon it which the Manichees themselves cannot condemn He overthroweth the Manichees Principle proving That we must Believe before we Know. To this end he supposes certain Persons having no Religion and seeking to be instructed in the True to be like those who should enquire after a Master to teach them Rhetorick or Philosphy Afterwards he observes That the only Party which these Persons are to embrace at first is to side with those who are commonly and generally approved That it is great Rashness in those who are incapable of themselves to judge of things to depart from the Common Voice to preferr the Judgment of some particular Men before that of the Multitude So that it is most rational since one Party or other is to be embraced to side with the Catholick Church especially because it forbids not those that come into her to enquire after the Truth It saith indeed That we ought to Believe But it hath an Authority so to St. Augustin Tom. VIII do for no Man can Believe but he must be persuaded That He in whom he believeth is worthy of Credit and this makes the difference betwixt a VVise and a Credulous Man But had it not been better to give convincing Reasons of Things No for all Men are not capable of Reason and some things cannot be understood without the help of a Divine Light It is very dangerous to follow those who promise to make us comprehend all things because they often boast of knowing what they are ignorant of and often make us believe so too And very shameful is that Condition for Two Reasons First Because such a Person takes no more Pains to learn being falsely persuaded of his Knowledge And Secondly Because that an inconsiderate readiness to judge of a thing is a Mark of a weak Understanding Reason makes us apprehend things Authority makes us believe but Error persuades us to affirm rashly that which is false Upon these Principles St. Augustin proves the Necessity of Faith in Matters of Civil Life as much as in Matters of VVisdom For in the first place the VVhole of Humane Society is grounded upon the Belief of some certain Things As for Example The Honour we render to our Parents is grounded merely upon our Belief That they are the Persons from whom we received Life Secondly There is no getting of VVisdom without consulting with VVise Men. But how shall we know these VVise Men except we trust Others For unless we are VVise our selves we can never know True VVisdom VVherefore we must Believe to seek after Religion For did we not believe that there is such a thing why should we seek for it All Hereticks own that we must believe in Jesus Christ But what Motives have we to believe Jesus Christ's Authority Are they not the same with those that make us believe the Church Are they not the Miracles the Sanctity both of the Doctrine and of the Morals the Publishing of the Gospel the Blood of Martyrs and some other Proofs of this nature which establish the Authority of the Church no less than that of Jesus Christ Therefore St. Augustin concludes thus Why should we make any difficulty to throw our selves into the Arms of that Church which hath always maintain'd her self by the Succession of Bishops in Apostolick Sees in spite of all the Endeavours of Hereticks condemned by her or by Peoples Faith or by the Decisions of Councils or by the Authority of Miracles It is either a matchless Impiety or a very indiscreet Arrogancy not to acknowledge her Doctrine for a Rule of our Faith For if the Spirit of Man cannot attain unto Wisdom and so to Salvation but by Faith directing our Reason is it not to be Ungrateful and neglect the Succour proffered by God to resist so weighty an Authority And truly if any Science though common and easie cannot be learned without a Teacher it is Presumption in the highest degree to refuse to learn the Sence of the Sacred Books from those that understand them and to condemn them without hearing what they say After this First Book against the Foundation of the Manichaean Heresie St. Augustin composed the Book Of the Two Souls against one principal Error of those Hereticks asserting That there were Two Souls in each Man a Good one of a Divine Substance the cause of all that is Good in us and an Evil one of the nature of Darkness proper to the Flesh which is the Principle of all disorderly Motions and of all the Evil that we doe St. Augustin proves in this Book First That the Soul being a Spirit and Life is more perfect than Corporeal Light which the Manichees believe to come from God Secondly That there is no Nature or Substance naturally Evil and that Evil consists only in the Abuse of our Liberty Some Passages in this Book attribute much to Free-Will nay there are some which may not agree well with the Doctrine of Grace and of Original Sin which St. Augustin correcteth in his Retractations There was at that time in Hippo a Priest one Fortunatus a Famous Manichee who had seduc'd many Inhabitants of that City The Catholicks engaged St. Augustin in a Conference with him What was said on both Sides was set down in Writing by Notaries and that Act preserved among St. Augustin's Writings The Dispute lasted but two Days and the Questions that were disputed about were of Nature and the Original of Evil. St. Augustin affirms That Evil proceeds from the Abuse of Free-Will The Manichee pretends That there is an Evil Nature Co-eternal with God In the first day's Conference the Manichee defended himself well enough but he could not Answer St. Augustin's Objections next day and was obliged to say That he would conferr about them with the Heads of his Sect. The Shame of being Confuted in that Conference obliged him to leave Hippo. This Conference is dated the 26th of August under the Second Consulship of Arcadius and Rufinus in the Year 392. About that time St. Augustin met with some Works of one Adimantus who had been a Disciple of Manichaeus written against the Law and the Prophets which he affirmed to contain things contrary to the Precepts of the Gospel and of the Apostles He undertook to Answer the Objections of that Heretick and to Justifie the Agreement betwixt those Passages of the Old and New Testament which he had produced as being contrary This Book is of the Year 394. St. Augustin having refuted the Disciple undertakes the Master and Answereth the Letter which he called The Epistle of Foundation shewing That Manichaeus set forth in it nothing but Falshods and Absurdities He lays down at first the Reasons for his adhering to the Church in these Terms Not to speak saith he of that Wisdom and Understanding which few Men
apprehend in this Life several Motives keep me in the Bosom of the Catholick Church The general Consent of Nations and People an Authority grounded upon Miracles upheld by Hope perfected with Charity and confirmed by Antiquity the Succession of Bishops from St. Peter to our time and the Name of the Catholick Church which is so peculiar to the True Church that though all Hereticks call themselves Catholicks yet when you ask in any Country whatsoever where Catholicks meet they dare not shew the Place of their Assemblies These are powerful Motives which keep a faithful Man within the Pale of the Church though he be not yet arrived to a perfect understanding of the Truth But among you Manichees that have none of these Reasons either to invite or to keep me I hear none but vain Promises to make me understand the Truth clearly I confess That did you perform it I ought to preferr an evident Truth which none can doubt of before all the Motives that make me keep to the Catholick Church But so long as you do only promise and not give this Knowledge you shall not shake that Trust which I have in the Catholick Church which is grounded upon such powerful Reasons and Motives He examines afterwards the Principles contained in Manichaeus's Letter and proves That he not only fails in the Demonstration of what he affirmeth but that he is contrary even to Reason and Common Sâ—nce This Book is placed in the Retractations among the Books composed bout the Year 397. The most considerable of all St. Augustin's Works against the Manichees is his Treatise against Faustus divided into Three and thirty Disputes or Arguments wherein he writes down the Text of this Manichee's Books which contained most part of the Blasphemies and Impieties of those Hereticks against both the Old and the New Testament which St. Augustin strongly and solidly refutes This Work was compleated about the Year 400. and sent to St. Jerom in 404. The next Book contains the Acts of a Conference which St. Augustin had at Hippo in December 404. with a Manichee one Felix The Dispute lasted three Days but we have a Relation but of what happened in the two last Conferences In the Conclusion of the latter the Manichee was Converted and Anathematized Manichaeus In the same Year St. Augustin composed a Treatise Of the Nature of Good against the Manichees wherein he shews That God is of an Immutable Nature That he hath created all other Beings whether Spiritual or Corporeal which are all good in their Nature That Evil proceedeth only from the Abuse of Free-Will That the Manichees call Evil Good and Good Evil. The Book against Secundinus is properly an Answer of St. Augustin's to that Manichee who had exhorted him by a Letter never to encounter with the Manichees of whose Opinion himself had been formerly and he had also urged him to return to their Sect. St. Augustin gives him the Reasons of his Conversion and discovers some of Manichaeus's Errors The following Treatise is against a Heretick who was worse than the Manichees who in a distinct Treatise asserted That God did not make the World nor give the Law St. Augustin refuteth him under the Name of The Adversary of the Law and the Prophets in two Books bearing that Title composed about the Year 420. Orosius having consulted St. Augustin in 415. about the Impieties of the Priscillianists and some Errors of Origen's Disciples St. Augustin answered him in a Book directed to him entituled Against the Priscillianists and Origenists In this small Treatise he rejects these Errors 1. That the Soul is of a Divine Nature 2. That the Torments both of the Daemons and of Damned Men shall have an end 3. That the Reign of Jesus Christ will not be Eternal 4. That both Angels and Souls are Purified in this World 5. That the Stars are Animated 6. That Angels commit Sins The rest of St. Augustin's Treatises contained in this Volume are against the Arians The First is an Answer to a Discourse of an Arian containing a great many Objections against the Divinity of the Son of God and of the Holy Ghost This Discourse was made the next Year after the Conference with Emeritus held in 417. Next to this Treatise are The Conference with Maximinus and Two Books against that Arian Bishop The Conference was held at Hippo in the Year 428. whither Maximinus was sent by Count Sigisvultdeus In the Conference were several Discourses on both Sides but Maximinus having said many more things than St. Augustin and spoken last he bragg'd that he had got the Victory which obliged this Saint to recollect all that had been said in the Conference and to refute Maximinus's last Arguments which he had not had time to answer St. Austin's Books of the Trinity are rather a Dogmatical Treatise concerning that Mystery than Polemical Writings against Hereticks for he insisteth not so much upon refuting their Reasons or establishing the Doctrines of the Church as upon subtile Reasonings to expound and clear this Mystery He began them in the Year 400. and finished them in 416. The First Book begins with a Preface containing very important Reflections He observes at first That Men have Three false Notions of the Divinity that some conceive of God as a Corporeal Substance attributing to him Corporeal Properties that others have such an Idea of him as they have of their Souls and of other Spirits and so they ascribe to him the like Imperfections as Repenting Forgetting and Remembring and that others entertain such a Notion of God as may have nothing Common with a Creature and so they conceive none but Chimerical Idea's of him The Holy Scripture condescends to Men's Weakness ascribing often such Things to God as belong properly to Bodies or imperfect Spirits and seldom makes use of Terms peculiar to God because it is very difficult to know in this Life the Substance or Essence of the divine Nature perfectly But because some Persons desire to be informed about this Matter and ask how Three divine Persons make one and the same Essence he undertakes two things in this Work First To shew That the Scripture teaches us such Doctrine and then to raise the Mind as far as it is capable in this Life to the knowledge of this Mystery He proves the First Point in the first Seven Books In the First he establishes by Passages of Scripture the Unity and the Equality of the Three Divine Persons and explains the principal Places that were urged by the Arians against the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The main Rule which he makes use of is That Jesus Christ being one only Person made up of Two Natures what is said of the humane Nature should be distinguished from that which is spoken of the Divine In the Second he confirmeth the former Rule and layeth down another That the Scripture speaks things of the Son and the Holy Ghost which are not spoken of the Father to shew That they receive
Author thereof was not of St. Augustin's Opinion concerning Grace and Free-Will They have left out some Articles which had been inserted after the 21st and taken out of St. Coelestine's Epistles to the Bishops of Gaul of the Council of Carthage and that of Orange The NINTH TOME THE Ninth Volume of St. Augustin's Works containeth his Treatises against the Donatists Tom. IX The First is a Hymn which St. Augustin composed in vulgar and popular Terms to teach the most unlearned the State of the Question betwixt the Catholicks and the Donatists and to exhort these to a Re-union with the Catholicks This Writing which consists but of Two Leaves is proper as St. Augustin himself observes for none but very ordinary People In 393. he wrote a Book against Donatus his Epistle and in 398. Two Books against the Donatists But both these Treatises are lost We are therefore to begin St. Augustin's VVorks against the Donatists from the Three Books against the Epistle of Parmenianus who succeeded Donatus in the See of Carthage There he refutes the Letter which that Schismatick wrote to Tychonius wherein he accused the whole Church of being defiled for communicating with Persons that were guilty of several Crimes St. Augustin having proved That Caecilian and the greatest part of the others who were accused by the Donatists had been declared Innocent addeth That though the Crimes whereof they accused particular Men were proved yet the Church would still be the true Church tho' she had not cut them off from her Communion because she is made up of good and bad Men and that even these may be tolerated for Peace sake These Books were compos'd about the Year 400. We must not forget to observe That there is in this Edition chap. 3d. of the First Book a very important Correction of a Passage which had much perplexed Historians S. Augustin speaks there of the Roman Council which condemned the Donatists and they made him say in the common Editions and in most Manuscripts that this Council consisted of Two Hundred Bishops Usque adeo dementes sunt homines ut ducentos judices apud quos victi sunt victis litigatoribus credat and because this was not sence they added against the Authority of the MSS. esse postponendos It being certain that S. Augustin speaketh in this Place of the Council of Rome and that there met but 19 Bishops they thought that 19 were to be put instead of 200. But the restoration made here upon the Credit of the Vatican Manuscript resolves all the Difficulty and clears the Sence without adding any thing Neither 19 nor 200 are mentioned in the Text. Thus it runs Usque adea dementes sunt homines ut CONTRA judices victis litigatoribus credat It appears at the first sight that this is the true Sence which all the Conjectures St. Augustin Tome IX of the Learned could not find out They took the Contra made short with Two C. C. for the Cypher of 200 and they had writ ducentos instead of this Cypher at all Adventures and because the Text was then not Sence the Louvain Doctors added Esse Postponendos after Credat One single Manuscript discovers presently those Mistakes and gives the true Sence And now let Men say That there is no need of comparing the Authors to be published with ancient Manuscripts But to return to our Subject The Seven Books Of Baptism were composed by St. Augustin at the same time 〈◊〉 undertakes there to refute the Donatists who used St. Cyprian's Authority to defend their Opinion concerning the Nullity of Baptism administred by Hereticks He shews That if that Saint seems to favour them in that Point yet his Practice and Doctrine condemn'd their Separation He refutes also the Reasons which that Saint and his Collegues urged to prove That those were to be re-baptized who had been baptized by Hereticks There he handleth several Questions touching the Necessity Validity Effect and other Circumstances of Baptism After the Books Of Baptism St. Augustin placeth a Treatise which he composed against a certain Book brought by Centurius from the Donatists But that Discourse is lost And so immediately after the Books of Baptism follow Three Books against a Letter of Petilianus Bishop of the Donatists at Cirta The First of these Books is written in the form of a Letter to the Church Therein he refutes the First Part of Petilianus's Letter But having received afterwards the whole Letter he thought himself obliged to answer every Proposition by it self Whil'st this was doing Petilianus having seen the Letter that St. Augustin writ at first returned an Answer to which St. Augustin opposed a Third Book wherein without insisting upon Petilianus's reproachful Language he discovers the weakness of the Answers that he brought in defence of his Party The First of these Books which is rather a Letter than a Book was composed about the Year 400. both the others are of 402. The next Book is likewise written against Petilianus and is intituled in the Manuscripts A Letter from St. Augustin to the Catholicks concerning the Sect of the Donatists And Possidius seems to have mention'd it under this Title in the Third Article of his Index It is likewise cited under this Title and ascribed to St. Augustin in the Fifth Council Collat. 5. Yet St. Augustin does not mention it in his Retractations It may be answered That this Book being written in the form of a Letter he reserved to speak of it in the other part of his Retractations which was to contain his Sermons and Letters And yet we see that St. Augustin speaks of Dogmatical Treatises that were long though composed in the form of Letters in this Part so that it is unlikely that he should have forgot to mention this when he spoke of his other Letters against Petilianus The Benedictines have made some other Observations upon this Treatise which may make us doubt whether it is St. Augustin's or no. They observe That the Salutation in the beginning Salus quae in Christo est is extraordinary and that St. Augustin never used it They find improper forms of Speech Transitions Figures and Expressions not very elegant which do not agree to St. Augustin's Stile Nay besides they take notice of a Point of Doctrine different from St. Augustin's For the Author of this Book teaches in the 13th Chapter That the Separation of the Ten Tribes from Judah was no Heresie but St. Augustin affirms in the 23d Epistle and in his First Book against Cresconius Chapter 31st That the Samaritans made a Schism a Sect and an Heresie And lastly They have Collected some Passages of Scripture which are not of that Translation which St. Augustin uses in other places They add That the Author of this Book Chapter 24th doubts whether the Water that issued out of our Saviour's Side was a figure of Baptism which St. Augustin sets down for a certain Truth in several places of his Writings These Objections are not unanswerable
St. Augustin hath not mention'd all his Works in his Retractations and particularly those that are in the form of Letters We have already taken notice of some that he has omitted This is found in Possidius's Catalogue and the Author declares in the beginning That he had written already against Petilianus's Letter The Stile indeed is not so Elegant as of some other of St. Augustin's Works but it is no wonder because it is a Letter that was to be seen and understood by all Mankind For the same reason the Hymn against the Donatists might be rejected which is much flatter and containing more barbarous Expressions The Salutation agrees very well to the Subject and is not unworthy of St. Augustin And if he never used it in other places it doth not follow that he should forbear it in this When St. Augustin reckoned the Samaritans among the Heretical Jews he did not speak of the ancient Inhabitants of Samaria immediately after the division of the Tribes but of the later Samaritans who were real Hereticks among the Jews Lastly It is no extraordinary thing for St. Augustin to cite some places of Scripture in other terms than he had used in other places or that he should doubt here of some things whereof he speaks more affirmatively at other times Though these Answers should not be sufficient to remove all suspicion yet it is certain That this Book was written in St. Augustin's time and all that can be said is That it might have been drawn up by some of his Friends and directed in his Name to the Donatists It was written in 402. after the Second Book against Petilianus and before the Third It is a new Challenge which he sendeth to this Bishop to defend his own Party and to shew that the true Church is on his side He describes the Marks of the true Church and proves That they do not agree with the Donatists Party but with that of the Catholicks and then answereth those Passages which the Donatists urged for themselves and the Accusations which they formed against the Church One Cresconius a Grammarian of the Donatists Party undertook to defend Petilianus against St. Augustin's first Writing As soon as he saw his Letter he refuted it in three Books and retorted upon him all his Arguments by retorting in a Fourth Book the business of the Maximianists These Books were written about the Year 406. Here should have been placed Three other Treatises against the Donatists which he mentions in his Retractations but they are lost These were A Book of Proofs and Testimonies against the Donatists A Treatise against a Donatist And an Advice to the Donatists about the Business of the Maximianists The Book of one Baptism against Petilianus was written after the Conference at Carthage The Principal Question treated of by St. Augustin is concerning the Validity of Baptism administred by Hereticks St. Augustin being willing to Publish an Account of the Conference of Carthage wrote a Breviary of what was said in the three Days Conference in 412. He wrote a Book likewise directed to the Donatists with the same Design wherein he makes several Reflections upon the Conference of Carthage that he might perfectly undeceive that Party and shew that they were seduc'd and deceived by their Bishops He likewise answereth their Cavils against the Judgment of Marcellinus This Book is of the Year 413. The Treatise to Emeritus a Donatist Bishop who was one of the principal Defenders of that Party in the Conference at Carthage is lost St. Augustin had collected there the main Points wherein they had been baffled as he says in the 49th Chapter of the Second Book of his Retractations After this he went to Caesarea a City of Mauritania where he met with Emeritus before whom he Preached a Sermon to perswade him to reconcile himself to the Church but not prevailing by this means he held a Conference with him about those things which had been done in the Conference at Carthage and then pressed him so hard upon the Quarrel of the Maximianists that Emeritus had nothing to say This Conference was held in the presence of the Bishops Clergy and People the 20th of September 413. or 418. for the Manuscripts do not well agree about the Consul's Names At last Gaudentius one of the Seven Donatist Bishops who defended their Party in the Conference at Carthage being pressed by the Threatnings of Dulcitius writ two Letters which St. Augustin answers in his First Book against this Donatist Bishop which is particularly to justifie the severity exercised towards them Gaudentius willing to answer something wrote a Discourse wherein without meddling with the Contest betwixt them he justified his Party and calumniated the Church St. Augustin answereth this Treatise in the Second Book Both these Books of St. Augustin are of the Year 420. There is a Sermon attributed to St. Augustin concerning one Rusticianus a Sub-deacon who was Re-baptized by the Donatists and then Ordained Deacon but this Discourse does not agree to St. Augustin as it is proved in the Preface This Volume ends with a Catalogue of St. Augustin's Works against the Donatists which are in the other Volumes of St. Augustin's Works We have not spoken particularly of the Matters handled by St. Augustin in every Book against the Donatists because he commonly repeateth the same Arguments and so we should have been obliged to say often the same things and for which Reason it was put off to this place that so I might give an Abridgment of his Doctrine and a Breviary of his chief Reasons all at once It has been observ'd already That the Donatists began their Schism by a Separation of some African Bishops who accused Caecilian of several Crimes whereof they had been convicted themselves Though they had been condemned in the Council of Rome in that of Arles and at last by Constantine's Judgment yet they remained firm to their own Opinions and would by no means be reconciled to the Church Their Party also was much strengthned by the great number of Bishops whom they ordained almost in every Church of Africa and by the Multitudes of People whom they drew after them So that in St. Augustin's time their Party was very near as strong in Africa as that of the Catholicks But they held no Communion with all the other Churches in the World which acknowledged Caecilian his Successors and those of that Party for the true Church The Donatists in their own defence affirm'd That Caecilian Felix of Aptungis who ordained him Miltiades that absolved him and several others of his Brethren having been convicted of certain Crimes ought to be deposed and expelled out of the Church That their Crime made them cease to be Members of the Church which ought to be pure and without blemish That as many as defended them and had Communicated with them were become Accessaries to their Crime by approving it and that so not only the Churches of Africa but even all the other
of the Novatians who exclude the Laity from Communion for trivial Sins Asclepiades answered him That besides Idolatry there were many other Mortal Sins for which the Church deposeth the Clergy for ever And that the Novatians did also excommunicate the Laity for ever who had committed those Sins leaving the Power of Pardoning them to God only Socrates tells us further That Atticus foretold his own Death to Calliopius and that he did die indeed according to his own Prediction in the Year 427. in the beginning of October Besides this Letter of which we have just now spoken Theodoret in his Second Dialogue cites a Fragment of a Letter to Eupsychius concerning the Incarnation He wrote also a Letter to S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria To perswade him to put S. Chrysostom's Name in the * Ecclesiastical Tables wherein the Names of the Living and Dead Saints were written and out of which they were read and solemnly commemorated at the publick Prayers to shew respect to them and Communion with them Diptychs as we understand by the Answer which S. Cyril made to him related in the Fourth Book of Facundus by whom we are informed That Atticus was as moderate as S. Cyril was angry upon that account We have Atticus's Letter and S. Cyril's Answer to it among the Epistles of the latter These Fragments of the Writings of Atticus make it evident That Socrates hath passed a sound Judgment of his Character Style and Temper Gennadius says That he had made an excellent Book concerning Faith and Virginity dedicated to the Princesses the Daughters of Arcadius in which he condemns the Error of Nestorius before-hand S. Cyril cites a Passage of it in his Book to the Empresses which is also repeated with another in the Council of Ephesus altho Vincentius doth not reckon Atticus among those who were alledged for Witnesses of the Faith of the Church in the Council of Ephesus and says That these Passages are not to be found in some Manuscripts of that Council TICHONIUS TICHONIUS an African an ingenious Man of the Party of the Donatists was accounted Tichonius very skilful in the Literal Sence of Holy Scripture Nor was he wholly ignorant of Profane Sciences but he was very well versed in Ecclesiastical Studies He hath composed a Treatise containing Seven Rules for the explaining of the Holy Scripture of which S. Austin hath made an Abridgment in his Third Book of the Christian Doctrine Gennadius teaches us That he had also written Three Books of the Intestine War and a Narration of several Reasons why he quotes the Ancient Synods in the Defence of his own Party He further adds That he had made a Commentary upon the Revelation in which he explains that Book in a Spiritual Sence altogether He therein did reject the conjectural Opinion of the Millennium and maintained That there should be but one Resurrection of the Good and Sinners which would happen at the same Time Insomuch that according to his Judgment the first Resurrection of the Just is here below in the Church when being delivered by Faith from the Death of Sin they receive by Baptism the earnest of Eternal Life He affirms in that Book That the Angels are Corporeal He flourished according to Gennadius at the same time as Ruffinus and S. Austin under the Empire of Theodosius the Great and his two Sons We have his Book of the Seven Rules published by Schottus and inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum It is very obscure and of little use S. Austin's Abridgment of it is to be seen at the End of his Third Book of the Christian Doctrine LEPORIUS THis Monk is numbred among the Ecclesiastical Authors upon the account of a Book which Leporius he made to retract the Errors of Pelagius and Nestorius of which we have spoken in the Works of S. Austin We may also see what is said of it by S. Leo among the Testimonies of the Fathers touching the Verity of the two Natures in Jesus Christ. Facundus Bishop of Harmianum l. 1. c. 4. Gennadius c. 59 Cassian in the Book of the Incarnation c. 4. And Vigilius Tapsensis l. 2. of the Trinity S. ISIDORE of Damiata ISIDORE a A Priest All the Ancients give him no other Title and it doth not appear by his Letters that he had any other a Priest b Of Damiata Ephrem in Photius c. 228. saith That he was born at Alexandria nevertheless it may be said That he was of Damiata because he retreated into a place near that City as appears by his Letters of Damiata †Anciently called Pelusium whence he is usually styled Pelusiota by Authors a City in Egypt situated upon the Mouth of the River S. Isidore Pelusiota Nilus flourished in the Reign of Theodosius the Younger c He embraced a Monastick State His Letters make it evident enough and Evagrius l. 1. c. 15. of his History assures us of it in the same Terms that we have used He embraced a Monastick State and spent his whole Life in mortifying his Body by continual Abstinence and in nourishing his Soul with Meditation upon Celestial Doctrines insomuch that it may be said of him That he lived an Angel's Life upon Earth and that he was a Living Picture of a Monastick and Contemplative Life He was in so great Reputation for his Piety Doctrine and Eloquence that the Greeks gave him the Surname of a Famous So Evagrius calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whose Fame is spread far as the Poet says They that make use of this passage to prove that he made Poems understand it iâ—â— Ephrem gives him a like Epithet Famous Facundus reports That he had written two thousand Letters Suidas attributes to him three thousand upon the Holy Scripture and five thousand upon different Subjects Nicephorus also reckons ten thousand but it is almost incredible that he should write so great a number But however that be we have no more than 2012. and there are no more Dr. Cave 2013. extant in the most ancient Manuscripts He had composed some other Works b He speaks himself of a Treaâ—â—â—e of Fate against the Gentiles Suidas says That he had composed some other Works He cites the Treatise of Fate in Let. 253. lib. 3. I do not believe it a distinct Treatise from that against the Gentiles cited in the 137th and 228th Letters of the second Book because what is said in those Places respects the same matter He speaks himself of a Treatise of Fate against the Gentiles Evagrius makes mention of some Writings of Isidorus to S. Cyril but it may be he intends the two Letters which he wrote to him which are still extant and which are recited by Facundus By them we are taught That he was yet alive in the Time of the Council of Ephesus but he was then very old The Greek and Latin Church celebrate his Memory on the fourth Day of February The Epistles of this Author are
Anastasius and in his Invectives against S. Jerom. It is true he doth not condemn them in those Places as it is noted in that Profession of Faith nor will I ascertain you that it is infallibly Rufinus's of Aquileia but I say it belongs to him to whom it is attributed for I am apt to believe That it is a Form of Confession of Faith which Pope Anastasius made for Rufinus of Aquileia to sign As to the First Confession of Faith 't is certainly the Work of some Pelagian for he directly opposes Original Sin He maintains That Infants are born without Sin That they are not baptized for the Remission of that Sin since they are innocent and that those that die without Baptism are not condemned to Eternal Torments He owns That the First Man had not died if he had not sinned but he affirms that he was created Mortal and that Death Griefs and Pains which are the effects of Sin are profitable for Man which comes very near the Opinion of Julian whom F. Garner makes the Author of the Translation of this Writing for it is noted at the end That it was translated out of Greek into Latin This proves to us That the Author of this Confession was a Greek or at least that it was made in the East We can say nothing more of the Author of this Confession F. Garner affirms That it is certainly one Rufinus's altho' it be not the Priest's of Aquilcia but another Rufinus whom he believes to be he that was Pelagius's Master of whom Coelestius speaks in the Council of Carthage That he had heard of Rusinus the Holy Priest who maintain'd at Rome with Pammachius That the Sin of the first Man did not descend to his Posterity It hath ever been thought that this Rufinus was the Priest of Aquileia and indeed S. Jerom says in several Places That Rufinus was the fore-runner of Pelagius and his Adherents But F. Garner maintains That it is another Rufinus of whom Coelestius speaks and he says likewise That it is he that S. Jerom sent to Rome in the Time when he had the Contests with Rufinus of Aquileia of whom this last complains in his Apology to Pope Anastasius There is no doubt but that this Rufinus condemned the Opinions of Origen and that he contended with the Priest of Aquileia because he defended them But we do not see that he maintained the Doctrine of Pelagius touching Original Sin Let us consider the Reasons which F. Garner brings to shew that the Master of Pelagius and Coelestius is a different Person from the famous Rufinus of Aquileia 1. The Master of Pelagius was a Syrian but the Priest of Aquileia was an Italian according to the Testimony of M. Mercator 2. This same Author speaks of the Master of Pelagius as a Man little known one Rufinus saith he 3. The Priest of Aquileia came to Rome under Syricius The Master of Pelagius came not till the Popedom of Anastasius according to the Testimony of the same Author 4. The Master of Pelagius sojourned with Pammachius the Priest of Aquileia was none of this great Man's Friends but on the contrary it was Pammachius that put S. Jerom upon writing against Rusinus 5. The Master of Pelagius taught at Rome That there was no such thing as Original Sin the Priest of Aquileia was gone when this Doctrine was preached 6. When S. Jerom accuses the Priest of Aquileia of being the Fore-runner of Pelagius he speaks of no other Doctrines but those of Apathy and Sinlesness 7. Paulinus who disputed against Coelestius in the Council of Carthage doth not retort upon him That that Rufinus whom he cited had been condemned which he undoubtedly would have done if he had heard him speak oâ— the Priest of Aquileia 8. Coelestius speaks of Rufinus as then alive the Priest of Aquileia was then dead 9. Lastly Rufinus cited by Coelestius was in the Communion of the Church the Priest of Aquileia was excommunicated from it These Reasons are not incapable of Reply and it may be said that many of them are too subtle That which amazeth me most is that which Coelestius says That Rufinus who denied Original Sin abode with Pammachius for what likelihood is there that he should lodge with one of his greatest Adversaries and one of the best Friends of S. Jerom The rest are weaker for Rufinus having dwelt in Palaestine for near Thirty Years and coming from that Country when he taught his Doctrine to Pelagius Marius Mercator might say That he was a Syrian and that he first brought that Doctrine to Rome and so much the rather because this Author had a Design to demonstrate that this Doctrine came from the East It is true that Rufinus came to Rome at the end of the Popedom of Syricius in 397. but he staid there some time in the Popedom of Anastasius Coelestius doth not say That he of whom he speaks was then alive If Paulinus did not object his Condemnation if he passed for a Man who died in the Communion of the Church it was because he was not looked upon in Africk as an Heretick or an excommunicate Person There is then nothing of Difficulty in any of the Objections but concerning the abode with Pammachius but perhaps Coelestius was mistaken or Rufinus was after reconciled to Pammachius Nevertheless it cannot be denied but that the Opinion of F. Garner hath much probability in it For this cause I have set down his Reasons that it may be left to the Reader to judge POSSIDIUS THis Deacon of Africa and Scholar of S. Austin hath written the Life of his Master in a plain Style and hath joyned to it a Catalogue of his Works We have nothing more Possidius to note about this Work besides what we have written of it in the Life and Works of S. Austin URANIUS URANIUS the Priest a Scholar of S. Paulinus hath also written the Life of his Master in a Letter directed to Pacatus This Letter hath been published by Surius Uranius by F. Chiffletius and Lastly in the last Edition of S. Paulinus The Style of it is plain clear and elegant This is all the Goodness it has in it S. COELESTINE ST COELESTINE was chosen Bishop of Rome after the Death of Boniface in the beginning of * November in 423. This Election was made without contending and S. Coelestine division and he governed the Church of Rome peaceably till April anno 432. The Business of Nestâ—rius and the assembling the Council of Ephesus have made his Popedom famous and Septemb. 16. given him occasion to write several Letters of which we shall deferr to speak till we come to the History of the Council of Ephesâ—s where they have a more fit Place so that we have nothing more to speak of here save Three Letters which have no relation to the Business of Nestorius The First was written in 431. after the Death of S. Austin and is addressed To Venerius Bishop of Milan
be of any great weight And besides if it were true that S. Coelestine himself did not compose these Aphorisms but caused them to be framed by some other yet they may lawfully be attributed to him always since it is confessed That they were framed by his Order That he approved them and sent them with his Letter and lastly That he caused them to be put into the Registry of the Church of Rome as an Authentick Monument of his Doctrine The Reasons which they alledge to shew the contrary prove well enough that these Aphorisms are no part of this Pope's Letter nor are a solemn definition of the Roman Bishop but they do not evince that they are not Precepts of Instruction composed by this Pope or at least by his order upon the account of which he wrote his Letter and perhaps sent them with it This is most probable in this Matter S. Prosper and S. Hilary seeing that the Doctrine of S. Austin was openly opposed in France and that he was accused of going too far went to Rome to implore the Pope S. Coelestine to take it into his Protection The Pope did two things The First was to write to the Bishops that he might oblige them to stop the Discourse of those that defamed the Doctrine of S. Austin The Second was to make a Collection of the Principles approved by the Authority of the Holy See that he might draw some Consequences from them against those who did not approve S. Austin's Doctrine altho they condemned Coelestius and Pelagius and professed to hold the Decisions of the Holy See against their Error The First of these Articles imports That all Men have lost their Innocency in the Person of Adam and their natural ability of doing good and that no Man can be delivered out of this profound Abyss of Perdition by the strength of his Free-will if he be not raised by the Grace of the God of Mercy The Second imports That no Man is good of himself if God who is only good doth not communicate his goodness to him The Third is That no Man can conquer the Temptations of the Devil and the Motions of the Flesh if he doth not receive continual assistance from God and if he have not the Gift of Perseverance Which ought to be understood also of those who have been renewed by the Grace of Baptism The Fourth is That no Man knows how to make good use of his Free-will but by the Grace of Jesus Christ. These three Articles are confirmed by the Testimony of S. Innocent The Fifth is That all the Good righteous Men do ought to be referred to the Glory of God because no Man can please him but by the Gifts of his Grace Pope Zosimus and the Council of Africa have also delivered this Maxim The Sixth is That God acts after such a manner in the Free-will of Man that the Holy Thoughts Pious Intentions and all the good Motions of his Will proceed from him Pope Zosimus also suggests this Principle The Seventh Aphorism contains the Decrees of the Council of Carthage which hath determined the absolute necessity of Grace to do good The Eighth makes use of the Prayers of the Church to shew That all the good that we do from the first Motion of Conversion to our final Perseverance is the effect of the Grace of Jesus Christ. The Ninth shews That the Exorcisms and Sufflations which the Church useth before Baptism to drive away evil Spirits are a clear proof of the necessity of Grace to deliver us from the Tyranny of the Devil He concludes these Principles That God is the Author of all the good Motions good Actions and all the Vertues by which we tend to him from the beginning of the Faith insomuch that he goes before all our Deserts and makes us will and do that which is good He adds That the Divine Assistance doth not deprive us of our Free-will but it delivers it and dispells its former darkness of crooked and perverse it makes it right of distempered it renders it sound and instead of Ignorance and Error it implants Wisdom and Prudence For the Goodness of God is so great saith he That he is willing to look upon his own Gifts as our Merits and to give an eternal Reward for those good Works of which he is the Author He makes us to will and to do what pleaseth him and he leaves not those Graces useless which he hath wrought in us Lastly he declares That in respect of the deep and perplexing Difficulties which may arise from the Questions which have been formed and have been treated on by those who have opposed the Hereticks he dare not really contemn them but that he thought it not necessary to stay there because it is sufficient to acknowledge the Grace of Jesus Christ to the Efficacy and Merit of which all the good which we do ought to be attributed it is sufficient to hold whatsoever is conformable to the definitions of the Holy See which he believes so true that he scruples not to assure us That whatever is contrary to these Rules is not Catholick and true Doctrine It may be demanded what the Author of these Aphorisms means by these deep and perplexing Difficulties Some affirm That they are Questions which relate to the efficacy of Grace and gratuitous Predestination But it seems evident to me that the Author of these Aphorisms lays down the first Doctrine in many of his Articles and supposes the other which makes me to think that he means some other Questions which S. Austin hath disputed on in his Works against the Pelagians as when he asks Wherein consisteth Original Sin After what manner is it propagated to the Posterity of Adam What is the Original of the Soul What is the Punishment of Children which die unbaptized In what consisteth Concupiscence and many other Difficulties of that Nature which have been treated on by S. Austin I do not affirm for all that That the efficacy of Grace and gratuitous Predestination are Articles of Faith and I believe we may truly enough own That the Author of these Aphorisms did look upon them as implicitly contained if I may use that Term in the Decisions of the Popes and Councils of Africa Besides it being certain as it is That the Adversaries of the Doctrine of S. Austin did principally oppose those two points this Author whose purpose it was to confute them could not but maintain that Doctrine To be convinced of this we need only read the Objections of Vincent and the Answers of S. Prosper which will discover that all the Objections of the Adversaries of S. Austin deâ—…lve themselves upon these two Points and that his Scholars maintain them as having a necessary relation to the Doctrine of the Holy See against the Pelagians The Second Letter of S. Coelestine ought to be set before this of which we have already spoken since it was written in the Year 428. It is directed to the Bishops of
Example insomuch that in a short time the Church of Constantinople was in a strange confusion a Monk preached against his Bishop Eusebius afterward Bishop of Dorylaeum made a solemn protestation against his Doctrine Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum did preach 3 Sermons against him and all the ancient Clergy of Constantinople opposed Nestorius yet he still maintain'd what he had delivered and made several Sermons more upon that Subject His Party made a Collection of them and sent them into Aegypt which falling into the Hands of the Monks of those Parts raised Disputes among them This obliged S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria to write a large Letter to them in which having acknowledged That he had much rather not meddle with such subtle Questions which are above the reach of humane Understanding he declares against Nestorius's Opinion and shews by several Reasons That the Virgin Mary may be called the Mother of God Nestorius having seen this Writing of S. Cyril's which was dispersed up and down Constantinople and much confirmed his adverse Party complained greatly of this carriage of S. Cyril But he excused himself in a Letter written to Nestorius exhorting him to confess That the Virgin Mary may be called the Mother of God Nestorius answered him with much Civility but did not approve of that Term. S. Cyril wrote a second Letter to him to which Nestorius returned an Answer but did not fully approve of S. Cyril's Expressions about the Incarnation He likewise wrote against the Letter which S. Cyril had sent to the Monks of Aegypt altho' Anastasius declared at Constantinople That he held nothing which was not in that writing of S. Cyril since he himself owned That no Council had used the Term of the Mother of God I will not in this place relate what passed in the Consequence of this Business how it was carryed to the Council of Ephesus after what manner Nestorius behaved himself there how he was condemned and what was the Conclusion because I shall be obliged to do this in speaking of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus I shall content my self to observe That after the sentence of this Council Nestorius never durst return to Constantinople but hid himself in his ancient Monastery at Antioch from whence he was taken four years after in 435. by the Emperor's Order and banished to Oasit But the Barbarians having taken and destroyed that City he was obliged to go into Thebais to the City of Panopolis where he was not suffered to remain long yea he was so often removed from place to place that he died in his Journey being mortally bruised by a fall Evagrius who relates these Accidents tells us that he met with an Author who assured him That before Nestorius died his Tongue was eaten with Worms as a punishment of the Blasphemies which it had uttered But he brings no confirmation of this Circumstance which may well be thought an invention of this Anonymous Author because it was commonly supposed That all Hereticks had a Tragical end Nestorius had a great freedom of Speech and Gennadius assures us That he had composed a great number of Treatises and Discourses before he came to Constantinople We have none of these first but there remain a great number of Fragments of his Sermons preached at Constantinople and some whole Sermons also with some Letters and other Works of which this is the Catalogue A Fragment of his first Sermon that he preached at Constantinople recited by Socrates lib. 7. chap. 29. of his History Some Latin Fragments of 4 Sermons preached at Constantinople before Julian and the other Pelagian Bishops in which he delivers Principles contrary to their Errors These Fragments are recited in Latin by M. Mercator in F. Garner's Edition Part 1. pag. 73. and in M. Baluzius's pag. 119. The third is perfect in Greek among the Works of S. Chrysostom Tom. 7. of Savil's Edition p. 301. and with a Latin Translation in M. Mercator by F. Garner pag. 85. Part 1. The first Sermon which he made to maintain what Anastasius the Priest had asserted is translated whole almost by M. Mercator and confuted by Cassian He preached several other Sermons upon the Mystery of the Incarnation of which a Collection was made at the same time Out of this Collection the Orthodox took several Extracts to discover his Doctrine And for this reason it is that when they cite them they ordinarily set down the Sheet We have 4 Collections of these Extracts The 1st is that which was presented to the Council of Ephesus by Petrus Diaconus Act. 1. Conc. tom 3. p. 520. The 2d is M. Mercator's where the Extracts are only in Latin in Baluzius's Edition p. 109. The 3d. is taken out of S. Cyril's Books of Contradictions against Nestorius and the last is composed of the Extracts of Nestorius recited in the other Works of S. Cyril F. Garner hath taken the pains to have these Collections printed in the 2d part of his Edition of M. Mercator from p. 95. to p. 112. He hath also attempted to restore these Sermons by putting these Extracts together and by adding other Fragments to them to bring them into their natural Order After the Sermon of Providence he hath put that De Theognosia or of the knowledge of God which he frames out of several Passages quoted by S. Cyril and in the Council of Ephesus Part 2. pag. 8. These follow Some Fragments of a Sermon against the Macedonians and Arians taken out of the Books of S. Cyril and the Extracts of the Council of Ephesus This Sermon is cited by Arnobius Junior in his Dispute against Serapion which may convince F. Garner that he hath put two Sermons into one So hard is it to put these Fragments exactly together A Sermon of the Incarnation against Prechis It is recited in Latin by M. Mercator in the Edit of F. Garn. par 2. pag. 26. of Baluz p. 70. Another Sermon against the same Person taken out of the Extracts of S. Cyril and of the Council of Ephesus by F. Garn. p. 29. Another Sermon upon these words Consider Jesus Christ the Apostle and High-priest of our Profession ibid. p. 30. A Sermon against those who upon the account of the Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ do render the God-head Mortal or the Manhood Divine This is a large Treatise rehearsed entire in Latin by M. Mercator of which also we have some Extracts in S. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus in F. Garn. Edit p. 34. Baluz p. 56. A Fragment of a Sermon upon Judas against the Hereticks taken out of S. Cyril's Books against Nestorius and M. Mercator's Collection of Fragments by F. Garn. p. 65. A Fragment of a Sermon upon these words of Jesus Christ in S. Matth. c. 5. v. 23. If thou hast ought against thy Brother taken out of the Council of Ephesus and M. Mercator's Collection p. 66. ibid. A Fragment of a Sermon against the Macedonians recited in the Council of Ephesus
puts them among those Books which he had composed before the year 438. He therein speaks of the Law of the Emperor in which he had commanded that the Temples should be demolished pursuant to a Law of Theodosius promulgated in 426. So that this Work was framed in some of the following years It is divided into 12 Discourses of which Theodoret himself hath made an Abridgment The first is of the Credulity of the Christians and Ignorance of the Apostles Theodoret proves both of them are unjustly imputed to the Christians as a proof of the Falshood of their Religion That the wisest Persons have not always been those who have had most Eloquence and Learning That the Greeks have been taught that Wisdom by the Barbarians That Plato had acknowledged That the greatest Philosophers were not always those who were most skilful in Arts and Sciences That it was not true that the Christians believed rashly and without proof That the Heathen Philosophers required Faith and that they themselves had yielded Faith to the Poets That they had acknowledged that Faith was necessary in order to Knowledge yea that there was no part of Knowledge but required some sort of Faith in order to it In the second after he hath examined the Opinions of the Heathen Philosophers concerning the beginning of the World he makes it appear that what Moses hath said of it is much more rational than all that the Philosophers have imagined and that Plato had taken all that he hath spoken so well upon that subject out of the Books of Moses In the Third he compares that which the Greeks have written concerning their Petty-Gods with what the Christians have said of Spiritual Creatures Angels and Demons and makes it clear by that Comparison that the Doctrine of Christians is as wise and rational as the Heathens is impious and ridiculous In the Fourth he shews That what the Christians believe of the Creation of the World is far more reasonable than what Plato and the other Philosophers have taught of it In the Fifth he speaks of the Nature of Man and after he hath laid down what the Christians and Greeks think of it he shews the Difference between Light and Darkness Ignorance and Error In the Sixth he discourses of Providence for saith he it was just after I had spoken of God and the Creatures to say something of Providence in Refutation of the Impiety of Diagoras the Blasphemies of Epicurus and the Fabulous Sentiments of Aristotle by confirming the Doctrine of Plato and Plotinus upon that Subject and by proving from Reasons drawn from Nature and the Frame of the World that the Providence of God is manifested in all Creatures In the Seventh Discourse he condemns the Sacrifices of the Heathen and makes use of the Testimonies of the Prophets to prove that the Ceremonies of the old Law were intended for Persons unperfect only In the Eighth he undertakes to defend the Honour which the Christians give the Martyrs shewing by the Testimonies of the Philosophers Poets and Historians that the Greeks have honoured the Memory of Eminent Men by offering Sacrifices to them after their Death and by bestowing on them the Qualities of Gods Demi-Gods and Heroes although the greatest part of them had been Infamous and Criminals And this he does to give a clearer Demonstration that the Christians did honour their Martyrs far more deservedly He makes a Comparison between the Heathen Law-givers and the Apostles which is the Subject of the Ninth Discourse In the Tenth he compares the Predictions of the Greeks with the Prophecies of the Jews and by that Comparison demonstrates that the one promoted Falshood and Absurdities whereas the other had foretold nothing but what is true and reasonable In the Eleventh he relates what both Heathens and Christians have said concerning the End of the World and the Last Judgment Lastly in the Twelfth Discourse he shews That the Life of the Apostles and of those who have imitated them is far above the Life of other Men. In these Discourses there is a great deal of Learning Theodoret quotes above an hundred Heathen Authors in them They are written with a great deal of Art and Eloquence and may not give Place in any thing to all the Works of Antiquity composed for the Defence of Religion They are translated by Acciaolus who printed his Version at Paris in 1519. Silburgius hath published them since in Greek and Latin at Heidelberg 1592. in Folio with his own Notes full of most useful and excellent Learning Cave The Addition which is at the End of this Fourth Tome of the Works of Theodoret doth not contain forged Pieces but certain Treatises that have not yet been put in order The First is a Discourse of Charity which is a kind of a Conclusion of his History of Religion in which he extols the Charity and Love that the Martyrs of the Old and New Testament had shewn in their Sufferings The Discourse which carries the Name of a Letter to Sporatius is not a Letter but a Fragment of the Treatise of Heresies to which is joyned an Explication of the Mystery of the Incarnation We will put the Letter to John bishop of Germanicia to the other Letters of Theodoret and will elsewhere speak of the Confutation of S. Cyril's Anathematisms as also of the Discourse that he made at Chalcedon against S. Cyril when he was Deputy for the Oriental Bishops after the Council of Ephesus We have one of thâ—se Discourses entire in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus and some Fragments of Three other in the Acts of the Fifth Council Theodoret being returned to Antioch after the Council of Ephesus composed Five other Books against S. Cyril M. Mercator hath given us some Extracts of them in Latin and F. Garner hath published some Fragments of them in Greek Photius in the Forty sixth Book of his Bibliotheca makes mention of Twenty seven Books of Theodoret against several Propositions The Twenty last are Eutherius's of Tyana as we have learned of M. Mercator F. Garner believes That the Seven First Books are the Work against S. Cyril but for my part I rather believe them another Treatise of the Incarnation which he often speaks of For 1. The Work of S. Cyril was divided into Five Books this into Seven 2. Photius without doubt would have observed That these Discourses were against S. Cyril 3. The subject of these Discourses does not agree in the least with the Treatise against S. Cyril The First saith Photius is against those that say That the Word and Humanity make up but one Nature and who attribute the Sufferings to the Divinity The Second sets upon the same Errors very strongly by Testimonies of Scripture The Third is about the same Subject The Fourth contains the Opinions of the Holy Fathers about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ our Saviour The Fifth gathers together the Opinions of the Hereticks and shews that they are near-a-kin to their Error who
nearest it in the 139th Page of his Work where he speaks of the power of Grace and of the means of knowing God by Nature proves nothing because S. Prosper hath not given the name of Grace to those exterior means he only asserts That whatsoever mean God useth outwardly 't is always his Grace which inwardly attracteth So that M. Abbot Anthelmi is at length obliged to own That there is some difference between the way in which the Author of the Books of the Calling treats of the Questions of Grace and that in which S. Prosper hath handled them in his Works But he pretends That he conceals himself by this means That he hath published it without his Name That he hath disguised his Opinions That he hath suppressed the name of S. Austin his Master that he might defend his Doctrine more cunningly That he hath gone a new way to work and 't is for that reason that he makes a shew as if he had never written That he hath well enough demeaned himself in his other Works and that he hath moderated the Principles of S. Austin That having promised to write no more he was forced to take such a way as he might not be known That he had likewise disguised his Stile but was forced to do it by the manner in which he had undertaken to compose this Treatise I leave the Reader to judge of the solidity of these Answers and shall content my self to observe That if it be allowed by Conjectures of this sort to evade such Reasons as we have alledged there is no Critical Argument how strong soever it be which may not this way be easily overthrown Why doth M. Anthelmi say That S. Prosper conceals and disguises himself in that Work How knows he that he did not put it out in his own Name If it be so what proof hath he that it is his The Authority of Manuscripts upon which he leans so much will make nothing for him if it be certain That in S. Prosper's time this Work bore no name and that it continued so a long time after in the time of Pope Gelasius Why should S. Prosper disguise his Opinions Why should be forbear to speak with that Liberty and Constancy with which he always maintained S. Austin's Doctrines Is it credible that he was ashamed to use the name of that Person for whom he had so great a respect Altho' he hath carefully in his Works rejected the bad sence which might be put upon the Expressions of that Father and hath delivered them in a more favourable way yet he always openly maintained them he always stood up against his Opposers as against Persons who were certainly in an Error Lastly tho' he purposely disguised his Stile yet it is not likely that he could do it with so good success for really the Stile of this Work is more curious florid and noble than S. Prosper's Works are It is not possible to disguise his Stile so Men degenerate when they counterfeit and when Men go out of their natural way all that they produce is deformed and imperfect It is very hard to find out so many Rhymes and so exactly frame his Periods when he is not accustomed to it Nor do I see how the manner of composure of this Writing did oblige S. Prosper to change his Stile Lastly All that M. Anthelmi says against these Reasons which are brought to prove That the Book of the Calling of the Gentiles is not S. Prosper's is grounded upon Suppositions of which he hath not the least shadow of proof Let us now see if the Reasons which are given to fasten them upon S. Prosper be more sound They may all be reduced to three Heads The Authority of Manuscripts and Hincmarus the agreement in Doctrine and the likeness of the Stiles As to the first Reason which is the only one wherein we really agree these Manuscripts are not more eminent than those wherein the Books De Vita Contemplativa of the Contemplative Life made by Julian Pomerius are attributed to S. Prosper and the Authority of Hincmarus is not more to be regarded than that of the French Councils of above 800 years old who have cited the Books of the Contemplative Life under the name of S. Prosper It is well known That Hincmarus doth often quote Books under the name of those Fathers who were not the Authors of them as the Hypomnesticon under the name of S. Austin The Book of Predestination and Grace under the name of the same Father The Book of the hardening of Pharaoh ' s Heart under the name of S. Jerom The Commentary of Hilary the Deacon upon S. Paul ' s Epistles under the name of S. Ambrose And the Poem of Providence under the name of S. Prosper But to return to the Manuscripts of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles the five Manuscripts of the Vatican Of these five the most ancient is thought to be above a Thousand years old and another also is very ancient which both bear S. Ambrose's name the three other of which the oldest is not above 800 years old bear S. Prosper's name There must needs be also other Manuscripts where they bear the name of S. Ambrose since they were all along Printed under the name of this Father before the year 1566. It seems then That if we will hold to the Authority of the most Ancient Manuscripts we must attribute them to S. Ambrose M. Anthelmi ought to prove according to his Hypothesis That the first Manuscripts of these Books were without name since S. Prosper's design was to conceal himself Whence know we That they who first prefixed S. Prosper's name to these Books had sufficient information that they were his Is it not most likely that finding this Book without a name the agreement of the Matter and the Doctrine inclined them to put S. Prosper's name before them And that others more Ignorant tho' more Ancient have also been not so lucky in setting S. Ambrose's name before them This difference shews That the Manuscripts are not to be depended upon and that the imagination of the Transcribers is the cause that these Books bear these Titles in the Manuscripts As to the agreement of Stile we have already answered it and shew'd That altho' in the main the Author of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles be of the same Opinion with S. Prosper yet he expresses himself in a different way and that he keeps a Method which S. Prosper never observed Let any Person but read a little a few Periods of both the Stile is our strongest Argument the difference is easie to be perceived All the Tables of M. Anthelmi don't at all deterr me nor give me cause to change my mind In all the agreement of Stile there is nothing to be found but some words which were in common use at that time It would be very hard also not to meet with the same Terms in two Authors that treat of the
be joyned the Letter to Rusticus Lugdunensis Published in F. Dacherius in Tom. V of his Specilegiâ—… In which he thanks that Bishop of Lyons for his assistance and relates how much trouble he had in the business of Acacius but this Letter doth not seem to me to be Gelasius's Style But Pope Gelasius hath not only written Letters but also hath composed some small Treatises We have already observed that several of these Letters may pass for Works Memoirs or Manifesto's Of this Nature is his Treatise De Anathematis Vinâ—â—lo He begins it with an Answer to the Objection of those who complained that he urged the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon in the business of Acacius too much but would not consent to the Privileges which the Council had granted to the Bishop of Constantinople He answers that all the Church embraced such definitions of this Council as were consonant to Holy Scripture to the Tradition of the Holy Fathers and the Decrees of the Church concerning the Orthodox Truth and the Common Faith of all the Church But as to other things therein treated of which the Holy See gave no Person Commission to meddle with to which the Legats of the Holy See oppose themselves and which the Holy See never would approve of which Anatolius himself had abandoned by referring them to the Approbation of the Holy See and which are contrary to the Privileges of the Universal Church he never would in any wise defend them After this he discourses of Excommunication and Absolution He acknowledges that all Sinners may be absolved in this Life if they do Repent and althô it be said in the Sentence given against Acacius that he shall never be loosed from the Curse pronounced against him this ought not to be understood but in case he do not Repent for if that be done in this Life he may be Pardoned but if he go on and Die in that estate he cannot be Absolved That the Judgment of Absolution which the Emperor had caused to be pronounced in favour of Peter of Alexandria was void being done by his own Authority contrary to the Canons of the Church and without the Consent of the Bishop of the Holy See by whose authority he had been Condemned The second Treatise of Gelasius is a Discourse against Andromachus a Roman Senator and * Caeterosque Romanus other Persons who endeavoured to restore the Lupercalia at Rome which were at that time utterly Abolished Superstitiously believing that the Diseases with which the City was then afflicted proceeded from the neglect of those Sacrifices This Pope smartly reproves those who were of this Opinion and proves they are unworthy of the Name and Profession of Christians That they commit a Spiritual Adultery and fall into a kind of Idolatry which deserves a separation from the Body of Christ and severe Penance In sum That their Opinion was a foolish and groundless Imagination because the Lupercalia were not appointed to avert Diseases but to make Women Fruitful as T. Luvius relates in the second Decad of his History That the Plague and other Distempers were as Common when the Lupercalia were Celebrated as they are now and if Rome be afflicted with Diseases the Plague Barrenness c. it ought to be imputed to the corrupt and disorderly manners of the Inhabitants That if the Lupercalia have any thing Divine they ought to be Celebrated with the same Ceremonies and in the same manner that they were heretofore and what Man is there that will be guilty of such shameless Impudence That they were a Remnant of Paganism which was the reason that they were Abolished and thô indeed they remained in use a long time under the Christian Emperors yet it doth not follow from thence that they ought always to be preserved for all Superstitions could not be abolished at once but by little and little Lastly He tells them that a 〈◊〉 Christian cannot nor ought to do it And althô his Predecessors did tolerate it they had some reasons which hindered them from abolishing them but yet he doubts not but that they did endeavour it The third Treatise was composed * D. Cave Entitles it Dicta adversus Pelagianam Haeresin against this Doctrine of the Pelagians that Men may pass their Life without Sin He proves the contrary by several Reasons grounded upon the Testimonies of Holy Scripture In it also he explains in what sense St. Paul says That the Children of the Faithful are Holy and the believing Wife sanctifieth the unbelieving Husband But the most eminent Treatise of Gelasius is his Treatise against Eutyches and Nestorius concerning the two Natures in Jesus Christ. The Criticks at first doubted whether it belonged to this Pope and * The Popish Writers are generally of Baronius judgment because there is a clear testimony against Transubstantiation in this Book Dr. Cave Baronius affirms it with greater Confidence than any that it is not his but Gelasius Cyzicenus's and Bellarmine followeth his Judgment The Conjectures which they bring seem to have some resemblance of truth if we consider them alone They are as follows 1. The Author of this Treatise quotes the Greek Fathers only and never mentions the Latins now what probability is there that Pope Gelasius would not alledge St. Jerom St. Ambrose St. Austin and St. Leo. 2. He numbers Eusebius Caesariensis among the Orthodox Doctors Now Gelasius thought him an Arian and puts his Books among the Apocryphal 3. The Treatise of Gelasius against Eutyches was a large Work according to the testimony of Gennadius this that we have is a small Tract These Reasons seem to prove that 't is not probable that it is Pope Gelasius's On the other hand there are no Objections against Gelasius Cyzicenus all things concur to attribute it to him for the time and name agree there is no other Gelasius to whom it can be attributed the Style of this Book is very like that of the History of the Council of Nice written by Gelasius Cyzicenus Lastly The Author of that History says in the Preface that he hath written against the Eutychians and commends Eusebius in the Body of his Work All this makes it sufficiently evident that this Work belongs to Gelasius Cyzicenus rather than Gelasius Bishop of Rome Nevertheless there want not convincing proofs to evince that it is really the Work of this Latter For first It is found in the MSS. joyned with the Letters of this Pope Second St. Fulgentius who is a Witness beyond exception cites it as Pope Gelasius's Lib. de 5. quest apud Ferrand Diac. c. 18. and John II. uses the Testimony of this Author as Pope Gelasius's in Epist. ad Avieâ—â—m Thirdly Gennasius * De Scrip. c. 94. assures us that this Pope made a large Treatise against Eutyches and Nestorius This agrees to this Book which bears the same Title and is very considerable for thô it be not a great Work in it self 't is a great Volume
this That God would forgive the Dead Person those Sins which he hath committed through Human frailty and enstate him in the Light of the Living That he would conduct him into the Bosom of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the place where there is neither Grief nor Tears nor Sorrow These were Ceremonies of the Church used at that time at the Interrment of the Dead Our Author in his Reflections puts this Objection If every Man be rewarded according to his Deserts what need is there of Prayer for the Dead Of what use are they to the Wicked And why do we pray for the Just He answers That it is certain that Prayers are useful to those only who die well But as in this Life when we have good Designs and Intentions we may be helped and assisted by the Prayers of the Righteous and this is an ordinary means of obtaining Grace without which we often come short of it even so the Bishop who is the Interpreter of the Divine Oracles and the Angel of the Lord of Hosts who knows that the Justice of God weighs all things in an equal Balance and pardons those faults which Men commit through frailty and so much the more because no Man is free from them prays to God that it may be so Not that he doubts at all of the Goodness of God but he begs this favour with the greater confidence because he is assured that it shall not be denied him And for this reason it is that he doth not pray for those who have not been Baptized nor for Sinners not only because 't is not lawful to do it and because he being only an Interpreter of the Divine Will he cannot without great rashness beg that which God will not grant but also because his Request being unreasonable he cannot hope to obtain it Lastly His Prayer is rather an Interpretation of the Divine Will a Declaration of his Goodness a Promise and Assurance of what shall happen to the Deceased rather than a Petition for a thing uncertain After the same manner the Bishops Excommunicating Sinners are Interpreters of the Will of God and do only separate them from the Communion whom God hath already condemned For we ought to believe that if they do it unjustly or through Passion the Justice of God prosecutes their Actions This Treatise concludes with a Remark upon Infant-Baptism The Author observes That many Persons Strangers to our Religion derided and ridiculed that Custom of making others to promise for them He answers That the Bishop to whom this was said ought to have answered pleasingly and shewn first That there are several things for which we know not the reason although there are some and those known to the Angels but some are known to none but God himself That in Baptizing Infants we do no more than what we have learned and received by Tradition from our Fore-fathers That Children being well Educated becoming Righteous and Holy Men the Church hath thought fit to Baptize them committing them to some Baptized Person to Educare and Instruct them who ought to take care of him as his Father in Jesus Christ for whose Salvation he must answer to him For this Reason it is that the Bishop demands of this Person If he renounces c. that by that act he may oblige him to perswade this Infant and teach him when he comes to the use of Reason to renounce those things which he hath promised to renounce by him Lastly The Bishop gives the Holy Sacrament to Infants that they may be brought up Christianly and may live a Life conformable to the Holiness of the Sacraments which they have received This is all that is most useful in this Author I will not stay to make an Extract of his Treatises of the Divine Names and Of Mystick Theology nor of his Letters because these Works being full of Metaphysical and Platonick Notions it would be hard to draw any thing that is pleasing or useful out of them The several Editions of this Author's Books are set down in Vol. I. of this History under Dionys. Areop to which the Reader is referred The History of the COUNCILS Held from the Year 430 to the End of the Fifth Age. Of the I. Council of Ephesus And of the other Assemblies of Bishops touching the Affair The first Council of Ephesus of Nestorius which were precedent to or followed after this Council ABout the end of the Year 428 Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople having permitted his Cyril Ep. ad Caelest 1. p. Con. Ep. c. 14. Socr. l. 7. c. 32. In Mar. Mercator and in the Acts of the Council Priest Anastasius and Dorothaeus a Bishop to Preach arrogantly That the Virgin Mary ought not to be called the Mother of God and having himself maintained the same Opinion in several of his Sermons brought a great deal of trouble into his Church The People being much offended at this Doctrine rose against their Bishop Eusebius afterward Bishop of Dorylaeum and some others of the Clergy published a Protestation against him wherein they declared him an Heretick and accused him of reviving the Error of Paulus Samosatenus the Priests also taught the Contrary Doctrine Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum Preach'd against Nestorius's Opinions but without naming him Lastly The Clergy the Monks and People combined against Nestorius but on the other-side Nestorius and his party stoutly maintained what they had asserted and still preach'd the same Doctrine and being upheld by the Authority of the Prince they cruelly handled those that opposed their Designs This Dispute soon spread it self into Aegypt whither Nestorius's Party had sent a Collection of his Sermons The Monks of Aegypt were the first that moved these subtile questions and debated them among themselves St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria who was of the Contrary Judgment perceiving Act. conc p. 1. c. 33. Act. conc p. 1. c. 2. 1. p. of the Con. c. 12. that several of them defended the Party of Nestorius wrote a large Letter to these Monks in which having admonished them that it were much better not to meddle with such abstracted Questions which cannot be of any advantage he declares himself against the Doctrine of Nestorius without naming him proving by several Reasons that the Virgin Mary ought to be called the Mother of God This Letter being seen at Constantinople anger'd Nestorius who order'd a certain Person named Photius to answer it and gave out a Report that St. Cyril governed his Church badly that he affected a Tyrannical Power stirred up Sedition against the Emperor's Officers and was a Maintainer of the Manichees Nestorius's Letters were carried to Rome St. Caelestine and the Bishops of Italy wrote to Saint Cyril to know whether they were Nestorius's or not Nestorius seeing that St. Cyril declared himself openly against him complained much of his Carriage and resolved to have no Commerce Conc. p. 1. c. 6. with him for the future St. Cyril to pacify him wrote a Letter to
assumed the Title of his Deputy so on the part of the Eastern Bishops Julian Bishop of Sardica sate in the Council and had received a Letter from Rufus who recommended the defence of the Faith of the Council of Nice to him and not to suffer any Novelty to be introduced The Deputies of the Eastern Bishops made use of this Opportunity to write to Rufus that they have resisted the Doctrine of S. Cyril's Chapters and would not consent that any thing should be added to the Nicene Creed That they had for this Reason condemned S. Cyril and Memnon the one as an Heretick and the other as a Favourer of Heresie and have Excommunicated those who defend them till they should condemn S. Cyril's Chapters and profess the Faith of the Nicene Council That all the Lenity which they had used could do no good with them but still these Bishops continued to maintain these Heretical Doctrines and therefore had made themselves subject to the punishment inflicted by the Canons and particularly by the fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch Then they accused S. Cyril for being of the Judgment of Arius and Apollinaris and attributing that to the Godhead of Jesus Christ which is said of his Humane Nature As for themselves they say that they are resolved to hold to the Doctrine of the Council of Nice and to follow the Faith of the Holy Fathers That this is the Judgment not only of the Eastern Bishops but also of the Asian Churches and it is not to be doubted but that the Italians will oppose the Novelties which they endeavour to bring in They also accuse S. Cyril and Memnon for breaking the Canons by Communicating with Excommunicated Persons and with the Followers of Pelagius and Caelestius and the Euchitae or Enthusiasts They pray them therefore not to receive S. Cyril and his Adherents to his Communion nor to receive their Letter The end of the Council did not at all conduce to the Peace of the Church but on the contrary the Minds of Men appeared more discontented than ever and the Eastern Bishops who had had the worst of it sought to revenge themselves In their return they wrote to Theodotus Bishop of Collect. Lupus c. 38. ibid. c. 66 136 141 174 201. Ibid. Socr. l. 7. c. 34. Liberat. in brov c. 6. Coll. of Lupus c. 39. Ancyra against the Letters of the Bishops of the Council At Tarsus they confirmed what they had done and deposed not only S. Cyril and Memnon but also six of the Deputies of the Council of Ephesus viz. Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem Flavian Bishop of Philippi Firmus Bishop of Caesarea Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra Acacius Bishop of Miletene and Euoptius Bishop of Ptolemais Afterward being come into the East they met again at Antioch confirmed what they had done a second time and from thence wrote to the Emperor That they held no other Faith than that of the Nicene Council That they abhorred S. Cyril's Chapters and earnestly besought him to provide that they be not taught in any of the Churches Theodoret wrote also in his own Name to the People of Constantinople which were well affected to their Party to confirm them in the Opinions which he had heretofore taught them and to prove themselves innocent from the Errours laid to their charge by professing that there is but One Christ and by opposing S. Cyril's Sentiments as being the same with the Apollinarians There was in the farthest part of the East a certain Bishop who was of S. Cyril's Judgment It was Rabulas Bishop of Edessa whose Zeal carried him so far that he not only condemned Nestorius but also publickly pronounced Anathema against Theodorus of Mopsuesta and all that were not of S. Cyril's Judgment Being of these Principles he persecuted those who would not come over to his Opinion who fled to the other Bishops Andrew Bishop of Samosata hereupon consulted with Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis and Ibid. c. 43. Ibid. c. 44. shewed him that it was necessary to declare himself This was the reason that made John Bishop of Antioch and some other of the Eastern Bishops to write to the Bishop of Osroene that they should not communicate with Rabulas till being summoned before them they had pardoned him upon his making Satisfaction or he had been punished according to the Rigour of the Laws But as the Party of Cyril were ill used in the East so those of the Nestorian Party and the Eastern Bishops met with no better usage in Asia Cappadocia and Thrasia Maximian chosen Bishop of Constantinople who began already to exercise his Jurisdiction over the Churches of those Diocesses would have himself acknowledged by all the Bishops and deprived them who would not communicate with him Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia the Metropolis of Cappadocia Prima came to Tyana and Ordain'd a Bishop in the place of Eutherius but he getting some help forced him whom Firmus had Ordain'd to renounce his Ordination They also attempted to depose Dorotheus Metropolitan of Martianople and Ordain Saturninus in his place They also endeavoured to deprive Helladius Bishop of Tarsus because he would not put the Name of Maximian into the Dypticks Lastly All places were full of Deposed and Exiled Bishops and the Church was in terrible Trouble and Confusion Ibid. c. 45. Ibid. c. 46. Ibid. c. 48. Ibid. c. 49. 3 Part of the Counc of Ephesus c. 24. The Emperor Theodosius being desirous to remedy these Disorders which increased daily wrote to John Bishop of Antioch That he might put an end to these by signing the Condemnation of Nestorius and pronouncing Anathema to his Doctrine and by this means all this Trouble would cease That S. Cyril S. Caelestine and the other Bishops would communicate with him and that this may be brought to pass he commanded him to come to Nicomedia with some of his Clergy only assuring him that S. Cyril had also Orders to be there and that he had told them that they should not come to Court till they were reconciled and had procured Peace to the Church by their Re-union He forbids them in the mean while to attempt either to dispossess or ordain any Bishop The Emperor wrote to S. Symeon Stylites and Acacius Bishop of Beraea that the one C. 25. Ib. Collect. of Lupus c. 51. 52. should labour to procure the Peace of the Church by his Prayers and the other by his Care This Letter was written in the beginning of the Year 432. The Count Aristolaus was sent to execute these Orders and wrote to John Bishop of Antioch to come to Nicomedia John suspected that the design was to carry him from thence to Constantinople and therefore being unwilling to do any thing without the advice of his Brethren he wrote to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis That if Ibid. 50. it were in his Power to go or not it was necessary to deliberate together what they should answer and if he were carried
the High-Priest and the Sacrifice who seeketh not honours but hearts The Confession of the Martyrs is more honourable than the Episcopal Dignity Many times favour promotes persons of little merit to the Episcopal Throne but nothing but Grace can confer the honourable Title of a Confessor He acquaints them afterwards that he had sent them the Reliques of the Martyrs S Nazarius and S. Romanus which they had desir'd This Letter is among those of Symmachus and 't is very probable that it was written by Ennodius in this Pope's name The nineteenth Letter of the same Bishop is also remarkable There he rejects the Opinion of one who had affirm'd that Man has no liberty to choose any thing but evil he calls this a Schismatical Proposition and one that borders upon Blasphemy For what kind of liberty would it be to will nothing but what deserves punishment and how can it be said that one has a choice when there is but one side to take If this were so the Laws of God would be unjust for how can he oblige us to do good after he hath taken from us the desire and power to do it What means then this passage of St. Paul which gives testimony to free-will To will is present with me but how to perform that which is good I find not Is not this the meaning of it I can choose the good way but presently I leave it unless Grace assist me No body doubts but the Author of Grace opens to us the way of Righteousness by his Assistance no body condems this Doctrine for Grace leads good men and prevents their good actions 'T is Jesus Christ that calls us and invites us to Salvation by his Exhortations when he says unto us Come my Children hearken unto me but if our Free will does not obey his Admonitions if our Industry does not follow his Commands we throw our selves headlong into Hell without being constrained to it by any necessity We owe therefore our Vocation to Grace 't is Grace that leads us to Life by secret ways unless we resist it but 't is by our own choice that we follow that which is good where it 's shew'd unto us These are the Sentiments of Ennodius about Grace which come near to those of Faustus and the Priests of Marseilles and which do not agree with those of St. Augustine and his Disciples Although there be some Christian thoughts in the other Letters of Ennodius yet we have found nothing in them remarkable enough to be related here His Panegyrick of King Theodoric does not at all concern Ecclesiastical Matters but only profane History His Apology for the Council which acquitted Pope Symmachus was written by Ennodius against a Paper made by the Enemies of this Pope entitled Against the Synod which pronounced an absurd Sentence of Absolution This Paper was written with very much Artifice He opposed the Authority of this Council 1. Because the King had not summoned all the Bishops and all those who came there had not consented to this Absolution he adds that those who were the Accusers of Symmachus were excluded and could not be heard and that those who were at the Synod had confess'd that they were old and weak Secondly Because the Bishops of this Council had not followed the Intention of King Theodoric and durst contest his Right to call a Council Thirdly Because this Council had asserted a false Proposition viz. That there is no remedy for the Disorders of Popes as if it were one of the Priviledges of the Successors of St. Peter to have an unbounded licence to sin Fourthly Because this Proposition of the Council That the Pope cannot be judged by his Inferiours is very dangerous for if this were so it were needless to call a Council and the Council being call'd should not cite the Pope not bring his Accusers before them nay the Pope himself ought not to come there nor approve the meeting of this Synod as he had done Fifthly Because that the Pope after he had presented himself before the Council to be judged went away and would not come there again although he was cited four times which was a sign that he had abandoned his Defence In fine he says that they could not Absolve him unless he had answer'd the Accusations that were laid to his Charge Sixthly Because that this Council had advanced false Doctrine viz. That the Councils ought to be summoned by the Pope for says he the Provincial Synods which are held every year without consulting the Pope are a convincing evidence of the falshood of this Doctrine Seventhly Because the King having named a Deligate for the Church of Rome he had acknowledg'd that the Pope's administration might be reformed and that he had no reason to complain since he himself had appointed Delegates for other Churches Ennodius answers these Objections with much subtilty First That it was not necessary to call all the Bishops to this Synod and that it was false that those who were not present at it were against Pope Symmachus that it was ridiculous to make the Bishops of the Councils pass for Fools and Sots because they had said they were weak in Body that they would not hear the Accusers of Symmachus because the Persons produced could not be admitted to give testimony against Bishops according to the Canons Secondly That the Bishops had reason to declare to King Theodoric that the Council ought to be call'd by his Authority because in effect he had this Prerogative Thirdly That the Pope had no need of Reformation because he that was promoted to this Dignity was holy and God would not suffer that he who held a place so eminent should be corrupted Fourthly That although in strictness the Pope could not be judged by a Council yet he had voluntarily subjected himself to its Judgment Fifthly That he had not withdrawn himself from it but because he could not come to it more freely Sixthly That it was true Provincial Councils might assemble without the consent of the Pope but not a Council whose business it was to jâ—dge the Pope himself Seventhly That the King was surprized in naming a Delegate who neglected the chief Duties of Piety in discharging that Office That the Pope had a right to name one for other Churches but not to name one for his own because God would have the Causes of other men determined by the Judgment of Men but as to the Successors of St. Peter they are only subject to the Judgment of God Ennodius concludes his Answers with three Prosopopeia's In the first he brings in St. Peter speaking who exhorts the Romans to obey Symmachus and putan end to the Schism In the second he brings in St. Paul speaking who thunders against the Schismaticks And lastly Rome Christian comes upon the Stage who gives also her Suffrage in favour of Symmachus and for the benefit of Peace I leave it to others to compare together the Objections and Answers contained in this
of them These Deputies not finding that footing in the Church of Rome which they expected thought fit to consult the Bishops of Africk which were banish'd to the Isle of Sardinia And therefore in the Year 521 they address'd to them a Writing wherein they declar'd their Belief concerning the Incarnation and Grace and founded it upon the Testimonies of the Fathers As to the Incarnation they acknowledg'd two Natures in Jesus Christ united into one Person only without confusion and mixture They reject the Sentiment of those who professing to believe one Nature Incarnate in Jesus Christ do not receive the Decision of the Council of Chalcedon or who admitting two Natures would not say that there is but one Nature of the Word Incarnate From these Principles they conclude That the Virgin is truly the Mother of God That the Union of the two Natures is essential and natural That the Person of Jesus Christ is compos'd of two Natures without any change happening to him That the Trinity continues the Trinity still tho one of the Persons of this Trinity was Incarnate That his Flesh is not become a part of the Trinity but is become the Flesh of one Person of the Trinity From whence it comes to pass that one may say That one of the Trinity suffer'd and was crucified in his Flesh and not in his Divinity that it was not Man who was made God but God who was made Man They profess to receive the four first General Councils and the Letters of St. Leo and to condemn the Errors of Theodorus of Mopsuesta Nestorius Eutyches and Dioscorus and of all those whom the Apostolick See had regularly condemn'd As to Grace they follow the Principles of St. Austin and declare that they believe that the first Man was created without Concupiscence and with a perfect liberty to do good and evil and that by falling into sin he was chang'd both in his Body and his Soul that he lost his own Liberty and became a Slave to sin that since that time all men are born in sin that nothing but the Grace of Jesus Christ can deliver us from sin that without this we can neither think nor desire that which is good that Grace worketh in us to do not by any necessitating violence but by the sweet inspiration of the Holy Spirit that no Man can say 'T is in my power to believe if I will since Faith is the gift of God who worketh in us to believe and to will that the passage of the Apostle which says God would have all Mankind to be sav'd ought not to be objected against this Doctrine to prove that nothing hinders us to be sav'd if we will For if this were so there would be no necessity to have recourse to the unsearchable Judgments of God for explaining the reason why one is call'd and another not that if God would effectually have sav'd the whole World he should have wrought in Tyre and Sidon those Miracles which were done in Chorazin and Bethsaida since he knew that if they had been wrought in these two former Cities their Inhabitants would have repented that the beginning of good Thoughts the consent of the Will to do good cometh to us from God who produces them in us by his Holy Spirit They cite for proof of these Principles some passages of St. Basil of the Popes St. Innocent and St. Celestin and of the Council of Africk They conclude with Anathematizing Pelagius Celestius and Julianus and those who are of their Opinion together with the Books of Faustus about Predestination This Confession of Faith is sign'd by Peter a Deacon John and Leontius Monks and by another John a Reader They pray the Bishops of Afric to approve their Exposition of Faith that so being supported by their Authority they may be able to stop the mouth of those who disgrace them The Bishops of Afric employ'd St. Fulgentius to write them an Answer and their Letter bears the names of fifteen Bishops only who did not only approve in this Letter all the Points of the Confession of Faith which we have just now explain'd but did also enlarge and confirm them without excepting so much as that Proposition One Person of the Trinity did suffer They enlarged very much upon the Proofs of Original Sin the Necessity of Grace for the beginning of Faâ—th upon its Efficacy upon the Insufficiency of Free-will to do good They confess that Grace does not destroy our Free-will but they maintain that our Free-will which without Grace is not sufficient to do any thing but sin is deliver'd from this Bondage by Grace which sets us truly at liberty They confess also that in some sense it may be said that Nature has power to believe and to do good because Faith and Charity are proper for Human Nature and Man was created only to believe and do good but that since the Fall he cannot have Faith nor do good unless God give him the power as the Soul gives Life to the Body which is capable of being animated That when the Apostle says Therâ— are some People who do by nature what the Law commands this is to be understood of Faithful People and such as were Converted That neither the knowledge of God nor Faith will avail us any thing without Charity that the Law of Nature does not deliver us from sin without Grace that it must be referr'd to the incomprehensible Judgments of God that he does not effectually will all Men to believe that it is sufficient for us to acknowledge with humility his Mercy wholly gratuitous in those who are sav'd and not to doubt his Justice as to those who are damned that those who understand this passage of St. Paul That God would have all Men to be sav'd so as to make a Man's Salvation depend upon his own Will are grosly mistaken that the example of Infants dying without Baptism who are condemn'd to Eternal Punishment for this is the term which Fulgentius uses without committing any voluntary sin does confound them That therefore the words of the Apostle are to be understood in this sense that no man is sav'd but by the Will of God because he cannot prevent the fulfilling of God's Will neither can the effect of it be hindred by the malice of Men and that 't is certain that all those whom God would have sav'd are infallibly sav'd that it may also be said that by all men are to be understood all men who are to be sav'd that often-times in Scripture all the World is taken for a part of Mankind Lastly That God who created Man hath provided for him by the Decree by which he predestin'd him Faith Justification Perseverance and Glory and whosoever does not acknowledge the Truth of this Predestination shall not be of the number of the Elect nor have any share in that Salvation That notwithstanding the Faithful ought constantly to pray and to have Charity for these Persons that God would give them
Trinity and the Incarnation In the third Chapter he describes the Dogmes which a Catholick should reject In the fourth he explains the Oecoâ—… of the Incarnation In the fifth he approves the five first General Councils In the sixth he discovers the Original of the Error of Severus In the seventh he refutes it by the Testimony of the Fathers and in those that follow he opposes it with many Arguments and relates what was said in the Conferences which were held with the Theodosians He objects to himself the Testimonies upon which they founded their Doctrine and the Arguments they made use of which he relates in their own words He answers them first by Reason and then alledges the Passages of the Fathers which may serve for an answer to them In refuting the Gaianites he makes them say That the Eucharist is the Body and not only a Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ. The Orthodox confesses and confirms this Proposition and and from thence concludes that the Body of Jesus Christ was corruptible before his Passion since the Eucharist which is the Body of Jesus Christ is subject to Corruption This Work is very confus'd 't is a kind of Rhapsody of divers Conferences but there is very much Scholastick Subtilty in it 'T is apparent that Scâ—â—lia have been added to it which are inserted into the Text and 't is no less probable that the Work has been interpolated in some places The eleven Books of Anagogical Considerations about the Creation of the World are more coherent and better written but they are fill'd with Thoughts so mystical and remote from the Litteral Sense that it cannot but be tedious to read them Mr. Alix publish'd the twelfth Book of these Anagogical Contemplations which had been hitherto suppress'd in Greek and Latin at London 1682. Cave p. 420. There are five Dogmatical Discourses of the same Author The first is about the Trinity the second about the Immensity of the Divine Nature which can have no bounds the third about the Incarnation the fourth about the Corruptibility and Incorruptibility of Jesus Christ and the last about his Resurrection These Discourses contain many Scholastical Arguments F. Combefis has given us six Sermons in the first Tome of the Addition to the Bibliotheque of the Fathers The first and second is about the Annunciation of the Virgin the third about the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ the fourth about the Holy Communion where he speaks of the Dispositions that are necessary for a worthy Communicant and for assisting him at the Holy Sacrifice and also of the Ceremonies and Prayers of the Oblation the fifth and sixth are upon the sixth Psalm of David The Câ—â—pendiâ—â—â— Institution of the Faith is also reckon'd to be his which was publish'd by Beza of Vezeliâ—câ—â— Gr. Lat. with five Dâ—alogues about the Trinity under the Name of St. Athanasius 1570 and is to be found under the Name of St. Cyril in some Editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum Cave p. 420. There remains only 154 Questions upon the Holy Scripture There is no doubt but these such as they are at present cannot be Anaâ—â—asius's of Sina since the Author there quotes the Canons of the Council held in the Palace of the Emperor after the sixth Council the Works of St. Maximus St. John Climacâ—â— of John Moschâ—s of 〈◊〉 and of Nicephorus besides that he reckons 700 years from Câ—â—stantine's time to his own The Jeâ—â—ite Grâ—â—serâ—s answers That these places have been added but 't is much more probable that this is the Work of another Author Gentianus Hervâ—â—us who publish'd them first pubâ—â—â—h'd them under the Name of Anastasius of Nice There were two of this Name in Antiquity the one was present at the Council of Chalcedon and the other at the fifth Council The Remark that we have made proves that they can be neither the one 's nor the other's 'T is mâ—nifest that it is a Work of some Modern Greek to which the Name of Anastasius Sinaita is prefix'd by mistake for in the Greek Manuscript 't is entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or A Guide to the True Way Now 't is evident that the Work of Anastasius Sinaita which goes under this Title Evagrius has nothing like these Questions The Guide to the True Way of Anastasius Sinaita was publish'd in Greek and Latin by Gretserus The five Dogmatical Discourses are found in Greek in the Manuscripts of Germany but they have been printed only in Latin translated by Tilmanus The Author of the Version of the Anagogical Questions is not known They are cited by Glycas The Book of his De Oeconomia Christi is extant in the Arundelian Library in a Greek Manuscript at Gresham-Colledge Cave p. 420. The Questions upon the Scripture were publish'd in Greek and Latin by Gretserus There are also some other Manuscript Works as a Sermon upon his Enthronization in the See of Antioch cited by Nicephorus another upon his Restauration quoted by the same Author These two together with the Treatise against Philoponus are reckon'd by Dr. Cave among his Works that are lost Cave p. 421. The Answers to the Monks of Scythia a Treatise of the Rule of a Good Life two Books of the Structure of Man a Mystical Contemplation upon the Passion of Jesus Christ. Nicephorus quotes also a Treatise of the same Person against the Book of one Severianus call'd John Philoponus which was entituled The Arbitrator or Judge concerning the Union of the Natures in Jesus Christ. Turrianus has taken from thence a Fragment which is publish'd by Gretserus in the Preface Besides all these there are several other Tracts of his not yet publish'd which are said by Labbee to be extant in the Royal Library at Paris Nov. Biblioth MSS. par 2. p. 82. and two Sermons of his which are said by Possevinus to be extant in the Vatican Library Cave p. 420 421. The style of this Author is very indifferent It is Scholastical dry barren and tedious EVAGRIUS EVagrius was born at Epiphania a City of the second Province of Syria under the Empire of Justinian about the Year 536 After he had studied he follow'd the Bar and was a profess'd Advocate at Antioch This was the occasion of giving him the Name of Scholasticus for then they were call'd so who pleaded at the Bar. He was made Treasurer and Secretary for the Province by the Emperor Tiberius He compos'd six Books of Ecclesiastical History which begin where Theodoret Socrates and Sozomen end i. e. at the Year 439 and end at the twelfth Year of Mauritius which is 594 according to the Vulgar Aera This History is very large and exact enough He relates Matter of Fact from the Authority of the Acts and Historians of the time The style is not unpleasant It has an elegance and politeness in the Judgment of Photius altho there be some times superfluous words in his Discourse He does often also make Digressions and Relations which are not agreeable to
rejecting the Council of Chalcedon tho' Andrew pretended to write in that Letter against the Errors of Severus and Julian The 3d. Error he charged that Monk with was of having said That Adam's Body before his Fall was not created mortal and corruptible whenas he should have said That Man in his Nature was mortal and subject to Pain but should by Grace have been preserved from Death and Sickness had he not fallen The 4th Proposition he found Fault with in Andrew's Letter was That he had written That the World was incorruptible He did also confute some more of Andrew's Propositions in that Writing and exhorted him to a retractation But this Monk instead of following that Advice made presently another Book to defend his Errors against which Eusebius wrote ten Books wherein he shew'd That Andrew out of an intolerable Boldness had gone about to make a new Exposition of Faith whereas he should have kept to those made by the Councils and that he had adulterated and mis-quoted many Passages of the Fathers Then he confuted the four principal Errors he had condemned in his first Writing He shewed the different Sences the Word Corruption is capable of and how many ways it hath been taken He cited several Places of the Fathers for the confuting of those Errors and laid open the Falsifications of the Places quoted by Andrew He shewed That Christ was subject to natural tho' not to vicious Passions during his abode on the Earth and that after his Resurrection he is become immortal and impassible He did not matter the Name of Phthartolatre that is worshipper of Corruption which Andrew gave to the Catholicks and omitted nothing that was necessary to maintain the Doctrine of the Church and to render that of his Adversary ridiculous His Style was plain and clear pure enough and did not want Judgment There is nothing of him now extant This is gathered out of the 162d Volume of Photius's Bibliotheca BONIFACE IV. BONIFACE IV. held the Roman See from 607. to 614. Bede says That in that Pope's Time Mellitus Bishop of London came to Rome in the Eighth Year of the Emperor Boniface IV. Phocas and that he was present at a Council which this Pope held at Rome in the Year 610. in February in which they made some Constitutions for the Church of England Holstenius hath published a pretended Decree of this Council wherein it declares That Monks may be Bishops and perform the Sacerdotal Functions and a Letter of this Pope to * Oâ— Ethelbert Athelbert a King of England in which he declares all those excommunicated that shall hinder the Execution of the Decree now mention'd even the King 's Athelbert's Successors These two Monuments seem very suspicious to me The Style of them is altogether barbarous and they are fill'd with impertinent and frivolous Reasons For instance he says It is evident that the State and profession of Monks maketh them fit to be Ministers of the Word of God seeing they are call'd Angels and Angels are Ministers Which Reasoning is frivolous but the reason he gives why they are call'd Angels is yet more ridiculous Monks saith he are cover'd like Cherubims with six Wings the Cowle that covers their Head maketh two the Tunick's Arms make other two and we may confidently say the two extreams of the Habit which covers the Body are two Wings more Thus you have the Cherubim's six Wings This is some Monk's Fancy rather than the Work of a Council of Bishops or of a Patriarch The Letter of Pope Deusdedit Boniface the IV's Successor directed to Gordian Bishop of Sevil is a Monument evidently false Isidore was Bishop of Sevil from the Year 600. to the Year 636. and Deusdedit held the Holy See in that interval Thus the very Title does evince the Falsity of that Letter it being evident that under Deusdedit's Pontificate there was no Gordian Bishop of Sevil. The Author of that Letter declares That according to the Decrees of the Holy See married Persons which accidentally stood together Sureties for their Children at the Font ought to be put asunder and may be married again which is a gross Error authorized by no ancient Constitution In fine the Style of this Letter is the same with the Pope's other Letters forg'd by Isidore JOHN PHILOPONUS JOHN sirnam'd Philoponus that is Laborious a Grammarian of Alexandria of the Sect of the Tritheites flourish'd in the beginning of the Seventh Century and composed several John Philoponus Books The first is a writing against Jamblichus the Philosopher's Treatise of Idols That Philosopher had undertaken in that Treatise to shew That Idols had something heavenly in them and that the Deity dwelt there which he prov'd both from the wonderful Fabrick of Images and the incredible things ascribed to them Philoponus had refuted the two Parts of that Work with a great deal of Elegancy and Strength Photius speaks of that work in the 216th Volume of his Bibliotheca He wrote moreover a Treatise of the six Days Work against Theodorus Mopsuestenus dedicated to Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople wherein he endeavours to demonstrate That Moses hath related the History of the Creation of the World more plainly and conformably to the Phaenomena's of Nature than any thing Plato said of it Photius mentions that Treatise in the 43d Volume of his Bibliotheca and there is an Extract of it found in the 240th Volume It is divided into four Books publish'd by Corderius and printed at Viema in the Year 1630. in Quarto together with a Tract of the same Author about Easter whereof there is no mention made in Photius who speaks of three Works more of the same Author The first is a Treatise of the Resurrection wherein he rejected the Resurrection of the Body The second is a Writing against the * The Council of Chalcedon †His Analâ—tica De generatiâ—ne Corruptione De anima De generatione animallum De metâ—oris Physicorum Acroamatica Printed at Venice in Gr. in 1535 1551. Fourth Council divided into four Parts in which he maintains That the Bishops of that Assembly approv'd Nestorius's Doctrine And another Treatise against the Catechetical Discourse of Joannes Scholasticus Bishop of Constantinople concerning the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity preach'd under the Empire of Justin junior He hath also written several other Philosophical Treatises †upon Aristotle's Books printed in several Places and a Treatise against Proclus's Opinion of the Eternity of the World This Author was as pure pleasing and elegant in his Style as impious in his Doctrine and weak in his Reasonings One may see by his Treatise of Easter that in his Time the Greeks used Leaven'd Bread in the Eucharist THEODOSIUS CONON EUGENIUS THEMISTIUS and THEODORUS PHiloponus's Treatise of the Resurrection was confuted by Theodosius the Monk by Conon Eugenius and Themistius These three last made a Book entituled An Invective in which Theodosius Conon Eugenius Themistius Theodorus they treated him as a Man
And therefore that there 's nothing in the Confession of Faith bearing his Name that proves it not to be his These Reasons and Solutions saith F. Mabellonius make it probable tho' not certain that this Confession of Faith is Alcuin's Alcuin's Stile is neat and lively he writes wittily his Expressions are pure enough for his time he handles things pleasantly one may say he did not want Eloquence no nor Elegance neither ETHERIUS ETHERIUS Bishop of Axume in Spain and Beatus Abbot and Priest were some of the first that opposed Felix and Elipandus's Error These charged them with Eutychiaanism It was to vindicate themselves and to convince their Adversaries of the opposite Error That they made 2 Books in which they profess to hold the Doctrine of the Council of Ephesus and resist the Sentiment of their Adversaries contrary to their Doctrine These 2 Books are very much confused and full of several idle useless Reflections and divers Repetitions They were printed in Canisius's Antiquities and in the last Bibliotheca Patrum PAULINUS of Aquileia PAULIN Bishop of Aquileia was present at the Council of Frank fort held in 794 there he encountred Felix and Elipandus's Error about the Title of adoptive Son which they attributed Paulin of Aquileia to Jesus Christ he made a small Writing and three Books upon this Subject Those Works are found among Alcuin's They did formerly attribute to him the 7 Books of Alcuin against that Error There is a Fragment yet extant of a Letter directed to Heistulphus who had killed his Wife which he suspected of Adultery he does most sharply reprove that Lord and lays a heavy Penance upon him We may find also some Fragment of Paulinus of Aquileia in the first Tract of the Miscellanea of M. Baluzius Tom. 1. p. 362. Lastly The Book of wholsome Instructions which went a long while under S. Austin's name was restored to Paulinus of Aquileia in the last Edition of this Father's Works upon the Credit of an old Manuscript of M. Colbert's Library It contains several useful Advices to lead a Christian Life and is of the same Style with the Advertisement to Heistulphus This Bishop died about the Year 803. His Style is very simple and no way elevated THEODULPHUS Bishop of Orleans THEODULPHUS Abbot of S. Benedict upon the Loire and afterwards preferred to the Bishoprick of Orleans before 794. flourish'd towards the end of this Century and died Theodulphus towards 821. F. Sirmondus published this Bishop's Opuscula in 1646. at Paris with his own Notes The first and chief is his Capitulary containing 46 Articles for the Instruction of the Priests of his Diocess He discourses with them of the Dignity of their State and recommends to them the Care of their Flock Diligence in Reading Praying and Working he enjoyns them when they come to the Synod after the Custom to bring along with them the Habits Books and Vessels wherewith they perform their Functions and 2 or 3 Clerks to have a care that the Bread the Water and the Wine wherewith they celebrate the Mass be very decent and proper to make the Bread themselves which is to be consecrated or cause it to be made in their presence He forbids Women to approach the Altar whilst the Priest is celebrating and orders That their Oblations shall be received in their Seats He forbids Priests to celebrate Mass by themselves without other Communicants He prohibits putting any thing in Churches besides the Sacred Vestments Vessels and Books He will not have any body to be buried within the Church but Clergymen only or persons of singular piety He prohibits Assemblies in the Church for any other thing than Praying and also celebrating Mass without the Church He extends the Prohibition of Church-men keeping Women at home with them to the nearest Relations He forbids Clerks to go to the Tavern and recommends to them Sobriety in the Feasts they are invited to He forbids Presbyters to take the Tythes belonging to their Brethren or to solicit and entice their Clerks He charges all Presbyters to baptize Children in case of Necessity whether they be of their own Parish or not He forbids Presbyters and Laymen to convert Sacred Veâ—sels to prophane uses He would have Schools set up in Parishes to teach Youth to lead a Christian Life of which he maketh an Abridgment and all the Faithful to know the Lord's Prayer and the Creed He exhorts them all to pray to God at least twice in the Day He enjoyns them to spend Sundays in Praying and being present at the Divine Service and prohibits all manner of Work but what is of necessity to dress Meat He permits Travelling provided they be present at the Office He charges the Laymen to be present at the first Vespres of Festivals at Mattins and at Mass and would have them to be exhorted to the practice of Hospitality to be deterred from false Oaths Perjuries false Witness to be instructed in the Holy Scripture to be reproved to be admonished to be constant in Prayer He exhorts Laymen to confess all their Sins even those of Thought and instructs the Presbyters how they ought to examine Sinners He exhorts Men to the Works of Mercy towards others He will have the People to be put in Mind of the Obligation laid upon Children to honour their Parents and upon Parents to use their Children gently and of the mutual Love they owe one another that Merchants and Men of Business are to be remembred that they should not mind their Temporal Gain so much as Life Eternal That the People must confess their Sins the Week before Lent and then receive Penance in order to their doing of it during Lent He marks out several ways of obtaining forgiveness of Sins he recommends the exact keeping of the Lent-Fast and the joyning of Alms-giving to Fasting He will not have Men to break their Fast at the ninth Hour of Prayer but to stay till the Hour of Vespres He thinks it would be a great perfection to abstain from Eggs Cheese Fish and Wine yet he allows infirm Persons and Labourers to use them He will have all the Faithful to communicate on Sundays in Lent except those which are suspended the Communion and that all take the Sacrament on Holy Thursday on Easter-Eve and Easter Day that they abstain from the Use of Matrimony on Fast-days and also some Days before the Communion that they prepare themselves for this Holy Action by Almsgiving and good Works That the Priests who say private Masses on Sunday shall not say them publickly lest they should take off the People from being present at the Mass in their Parishes Lastly he will have the People put in mind That they should not eat till they have been at the solemn Mass and the Sermon There was published since an Addition to this Capitulary containing a general Advertisement about such things as the Parsons ought to instruct the People in This Bishop wrote one Book more upon
is forbidden to Marry 96. the degrees prohibited 97. third Marriages forbidden 98. Questions about marryed Persons 47. unlawful Marriages forbidden 149. degrees of Affinity and Consanguinity forbidden 126. degrees forbidden 54. divers civil Constitutions about Marriage 129. Mary Honour due to the Virgin Mary 23. her perpetual Virginity 39. Opinion about her Assumption ibid. Mary Magdalen different from the Sinner 16. Mass ought not to be left unfinished 62 80. not to be said without communicating 81. Abuses in the celebration of the Mass reformed 81 84 86. is to be taken Fasting ibid. only one Chalice to be placed upon the Altar at it 97. the Sacrifice to be offered for all that die in the Faith 46. Priests not to celebrate it alone nor say private Masses on Sundays 124. the Mass of this thing before consecrated 87. Miracles extraordinary 19. Monks Several sorts of them 4. The Age at which they may be received 87. All persons may be received ib. A Canon for Monks and Nuns ib. How they ought to live 128 129. A Decree about the Life of Monks 20. Divers Constitutions about Monks 60. A Rule for the Monks 6. They ought to observe their Rule 55. and obliged to dwell in their Monastery 54 87. Extravagant Commendations of Monks 12. The greatest part of Monks disorderly and Hypocrites 27. Forms of the Monks Priviledges 41. A Rule for Abbots and Monks 46. Other Rules for Monks Nuns and Religious Persons 140. Monasteries It is not allowed to baptise or bury in them 55. Double Monasteries forbidden 145. Monothelites Their Doctrine and Original 63. Their History ibid. condemned in the Lateran Council 64. and in that of Constantinople 66 c. N. Nativity of Jesus Christ. Reasons for keeping that Festival upon the 25th of December 51. O. Oecumenick or Universal in what sense all that is Catholick may be called Oecumenick Ordination of Bishops 4. They may not be or dained but in Cities only 81. The Qualifications of such as are raised to the Priesthood 140. Elections of Princes null ibid. The age and qualities of such as are ordained 119. The Ordinations of Persons twice married are void 126. Other Ordination irregular and invalid 85. The Qualifications of a person to be ordained Bishop 57. He ought to be made by two or three Bishops 98. He may not chuse his Successor 99. Age required to be ordained 100. What persons are forbidden to be ordained 59 75. Age of Ordination 59 86. Persons ordained can't return to the World 75. The Ordination of persons twice married forbidden 126. A Form of a Prince to oblige the Bishops to ordain a person chosen by him for Bishop 41. Ordinations for Money or Faction forbidden 53. Prohibitions to chuse a Successor ibid. A Priest ordained before he is baptized ought to be re-ordained 45. The Offices of such as Ordain and Consecrate ibid. P. Pall given to the Bishop of Mentz 97. To Metropolitans ordain'd by Boniface 29. Granted to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury 16. Passion A Canon to preach upon the Passion on Holy-Friday 58. Penance Its parts 2. The Clergy do it before God and the Laity before the Bishop 4. In what consists true Penance ibid. The Priests ought to put the Penitents in mind of it and absolve only such as are well qualified for it 88. How and where Penitents are to be reconciled 47 48. There was no publick Penance in England ibid. The Ceremonies and Practice of publick Penance ibid. Reconciliation of Penitents upon Holy-Thursday 32. Necessary dispositions for reconciliation ibid. Penance for small sins 36. They who have begun a course of Penance ought to finish it 60 81. Divers Punishments and Penances imposed 126. Penance of Clergy-men 107. Bishops subjected to Penance with confessing any Crimes may be restored to their Office 82. The Penance of Monks 7 8. Pepin Zachary declares that he ought to be King 98. Pilgrimages forbidden to Women and Virgins 96. Prayers for the Prince 116 118. Several sorts of Prayers 3. The Service of the Church 6 7. The Lord's-Prayer ought to be recited every day in the Service of the Church 58. The Liturgy used by the Monks 7. For the Dead 97. In all Languages 117. Prayers for the Dead 104. Princes Obedience due to them 148. Power the difference between Ecclesiastical and Civil Power 133. Purification the Original of that Feast and the Ceremonies used on it 35. Purgatory acknowledged by Julian of Toledo 44. R. Relicks ought to be put in Churches 140. Resurrection with the same Bodies 18. Revelations a Canonical Book 59. Rogations or Litanies mentioned by S. Isodore 2. S. Sacrament The Definition of a Sacrament by S. Isidore 2. The Number of Sacraments mentioned by Isidore ib. Sacrifice defined ib. Saints Invocation of Saints by an Image 119. New Saints forbidden to honour them 117. Schools established in Bishopricks and Abbies 119. Scripture a Catalogue of the Canonical Books by S. Isidore 1 2. Service how it ought to be celebrated in the Church 45. A Rule concerning the Service of the Church 58. Simony condemn'd 62 79 81. It is forbidden to take any thing but what is voluntarily offered for Baptism 79. Simony forbidden 121. Condemned 149. Souls their Natures and Qualities 103. Created by God and put into the Body 143. Their State after Death 44. A Vision of that State 95. Created when the Body is formed 14. It is spiritual and retains its faculties after death 27. Holy Spirit its procession from the Father and Son defined in the fourth Council of Toledo 58. Proceeds from the Father and Son 144. Spain Questions determined by the Bishops of Spain 55 56. Sunday Works allowed on Sunday 130. T. Toledo The Bishop of it Metropolitan of the Province of Carthage 53. Holy Thursday Ceremonies used on that day 32. V. Holy Vessels not to be broken unless upon great necessity 57. Virginity the oligation to keep a Vow of Virginity 149. Unction of the Sick common in the eighth Century 119. Usages different among the Greeks and Latins 46 47. Usages of Churches 47. W. Women not allowed to perform any Ecclesiastical Functions 46. ERRATA of Volume VI. PAge 3. line 8. from the bottom read word p. 6. l. 20. from bot r. Anianus and so p. 7. l. 5. p. 12. in marg r. Apthartodocetae p. 15. l. 2. r. Church of Rome p. 19. l. 8. from bot r. rejected them p. 20. l. 12. r. for that reason p. 21. l. 17. from bot 1641. r. 641. l. 11. from bot r. in one p. 25. l. 31. from bot Unities r. Union p. 30. l. 6. in this r. in a. p. 41. l. 2. r. of Forms p. 42. in marg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 43. l. 24. upon r. for l. 25. upon r. about p. 47. l. 9. dele again after married p. 49. l. 12. r. Holstenius l. 14. r. Jarrow p. 51. l. 9. into r. in p. 56. l. 14. from bot the.
Ratraâ—… or Bertramus's Treatise about Predestination about these famous Questions composed a Treatise of Predestination divided into two Books The first contains a Collection of Passages out of the Fathers that all that is done in this World is done by Order and Direction of God's Providence That although he be not indeed the cause of the Crimes and Sins of Wicked Men yet they are also subject to the Order of Providence and serve for the Execution of his Will That God hath foreseen from all Eternity what shall befall the Good and Evil the Elect and Reprobate That the Predestination of the Saints is the Effect of his Mercy and the number of the Elect can neither be increased nor diminished nor altered That all the holy thoughts and good actions of the Saints by which they acquire themselves happiness are the effect of the mere Grace of God That our Free-will is too weak to do any good unless it be strengthned by the Grace of God which helps us to do good That this Grace operates in us to will and to do and that it is necessary for the beginning of Faith and Prayer In the Second he treats of the Predestination of Sinners and speaks by the by of the Predestination of the Elect. He shews by the Testimonies of St. Austin Fulgentius and other Fathers that God hath not predestined Sinners to sin but to the punishment of their Sins and Eternal Torments He rejects the distinction of those who say that Eternal Punishment was ordained and appointed for Sinners but they were not predestined to it He maintains that this Predestination did not impose a necessity of Sinning upon any Man though those that are Elected by the mere Mercy of God shall be infallibly saved and those whom God leaves in the Mass of Perdition shall be infallibly damned for their Sins which they voluntarily commit He adds that we ought to attribute all the good we do to God and all the evil we do to our selves because God never inclines us to evil but only leaves us to the motions of our Wills At the end of these Books Retramnus prays the Emperor not to publish them before these Questions be fully examined and cleared that they might know which Opinion to follow He adds that if this Book displeaseth the Emperor that he would correct it or shew him what corrections he would have made in them This Treatise is published by Mauginus in Collect. Script Tom. 1. p. 29. and in Biblioth Patr. Tom. 15. p. 442. The Emperor gave these two Books of Lupus and Retramnus to Hincmarus and Pardulus to examine Scotus's Book about Predestination them who opposed them to Amalarius a Deacon of Treves and Johannes Erigina Scotus whom they had ordered to write upon this subject We have not the Work of Amalarius but only that of Joannes Scotus which according to the Genius of that Author is full of Scholastick Subtleties and Distinctions He begins with this Position That every Question may be resolved by four general Rules of Philosophy viz. Division Definition Demonstration and Analysis and the rest of his Work is not less Logical for although he cites several Passages of S. Austin yet he chiefly proves his Assertions by Scholastical Reasons and Arguments He rejects the double Predestination and proves that Predestination doth not impose any necessity He maintains that Man is absolutely free after the Sin of Adam and that although he cannot do good without the Grace of Jesus Christ yet he doth it without being constrained to it or forced by the Will of God by his own free choice He adds that Sin and the Consequence of it the Punishments with which it is rewarded being mere Privations are neither foreseen noâ— predestined by God That Predestination hath no place but in those things which God hath preordered in order to Eternal Happiness and supposeth that this Predestination ariseth from the foresight of the good use of our free-will To prove what he had asserted that Eternal Punishments are mere Privations he affirms That the Torments of the Damned are nothing but privations of Happiness or the trouble of being deprived of it so that according to him Material Fire is no part of the Damned's Torments That there is no other Fire prepared for them but the fourth Element through which the Bodies of all Men must pass but that the Bodies of the Elect are changed into an Aetherical Nature and are not subject to the power of Fire whereas on the contrary the Bodies of the Wicked are changed into Air and suffer Torments by the Fire because of their contrary qualities and for this reason 't is that the Daemons who had a Body of an Aetherial Nature were massed with a Body of Air that they may feel the Fire Thus did Philosophy lead this Author to many wild and extravagant Notions and Opinions This Piece is put out by Maugius in his Vind. praedest Gratiae Tom. 1. p. 103. Wemlo or Ganelo Archbishop of Sens having read this Work gathered out of it several Propositions Prudentius's Woâ—â— against Scotus which he put under 19 Heads according to the number and order of the Chapters of Scotus's Work and sent them to Prudentius Bishop of Troyes who having read them found as he thought not only the Errors of Pelagius in them but also the Impiety of the Collyridians Whereupon he composed a Book to confute him in the Preface of which he accuses John Scotus of following of Pelagius Caelestius and Julian to resist the Grace of Jesus Christ and the Justice of God to deny Original Sin and many other Blasphemous Doctrines Yet John Scotus did not deny Original Sin and acknowledged the necessity of Grace in his Work but Prudentius thought he found such Principles in it as seemed to abet the Doctrine of Pelagius Prudentius answered John Scotus's Book Chapter by Chapter and opposed the Judgment and Authority of the Fathers to his false Reasonings The 19 Heads gathered out of Scotus's Book are Printed in Bishop Usher's History of Gotteschalcus cap. 19. After he hath rejected his Method of deciding all things by the four Rules of Logick and shew'd that Questions of Divinity are not so to be handled he confutes Scotus's Opinion of Predestination Free-will and the punishment of the Damned and proves the contrary Opinion He distinguishes Predestination from Prescience and shews that Prescience extends to Sin but not Predestination He distinguishes Predestination into two sorts the one by which God hath freely Predestined the Elect to Grace and Glory the other by which he hath Destined the Wicked whose Sins he fore-sees to Eternal Damnation He proves that Man since the Fall hath not a full Liberty and Power to do good and that he cannot do it not only without the Grace of Jesus Christ but that his Grace excites impels and enables him to do it He maintains that no Man affirms that Grace wholly destroys Free-will or that Predestination imposes any Necessity upon
save all Men without exception because if God would not have all Men to be saved some would be under a necessity of damnation And whereas his Adversaries objected that the Will of God is all powerful and therefore if God would have all Men to be saved they would be so He puts the same Question to them as to the Angels and urges them to answer it Are those Angels which are fallen fallen by the Will of God or not And since they could not deny according to their own Principle but that God did desire their Salvation He concludes that they must own that Gods will hath not always its effect He there recites several Passages of the Fathers to explain those places of Scripture where the All-powerful will of God is spoken of In the 27th Chapters he examines the State of the Question concerning the 4th Article the Death of Jesus Christ for all Men. He declares that it extends not to the Devils for whom Jesus Christ was no Mediator but only to Men. And whereas it was demanded of him whether Jesus Christ died for Antichrist He answers that Antichrist shall be a Man and since Jesus Christ died for all Men he is of the number of those for whom Christ died In the 28th Chapter he cites several Passages of the Fathers to prove that Jesus Christ died for those Men who are dead in their Sins although it can't be said that they are redeemed for Eternal Salvation In the 29th he justifies the Expression which he had delivered that there never was a Man whose Flesh was not assumed by Jesus Christ and cites several places of the Fathers which approve that Expression He then shews that those that are Baprized receive the Faith that worketh by Love which he had affirmed in his last Article He adds in the following Chapter that except two Sentences of it the rest of that Article is taken out of S. Prosper Hincmarus having thus justified himself passes his Judgment upon the Writings which were come to his hands made upon this subject He disapproves Scoâ—us's and Prudentius's Books and says that he will not enter into any Contest with them because he does not know their design yet he tells us that he had observed some Expressions in them contrary to the Catholick Truth viz. That there is a Triple Divinity That the Sacrament of the Altar is not the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but a Memorial only of his true Body and Blood That the Angels are Corporeal That the Soul of Man is not in his Body That the Tortures of Hell are nothing else but the remembrance of Sins and the reflection of a guilty Conscience and other fruitless Questions concerning the manner how we shall see God which arise perhaps saith Hincmarus from hence that those who are busiest to move such disputes take no care to see him He rejects the 7 Rules laid down by Prudentius In the 3â—th Chapter he shews that those that lived before the coming of Jesus Christ are redeemed by his Death as well as those that live after his coming In the 32d he produces a great number of Testimonies both from the Greek and Latin Fathers to prove that Jesus Christ died for all Men without exception In the next Chapter he confirms the same Doctrine by several Reasons grounded upon the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers and shews that although Jesus Christ died for all Men yet they are not all redeemed and saved because they will not In the 35th he approves the 5th Canon of the Council of Valence propounded by his Adversaries That Jesus Christ died for all those that are Regenerate by Baptism But he maintains that Gotteschalcus and the Predestinarians deny that Baptism washes away the guilt of Original Sin from those that are not predestinated and confutes their Error The Bishops of the Council of Valence after the Articles of Grace Free-will and Predestination Hincmarus's Remarks upon the Constitution of the Câ—uâ—cil of Valencâ— about Ordinations confuted by Hincmarus added a Canon concerning the Ordinations of Bishops to this effect To prevent for the future that Ignorant Bishops unable to discharge that great Function and whose Lives are not sufficiently Examined may not be put into the Sees as they formerly have been to the utter ruine and overthrow of all Church Disciplineâ— it is decreed That after the Death of any Bishop they should Petition the Princes to grant the People and Clergy of that City power to make a Canonical Election of some Person of the same or the Neighbouring Diocess who is fit to fill the See and if any Clerk be sent from Court to be made their Bishop they should strictly examine and look into his Life and Doctrine and Manners before they Ordain him and if he be found an Ignorant Vicious and Simoniacal Person the Metropolitan should refuse to Ordain him and going to Court represent it to the Prince Hincmarus imagining that this Canon was made against him and some other Bishops who had been Ordained through the favour of the Court takes it into Examination and therefore in the 36th Chapter he observes first that this Canon makes directly against him whom he thought the Author of it because he was Shaved and Ordained in another Church than that of which he was Bishop evidently meaning Remigius Arch-Bishop of Lyons Secondly He observes that he had left out several things which concerned the Ordination of a Bishop as for Example If they choose a Clergy-man of another Church that he should not be Ordained till his Bishop hath given his Consent Thirdly He says that those Men are not worthy to bear the Names of Bishops whose Ordination was such as he describes Ignorant Vicious and Simoniacal Fourthly He says that in speaking so he affronts all the Bishops of France the Metropolitans who have made such unlawful Ordinations and the Princes who have approved them Fifthly He defends his own Ordination and relates the whole History of the Deposition of Ebbo and the Process had against him He relates the Judgment given in favour of him against Ebbo in the Council of Soissons in 853. the Declaration of Ebbo who acknowledged himself justly deposed and consented another should be made Bishop in his place approved by the Bishops met at Thionville in 835 whose Sentence was confirmed by Pope Sergius He adds that Theodoâ—is Villa 10 years after this Deposition the Bishops of the Diocess of Râ—ims being Assembled at Beauvais desired him of the Prince and he was Ordained by his Consent after he had been Canonically chosen by the Clergy and People of Reims Hereupon he says that he spake these things with regret but he was obliged to it lest any Man reading this Canon should think his Ordination contrary to the Canons and Rules of the Church Then he opposes to this Article 12 Canons of the Church concerning the Penalties to be inflicted upon such Persons as revive old Heresies that have been condemned Which are
Ancient Glossary bearing the Name of John at the head of it he speaks of Pope John who was not raised to the Papal See till towards the end of the year 872. And â—f those Verses be his 't is like he was then come back into France about the year 874. f He seems not to be the same with Johannes Scotus Abbot of Etheling The Reasons which induce me to believe that our John Scot was not the Abbot of Etheling are these First That the Abbot of Etheling was an East Saxon a Saxon of Germany or at least of Essex and John Scot an Irish-man Secondly The first was called into England by Alfred and came thither with Grimbaldus after the year 880 whereas John Scot wiâ—hdrew from France into England upon a Disgust and died before the year 875. Thirdly The Abbot of Etheling was both Pâ—iest and Monk which we do not read any where of John Scot and he was himself so far from owning it that he calls himself only Servus or extremus Servorum or extremus Sophiae Studentium But 't is certain that he lived at Court as appears by the Epistle sent him by Pardulus and by his Preface to the Book of Predestination Fourthly The Abbot of Etheling was slain by some Assassins in his Abbey-Church towards the year 895. being then a strong Man and one that could â—eâ—end himself as Asserus avers it who relates his Death and says That he stood in his own Defence quod bellicosae Artis non expers esset whereas our Scot was dead long before but put the case he had lived till then he could not then be a strong Man or able to make any Defence Fifthly William of Malmesbury makes a Distinction of those two Johns but he mistakes in his Supposition that they were both called into England by Alfred Asserus a Contemporary Author makes mention but of one Scot called into England by Alfred He seems not to be the same with Johâ—nnes Scotus Abbot of Etheling who was Grimbaldus his Companion and Master to Alfred One of the Principal Works of Johannes Scotus Erigena was his Treatise concerning the Body John Scot his Book concerning the Body and Blood of Christ. and Blood of our Saviour Which Book is lost unless it were that which bears the Name of Ratramnus the Improbability whereof we have sufficiently proved In that Treatise he asserted that the Sacraments of the Altar were not the real Body and Blood of Christ but onely a Remembrance of both This Doctrine he did not fully explain But if we may give credit to Asselin that was the Drift of it The Book was Dedicated to Charles the Bald who had commanded him to Write on this Subject And Berengarius quoted this Author as one that had Taught the Doctrine he had stood for wherein his Adversaries did not contradict him But they condemned the Book of John Scot as containing Berengarius's Error and it was attainted for that Reason by the Synods of Vercelli Paris and Rome by which means it might come to be lost It was Written against by Aldrevaldus a Monk of the Abbey of Fleury who mustered against it a Collection of Passages out of the Fathers inserted into the 12th Volume of the Spicilegium John Scot Writ moreover two Books about Predestination Five Books of Natures or about The Books of Natures by John Scot. the Division of Natures and a Book of Vision We have already spoken of his Books of Predestination The Five Books of Natures are Written by way of Dialogue and in the same Style that is after a Scholastick abstruse manner The Natures he divides into four Kinds one that creates and is uncreated another that creates and is created a third that does not create and is created and a fourth which neither creates nor is created In the three first Books he treats of the three first Kinds of Nature and in the fourth and fifth he explains the Return of the created Natures into the Nature uncreated In the Second Book he handles the Controversie betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches about the Pricession of the Holy Ghost He tells us That God has created in his Son from all Eternity the Promogenial Causes of all Things the Goodness by himself Essence by himself c. That the World was Created after Man had sinned and that if Man and Angels had not sinned God would have created no Sensible and Material World He asserts That our Saviour's Manhood was perfectly changed into his God-head after his Resurrection That the Malice and Punishments of the Infernal Spirits shall cease one day and come to a period That after their Fall they were cloathed with Aereal Bodies That the Damned shall enjoy all Natural Comforts That all Creatures whatsoever shall be at last Transformed into the Humane Nature That our Bodies shall be turned into our Souls at the Day of Resurrection And Lastly That all Things shall be converted into their Primogenial Causes and return into God So that as before the World was Created there was no Being but God and the Causes of all Things in God so after the end of the World there will be no Being but God and the Causes of all Things in Him These Books which are in Manuscript in the Library of S. Germain des Prez were Printed at Oxford in 1681. The Book of Vision doth still remain a Manuscript Father Mabillon has found one in a Monastery near S. Omar and says That John Scot Argues in that Book about the very same Question which is debated in the 30th Letter of Lopus Abbot of Ferrara John Scot Translated into Latin the Works Fathered upon S. Denys the Translation whereof he Dedicated to Charles the Bald. Pope Nicholas I. Writ to that Prince about it and desired it of Joh. Scot ' s Translations him Anastasius the Library-Keeper having perused it found he had followed his Author too close and that he had not taken a sufficient care to shun Obscurity This Work with Anastasius his Letter is in a Manuscript of the Library of the Jesuits-Colledge at Bourges and part of it has been Printed with S. Denys his Works at Colen in 1536. Scot has also Translated some Comments of Maximus upon the Books of St. Denys and his Translation of Maximus his Comments upon S. Gregory Nazianzen was Printed at Oxford in 1681. Trithemius makes mention of a Commentary upon St. Matthew's Gospel and of a Book of Offices composed by John Scot. What we have hitherto said of John Scot is a sufficient Proof that he had some Tincture of Learning and that he was skilled in Logicks and Metaphysicks But it is plain on the other side that he had a Thwarting Disposition that he was but a weak Arguer and a sorry Divine To Conclude what relates to the Subject Matter of this and the foregoing Chapter all we Paschasius his Works have to do is to speak of the Works of Paschasius Ratbertus upon which we have been
he was ordained by Formosus and was come to Rome from his own Countrey ordained by this Pope and 't was his Interest to defend it He hath made two small Treatises upon that Subject in which he shews a great deal of Learning for the Age he lived in The First is a Collection of Ecclesiastical Constitutions and passages of Fathers to prove that a Bishop deprived of his Bishoprick may be dignifyed in another Church when it is for the good and advantage of the Church and with the Pope's Permission This Collection was designed to prove the Translation of Formosus from the Bishoprick of Ostia to the Roman See Lawful Then he adds some other Testimonies to shew that though the ordination of Formosus was not lawful yet the Ordinations made by him were valid Upon the first Head he brings a Passage out of the false Decretal of Anterus the Example and Authority of St. Gregory Nazianzen the Examples of some Translations alledged by Socrates and what is observed in the Greek Book about the Translation of S. German of Cyzicum to Constantinople Then he shews That the Canons of the Council of Nice do not forbid all Translations but those only that are made through ambition and to disturb the Church He approves the Law which Hosius propounded in the Council of Sardica which forbids those Translations which are made for Avarice Ambition or Dominion but he disapproves what is added that those who pass from one See to another shall be reduced to Lay-Communion He affirms this Law comes near the Rigour of the Novatians Condemned by S. Austin That it was not approved by the Holy See and that Hosius was of no great Authority having fallen into Heresie He ought to have observed that all the Bishops of the Council approved the opinion of Hosiuâ— Auxilius then passeth to the Second Head which concerns the Validity of the Ordinations made by Photius and alledgeth the Testimonies of S. Innocent S. Austin S. Leo S. Gregory and S. Anastasius to shew that the Ordinations made by unlawful Bishops are valid and ought not to be repeated He confirms this Doctrine by a Canon of the Council of Nice which accepted the Ordinations made by the Novatians He says that since the Ordinations of Pope Liberius who was an Heretick and Vigilius who was an Usurper guilty of Simony and Murther were well approved there is much greater reason to allow of those made by Formosus He proves that it will cast the Church of Italy into strange Confusion and the Faithful into inexpressible Trouble He observes that if there was any default in the Translation of Formosus it did not belong to him who accepted it but to the Clergy and Nobles of Rome who chose him and acknowledged him for their Bishop Lastly he proves that they who swear that their Ordination is void are guilty of Sacrilege and they are not obliged thereby to obey the Commands of their Superiours nor of the Pope who exacts it because they ought not to execute those Commands of Superiours which are contrary to Justice and the Law of God That their Excommunication ought not be feared or observed but when it is just That we ought to distinguish between the Papal See and the Persons who preside in it That we ought to respect the Sees but not follow those that preside in them if they depart from the Faith or Religion although they are obliged to obey them in those things they order well although they would not do it In Conclusion He advises That this Collection of Testimonies may perhaps seem needless to several Persons because there are few People that will judge of this Affair with Equity and that he did not hope to carry his Cause in the judgment of those who are both Judges Advocates and Witnesses but that according to the Opinion of S. Jerom he wrote both for himself and for them which were of his Judgment that they might be courageous seeing they do not ground their belief upon their own Sence but the Holy Fathers and that they observe that which is written That if a Multitude rise up against you you should not fear and that they should hold fast what they have received least you lose your Crown That continuing in the sacred Vocation you have received they may wait for the impartial Examination of a general Council under the protection of which they may put themselves with these Wâ—… Lift up thy Self O Lord judge thine own Cause The Second Treatise of Auxilius saith Sigibert in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers is written in form of a Dialogue by way of Question and Answer It was composed at the desire of Leo Bishop of Nola who had been ordained by Formosus who being urged to acknowledge that the Priest-hood which he had received from Pope Formosus is null first consulted the French Bishops and the Bishop of Beneventum about it who answered him that he ought not to do it and then sent his Request to Auxilius to answer the Objections made against the Ordinations of Formâ—sâ—â— At the beginning of this Treatise is propounded a general Question which serves as a Preface to it viz. whether those who have been ordained against their own Consent but afterwards yield to their Ordination ought to be re-ordained To which he answers that as we do not re-baptize Infants nor such as have been baptized by force no more ought we to re-ordain them who have been involuntarily ordained This Preface is accompanied with a Letter of Auxiliâ—â—'s to Leo Bishop of Nola in which he tells him That he made this Treatise to satisfie him and had set down the Objections under the name of the Objecter and answers under the name of the Defender That he ought not to expect in his Writings Syllogisms in form no Logical Subdeties being the Scholar of a Fisher i. e. S. Peter That 't is true though he is in his Bark he is in a Tempest but he prayed the Lord of all to command the Winds and Sea and make a Calm The first Objection made by the Objecter is about the Translation of Formosus He says having left his Wife i. e. Bishoprick he hath taken away the H. See from them who ought to be ordained in it so that he is a Reprobate and Hypocrite The Defender says That he did not trouble himself with what Formosus was but he maintained that the Ordinations of Formosus made by him were valid and Lawful The Objecter insists and says That Formosus not being Pope all the Ordinations made by him are null All that Chapter contains this Difficulty The Defender maintains that his Ordinations may be valid since S. Leo acknowledgeth the Ordinations of false Bishops to be so That Anastasius allowed Acacius's and no Man ever doubted of Liberius and Vigilius's The Objecter replies That the Council of Nice declared their Ordinations void and that Pope Innocent asserts That an Hypocrite and Reprobate can 't conferr Ordination because he hath
112th Letter Lupus condemns those that in commending Virginity blame Marriage In the 124th he clears himself to Wenilo of the Accusation that Erard had preferred against him in the Synod of Savoniers The 128th and 129th Letters are those mention'd before which Lupus sent to Answer the Questions concerning Predestination and Grace The last is a Fragment of an Epistle written in the name of Wenilo Archbishop of Sens to Pope Nicholas the first concerning Herimanus Bishop of Nevers who was Non compos mentis He there alledges that Pope Miltiades was of opinion that a Bishop could not be deposed without the consent of the Pope He desires Nicholas to send him this Decree of Miltiades such as it is at Rome and he assures him he will wait his Judgment how to make use of it against this Bishop Whether he shall keep to the Moderation observed by S. Gregory towards the Bishop of Rimini or whether he should immediately depose him according to the Decree of Gelasius Pope Nicholas did not Answer this Question about the Decree of Miltiades but having enlarg'd upon the Commendation of the Archbishop of Sens's Conduct he acquaints him concerning Heriman that he is not enough instructed in his Business that tho' Heriman be Non Compos he ought not to be allow'd to come to the Synod that if he has no other defect than a Weakness of Mind he ought to be pitied rather than punisht And that as to the lewdness and extravagancies he us'd to be guilty of he ought not to condemn him for them as well because he is absent as because he is not inform'd what those Extravagancies are and then whether he committed them in his right Wits or when he was not himself This Letter in the Manuscript from whence F. Sirmondus took it bears the naâ—â— of Servatus Lupus which shows that 't is the Abbot of Ferrara's who is so called and by consequence that the Treatise about the three Questions of Gotescalcus belongs also to him besides that this Book and these Letters are of the same style and that the same Doctrine is expounded in the 128th and 129th Letters which are as it were an Abridgment of the other Work Insomuch that there is no reason to believe that Lupus Servatus was any other but the Abbot of Ferrara 'T is likewise believ'd that he took this Sirname after he had been cured of a very dangerous Disease thro' intercession of S. Faron as it is related in his Life written by Hildegarius Bishop of Meaux a Co-temporary Author I have already given you an Extract of Lupus's Writings upon Predestination and Grace He has also written the Lives of S. Maximinus Bishop of Treves of S. Wigbert an Abbot with two Homilies and two Hymns upon the same Saint Two great Men of our Age have given very different Judgments of Lupus Abbot of Ferrara in relation to a Monastical Life One blames the inordinate Love he had for curious Learning and his great Inclination for Prophane Sciences which he says is a study unworthy of a Monk and it would have much better become him to have lamented his own and the world's sins in his Cloyster and to have supported his Brothers then to hunt after and study with so much diligence the Works of Profane Writers This is the Judgment given of him by the Abbot de la Frappe F. Mabillon on the contrary thinks him an Ornament to the Monastical Order a Man that was not less to be esteemed for his Piety than his solid Doctrine So well known and valued in his time that there was no Council held without him and whom they always employed in the most important Affairs as the best Instrument and Secretary of the Bishops and chiefest Churches of France A Man extreamly well versed in the Fathers and who in short was to be admired both for his Religion and Holiness and the great veneration he brought to the Monks of his Monastery as Hildegarius observes Pastor modòpro Religione Sanctitatis in Monasterio famosissimo Ferrariensi ubi Coetus Monachorum in Christo cum illo toto Orbe est venerandus It does not belong to me to judge of the Monastical Conduct of Lupus Abbot of Ferrara neither am I fit to decide the Judgments of two Persons so learned as the Abbot de la Frappe and F. Mabillon for both of which I have a very singular respect But in keeping to my Subject that is considering Lupus as an Ecclesiastital Writer I may say That he was not only very knowing in general Learning and Prophane Sciences but in the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church and the Works of the Latin Fathers And that he writ not only with Elegancy Pleasantness and Politeness but also with a great deal of Solidity and Exactness His Letters were publisht the first time by Papirius Massonus out of a Manuscript of the Abbey of Ferrara and printed in the Year 1597. This Edition is very erroneous M. Du-chesnius has since obliged us with one more correct In his Collection of French Historians Tom. 3. The Treatise of the Three Questions and the Letters about Predestination and Grace have been printed at Paris in 1648. from an ancient Manuscript of S. Amandus and since by M. Mauguinus together with a Collection of Fathers upon the same Subject F. Sirmondus has publisht the two Letters and the Book of the three Questions in 1650. The same Author has put out a Fragment of the 130th Letter taken out of a Manuscript of the Abbey of Fleury which was communicated to him by F. Dacherius The Life of S. Maximin with that of S. Wigbert has been publisht by Busaeus who had caused it to be printed with the Letters of Hincmarus at Mayence in the Year 1602. and the two Homilies upon this Saint in 1604. At last M. Balusius publisht a very fair Edition of all Lupus's Works enricht with Learned Notes and many Pieces added at the end of the Volume in Octavo printed for Muguet in 1664. From whom it is put into the Biblioth Patrum Tom. XIV p. 1. CHAP. XV. Commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures written in the Ninth Century SUch as in this Century have applyed themselves to the study of the Holy Scriptures have The nature of the Commentaries upon the Hâ— Scriptures composed in the Ninth Century rarely produced any thing of their own but only made Collections out of the Commentaries of the Fathers After this manner are those of Rabanus Pascharius and the ordinary Gloss of Walafridus Strabo composed of all which we have spoken before Florus a Deacon of the Church of Lions followed the same method and gathered together a great many Books out of which he made divers Collections And amongst others a large Commentary upon the Epistles of S. Paul taken from fourteen Latin Fathers and which has never yet been printed Another Commentary upon S. Paul composed of Extracts out of S. Austin commonly attributed to Bede altho' it really belonged to
made use of it to promote their Designs and it serv'd as an Umbrage to the League which the Princes and Lords of Germany renew'd against him It likewise shock'd some of those who assisted at the Assembly of Worms and amongst others Udo Arch-bishop of Treves who went express to Rome to procure his Absolution and be reconcil'd to Gregory and being return'd to Germany he was one of the first who maintain'd That they ought not to communicate with the King till such time as he should be reconcil'd to the Pope The Archbishop of Mayence and a great many more became of the same Mind and there were but a very few of the Prelates who would venture to stand to what they had done The Pope for his part made sure of the Forces and Places belonging to Matilda the Widow of Godfrey Duke of Lorrain who dy'd this year in his Dutchy being parted from his Wife a long time before This Princess was Daughter to Beatrice the Sister of the Emperor Henry III. and to Boniface Lord of Lucca She was possess'd of a very considerable Estate in Italy having the Sovereignties of Lucca Parma Reggio Mantua and a part of Tuscany under her She has wholly wedded to the Interests of Gregory VII who likewise espous'd her Interests with all the warmth imaginable Whilst Affairs stood in this posture Gregory thought that before he broke out into an open War it was advisable to use his fresh endeavours to bring over King Henry to submit to what he was minded to require of him To forward this design he directed a Letter to all the Bishops Abbots Priests Dukes Princes Knights and in general to all the Faithful of the Roman Empire wherein after he had declar'd what he had done in favour of Henry and the base returns he had receiv'd for it he exhorts them to prevail upon this Prince to do Pennance that so he might be reconcil'd to the Church declaring that if he would not hearken to their Counsels they ought to convene together to consult the Wellfare of the Universal Church He puts them in mind of holding no Correspondence with those who were not separated from Communion with Henry To conclude he calls God to witness that he had no temporal Advantage in his eye but the Wellfare of the Church was the only Motive of what he did This Letter which is the First of the fourth Book bears date July 25 in the Year 1076. Within a while after Herman Bishop of Metz who kept Neuter in this Affair wrote to Gregory to ask him whether the Bishops who communicated with Henry were excommunicated and at the same time he takes notice to him that there were some Persons who maintain'd that a King could not be excommunicated Gregory answer'd him by the Second Letter of the same Book written at Tivoli August 25. That there was no question to be made but that all those who communicated with King Henry if it be lawful to call him King were excommunicated And that with respect to those who say that a King ought not to be excommunicated there was no need to return them an Answer since their Opinion was so Ridiculous However he did not stick to prove that Kings might be excommunicated from the example of Pope Zachary by whom he says the King of France had been depos'd and his Subjects absolv'd from their Oath of Alliegance to him From several Privileges which are among the Letters of S. Gregory wherein he declares the Kings and Princes excommunicated and depriv'd of their Dignity who shall infringe them He subjoyns the instance of Theodosius and lastly he alledges as a convincing Argument that when JESUS CHRIST gave S. Peter the Power of feeding his Sheep and the Power of Binding and Loosing he excepted no Person from it Afterwards he gives Herman to understand That he had granted some Bishops a Power of Absolving the Bishops and Grandees who would separate themselves from communion with King Henry but that he had forbidden them to grant Absolution to that Prince till such time as he was assur'd by good creditable Witnesses of his Repentance and the satisfaction he would make since he knew very well that there were Bishops enow who would not scruple to absolve him if he had not forbit it 'T is much in the same Air he wrote Eight Days after a Second Letter to the Prelates and Grandees of Germany wherein after protestation made that it was neither Pride nor Interest which mov'd him to excommunicate King Henry but only for the welfare of the Church he prays them to be tender of him if he did sincerely Repent Upon condition however that he would turn out of his Council those excommunicated Persons who were guilty of Simony and for the future follow the Advice of those who value the welfare of the Church above their own Interests That he would look upon the Church as his Mistress and use her no longer as a Servant That he would no longer defend such Customs as were contrary to the Liberties of the Church but follow the Doctrin of the Holy Fathers That if he gave them an assurance of performing these and other things which with Reason might be required of him they shall give him notice thereof by their Deputies that so they might consult together what is best to be done on that occasion but that he absolutely forbids them to absolve him from his Excommunication till they had receiv'd an Approbation in writing from the Holy See for it That if he would not repent they ought to proceed to the election of a Prince who would discharge the Duties aforemention'd and that they ought to inform him of the Conversation and Manners of the Person they shall elect that so he might confirm their Election That with regard to the Oath which they had taken to the Empress Agnes in case her Son should dye before her they ought not to be concern'd about it because they might very well perceive that she had no longer a Right thereto whether she opposed or consented to his being Deposed That upon the whole they should let him know who the Person was whom they design'd for Emperor after they should have resolv'd to Out Henry This is the Third Letter of the Fourth Book It was no sooner receiv'd in Germany but the Princes and Grandees of the Empire resolv'd to meet at Tribur or Oppenheim to consult of the measures they ought to take Radulphus Duke of Suabia The Convention at Oppenheim and the Dukes of Bavaria and Carinthia with the Bishops of Wirtzburg and Wormes having held a Conference at Ulma appointed this Convention to be on the Twenty sixth of October and acquainted therewith all the Princes of the Empire and the Pope who sent thither two Legats to wit Sigehard Patriarch of Aquileia and Alman Bishop of Passaw These Legats declaim'd against the Conduct of Henry and desir'd that they would elect another King in his stead Henry for his part sent
65 1095 Lyonnois Prov. 113 1040 Lyons 26 1055 Lyons 58 60 61. 1080 Lifieux 116 1055 London 122 1075 London 123 1102 London ibid. 1108 M Mantua 26 1052 Mantua 29 1064 Mentz 26 1049 Mentz 121 1069 Mentz ibid. 1071 Mentz Assembly 45 1080 Mentz Assembly 47 1085 Meaux 58 1080 Meaux ibid. 1082 Melfi 28 1059 Melfi 72 1089 N Narbonne 119 1054 Nismes 65 1096 O Oppenheim Assembly or Tribur 40 1076 Orleans 109 1017 P Paris 8 1050 Pavia under Pope Benedict VIII between the Years 23 1014 and 1024 Pavia 26 1049 Placentia 11 and 73 1095 Poitiers 62 1074 Poitiers 10 1075 Poitiers 57 1078 Q Quintilineburg Assembly 47 1085 R Rheims 17 26 and 114 1049 Rheims 71 1092 Rome 24 1046 Rome ibid. 1047 Rome 26 1049 Rome 7 and 26 1050 Rome 26 1051 Rome 25 1053 Rome 27 1057 Rome ibid. 1059 Rome 29 1063 Rome ibid. 1065 Rome the same Year ibid. 1065 Rome 34 1074 Rome 36 1075 Rome 39 1076 Rome 42 1078 Rome the same Year 10 and 42 1078 Rome 10 and 44 1079 Rome 45 1080 Rome 46 1083 Rome 72 1089 Rome 65 1098 Rome ibid. and 93 1099 Rouen or Roan 116 1050 Rouen 10 and 116 1063 Rouen 117 1072 Rouen 118 1074 Rouen 76 1096 S Selingenstadt 120 1023 Siponto 26 1050 Soissons 93 and 115 1092 T Toulouse 119 1056 Toulouse 72 1090 Tours 9 and 26 1055 Tours 115 1060 Tours 65 1096 Tribur or Oppenheim Assembly 40 1076 Troia in Apulia 73 1093 V Verceil 7. 1050 W Winchester 15 1071 Winchester 122 1076 Windsor 12 1070 Worms Assembly 38 1076 A General INDEX of the Principal Matters contained in this Volume A ABBEYS whether the same Person may hold two 98. An Abbey that was possess'd by a Lay-man reform'd 113. Abbots oblig'd to live with their Monks 123. The Ceremonies with which they may celebrate Mass 113. Abbots forbid to exact money of those who assume the Monastick Habit 72. Absolution the Abuse of Absolutions granted at Rome 113. A Restriction of them 120. A Case in which 't is prohibited to give Absolution 74. Letters of Absolution obtain'd after Confession made in Writing 23. Abstinence that on Fridays and Saturdays ordain'd in divers Councils and for what Reason 113 and 114. Of Abstinence observ'd before the Festivals of Christmas and St. John and of that of the other Vigils 120. Adultery does not dissolve Marriage 15 and 112. A Bishop depos'd for that Crime 124. Agnes the Empress obtains the Regency for some time 33. A Protection granted by her to Pope Nicholas II. against Benedict IX 27. She is obliged to retire and to leave the Administration of the Government to certain Princes of Germany 29 and 33. She is employ'd to procure an Accommodation of the Differences between the Emperor her Son and Pope Gregory VII 34. The Pope's Decision against the Rights of that Princess 40. Her Praises celebrated by Peter Damian 98 Alexander II. made Pope without the Emperor's Consent who causes another to be chosen 28 29 92 and 93. His Election confirmed in a Council and that of his Competitor condemn'd without prejudice to the Emperor 's Right for the future 29 and 93. Peter Damian's Commendation of that Pope 86 and 87. Alleluiah See Halleluia Alms of those that are given for the dead 94. Of the Advantage procur'd by them ibid. Alphonsus King of Castille the Laws re-enacted for the benefit of the Church and State 123 and 124. The Admonitions given by Pope Gregory VII to that Prince 50. Altars to be consecrated by the Bishop 124 ought to be made of Stone 123 and 124. Of their Ornaments for the Celebration of the Mass 124. That Cloaths which have serv'd to cover dead Bodies ought not to be laid on the Altar 112. A Constitution about the Donations of Altars made to Religious Societies 74. An Ordinance concerning Altars that are in the Possession of Monks 65. Anastasius a Monk of Anger 's oblig'd to abjure Berenger's Doctrine 11. Angels the Reason of the Perseverance of some and of the Fall of others 94. Animals the Latins censur'd by the Greeks for eating the Blood of Animals and things strangled 76 and 81. A Reply to those Censures ibid. 82. Anno Archbishop of Colen the Affairs committed to his Management 29 and 33. He declares for Pope Alexander II. against Cadalous 29 and 87. He obtains a Privilege of that Pope 30. The Annunciation of the Virgin Mary of the Day on which that Festival ought to be celebrated 127. Anselm Bishop of Lucca prohibited by the Pope to receive the Investiture of his Bishoprick from the hands of the Emperor Henry 34. His Ordination by the Pope 35. He is expell'd by the Citizens of Lucca ibid. Antichrist of his Reign 98. Antioch of the Dignity of the Church of Antioch 80. Peter Patriarch of that See acknowledges the Pope 25. St. Antony the Institution of that Order 127. Apostats a Constitution against them 28. Aquileia an Oath of Allegiance to the Pope taken by the Archbishop of that Church 44. Arch-Deaconries of the manner of conferring them 74. Arch-Deacons that none shall be admitted to that Office who is not a Deacon 112. The Functions of an Arch-Deacon 4. Argyrius an Officer in the Court of the Eastern Emperor why sent into Italy 76. The Accusations brought by the Patriarch of Constantinople against that Officer 81. Arles the Archbishops of that See reputed to be the Pope's Principal Vicars in France 59. Arms the bearing of them forbidden to Clergy-men 58 74 114 and 124 and to Abbots 123. A Prohibition to wear Swords in the Church 120. Arnold Bishop of Cirenza the Power that he receiv'd from the Pope to absolve the excommunicated Normans of Sicily 53. The Advice the Pope gave him about the Normans of Apulia ibid. Arnulphus Bishop of Cremona depos'd by Pope Gregory VII 42. Arnulphus a Monk of St. Medard when ordain'd Bishop of Soissons 58. Arras the Privileges of the Church of Arras confirmed 72. It s Episcopal See re-establish'd 71. Ash Wednesday the Faithful obliged to take up Ashes on that Day 73. Prohibited to eat Flesh after the same Day ibid. and 74. Asylum the Right of Asyla in the Churches and near Crosses 65 and 125. Avisgandus Bishop of Mans a Reply made to the Complaints made by that Bishop concerning the Secret of his Confession 3. His endeavour to resume the Marks of the Episcopal Dignity after he had voluntarily resign'd them ibid. Azolin Bishop of Laon reprov'd by the Pope for his Perfidiousness and cited to Rome 22. B BAmberg the Erection of that Church into a Bishoprick 23. Banquets the Obligations on those who partake of Funeral Banquets 124. Bantino Monastery a Privilege granted to that Convent by Pope Urban II. 70. Baptism an Explication of that Sacrament 1. It does not cease to operate the Remission of Sins although administer'd by an unworthy Priest 2. The time of solemn Baptism 117. The Efficacy of it deny'd by Hereticks 110. That some of the
distinguishes between the procession of the Holy Ghost and the Generation of the Word in that the Logos being Wisdom partakes of the power of the Father and may therefore be said to be of the substance of the Father whereas the Holy Ghost being denoted by the Name of Love or Charity which is not a Power is not of the substance of the Father He immediately corrects the Notion of Arianism which those Words seem to imply by saying that the Holy Ghost is of the substance of the Father in the Sence that he so proceeds from him as to have the same substance with him but that though he be Consubstantial to the Father yet properly speaking he is not begotten of his substance This is a hard and improper Expression contrary to the manner of the Father's speaking and conformable to that of the Arians though Abaelard rejects their Error He says that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son because Love or rather the effect of Love proceeds from Power and Wisdom since the Reason of God's doing Good is because he has Power to do it and Wisdom to know that it is Good This gives him an occasion of refuting the Opinion of the Greeks concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son alone and of shewing that one might add something to the Creed provided it were not contrary to the Faith He explains the Coeternity of three Divine Persons by the Instance of the Light and Rays which proceed from the Sun and which exist the same moment with the Sun Lastly he pretends that the Heathen Philosophers have acknowledg'd the Trinity In the Third Book he treats particularly of the Power of God and maintains that God cannot do any thing but what he does do and cannot do all that he does not do because God can only do what he Wills but he cannot Will to do any thing but what he does do because it is necessary for him that he should Will whatever is convenient from whence it follows that whatever he does not do is not convenient that he cannot Will to do it and consequently cannot do it He himself owns that this is his own particular Notion that scarce any Body else is of this Opinion that it seems contrary to the Doctrine of the Saints and to Reason and to derogate from the greatness of God Hereupon he starts a very difficult Objection A Reprobate says he may be sav'd for he knows no Being but what God does save wherefore God may save him and consequently do something which is not necessary to be done To this he replys that one might very well assert that such a Man may be sav'd by the Relation to the possibility of Human Nature which is capable of Salvation but that it could not be affirm'd that God could save him if we have respect to God himself because 't is impossible that God should do any thing but what he ought to do He explains this by several Examples A Man who speaks may hold his Tongue but that 't is impossible for one who speaks to be at the same time silent A Man's Voice may be heard but one who is Deaf cannot hear it A Field may be Cultivated and Till'd though a Man may not cultivate it c. From the Power of God he proceeds to his Immutability he says that God does not change himself when he produces new effects because in him there are not such new Motions and new Inclinations as are in us but only new effects proceeding from an Eternal Will that he cannot change Places since he is Omni-present and that when 't is said that he descended into the Virgin 's Womb 't is to denote his Humiliation but that in being made Man he was not chang'd because the Divine Substance is united to the Humane Nature without a change of its Nature and that the Person of Jesus Christ is a Compound of the Divine Logos the Soul and of the Flesh That those three Natures are united in such a manner as that they retain each their own Nature and that as the Soul is not chang'd into Flesh so the Divine Nature is not chang'd though it be personally united to the Soul and the Flesh. Lastly he treats of the Divine Knowledge and Wisdom He says that God has foreseen and pre-ordained all things and so with respect to God nothing happens by chance though his prescience does not destroy Free-Will He defines it to be a free Determination of the Will and asserts that it has been frequently experienc'd that the Will is not constrain'd by any Violence and that it has a power of doing or not doing a thing He observes that this kind of Freedom in the Will does not relate to God but only to Men who may alter their Will and do or not do a thing He produces the Opinion of some who believ'd that this Freedo'm consists in a Power of doing both Good and Evil but he maintains that those who are so happy as to have no power of Sinning are nevertheless Free and are so the more because of their being delivered from the servitude of Sin From hence he concludes that generally and properly speaking Free-Will is when one may voluntarily and without constraint accomplish that which it has resolved upon a Liberty which is in God as well as in Men and in all who are not destitute of the Faculty of Willing He adds several Philosophical Niceties about the Prescience and Determination of Propositions concerning future Contingencies The Explications of the Lord's-Prayer and of the Creeds of the Apostles and of St. Athanasius contain nothing in them which is very remarkable The Problems or Questions which were propos'd to him by Heloissa are almost all of them upon hard Texts of Scripture which Abaelard explains with a great deal of Justice and Accuracy The Book of Heresies is a summary Account of the principal Errors of the Hereticks against which he produces several Passages out of the Holy Scriptures He therein particularly refutes the Abaelards Doctrine examin'd Errors against the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Baptism against the Administration of Penance against the Ceremonies of the Church and against the Invocation of Saints Some have thought that this Piece was not Abaelard's but 't is not unworthy of him and there is nothing to hinder us from thinking it to be his The Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans is a literal Explication of that Epistle wherein he shews the Coherence and Consequence of the Apostle's Discourse and renders his Terms intelligible by paraphrasing upon them Abaelard's Sermons are not very Eloquent but such Discourses as contain in them Reflections upon the Words of Scripture which agree to the Mysteries whereof he Treats together with several Moral Instructions The Sermon upon St. John the Baptist is a very sharp Satyr against some Monks and several Canons of his time and particularly against St. Norbert St. Bernard in the general
the principal Question about the Union but they shunn'd it in this first and the second Conference In the third the same Cardinal said That there were four Heads of Controversy between the Greeks and the Latins The 1. Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit The 2. About Unleaven'd or Leaven'd Bread in the Sacrifice The 3. About Purgatory And the 4. About the Primacy of the Pope and he enquir'd of the Greeks with which of these Controversies they thought it convenient to begin their Conferences They refus'd to Treat about the Procession of the Holy Spirit and gave no Answer about the other Articles until they consulted the Emperor without whose Orders they would do nothing In the fourth Conference they offer'd to treat about Purgatory or the Primacy and left the Latins at liberty to choose which of them The Cardinal Julian chose the Article of Purgatory but they did not begin to debate this Matter until the fifth Session held June the 5th Upon the demand of the Greeks That they would expound the Doctrin of the Church of Rome about this Point Julian told them It believ'd that the Souls of the Just which were pure and without Stain and free from mortal Sin ascended streight into Heaven and enjoy'd eternal Repose but that the Souls of those that had faln into Sins after Baptism tho' they had done Penance for them if they had not perfectly accomplish'd the Penance impos'd upon them nor brought forth Fruits worthy of Repentance to obtain an entire remission of their Sins pass'd through the Fire of Purgatory and that some are there a longer and some a shorter time according to the quality of their Sins and that at last being purified they enjoy'd perfect Happiness but that the Souls of those who died in mortal Sins or in original Sin were sent immediately to the place of Torments Mark of Ephesus answer'd That the Doctrin of the Greek Church was not different from this but in a very small Matter and that he hop'd 't was easy to rectify it by an Explication This Difference was expounded in the sixth Conference and the Greeks made it to consist in this That the Latins said the Purification of Souls was made by Fire whereas the Greeks believ'd that the Souls of Sinners went to a place of Darkness and Sadness where they were for some time in Affliction and depriv'd of the Light of God but that they were purified and deliver'd from this place of Affliction by Sacrifices and Alms That they believ'd also that the Damn'd should not be perfectly miserable nor the Saints enjoy a perfect Happiness till after the Resurrection of their Bodies The Latins demanded That this Declaration of the Greeks should be put in writing When they were about to do it Mark of Ephesus and Bessarian of Nice could not agree among themselves and each of them drew up a different Writing the former being persuaded that perfect Happiness was delay'd until the Day of Judgment and the other believing that they wanted nothing to perfect their Happiness but to receive their Bodies This Contest embroil'd them one with another and from this time they acted no more by consent and there was no good understanding between them After this the Conferences degenerated into Heats and ended about the end of the Month of July without treating upon any other Points but that of Purgatory and even about that they could not agree When the time appointed for the sitting of the Synod drew near the Greeks began to be uneasy and the Pest was then in Ferrara All these Considerations should have mov'd both of them to wish for a Conclusion of this Affair but it was not easily to be compass'd The Princes sent neither Prelats nor Ambassadors to the Council those who were at Basil remain'd there still the Greek Emperor would not have the Synod begin until there were a considerable number of Prelats Nevertheless the Pope by his Importunity made him resolve to hold the Council telling him That where the Pope the Emperor and the Patriarch were there was the Synod But a new Difficulty happen'd for the Greeks reflecting upon the smalness of their number concluded That if Things were carried in the Council by plurality of Votes they must needs lose their Cause and therefore they remonstrated That the Case was different in this Council from what it had been in former Councils wherein the Greek and Latin Church were at agreement whereas in this the Difference which was to be determin'd was between them so that the Judges themselves were divided and therefore they propos'd That the Voices of each Party should not be reckon'd by the Party but in proportion to the number of which each Party consisted so that if there were 20 on one side and 200 on the other the 20 Votes should be reckon'd as equal to the 200. The Emperor took upon him to make the Pope agree to this Proposal and he agreed with him about some things but he did not otherwise explain himself to the Bishops but by telling them That they should be content and that the Pope had granted them what they desir'd After this a Resolution was taken to begin quickly the Sessions of the Council The Emperor having sent for the six principal Archbishops the Grand Master of the Rolls the Grand Ecclesiarch Charto-phylax with the two Abbots who had been present at the Conferences and three Doctors acquainted them that the time of the Synod was now approaching that they must consult where they should begin the Question about the Procession of the Holy Spirit which consisted in two Points The first was to understand whether the Doctrin of the Latin Church upon this Subject was Orthodox and agreeable to the Sentiments of the Greek Church The second whether they had reason to add to the Creed That He proceeded from the Son They were divided in their Opinions but the greater number thought that they must begin with this last Head The Greeks and Latins appointed each of them six Persons to maintain the Dispute Those who spoke on Behalf of the Greeks were Mark of Ephesus and Bessarian of Nice on the Latin's side the Cardinal Julian Andrew Bishop of Rhodes the Bishop of Forio-Julio and a Spanish Doctor nam'd John were chosen with two others to Answer the Greeks The Emperor having the consent of his Clergy for beginning the Council sent Jagaris and Scyropulus the Grand Ecclesiarch to advertise the Pope of three Things 1. That the Greeks were ready to begin the Synod and waited only for the Day which he would appoint 2. That they desir'd to be the Aggressors and that the Latins would answer them 3. That the Sessions should be held in the Cathedral or at least in some of the principal Churches The Pope granted them the two first Articles and fix'd the first Session of the Council for the 8th of October But he would never consent to the third and caus'd all the Sessions to be held
in the Chappel of his own Palace The Places there were order'd very near after the same manner as they had been in the Church of St. George at the beginning of the Council The Session began with a long Discourse made by Bessarian about the Advantages of Peace The Conferences of the Greeks and Latins about the Addition to the Creed held at Ferrara after which Mark of Ephesus having spoke of the Charity that was to be preserv'd in Disputes gave them to understand that he would begin with discoursing about the Addition made to the Creed Andrew of Rhodes answer'd on behalf of the Latins by praising the Design of maintaining Charity and would immediately have enter'd upon the Matter about the Addition But Mark of Ephesus stopp'd him and told him That it was not yet time to answer about this Article and having remark'd That the Church of Rome had neglected in times past that Peace which she desir'd at present he said that she could not obtain it but by removing altogether the Principles of Discord and demanded That before any thing was done the Decrees of former Councils should be read In the next Session held the 13th of October Andrew of Rhodes having a mind to begin a Discourse about the Addition to the Creed was interrupted by the Greeks and this Session was spent in Contests about the manner in which they should proceed The Greeks insisting always upon it That it belong'd to them to propose and that in the first place the Decrees of former Councils must be read After much Dispute the Greeks carried it so far That in the third Session held the 10th of October they read the Prohibition made by the Council of Ephesus to add any thing to the Creed upon which Mark of Ephesus made some Reflections and confirm'd it by the Testimony of Saint Cyril and Pope Celestin They reported also the Definition of the 4th 5th 6th and 7th General Councils which would have nothing added to the Creed The Latins produc'd a Manuscript of the 7th Council where they pretended it would be found That the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son and assur'd them that this Manuscript was very ancient But the Greeks reply'd That if this had been so Thomas Aquinas and other Latins who were Defenders of this Addition would not have fail'd to relate this Testimony as decisive in the Case In the 4th Conference on the 20th of the same Month after it was agreed That nothing out of Synods should be alledg'd for or against Photius that both Sides should be bounded by the 8th General Council Andrew of Rhodes begun a long Discourse to shew That what the Greeks pretended to be an Addition was a meer Explication which was not forbidden to be made He founded this Proposition particularly upon the Example of the second Council which had added Words to the Nicene Creed to explain more clearly its Doctrin That there was the same Reason as to the word Filioque added by the Latins which was only an Explication of what was in the Nicene Creed That the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father because the Son having all that is natural and essential to the Father when 't is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father it must necessarily be understood that he proceeds also from the Son Andrew of Rhodes continu'd the same Discourse in the next Conference held the 25th of October and undertook to answer the Authorities produc'd by Mark of Ephesus grounding always upon the same Principle That they did not forbid to add Explications or Declarations of the same Faith but only such Things as were contrary to or different from the Doctrin contain'd in the Creed He related many Passages of the Greek Fathers to prove that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as from the Father and insisted particularly upon the Authority of St. Cyril and Maximus But the Greeks maintain'd that the Passage in this latter was falsified He alledg'd also the Authority of Tarasus the Patriarch of Constantinople and an ancient Manuscript of the 7th Council where the Addition was found He laid some Stress upon the Silence of Photius who had never objected this Addition to the Latins * But this is notoriously false as appears from his Encyclical Epistle to the Patriarchs of the East which is inserted into the 10th Book of Baronius's Annals wherein be charges the Latins with corrupting the Nicene Creed that they might the more freely propagate the Doctrin of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and lastly he and the Cardinal Julian concluded this Conference with the Testimonies of St. Cyril and Agathon who acknowledg'd that the Roman Church had Power to explain and establish the Doctrin of Faith The Greeks having conferr'd among themselves about the Discourse of Andrew of Rhodes appointed Bessarion of Nice to answer him He made a long and learned Discourse in the Session held the first of November wherein he undertook to prove That all Additions to the Creed were forbidden and so it was needless to examine whether that made by the Latins was an Explication or no That there was sufficient ground to reject it because it was an Addition That it was not forbidden to explain the Faith but to insert these Explications into the Creed That until the time of the second Council this might have been allow'd but the third had absolutely forbidden it That this Prohibition had been needless if they had only forbidden to add any thing contrary to the ancient Faith since that was always forbidden That the Fathers of this Council had judg'd it not convenient to add to the Creed the Term of Mother of God althoâ—… seem'd necessary to do it And that these Words were only an Explication of the Doctrin contain'd in the Creed That the following Councils would not add their Definitions tho' they were only an Explication of the Doctrin of the Creed Bissarion having not finish'd his Answer to Andrew of Rhodes in this Session continued it in the next held the 4th of November and maintain'd that St. Cyril and Agathon did not only forbid to add any thing contrary to the Creed but also disallow'd of any kind of Addition And as to what they had advanc'd in favour of the Church of Rome's Prerogatives he said That the Greeks knew very well the Rights and Priviledges of that Church but that they knew also the Bounds of them and that when they deny'd the Universal Church and an Oecumenical Council a Right to add to the Creed they had much more Reason to deny it to the Church of Rome or rather they were persuaded that the Councils by their Decrees forbad it When Bessarion had finish'd Andrew of Rhodes undertook to reply but being unprepared he wander'd from the Subject and after he had said many impertinent Things at last he came to the chief Points of the Doctrin John Bishop of Foro-Julio was made choice of by the Latins
The Council of Roan in 1445. Russel Archbishop of that City and the Bishops his Suffragans which contain many good Regulations about the Discipline of the Church There is one against the Superstition of those who give particular Names to the Images of the Virgin as Our Lady of Recovery of Pity of Consolation of Grace c. because this gives occasion to believe that there is more Vertue in one Image than another CHAP. VII An History of the Wicklefites and Hussites of John Wicklef John Huss and Jerom of Prague of their Errors and their Condemnation JOHN Wicklef an English Doctor and Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford and Rector of Lutterworth in the Diocese of Lincoln flourish'd with good Reputation in An History of Wicklef that University until the Dissensions happen'd at Oxford between the Monks and the Seculars by which he was oppress'd and engag'd to declare against the Interest of the Pope and the Church He had been chosen by the Seculars Head of a College founded at Oxford for the Scholars of Canterbury but the Monks being newly admitted into that College had a mind to prefer a Regular to that Place whereupon Wicklef and his Regulars drove them out of the College These being expell'd had recourse to Simon Langham Cardinal and Archbishop of Canterbury who took them into his Protection and order'd Wicklef to resign up that Place to a Monk nam'd Henry Wodehull but Wicklef refus'd to obey whereupon the Archbishop sequestred the Revenues of the College The Affair was carried to Pope Urban V. by Wicklef and his Associates and he appointed a Cardinal to hear the Cause who decided it in favour of the Monks and order'd that Wicklef and his Associates should leave the College after they had made Satisfaction to the Monks The Pope confirm'd this Sentence by his Bull published in 1370. Thus Wicklef was obliged to resign but this Disgrace disgusted him against the Court of Rome and put him upon seeking out some way of Revenge The Belief of the Authority of the Pope and the Church in Temporals was then sufficiently established in England and the Jurisdiction of Bishops there was of a very large Extent Wicklef set himself to oppose both the one and the other in which Contest he found many Complices and Protectors because the Doctrin which he espous'd was favourable to the King whose Power was weakned and diminished by that of the Pope and the Bishops to the great Lords who were in Possession of the Revenues of the Church and had a mind to shake off the Yoke of Ecclesiastical Censures and to the People to whom the Tax of Peter-pence and the oâ—â—er Impositions of the Church of Rome were burdensome The Books of Marsilius of Padua and John of Jande and some other Authors who had written of Ecclesiastical and Temporal Power according to the Interest of Princes against the Pretensions of Popes furnish'd him with Matter enough upon this Subject and he did not only blindly follow the Extravagances into which these Authors had fall'n but carried the matter higher and â—et himself to teach and preach publickly against the Jurisdiction of the Pope and the Bishops When this Doctrin begun to spread and make a Noise Simon Sudbury Archbishop of Canterbury assembled in the Month of February 1377. a Council at London to which he caus'd Wicklef to be cited to give there an account of his Doctrin Wicklef came thither accompanied with the Duke of Lancaster who had then the principal Share in the Government of the Kingdom Edward III. drawing near his end and being weak in Body and Mind and with many other Lords and there he defended himself and was dismiss'd without any Condemnation But Pope Gregory XI being advertis'd of the Doctrin which was spread by Wicklef in England and of the Protection he met with to save him from Condemnation wrote to the Bishops of England to cause him to be apprehended or if they could not compass that to cite him to Rome and at the same time sent them 19 Propositions advanc'd by Wicklef which he condemns as Heretical and Etroneous The Doctrin contain'd in these Propositions may be referr'd to 4 Heads The 1st is That God hath not given his Church Temporal Revenues to possess them always and that Temporal Princes may take from it the Possession of them for just Reasons the 2d That the Church cannot make use of Excommunication and other Censures to exact temporal Revenues and that Excommunication has no effect at all but only in so far as it is agreeable to the Law of God the 3d That every Priest lawfully ordain'd has sufficient Power to administer the Sacraments and consequently to absolve all contrite Persons from any Sin whatsoever the 4th That all sorts of Ecclesiasticks even the Pope of Rome himself may be reprov'd and accus'd by their Inferiours tho' they be Lay-men These Letters of Gregory being brought into England and delivered to the Prelats of the Kingdom after the Death of King Edward they held a Council at Lambeth about the end of this Year where Wicklef appear'd and now a 2d time avoided Condemnation by the Protection of the Lords and the People who declar'd so stoutly for him that the Bishops durst not do any thing but command him to be silent after he had explain'd the Propositions in a Sense wherein they may be maintain'd The Minority of Richard II. who succeeded his Father Edward at Twelve years of Age gave occasion to great Insurrections of the common People against the Nobility to the great Disturbance of the Kingdom The Seditious shook off the Yoke of the Lords and the Magistrates refus'd to pay them their customary Dues robb'd them of their Estates massacred the Archbishop of Canterbury made themselves Masters of London kill'd the King's principal Officers and committed an infinite number of Outrages throughout the whole Kingdom Wicklef had no hand in these Seditions altho' his Doctrin may have given occasion to them but he continued still to spread his new Doctrins and added to them some new Errors more dangerous than the former and drew after him a great number of Disciples who taught the same Doctrin William Courtnay Archbishop of Canterbury having a mind to put a stop to this Disorder call'd together at London in May 1382. a Council consisting of 8 Bishops and many Doctors and Batchelors Councils at London against Wicklef of Divinity and Law wherein he condemned 24 Propositions of Wicklef or his Disciples viz. 10 as Heretical and 14 as Erroneous and contrary to the Definition of the Church The 10 first are as follow 1st That the Substance of Material Bread and Wine remains in the Sacrament after Consecration 2dly That the Accidents do not remain without a Subject in this Sacrament 3dly That Jesus Christ is not there indentically truly and really according to his proper Corporal Presence 4. That a Priest who lives in Mortal Sin does not at all ordain
Condemnation unless it be in a Cause very favourable nor to delay 'till the Appeal is made before him without mature deliberation From these Conclusions they draw the following Inferences First That the Faculty of Theology may Condemn the Errors of Monteson Doctrinally Secondly That this Faculty being joyn'd to the other 3 Faculties may pronounce this Sentence before the Bishop of Paris the ordinary Judge Thirdly That the Faculty of Theology may forbid these Propositions to be maintain'd and taught in their Schools and the Bishop of Paris may order the same prohibition in his Diocese Afterwards they answer an Objection which the Dominicans made that some of the Propositions of Monteson were taken out of St. Thomas whose Doctrin had been formerly Condemn'd by the Faculty of Divinity at Paris but was maintain'd by Stephen Bishop of Paris and approv'd by Urban V. in his Bull to the University of Tholouse wherein he ordains that the Doctrine of St. Thomas shall be followed by all Divines They add that it belongs only to the Holy See to Decide Condemn and approve in Matters of Faith To this the Faculty answers that they always protested their Intention never was to Condemn the Doctrin of St. Thomas which was very different from the Propositions of Monteson tho' it could not be concluded from the Bull of Urban V. that it was approv'd in all things and there were many Propositions in his Works which might be accused of Error As to the Second Point which concerns the Propositions Condemn'd the Faculty observes in the first place that tho' a good sense may be put upon a Proposition yet it may be Condemn'd as that which ought to be retracted upon the Account of a bad sense After this they relate the 14 Propositions which are Censur'd and the Qualifications which signifie upon whom the Condemnation falls and refer them to a Treatise which was written by Peter of Ailly to maintain the Censure As to the Third Point the Faculty remarks that a Doctrin may be approv'd by the Church 3 ways 1. As useful probable and common amongst Scholastick Divines 2. As a Doctrin which every one is obliged to believe to be true in all its parts 3. As a Doctrin which is neither Erroneous nor Heretical in any part For add they there are many Propositions false which do not concern the Faith and do not bring a Man into a damnable Error which cannot be accused of Heresie because that implies a corruption of the Christian Faith The Doctrin approvd in the first way may contain Falsities and even Errors which is therefore more common and ordinary besides this an Approbation may be either express or tacit a Toleration or an Owning These Principles being supposed the Faculty maintains that the Doctrin of St. Thomas was approv'd only in the first sense and not in the two other senses and that it contains Contradictions and Errors in matters of Faith whereof they bring Examples taken out of his Works and they also produce other instances of many Saints and many Authors who fell into some Errors viz. St. Peter St. Cyprian St. Jerom the Master of the Sentences Gratian St. Anselm Hugo de Sancto Victore and some others whose Doctrins they affirm to be held in greater veneration than that of St. Thomas They maintain particularly that the Doctrin of St. Thomas about the absolute necessity of some Creatures is Erroneous or at least suspected of Error and refuted by many Reasons They observe also that he is too much addicted to apply Principles of Philosophy and Sentences of Philosophers to Conclusions of Divinity wherein he does ill for say they Divines ought not to speak as Philosophers do as St. Austin remarks in the 10th Book of the City of God Chap. 23. in these words Philosophers do freely make use of what terms they please and are not at all afraid to offend Religious Ears about such things as are very difficult to comprehend but as to us we must not speak but according to a certain Rule for fear lest the liberty which we take of using some terms as we please should convey an Opinion of the things themselves which is disagreeable to Piety We do not find that the Dominicans obtain'd of the Court of Rome any Decision in their Favour The Restoration of the Dominicans but on the contrary we see that to put a stop to the Persecution which they endured they were obliged to Celebrate in France the Conception of the Virgin as others did and no longer to maintain publickly that she was Conceiv'd in Sin but to be silent as to that Question By observing this Conduct they procur'd their own Repose and were restor'd to their Functions but they remain'd still excluded from the Faculty for the space of 25 years because they would not take an Oath to approve the Condemnation of the Propositions of Monteson until at last the Faculty admitted them upon the importunate Request of the King August 21. in 1403. upon Condition that they should Renounce the Appeal they had made from the Decree of the Faculty and that those who were admitted into the Faculty should promise for the future to obey this Decree of the Faculty The Affairs of John Petit made no less noise in the University of Paris than that of Monteson The Process of John Petit and his Condemnation this Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris undertook to maintain the Action of John Duke of Burgundy who had caus'd the Duke of Orleans to be Assassinated and wrote upon this Subject a Treatise intituled The Justification of the Duke of Burgundy wherein he maintains that it was lawful for a private Person to put a Tyrant to death This Book being for some time shelter'd from Censure by the Power of the Duke of Burgundy was at last Censur'd in 1414. by the Faculty of Theology at the instance of John Gerson and Condemn'd by Gerard Montague Bishop of Paris and John Polet the Inquisitor The Censure of the Faculty is to be met with among the Works of Gerson it contains 9 Propositions with convenient Qualifications whereof the 7 first concern the point in question that 't is lawful to kill Tyrants and that those who do it do not only deserve to be exempt from any Punishment but ought also to be Rewarded The Eighth Proposition which is Condemn'd as Erroneous is this That to observe always the literal sense of Scripture is to kill a Man 's own Soul The 10th which is Condemn'd as Erroneous and Seditious is this that no Man is bound to observe that Alliance or Oath which he has made when it happens that this Oath or Alliance is contrary to the welfare of his Spouse or Children who made them The Bishop and Inquisitor by one and the same Sentence did joyntly Condemn the Doctrin of John Petit as Erroneous in Faith and good Manners and as Scandalous they Ordain'd that the Copies of his Book should be brought to them
exalt Free-will above Grace the better to discover the power of this Grace which is not known when it is not received and the great struggle that arises then because without it no Truth can be known neither is there any Light to discover it After this Preface he proposes and maintains the following Propositions 1. That Predestination is purely gratuitous and that this Decree is not made upon foresight of Men's Merits 2. That Infants who die after they are baptiz'd are sav'd by the mere Mercy of Jesus Christ and that those who die without Baptism are condemn'd upon the account of Original Sin 3. That those who believe this Grace is given to all are not Catholicks in their Sentiments since not only all men have not Faith but there are even whole Nations who never heard of the Gospel 4. That it may be said that Man is sav'd by Grace and by his Good Works provided it be confess'd that the Grace and Mercy of God prevents the Will of Man and works in him to will 5. That all those whom God would have sav'd are predestin'd because the Almighty Will of God does always take effect his Power can never be defeated 6. That the Free-will which was sound and entire in the first Man is become weak by sin but is improv'd and strengthned by Grace 7. That the Question concerning the Origine of Souls must not be ventilated or it must be treated of without bitterness but that there is no doubt that Souls do contract Original Sin They cite at the end of this Letter a passage of Pope Hormisdas in favour of St. Austin and praise the Books of Fulgentius about Predestination and Grace and those which he wrote against Faustus We have nothing now remaining but some Fragments of the Ten Books of St. Fulgentius against a famous Arian call'd Fabianus The first Book was entitled Of the most High the Comforter of the Titles of Ambassador Doctor and Judge There he prov'd that these Titles agreed to the Father and the Son In the second Book he shew'd that the Functions of Sighing Desiring and Praying which are attributed to the Holy Spirit are not contrary to his Divinity In the third he prov'd that Immensity agreed to the three Divine Persons In the fourth that the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are equally adorable He distinguishes the Worship of Latria from that of Dulia the first agrees to God only and the second may be given to Creatures He speaks also of the Properties which belong to each Divine Person The fifth Book was about the Title of Image which is given to the Son of God where he proves that he is so the Image of God as to be also of the same Nature In the sixth he proves that the Son is eternal as well as the Father The seventh establishes the Divinity of the Holy Spirit The eighth was about the Mission of the Holy Spirit The ninth is concerning the Invocation of the three Divine Persons where he demonstrates that the Son and the Holy Spirit are to be Invocated as well as the Father That Sacrifices are to be offer'd to the Son and Holy Spirit as to the Father and that the like Thanksgiving is paid unto â—â—m The tenth was about a Writing upon the Apostle's Creed where he observes that it was so call'd either because it is a Compact or because it is an Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine After this he proves that what in the Creed is attributed to the Father agrees to the whole Trinity The Treatise address'd to Victor is upon the same Subject and written at the same time There he refutes the Discourse of a Priest nam'd Fastidiosus who having quitted a Religious Profession and the Priestly Office to lead a licentious Life had also abandon'd the Faith by turning Arian St. Fulgentius proves in this Treatise the Divinity of the Son and explains how it may be said That the Word only is Incarnate The time is not certainly known when the Treatise of the Faith was written which is address'd to a Lay-man call'd Peter who having a design to make a Journey to Jerusalem desir'd before his departure to have an Instruction containing the Articles of Faith that he might know what he ought to believe St. Fulgentius explain'd to him first what he ought to believe concerning the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation And then he told him that all Beings both Spiritual and Corporeal are the Work of God who created them that Spiritual and Intelligent Beings were to subsist eternally by the Will of God that the Angels being created free and having power by the Grace of God to merit their Happiness or else to fall from it by their sin one part of them had perish'd and the other part was confirm'd in the Love of God which they could never lose any more That the first Man who had been created perfectly free had fall'n into sin and so subjected all Mankind to death and sin That God had deliver'd many of them by his Grace by the help of which they were enabled to live well and to obtain eternal Life That there is no state wherein a Man can deserve well but only during the time of this Life but as long as a Man lives upon this Earth there is always space for Repentance That this Repentance is unprofitable to those that are out of the Church That all Men shall rise one day and those who shall die in a good state shall be happy for ever and others shall be condemned to eternal punishment That a Man comes to the Kingdom of Heaven by means of the Sacraments which Jesus Christ has instituted That none can obtain Salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism except those who shed their Blood in the Church for Jesus Christ That he who has receiv'd Baptism out of the Church has receiv'd this Sacrament and if he returns into the Church he ought not to be re-baptiz'd but his Baptism will profit him nothing if he continues out of the Church or if he lives ill after he has been receiv'd into the Church That those who live well ought continually to do Works of Mercy to expiate those sins which even the Just commit every day That to avoid them the humble Servants of Jesus Christ shun Marriage and abstain from eating Meat and drinking Wine Not that they think that 't is forbidden to use Marriage to eat Meat and drink Wine but because they are perswaded that Virginity is to be preferr'd before Marriage and that Abstinence restrains a Man from sin That neither second nor third Marriages are forbidden and that excess in the use of Marriage is a Venial sin but to those who have made a Vow of Continence Marriage is a great Crime Afterwards he reduces this Doctrine to forty Heads which he thinks are to be believ'd There was a long Article added at the end of this Treatise which is cut off by the Authority of some ancient
Manuscript wherein it is not to be found and there is so much the more reason for it because it is plain that this Treatise was concluded before the fortieth Article and this Chapter has no relation to the preceding St. Fulgentius explains also the principal Points of our Faith in the Treatise of the Trinity address'd to Felix who had also desir'd to be instructed that he might be able to answer the Hereticks with whom he convers'd And in the Treatise of the Incarnation to Scarilus who had pray'd him to clear up a Question which had been propos'd at Table Whether or no it might be said that the Father or the Divine Nature was Incarnate After he has gone over other Mysteries upon occasion of this Question he handles another which was also propos'd at the same time viz. Whether God created all Animals He says 'T is certain that God created all things that at the time of the Creation he formed all the living Creatures which the Earth and the Water produce and as to those which are engendred out of the Corruption of Flesh and Fruit he made them not in the first six days Creation but he created those things out of which they were one day to be form'd The Questions which were propos'd to him by Ferrandus a Deacon are more useful and more rational A godly Man having an Ethiopian Servant caus'd him to be well instructed in our Religion and put him among the number of the Catechumens after he had continued there his time and learn'd the Creed he was plac'd among those who were to be baptiz'd at Easter The ordinary Exorcisms were us'd to him he renounc'd solemnly the Devil pronounc'd the Creed and receiv'd the Exposition of the Lord's Prayer When he was ready to be baptiz'd he was seiz'd with a violent Fever which brought his Life into danger but Easter-day being near his Baptism was put off to that day and then he was carried to the Church in such a Condition that he had no knowledge nor speech nor motion nor sense Yet he was baptiz'd tho he could not answer himself A little time after this he died without knowing that he had receiv'd Baptism This History gives occasion to three Questions The first is Whether Baptism administred to an Adult Person who neither knows any thing nor can speak and answer himself does put him in a state of Salvation The second is Whether he had been sav'd tho he had not receiv'd Baptism The third is Why we do not baptize the Dead whose Faith and Piety were well known while they liv'd St. Fulgentius in answer to these Questions proves first That Baptism without Faith availeth nothing to the Adult 2. That Children receiving the Sacrament receive the Grace of Faith This being premis'd he determines That the Faith of this Slave having preceded his Baptism there is no doubt but he received the effect of Baptism because he had both Faith and the Sacrament but that it would have been in vain to have had Faith without receiving the Sacrament for then he could not be sav'd and that it is unprofitable to baptize the dead because the Soul cannot obtain remission of its sin after it is gone out of the Body and the Flesh alone is not capable of sin After these Answers he says in general That the Canons have justly ordain'd to baptize the sick altho they cannot themselves give an account of their Faith provided there be Witnesses who answer for their willingness Lastly He enquires whether a person that has been baptiz'd and dies without receiving the Eucharist can be sav'd Jesus Christ having said That he who eateth not my Flesh and drinketh not my Blood hath no life in him To which he answers affirmatively That by Baptism we become the Members of Jesus Christ and so by this means we are partakers of his Flesh. He cites a passage out of a Sermon of St. Austin who explains thus the words of Jesus Christ in John chap. 6. of the necessity of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood There is another Writing of St. Fulgentius in Answer to five Questions from the same Deacon Ferrandus The first to know whether the Three Persons of the Trinity can be separated St. Fulgentius answers That they cannot and proves that all the Attributes which agree to One agree to the Others except the relative Properties of the Persons which necessarily denote the Union of one with the other The second is to know whether it may be said that the Divinity of Jesus Christ suffer'd or died as it is said That a God suffer'd a Man died c. St. Fulgentius maintains that this Expression cannot be condemned and endeavours to justifie it by the Testimonies of St. Leo Galasius and St. Ambrose The third Question is Whether the Soul of Jesus Christ did perfectly know the Divinity St. Fulgentius is very confus'd upon this Question which he decides by saying That it knew the Divinity perfectly but not so as the Divinity knows it self that it knows as much but not after the same manner as the Divinity it self that the Soul of Jesus Christ knows fully the Divinity but it is not the Divinity The fourth Question is Why it is said in the Prayers of the Church That the Son reigneth with the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost which expression may make a Man think that the Holy Spirit does not reign as the Father and the Son but only unites them in their Reign St. Fulgentius answers That we pray to the Father through the Son because the Son is the Priest and the Sacrifice and that the Unity of the Holy Spirit denotes the Unity of Nature with the Father and the Son The fifth Question is How St. Luke is to be understood when he speaks of the last Supper of Jesus Christ that he took the Cup and gave it to his Disciples that he took the Bread and said This is my Body and that afterwards taking the Cup he said This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Was it the same Chalice which was given both times or two different Chalices St. Fulgentius answers That according to some it was only one Chalice given but once and that St. Luke in the first place says by way of anticipation that he distributed it to his Disciples That according to others it was one and the same Chalice given two several times He confesses that both these senses are Catholick but he approves the last and finds a great many Mysteries in this double distribution of the Cup. Nevertheless the first sense is more natural and the only true sense according to the Letter The last Work of St. Fulgentius is his Treatise to Reginus who had propos'd two Questions to him He answers the first viz. Whether the Flesh of Jesus Christ was corruptible or incorruptible as some affirm'd He answers I say that the Flesh of Jesus Christ was not corruptible if by Corruption be understood Sin but it was
Postill upon the Epistles and Gospels of the Year printed at Paris in 1509. and at Strasburg in 1513. and 1521. The two Dominicans called Joannes Parisiensis both Doctors and Professors of Divinity of John of Paris a Dominican the Faculty in Paris must be distinguished The former lived in the Thirteenth Age about the Year 1220. He was Sirnamed Pungens Asinum the Ass-pricker and is mentioned by Joannes de Salagnac speaking of the Authors of his Order who lived before the time of S. Thomas He Founded two Chapels to S. Eustathius and is meant in an Information made in 1221. as the Records of those times make it evident It is undoubtedly he that Composed the Commentary upon the Sentences of which Trithemius speaks The other John of Paris was not a Licentiate in Divinity till 1304. when he brought himself into a great deal of Trouble by asserting That Transubstantiation was not a Point of Faith and that the Real Presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament might be explained after another manner viz. By supposing that the Bread being united with the Word mediante corpore Christi becomes the Body of Christ or that the Change be made after some other manner This new Doctrine which had never been taught in the Schools of Paris before made a great Noise and was opposed by Three other Divines who maintained That Transubstantiation was an Article of Faith according to the Decretal in the Chapter Firmiter John of Paris nevertheless maintained his Opinion with great Resolution and not only wrote a Book to prove it but defended it several times before many Doctors and Batchelors of Divinity and more particularly before William D' Orillac Bishop of Paris who having examined that Doctrine and taken advice with Giles of Rome Archbishop of Bourges Bertrandus Bishop of Orleans William Bishop of Amiens and several other Doctors injoined Silence to Friar John of Paris under the Penalty of Excommunication and strictly forbid him to Teach or Preach any more in Paris John of Paris appealed from this Sentence to the Court of Rome and went to Pope Clement V. then at Bourdeaux who appointed him Judges but he died before the Matter was decided upon S. Maurice's Day Jan. 15. 1306. The Book which John of Paris wrote about Transubstantiation was Intituled The Determination of Friar John of Paris Preacher of the Manner how the Body of Jesus Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar different from that which hath been commonly held in the Church 'T is nothing else but the very same Explication of his Opinion which he delivers to the Assembly of the Doctors of Divinity abovementioned It was found in MS. in the Library of S. Victor and has been often quoted about that Point by the Authors of the Reformed Religion It hath lately been published by Mr. D Allix entire with a large and learned Preface and printed at London in 1686. There is a Treatise concerning the Regal and Papal Power printed at Paris in the Year 1506. and in the Collection of Goldastus's Monarchia S. Rom. Imp. Tom. 2. p. 107. which bears the Name of John of Paris It was written upon the Account of the Difference between Pope Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair. This Author observes in his Preface that they who seek to avoid one Errour often fall into another and thereupon brings an Example from the Controversie which was between the Monks and Seculars concerning Confession and the Administration of the Sacraments The one saith he asserted That the Monks ought not to meddle with them at all because they renounced all Secular Affairs The other said That they properly belonged to them by their Order The Truth lies in the middle between these two Errors which is That it is not altogether unfit that they should do it although they have no right to it upon the account of their Order And much the same thing happens in this Question about the Spiritual and Temporal Power concerning which there are contrary Errors The first of them is the Error of the Waldenses who hold that Clergymen ought not to have any Power or Temporal Estates the other is something like the Opinion of Herod who thought that Jesus Christ was Born to be an Earthly King so these Men suppose that the Pope as Pope hath a Power in Temporal Things above Kings The True Opinion lies between these two Errours and is this That the Successors of the Apostles may exercise a Temporal Jurisdiction and enjoy Temporal Estates by the Allowance and Grant of Princes but it does not belong to them as the Vicars of Jesus Christ and Successors of the Apostle To prove this Proposition he shews 1. That the Regal Power is founded upon the Law of Nature and Law of Nations 2. That the Priesthood is a Spiritual Power given by Jesus Christ to his Church to Administer Sacraments 3. That 't is not Necessary that all the Kings upon Earth should depend upon one Person only as all the Ministers of the Church upon one Head 4. That the Regal Power was erected before the Priesthood in time but the Priesthood is before the Regal Power in Dignity 5. That the Pope has not the sole Jurisdiction over the Churches Revenues but they belong to Bodies and Societies which possess them and that the Pope can't dispose of them as he pleaseth nor deprive the Owners of them without a just Cause That he may much less dispose of the Goods of Laymen but only in case of urgent Necessity to use censures to oblige them to assist and help the Poor or the Church in their Needs 6. That he hath no Jurisdiction over the Temporal Goods of Laymen nor any Secular Power because Jesus Christ as Head of the Church had none himself nor did give any to his Apostles but all the Power that he has given to the Church is purely Spiritual yea even that which belongs to the Exterior Ecclesiastical Court which may concern it self only in Spiritual Causes That the Pope may indeed Excommunicate an Heretick King and inflict Ecclesiastical Censures on him but cannot depose him He Answers all the Objections that may be made to this Doctrine and at last shews that the Pope may be judged and may either resign or be deposed Besides these Treatises of John of Paris Mr. Baluzius assures us that there are in the Library of Mr. Colbert Cod. 3725. three Sermons preached by this Monk at Paris the one in Advent the other on the Second Sunday in Lent and the Third on the First Sunday after Easter Some Englishmen also tell us That there is in the Library at Oxford a MSS. which contains a Treatise which proves the Truth of the Christian Religion from the Testimony of the Heathens and some other Treatises about the Confessions of Monks Some also attribute to him a Book Intituled The Correction of the Doctrine of S. Thomas against William de la Mare printed under the Name of Aegidius Romanus or
de Columna It is credible that he did Compose a Book of that Title but there is no reason to believe it that which is printed in the Name of Aegidius About the same time flourished John of Paris an Englishman and Canon-Regular of S. Victor John of Paris a Canon-Regular at Paris who Composed an History Intituled Historical Memoirs or the Flowers of History to the Year 1322. which is found in a MSS. in the Library of S. Victor and in some Libraries in England particularly in Bennet-College Library Mr. Duchesne hath published some Fragments of it in the First Tome of the French Historians and Miraeus has put several Parts of it into his Chronicon Thomas Joisius or Joyce an Englishman a Monk of the Order of Friars-Preachers and a Thomas Joyce Cardinal Scholar of Albertus Magnus Confessor and Counsellor of State to King Edward and at last promoted to be a Cardinal by the Title of S. Sabina in the Year 1305. by Pope Clement V. died at Grenoble Decemb. 1310. as he was going in an Embassy to the Emperor Henry We have observed in the last Age that there are several Commentaries upon Holy Scripture printed under the Name of S. Thomas which belong to this Author Besides these there is a Work printed under his own Name Intituled Opus Aureum a Golden Work upon Seven Psalms C. 27. at Venice in 1611. and a Commentary upon S. Augustine De civitate Dei or the City of God printed at Tholouse 1488. Some other Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture and other Treatises are found with his Name in the Libraries of New-College Cod. 90. Magdalen-College Cod. 47. Merton Cod. 200. and Exeter-College Cod. 25. in Oxford and Pembroke Hall Cod. 46. Peter-House Cod. 87. 99. and the Publick Library Cod. 179. at Cambridge in England Joannes de S. Geminiano a Monk of the Order of the Friars-Preachers flourished in the beginning Joannes de S. Geminiano a Monk of this Age and gave himself particularly to Morality and Preaching His chief Work is The Summ of Examples and Comparisons printed at Venice in 1577 and 1582. at Antwerp in 1583 and 1599. at Lyons in 1585. and at Cologne 1670. He also Composed some Funeral Sermons printed at Lyons in 1510. and at Paris in 1511. and some Sermons upon Lent printed at Venice in 1584. and at Cologne in 1612. Altamura in his Biblioth Praedicat reckons up other Writings of his Jacobus de Benedictis a Native of Todi in Italy of a good Family being entred into the Jacobus de Benedictis Franciscan Order of S. Francis propounded it as a Design to himself to pass for a Fool and Madman in the Eyes of Men and make himself despised which he brought to pass by delivering several strange Revelations and by publickly reproving the Life of Pope Boniface who put him in Prison in the City of Praeneste where he died in the Year 1306. He cannot be accounted an Ecclesiastical Writer but upon the account of some Hymns both in Verse and Prose which he Composed in a very uncouth Stile divided into Seven Books which have been published by Francis Fresatus a Grey-Friar who caused them to be printed at Rome in 1558. and since at Venice 1617. Some attribute to him a Piece of Prose beginning with these words Stabat mater dolorosa and another Hymn De contemptu Mundi which begins thus Cur mundus militat sub variâ gloriâ Raderus hath inserted some Sentences and wholsom Admonitions attributed to this Author in his Viridarium Sanctorum Justus an Abbot of the Cistertian Order who flourished in the beginning of this Age is the Author Justus a Cistertian of a Sermon pronounced in an Assembly of his own Order printed by it self at Paris and in the 14th Tome of the Bibliotheca Patrum put out at Cologne Joannes Duns Surnamed Scotus and called commonly Doctor Subtilis or the Subtle Doctor Joannes Duns Scotus a Grey-Friar was the Author of a New Sect of Schoolmen and taught Principles different from those of S. Thomas which were followed by the Divines of the Order of Grey-Friars of which he was himself It is disputed whether he was an Englishman Scotchman or Irishman They who hold him to have been an Englishman say he was of Dunston in Northumberland but they who make him an Irishman lay the place of his Nativity at Down a City in Ulster in Ireland and they who will have him a Scotchman make him a Native of Duns a Village Eight Miles distant from the Confines of England He entred very young into the Convent of the Grey-Friars at Newcastle in England and attended his Studies at Oxford where he taught Divinity afterward He went into France in the beginning of the Fourteenth Age and read Lectures at Paris after he had taken his Degrees Some have written That he there maintained the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary in a Publick Conference and that he defended it so strongly that the University of Paris being convinced of it made an Order that all her Members should maintain that Doctrine and engaged them by Oath so to do But this is a false Story for it is evident that the Decree of the University was not made till the Year 1496. after the Meeting of the Council of Basil and besides Scotus did not propound the Opinion of the Immaculate Conception as the certain Doctrine of his time but with some doubt about it For after he hath put the Question in his Third Distinction upon the Thirteenth Book of the Sentences viz. Qu. 1. Whether the Virgin was conceived without Original Sin He answers in Three Propositions 1. That God could have caused her to be Born without Original Sin 2. That he could have caused that she should not continue in Original Sin one moment 3. That he could have caused that she should have remained in it for some time and then in the last instant of that time have purified her from it After he has proved these three Propositions he concludes That none but God can know which of these three Things are possible to be done that it seems nevertheless most probable to him that that which is most perfect be attributed to the Virgin provided that it be not contrary to the Authority of the Church nor Holy Scripture In this manner did Scotus propound his Sentiments of the Immaculate Conception From Paris he went to Cologne where he died a little after of the Falling Sickness or rather of an Apoplexy Nov. 8. 1308. in the 43d Year of his Age according to some but 34 according to others What some write concerning him that he was Buried in a Fit of the Falling Sickness and being recovered and come to himself had turned himself in his Grave is a Fable that hath His Works in Twelve Volumes no likelihood as Waddingus hath proved who hath published his Life and Works and printed them in Twelve Volumes at Lyons in 1639. The First Tome
to answer Bessarion in the Session held the 8th of November After he had alledg'd many Reasons to prove that the word Filioque was not an Addition but a meer Explication he maintain'd not only that there was no Law forbidding to add any Explication to the Creed but also that none could make such a Prohibition to the Church and that it could extend only to private Persons who would make this Addition without Authority The Cardinal Julian finish'd this Dispute in the Session on November 11th with many Remarks upon the Prohibition of the Council of Ephesus 1. He observ'd That this Law was to be understood with respect to the occasion on which it was made which was the false Creed of the Nestorians that the Council had condemn'd and not that of Charisius which was Orthodox 2. That this Council did not only forbid to Add but also to make any new Exposition of the Faith and therefore if this Prohibition were extended to the Church or a Council it would follow That the Church could not make a new Exposition of the Faith which the Greeks did own to be false 3. That the Council of Ephesus having spoken only of the Nicene Creed it would follow That it must disapprove the Additions made to the Creed by the Council of Constantinople 4. That the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon St. Cyril and St. Leo had no other design but to hinder the teaching or introducing of any new Doctrin When he had finish'd these Remarks he said it was now time to come to the principal Question viz. Whether it were true that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son and in â—…se the Greeks should prove that he did not proceed then it would follow that the Roman Church had made a prohibited Addition to the Creed but if on the contrary it should be prov'd That this was sound and true Doctrin then it must be confess'd that the Roman Church had Power to add this Explication to the Creed Nevertheless Bessarion said That he would answer in the next Conference to what the Cardinal Julian had now advanc'd On the 15th of November Mark of Ephesus and Cardinal Julian conrested among themselves concerning the Creed of Charisius and the Explication of the Prohibition of the Council of Ephesus Towards the conclusion the Cardinal Julian observ'd That there were Manuscripts of the Creed of Constantinople in which these Words are not to be found Descendit de Caelis nor these Secundum Scripturas and that the Latins had added these Deum de Deo about which the Greeks made no opposition as they did about the word Filioque Andrew of Rhodes had also said in his Discourse That the Phrase Desoendit ad inferos was an Addition Mark of Ephesus would have enter'd upon the Question viz. Whether the Roman Church and the Pope had Power to add to the Creed But the Cardinal would not enter upon it and persisted in demanding importunately That they would come to the principal Question concerning the Truth of the Doctrin The Ambassadors of the Duke of Burgundy were receiv'd in the 12th Session held the 27th of November saluted the Pope presenâ—â—d him a Letter from their Master and made a Discourse in the Assembly But because they had not shewn the Greek Emperor the Respect that was due to him nor presented him with a Letter he would not allow them to take their Seat until he had receiv'd Satisfaction which they gave him in the next Session by presenting him with a Letter in their Master's Name and doing him Reverence but after such a manner as did not perfectly satisfy In the mean time the Conference continu'd and was reduc'd to a private Contest between Mark of Ephesus and the Cardinal Julian about the Addition to the Creed Another also was held on the 8th of December which dwindled also into Heats upon the same Subject without the Agreeing of the Parties in any thing The Latins would have them to enter upon the principal Point in Question and after that was explain'd if they should find it true That the Holy Spirit did proceed from the Person of the Son then the Addition should continue in the Creed but if they should find this Proposition false then it should be rejected The Greeks on the contrary asserted That they must begin with cutting off the word Filioque from the Creed and after that examin the main Question That if the Doctrin of the Latins should be found to be true it should be decreed but if it were false it should be condemn'd This Contest was the Cause why the Conferences ceas'd for some time but at last the Greek Emperor made the Greeks resolve to enter upon the Dispute about the Truth of the Doctrin The Pope propos'd afterwards to translate the Council to Florence because he could no longer conveniently furnish the necessary Expence for continuing it at Ferrara and it was agreed with the Florentines That they should raise him a considerable Sum provided the Council were held at Florence The Patriarch of Constantinople and the Greek Prelats oppos'd mightily this Proposal but at last the Necessity to which they were reduc'd oblig'd them to accept of it and to consent that the Synod might be translated to Florence and this Translation was publish'd in the last Assembly held at Ferrara January the 11th 1439. The pretence that the Pope alledg'd in the Bull was the Pestilence which had been at Ferrara and it was to be fear'd it would break forth again in the Spring One part of what was owing to the Greeks was paid them Some Relief of Mony was sent to Constantinople and the Greeks were promised That the Expence of their Voyage and of their living at Florence should be defray'd and that they should be carried home again whether the Union were concluded or no. The Pope and Emperor the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Latin and Greek Prelats parted after this for Florence and arriv'd there at the beginning of February After they had repos'd themselves for some Days they agreed upon certain Measures concerning the Method of continuing their Conferences And the Emperor was of Opinion That they should be held in private The first was held the 26th of February The Cardinal Julian and the Emepror who were the only Persons that spoke at it came to an Agreement That some Expedient should be search'd for by both sides to unite them together The Patriarch being The Conferences of the Greeks and Latins at Florence grievously Sick was not present at this nor the following Sessions The Emperor and Greek Prelats being present at his House consulted about this Proposal which had been made to search after some Means for uniting them together but they all said That they had none to offer and that they were ready to answer the Latins That they would meet in Private the next Saturday and then enter upon a Conference The Pope seeing that they would not propose any Expedient but Dispute on