and Cleanness and in them he discovers as well the sharpness of his Wit as the extent of his Knowledge His Nephew John Francis Picus of Mirandula has also left us many Works which are printed John Francis Piâ—us of Mirandula with the preceding in the Edition of Basil in 1601. viz. A Treatise of the Study of Divine and Human Philosophy wherein he compares Profane Philosophy with the knowledge of the Scripture and shews how much more excellent this latter is and what use we ought to make of the former A Treatise to prove that we ought to meditate on the Death of Jesus Christ and our own a Treatise of Unity and Being in defence of that written by his Unkle a Treatise of the Imagination two Treatises of Physicks one of the first Matter the other of the Elements a Treatise of Imitation address'd to Bembus together with the Answer of Bembus and the Reply of Francis of Mirandula Theorems of Faith and of what we are oblig'd to believe wherein he Treats very largely of the Principles of our Faith in 26 Theorems After he has shewn that the Faith of Christians is well grounded he proves in the 1st Theorem that we cannot be Sav'd without Faith in Jesus Christ but he believes that God will shew that favour to all those who observe the Law of Nature as to give them Faith In the 2d That the Faith of a Christian is the Gift of God In the 3d That all those who have the Habit of Faith give their consent to the Truths of Faith which are propos'd unto them or at least do not oppose them with obstinacy In the 4th that every one is oblig'd to believe and observe all that the Catholick Church has determin'd by an express or tacit Decision at least as to what concerns Faith and Manners for as to other things she may deceive and be deceiv'd as in the Canonization of Saints according to the Opinion of Thomas and Panormitan In the 5th That every one is oblig'd to believe all that is liâ—terally express'd in the Old and New Testament In the 6th That we are also oblig'd to believe and practise all that the Church has learn'd or receiv'd from the Apostles In the 7th That the same is to be said of those Truths which follow by necessary Consequence from such as are founded upon the preceding Principles In the 8th That we ought also to believe the Definitions and Decrees of Popes when the Church does not oppose them In the 9th That the Truths which God reveals to private Persons are not of Faith save only for those to whom they are reveal'd In the 10th That we ought to obey the Decisions of Bishops in their Dioceses when they Condemn any Doctrines as contrary to Faith or Good Manners In the 11th That every one is oblig'd to believe and practise what is necessary for attaining happiness In the 12th That among Christians the difference of Dignities States and Understanding obliges some to have more knowledge of Matters relating to Religion than others In the 13th That no Person is oblig'd to believe what one or many private Persons teach but only the Doctrine of the Catholick Church is to be embrac'd by every one In the 14th That none is oblig'd to follow the Opinion of Saints and Doctors and to give credit to their Miracles and Revelations In the 15th That we are not oblig'd to give Credit to the Words or Writings of Men even in such things as do not relate to Faith and Manners In the 16th That in case a Council and the Pope be of contrary Opinions we must adhere to the Decision of a Council and when the Fathers of a Council are divided we must follow the Majority In the 17th That when there are two Persons who call themselves Popes we must endeavour to discover whose Election was Canonical and in case it be difficult to know this that it will be better to follow his Party who is thought to have the greatest probability on his side than to own no Pope at all In the 18th That when Divines or Interpreters differ about any Opinion we must follow that which is thought to be most true but if their Opinions happen to be equally probable we must follow that which is taught by the most Famous and Holy Persons In the 19th That in Matters of Controversie and Faith a Man is not at liberty to follow what Opinion he pleases when the thing is once defin'd In the 20th That when it is not determin'd we ought to follow what is most agreeable to the Gospel and best founded In the 21th That in case the Opinions appear to be equally reasonable we ought to shun that against which Anathema's are thundred out In the 22th That in Controversies of Faith which cannot be explain'd we ought to suspend our Judgment In the 23th That those who have a pure heart who pray to God without ceasing that they may know the Truth and have an humble submissive Spirit cannot Err dangerously in matters of Faith In the 24th That those Truths which one is not oblig'd to believe explicitely at the beginning because they were not explain'd and defin'd become afterwards necessary Points of Faith when they are In the 25th That every Christian is instructed Spiritually nourish'd and perfected in the Unity of one only Church and its Head In the 26th That 't is not sufficient to have Faith but it must be accompanied with good Works whereof God is the Author that we must love God and live in conformity to his Will After this Treatise follows a Piece upon a passage of St. Hilarius of the manner after which Jesus Christ is in us reported by Gratian in the Decree Distinct. 2. de Consecrat A Translation of the Exhortation of St. Justin to the Greeks a Poem upon the Mysteries of the Cross Nine Books of the prescience of Things wherein he treats of the Divine Prescience and of that knowledge which some pretend to of things future by Compacts with Evil Spirits by Astrology Chiromancy Geomancy c. which he confutes at large in this Treatise and therein he justifies these Predictions which Prophets Divinely inspir'd Angels and even God himself has given us of things future The Six Books of the Examination of the Vanity of the Doctrine of the Gentiles and of the Truth of the Christian Religion oppose the Errors of Philosophers and particularly those of the Aristoteleans There are also Four Books of Letters written by this Author which are almost all upon Profane Subjects at the end of which there is a Discourse address'd to Leo X. about the Reformation of Manners There is not so much Wit Vigor Subtilty nor Elegance in the Works of Francis Picus as in those of his Unkle nor yet so much Learning but there is in them more solidity and evenness This Prince was unhappy during his Life for he was driven out of his Dominions by his younger Brother Louis and being
Woman but his Wife That his Daughters remained Virgins and his Son was very Chaâ—t He says that the Apostles S. Peter and S. Philip were Married and that they had Children That even S. Philip married his Daughters and he adds also that S. Paul had a Wife wherein he is mistaken Tho' it is uncertain whether S. Paul was ever Married yet it is a rash thing to say positively he was not S. Clement alledges a Tradition in this Matter which might easily be conveyed entire down to his time It is plain that the true Yoke-fellow Philip. 4. 3. was a Woman which others of the Antients understood of his Wife besides S. Clement His Expostulating with the Corinthians and asserting that he had a Power to lead about a Sister or a Wife as well as S. Peter or any of the Apostles may as well prove that S. Paul justified his own Practice as that he thought the thing simply lawful especially since he is there making a Defence for himself The Question however is very far from being certain in the Negative and therefore at least ought to be left undetermined In the Fourth Book he treats of Martyrdom and Christian Perfection He shews the Excellency of Martyrdom and exhorts Christians to undergo it confuting the Hereticks who held that Martyrdom was no Vertuous Action He makes the perfection of Christianity to consist in the Love of God and our Neighbour He would have us love Sinners and yet detest their Sin that we should do good out of a principle of Love and not for Fear For that Man says he that abstains from Evil only out of a slavish Fear is not good voluntarily but for Fear-sake and he who would not have abstained but in Consideration of the Recompence cannot be said to be just with a good Heart For in the one 't is Fear and in the other the hope of a Reward which renders them Just or rather which makes them appear so to the Eyes of the World He says that God inflicts Punishments upon Men for Three Reasons First that the Man whom he Chastises may become better Secondly that those who are to be saved may take warning by these Examples Thirdly lest he should be despised by Men if he did not avenge Affronts and Injuries done to himself In the Fifth Book after having shewn that the way of instructing by Allegories and Symbols was very ancient not only among the Jews but also among the Philosophers he proves that the Greeks took the greatest part of the Truths which are in their Books from the Barbarians and principally from the Hebrews This Book is full of Citations from the Poets and the heathen Philosophers In the Sixth Book he speaks again advantageously of Philosophy Afterwards he begins to draw a Character of the True Gnostick that is to say to give the Idea of a Christian that is perfectly Good and Wise. These are the principal strokes of his Picture The True Gnostick has the Command over his Passions He is exactly Temperate and allows his Body no more than what is necessary He loves God above all Things and the Creatures for Gods-sake and the Relation they bear to him and nothing is able to separate him from this Love He bears with Patience all unfortunate Accidents He makes it his Business to know all things which relate to God without neglecting humane Learning His Discourses are regular and to the purpose full of Sweetness and Charity He is never overcome with Anger He prays continually by Charity that unites him to God First begging of him the Remission of his Sins and then the Grace not to sin any more but to do Good Afterwards S. Clement enlarges upon the Source or Spring from whence this Gnostick derives this true Knowledge and compleat Science He says that it is the Holy Scripture the Law and the Prophets and in particular the Decalogue which he briefly explains and Lastly the Doctrine of Jesus Christ foretold by the Prophets preached throughout the World and received notwithstanding all the Contradiction of Kings and the great Men of this World who opposed it with all their Might In the Seventh Book he goes on to describe the Vertues of his Gnostick he says that he employs himself entirely in honouring God in loving him in understanding hearing and imitating his WORD which was made Man for our Salvation that he does it not only upon certain days but during the whole Course of his Life that the Sacrifices by which he Honours him are the Prayers and the Praises which he offers up at all times and in all Places that he is Gentle Courteous Affable Patient Charitable Sincere Faithful and Temperate that he despises the good things of this World and that he is ready to suffer every thing for Jesus Christ that he does nothing either out of Ostentation or Fear or the Desire of being rewarded but out of pure Love to the Goodness and Justice of God Lastly that he is entirely Holy and Divine Afterwards S. Clement Answers several Objections of the Greeks and Jews who affirmed that the multiplicity of Heresies ought to hinder Men from the embracing the Religion of Jesus Christ. To which he Answers that this multitude of Sects is likewise to be found among the Heathens and the Jews that it was foretold by Jesus Christ that such a thing should happen among the Christians That it ought not to make us forsake the Truth but rather on the contrary to seek after it with the greater Care and Diligence That there is an infallible Rule to distinguish Truth from Falshood that this Rule is the Holy Scripture which being an incontestable Principle serves for a Proof of whatever we say That it must be Confessed that the Hereticks make use of it as well as the Catholicks But then first they do not make use of all the Sacred Books Secondly those which they do use are corrupted Thirdly they chiefly urge ambiguous Passages which they explain according to their own Fancy by departing from the true Sense and keeping only to Terms Hence he takes occasion to condemn in general all Hereticks who rejecting the Tradition of Jesus Christ and his Apostles and forsaking the Faith of the Church have made themselves the Authors of particular Sects by inventing new Doctrines and corrupting the Truth He says that there is but only One Catholick Church which is more ancient than all the Assemblies of the Hereticks that it was founded by Jesus Christ who dyed under Tiberius and established it in the World by the Apostles before the end of Nero's Region Whereas there was hardly so much as one Heresie older than Adrian's Time and that they all bore the Name of their Author or that of the Places and Countries where they first appeared or from the Doctrine they taught or the things which they honoured which sufficiently discovers their Falshood and Novelty He concludes by making the Description of these Books of the Stromata and by promising to begin
wrote to Stephen about it to exhort him to embrace this Discipline But he was so far from submitting to the Reason of the Africans whether because he imagined they had a Design to condemn the Roman Church or because he thought this Question was of too great Consequence that he was enraged against St. Cyprian and his Colleagues and used their Deputies ill Nay he prohibited all Christians belonging to his Church to receive or lodge them depriving them not only of Ecclesiastical Communion but also refusing them the common Civilities of Hospitality The Letter he writ back was full of Injuries and Invectives and his Decision was comprised in these Terms If any one comes to you of whatsever Heresie he is let there not be made the least Alteration in what has been regulated by Tradition but only impose Hands upon him and so receive him This Letter being brought into Africk St. Cyprian moved at the Proceedings of Stephen sent his Letter with a Refutation of it not only to Pompey of Africk but al 's to Fermilian and the other Bishops of Cappadocia who were all of the same Opinion with St. Cyprian touching the Baptism of Hereticks Firmilian having received it writ a long Letter wherein he amply refutes the Opinion and Letter of Stephen and establishes the Discipline which St. Cyprian defended saying It had been observed in his Country by an immemorial Custom and confirmed in two numerous Synods held at Iconium and Synnada As soon as St. Cyprian had received this Letter he assembled a Synod at Carthage in which the Letter he had writ to Jubaianus upon this Question was openly read and all the Bishops gave their Suffrages in favour of St. Cyprian's Opinion Thus I have delivered in a few Words the History of this famous Quarrel between two great Bishops both of whom the Church still reverences as Saints However If I may be allowed to make some Reflections upon their Opinions and Conduct I shall not scruple to observe after St. Austin that St. Cyprian shewed a great deal more Moderation in this Dispute and that we can by no means excuse that Heat and Passion which so far transported Stephen For though the first maintained his Opinion vigorously yet he did it with abundance of Candor and always declared he would leave other Bishops the Liberty to do as they judged convenient and openly professed he would separate himself from the Communion of no body upon the score of this Controversie Neminem separantes said he often aut a Communione submoventes Whereas on the other hand Pope Stephen not only asserted his Opinion with a world of Heat and Rigour but also treated those Bishops unworthily who followed a Practice different from his own calling them false Christians false Apostles and Seducers and refusing their Deputies not only the Communion of the Church but even Lodging and Hospitality As for what respects the Merits of the Cause though 't is commonly believed that the Pope had the Truth on his Side yet there is sufficient reason to doubt whether he did not in the heat of his Opposition to St. Cyprian carry things too far on the other side and whether the Opinion of St Austin which the Church has since embraced That we ought to receive those Persons without Baptism who have been baptized by Hereticks in the Name of the Trinity and to re-baptize those who have not been baptized according to that Form Whether this Opinion I say does not steer the middle Course between Stephen's f Between that of Stephen who seems to have maintained What induces us to believe that Stephen was of this Opinion is in the first place because he make no distinction at all but says plainly à quacunque Heresi Secondly Because St. Cyprian and Firmilian takes Stephen's Words in this sense now who can imagine that they would have engaged themselves in a Dispute without so much as knowing the Opinion of their Adversary Thirdly There were scarce any Hereticks before Stephen who Baptized in the Name of the Trinity so that it had been only a Chimerical Question about a thing which had never been practised to dispute whether it were necessary to Re-baptize those who had been Baptized in the Name of the Trinity by Hereticks since there were almost no Hereticks that used to Baptize after that manner Fourthly The ancient Author of a small Book written against the Opinion of St. Cyprian makes mo mention of this Distinction of Hereticks but generally approves all Baptism whatever given in the Name of Jesus Christ. Fifthly St. Augustin never cites Stephen's Decree for his Opinion on the other hand he opposes the Opinion of Stephen and St. Cyprian and in his sixth Book de unico Bapt. c. 14. he tells us Stephen maintained that no body was to be Re-baptized in nullo iterandum Baptisma There are several other Reasons which I pass over in silence who seems to have maintained that all those who had been baptized by Hereticks should be received without Re-baptization which way soever they were baptized â quacumque heresi and St. Cyprian's who asserted that all such ought to be re-baptized Be it as it will 't is certain g St. Cyprian never altered his Opinion There is not the least probability that St. Cyprian altered his Opinion In the time of the Council of Arles the Africans still continued this Practice and in Optatus's time they distinguished between Hereticks and Schismaticks receiving the latter without Baptism but Re-baptizing the former that St. Cyprian never altered his Opinion that the Greek Churches were for a long time after him h Divided upon this Question Denis of Alexandria in Eusebius testifies that the Eastern Churches were divided upon this Question St. Athanasius rejects the Baptism of Hereticks St. Basil in two Canons of his Letter to Amphilochius examines the different Customs of several Churches about this Question and inclines to the Party of those who reject the Baptism of Hereticks as invalid divided upon this Question that the Council of Arles i First decided it in the West The Council of Arles 1. c. 8. De Afris qui propriâ lege utuntur ut Re-baptizent first decided it in the West that it is not unprobable that this was the Council which St. Austin k Calls the full Council This Question has been discussed with mighty Heat in our time though it be but of small importance It is certain that the Council of Arles has decided it agreeably to the Opinion of St. Austin and that the Africans gave the Name of a full Council to Councils consisting of more than one Province as was that of Arles However it is the Council of Nice has not decided this Question but only ordained that the Paulianists should be Re-baptized Now it is not certain whether they Baptized in the Name of the Trinity or no And St. Athanasius himself seems to affirm the contrary besides that though they had not Baptized in the
the time of this Pope The Epistle attributed to Lucius is full of Citations out of the Vulgar Latin and of several Passages taken out of the First Council of Arles the Third of Carthage that of Milevis St. Leo Gregory Agatho Adrian and Sixtus the Pythagorean Besides it is dated Six Months before the Election of Lucius The two Epistles attributed to Stephanus are filled with Citations out of Modern Authors and Statutes that don't all agree with the time of this Pope and consequently are Spurious For the same Reasons we must pass the same Judgment of the two Letters of Sixtus the Second the two of Pope Dionysius the three of St. Felix the First the two of Eutychianus that of Carus the two of Marcellinus those of Marcellus the three of Eusebius the Letter and Decree of Miltiades and the rest of the Letters of the Popes collected by Isidore that are full of several Passages taken out of the Fathers Popes and Councils more Modern than the very Popes by whom they are pretended to be written and in which many things are to be found that don't in the least agree with the true History of those times and were purposely said to favour the Court of Rome and establish her Pretensions against the Rights of Bishops and the Liberties of Churches But it would take up too much time to show the gross falsity of these Monuments that are now rejected by a common Consent and even by those Authors that are most favourable to the Court of Rome who are obliged to abandon the Patronage of these Epistles though they have done a great deal of Service in establishing the greatness of the Court of Rome and ruining the ancient Discipline of the Church especially in relation to Ecclesiastical Decisions and Rights of Bishops An Abridgment of the Doctrine Discipline and Morality of the Three First Ages of the Church AFter having given a Summary of what is contained in the Works of the Ecclesiastical Authors for the Three first Ages of the Church I supposed it would not be amiss to present the An Abridgment of Doctrine c. Reader with an Abridgment also of the Theology of the Primitive Christians This Design besides the relation it had to the Work it self seem'd in my Opinion to be the principal Fruit and Advantage that could be gathered from it For the ultimate Scope and End which a Man ought to propose to himself in reading the Ecclesiastical Authors and their History is not to gratifie a vain foolish Curiosity but to learn Religion thereby We must not study these Matters only to make a Pompous Ostentation of our Knowledge but to become better Christians to become more certain of the Doctrine of the Church more respectful to its Discipline and better instructed in its Holy Morality For all Theology reduces it self to these Three Points Doctrine Discipline and Morality Doctrine concerns the Articles of Faith that our Religion teaches us Discipline concerns the Government of the Church and Morality teaches us what things we are to do and what we are to forbear Hereticks overthrow the Doctrine of the Church by their Errours Schismaticks destroy its Discipline by violating the Orders and Rules of the Church And lastly The vitious Christian discards and lays aside the Laws of its Morality by living after an irregular manner For the better avoiding these Rocks and Precipices it is exceeding requisite for all Christians to draw out of the Tradition of the ancient Church that is to say out of the Books of the Primitive Fathers who are the unquestionable Witnesses of the Opinion of the Church in their own times to draw I say from thence the Doctrine which they are obliged to believe to examine the Ecclesiastical Discipline which they are to revere and obey and lastly from thence to learn the most Holy Rules of the Christian Morality An Abridgment of the Doctrine THE Doctrine of the Church was always the same and will be ever so till the end An Abridgment of Doctrine of the World For 't is utterly impossible that the true Church should cease to be or that the true Church should not teach the Doctrine of Jesus Christ because whether she should teach a Doctrine different from that of Jesus Christ or whether she should not teach the Doctrine of our Blessed Saviour in both these Cases she would cease to be the true Church Jesus Christ as St. Irenaeus Tertullian and all the rest of the Ancients have observed taught his Apostles all the Truths of Faith The Apostles published them throughout all the Earth and opened them to all the Churches in the World whose Doctrine is found to be conformable each to other in Articles of Faith This Doctrine was always preserved in the Church which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth 'T is indeed very true that they did not always make use of the same terms and that before the Birth of Heresies they did not observe that precaution in speaking of Mysteries which they did afterwards when they were attack'd by the Hereticks But still the Foundation of Doctrine was always the same as to the principal Articles of our Faith We must likewise acknowledge that there were some Errours very frequent in the First Ages of the Church that have been rejected since but then they don't concern the principal Articles of our Faith and besides were never looked upon to be the received Doctrine of the Church but only the most common Opinions These previous Observations will be confirmed by an Abridgment of the Doctrine of the Church as it is delivered by the Authors of the Three first Centuries which we are going to represent in as few words as possibly we can They taught That the Grounds and Principles of Faith were the Holy Scriptures and Tradition that we ought to believe Mysteries though we were not able to comprehend them they spoke of the Nature of God and of his Attributes after a most excellent manner they believed him to be Invisible Eternal Incorruptible c. they have frequently discoursed of his Providence his Power his Bounty his Mercy and his Goodness they wrote very sharply against the false Divinities of the Pagans and the Errours of Hereticks who imagined that there cou'd be above one Soveraign and Independant Being they proved that God Created all Things and even Matter it self which was not Eternal they acknowledged the Trinity of the Three Persons in one only God the Divinity and Eternity of the Word and of the Holy Ghost they maintain'd that the Word was from all Eternity in God as a Person distinct from the Father that the Father created the World by him and that he governs it and that it was the Person of the Word that appear'd to the ancient Patriarchs under different Figures and who was at last Incarnate that Jesus Christ was the Word made Man God and Man all together composed of two intire and different Natures that he had a Soul and Body like
and was Ordained Bishop of Rome * Sept. 15. Nov. 28. Anno. 496. The first thing he did was to write to the †Anastasius Emperor to endeavour the Re-union of the Church He exhorts him therefore in the first ** This Letter is in Tom. 4. of Councils p. 1278. Letter and earnestly intreats him to hinder that the Name of Acacius which gave so much offence should not be recited in the Church and by that means procure the Churches Peace At the same time he advertiseth him that this would not derogate from the validity of the Ordinations which Acacius hath conferred or Baptisms which he hath administred because the Holy Spirit works by evil Ministers and Sinners who administer the Sacraments hurt none but themselves nâ—…r do hinder the effect of the Sacraments Anastasius sent * Germanus Bishop of Capua and Cresconius Bishop of Tuder two Legats to Constantinople to Negotiate the Peace and at the same time Festus a Senator of Rome went about some publick affairs There was also then at Constantinople a Priest and another Clergy-man Deputies for the Church of Alexandria who being desirous of a Re-union with the Church of Rome presented a †It is extant in Tom. 4. p. 1283. of the Councils Memoir to the Pope's Legats and Festus wherein they deliver themselves to this Effect That the Churches of Rome founded by St. Peter and of Alexandria planted by St. Mark have always had the same Faith and Doctrine and were so firmly united that when any Councils were held in the East the Bishop of Rome made choice of the Bishop of Alexandria to act in his stead and hold his place in them but there began a Division between these two Churches in the time of St. Leo because his Letter against the Impious Heretick Eutyches being falsified by Theodoret and some other Bishops of the Nestorian Party who Translated it into Greek and by the Authority of that Corrupt Translation had maintained the Doctrine of Nestorius had given the Church of Alexandria occasion to think that the Church of Rome was of that Opinion and upon that account to separate from her Communion On the other side the Bishop of Rome being persuaded that the Aegyptians opposed the Doctrine which he had received from the Apostles had also separated them from his Communion That they had sent Deputies to Rome to justifie that their Church had no other Sentiments than those of the Fathers of the Council of Nice but there was then at Rome a certain Man of their Countrey an â—…my to the truth by whose means they were denied Reception and Audience Insomuch that they returned without effecting any thing but they understood since by Photinus a Deacon of the Church of Thessalonica who was sent by his Bishop to Pope Anastasius that this Pope did not approve of the Additions and Alterations which had been made in the Version of St. Leo's Letter That the Legats of this Pope sent to Constantinople having assured them of the same thing they implored them to receive their Confession of Faith that if it were found agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome these two Churches might be Re-united In this Confession of Faith having asserted with most serious Protestations that they did receive the Doctrine of the three first General Councils and the Anathema's of St. Cyril without mentioning the fourth Council They confess that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father according to the Divine Nature and with us according to the Humane that there is but one Son that the Actions and Sufferings of Jesus Christ are proper to one Son only They condemn those that divide or confound the Natures or introduce a mere Phantom because in the Incarnation there is no multiplication of Sons and the Trinity of the Persons in the Godhead still remains although one of the Divine Persons be Incarnate They pronounce an Anathema against Nestorius and Eutyches But they declare that the Doctrine of Dioscorus Timotheus and Petrus their Patriarchs was such as that they do still follow it and are ready to justifie it Lastly They conjure the Popes Legats to present this Confession of Faith to him that he may approve it and receive them into his Communion Festus also was Commissioned by the Emperor to negotiate the Re-union of the Church of Constantinople and he promised to sway Anastasius the Pope to Subscribe Zeno's Henoticon But when he came to Rome Anastasius was dead having been in the See of the Church of Rome but two years wanting six days There is another * It is extant in Tom. 4. Council p. 1278. Letter of Anastasius to Lewis the French King wherein he congratulates his Conversion to Christianity Lastly M. Baluzius in Tom. 1. of his new Collections of Councils hath published some fragments of a Letter of Anastasius to Ursicinus upon the Incarnation Platina says that he wrote some Books De Trinitate De Libero arbitrio de Regulis Fidei adversus Pelagianam Haeresin and many Sermons but we know not upon what grounds The Letters of this Pope are full of Moral Observations and Applications of Texts of Holy Scripture PASCHASIUS a Deacon of the Church of Rome THIS Deacon flourished in the Popedom of Anastasius and Symachus under this last he Paschasius a Deacon of Rome favoured the Party of Laurentius the Anti-Pope and some hold that he was put into Purgatory upon that Account where Germanus Bishop of Capua saw his Soul if we may believe the Relation which St. Gregory gives us in his Dialogues He made two Books concerning the Godhead of the Holy Spirit * Against Macedonius commended by St. Gregory in which he hath not omitted any Material proof which the Holy Scripture affords us to prove the God-head of the Holy Spirit This Treatise is Written in a very good Method and with much Elegancy It hath been Printed at Collen in 1539 8vo and at Helmstadt in 1613. and put into the Biblioth Patr. Tom. 8. p. 806. Some think that it is to this Paschasius that Eugippius hath Dedicated the Life of St. Severinus JULIANUS POMERIUS JUlianus Pomerius a Native of Mauritania and Ordained a Priest in France lived about the end of the fifth Age. He composed a Treatise by way of Dialogue between Julian a Bishop Julianus Pomerius and Verus a Priest * Dr. Cave takes them for an Abridgment of Nemesius ' s 8 Books Dé Animâ about the Nature and Qualities of the Soul divided into eight Books In the first he tells us what the Soul is and in what sense it is said to be made in the Image of God In the second he examines whether it be Corporeal or Incorporeal In the third he enquires how the Soul of the first Man was made In the fourth he discusses this Question Whether the Soul which is about to be infused into the Body be created anew and without Sin or whether it be
Ep. 30. Of the Apostolick Sees EUlogius Patriarch of Alexandria had written many things to St. Gregory in favour of the See of St. Peter St. Gregory observes to him in his Answer that they were the more grateful to him because they were written by one who sits also in the Chair of St. Peter himself and that he had done an Honour to himself by endeavouring to do one to the See of Rome That he should know that the Church was solidly founded upon the Firmness of the Prince of the Apostles from whence he had his Name of Peter and that to him the Truth it self said I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to whom he also said when you are Converted strengthen your Brethren without forgetting these other words Simon Son of Jona lovest thou me feed my sheep That upon this account though there were many Apostles yet there was but one See of the Prince of the Apostles which was raised in Authority above the rest because of the Primacy which he founded That this See is in three places at Rome the place where he finish'd his Course at Alexandria whether he sent his Evangelist St. Mark to supply the place and at Antioch where he continued seven years but that these three Sees are but one See which belongs to St. Peter on which three Bishops now sit which are in effect but one in him who pray'd That they may be one as I am in the Father and the Father in me B. 6. Ep. 37. The Form of Ecclesiastical Decisions HEre follow the principal Rules observ'd by St. Gregory in Ecclesiastical Decisions He Judg'd in the first place the Bishops of Italy Sicily and the Neighbouring Isles which immediately depended upon Rome as their Metropolis as for Example he cites Januarius Bishop of Calaris to Rome to come and purge himself of the Accusation charged upon him B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 36. He causes the Bishop of Syracusa to come to Rome B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 12. He cites Maximus Bishop of Salone B. 5. Ep. 3 25. Having depos'd the Bishop of Naples he writes to the Clergy and People of that City to choose another Bishop in his room B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 3. He requires his * The Defensores of St. Peter's Patrimony were certain Officers appointed by Popes in the Provinces for maintaining and taking care of the Patrimony of the Roman Church which Officers were afterwards appointed for Parochial Churches and are now call'd Churchwardens Spelm. Gloss. Warden in Sicily to send to Rome the Bishop of Messina and his Accusers B. 11. Ep. 32 33. The Bishops of the Vicariate of Rome were oblig'd to come every year to his Synod As to those of Sicily they came thither once in three years and St. Gregory assures them that he will be satisfied if they come but once in five years B. 6. Ep. 19. Yet to facilitate the dispatch of Affairs he makes Maximian Bishop of Syracuse his Legat into Sicily to whom he gives Power to judge of smaller Affairs on condition that he should reserve to him such as were of greater Consequence He Commissions the Bishop of Syracuse and four other Bishops to judge the Cause of Mellitus Bishop of the Isle of Malta B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 63. As to the other Bishops of the West who did not depend upon his Metropolis he would have them judged by a Synod of the Province without an Appeal to the Holy See He affirms that a Bishop of Afric should be judg'd by a Synod held in Afric B. 1. Ep. 82. He remits Paulinus of Tegesta to the Judgment of Columbus B. 10. Ep. 32. He affirms That a Bishop ought never to be Depos'd till his Cause has been first heard in a Synod B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 8 9. In case of an Appeal or where recourse is had to the Holy See he commonly commissions Judges upon the place whereof here follow some Instances Florentius Bishop of Epidaurus which is now Ragousa had been condemn'd by his Metropolitan without being judg'd or convicted in any Synod but St. Gregory declares that his Deposition ought not to take place but the Cause ought to be re-heard and decided in a Council He commissions Antonius to be present at this Decision B. 1. Ind. 4. Ep. 8 9. He remits to Columbus Bishop of Numidia the Judgment of two Bishops of Afric B. 5. Ep. 36. B. 10 Ep. 32. He Commissions one of his Wardens at Rome to draw up a Process and Judge the Bishop of Malaga B. 11. Ep. 52 53. The Judgment of this Deacon is related in the Letter 55 wherein he declares by virtue of his Commission that Januarius Bishop of Malaga was unjustly forc'd away He nulls all that had been done against him altho it was null in it self He ordains that the other Bishops who were guilty of this bold Invasion of another's Right shall be shut up in a Monastery to do Penance there that he who was Ordain'd in the room of Januarius shall remain depriv'd of the Priesthood and all Ecclesiastical Orders and that Januarius shall re-enter upon the Possession of his Bishoprick This Deacon pronounc'd the Sentence in the presence of the four Gospels and according to the Memorial of the Imperial Laws about the Decisions of Bishops St. Gregory remits to the Bishop of Vienna the Judgment of an Abbot of Cesena who was forsaken by his Bishop B. 12. Ep. 1. He Commissions Sigibert Bishop of Autun to determine the Differences between the Bishop of Turin and Tarentasia about the Parishes of their Diocese B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 120 121. He pretends also to have a Right of Reviewing the Causes which were decided in the East even after an Appeal The Affair of Hadrian Bishop of Thebes in Thessaly is too remarkable to be pass'd over here in silence This Bishop had been condemn'd by the Bishop of Larissa upon a Civil Affair and he had brought his Appeal but having recourse to the Emperors he was sent back to be judg'd before the Bishop of Corinth yet he was afterward forc'd to acquiesce in the Judgment of the Bishop of Larissa Some time after two Deacons who had been depos'd one for his Uncleanness and the other for Embezelling the Revenues of the Church accus'd Hadrian of suffering a Deacon of an ill Life altho he knew of his Disorders and of suffering Infants to die without Baptism The Bishop of Larissa condemn'd him now for a Criminal Affair as he had done before for a Civil Matter be appealed from this Sentence the Emperors caused the Informations to be communicated to Honoratus a Deacon who found none of these things true which they charged upon Hadrian Yet his Cause was remitted to the Metropolitan of the first Justinienna Primat of Illyria and Vicar of the Holy See This Bishop without exâ—…ing the Cause judicially confirm'd the Sentence of the Bishop of Larissa upon the 〈◊〉 of some Witnesses who declar'd that they had
he would have no Obsequies bestowed upon them nor any Sacrifice or Prayer offer'd for them In the 99th he permits such to be buried in the Church as have liv'd well The 100th approves of the Custom of carrying dead Bodies into their own Countries In the 101st he commends Alms. In the 102d he forbids doing violence to Pagans to convert them In the 103d he command them to burn the Books of the Sarazens The 104th is concerning the validity of Baptism administred by a Jew who had no Religion Nicholas the first answers That such ought not to be Re-baptized if he did confer it upon them in the name of the Trinity In the 105th he speaks of those that preach'd a Doctrine contrary to that of the Apostles He answers that they ought not to be heard But that it doth not belong to the Bulgarian Lay-men to judge whether the Doctrine be true or not In the last he exhorts them to take Instructions from none but the Church of Rome which always delivers the Truth to such as desire it These are the Decisions or Answers of Nicholas the first in this Work This Pope was a great Canonist He wrote readily and with Authority He often quoted the Canons and Decretals of the Popes He maintain'd the Grandeur of his See with vigour and manag'd the most difficult Matters he was concern'd in with Honour M. de Marca observes That he had done some Injuries to the Discipline and Liberties of the Church by maintaining that it was not lawful to assemble a National Synod without the consent of the Pope In attributing to himself the Appeals of the Clergies Cases determined in National Synods and also after a Review brought in Citing the Persons and Causes to Rome to be there determined anew instead of appointing Judges on the places and affirming that the Causes of Bishops wholly belong'd to his Cognizance But these Pretensions have not been acknowledg'd by the Church and particularly by that of France who have always kept to their Liberties without the least diminution of Respect and Submission due to the Holy See These Epistles are all put out in Tome VIII of the Councils After the death of Nicholas the first which hapned the 13th of November in the year 867. Adrian Adrian II. the second who was about 76 years of age was chosen in his place He was a Roman the Son of Talanius related to the Popes Stephen the fourth and Sergius the younger Gregory the fourth Ordained him Priest and gave him the Title of St. Mark His Liberality gained him a great repute in Rome and he was proposed to be chosen Pope after the death of Leo the fourth and Benedict the third And after the death of Nicholas he obtain'd it both by the Votes of the People who lov'd him and by the joynt consent of both Parties of Grandees Lewis the Emperour approved of his Election and he was Ordained the 14th of December He was at first suspected not to favour much the Memory of his Predecessor Nicholas the first because he seem'd not so severe towards Lotharius and Waldrada as he had been But he freed himself from this suspicion and re-united those to him that before had forsaken his Interest upon this account The beginning of his Pontificate was disturb'd by the Invasion of Rome which the Duke of Spoleto seiz'd on and harrass'd with Robberies and Plundering of his Soldiers But Rome was deliver'd both by the Authority of the Emperour who depriv'd the Duke of Spoleto of his own Dominions and the Thunderbolts of Excommunication which the Pope sent out against these Robbers A Peace was no sooner granted to the Church of Rome but the Affair of Photius was brought before Pope Adrian The Emperour Basilius having restored Ignatius sent some of his Officers to Rome to accompany the Deputies of Ignatius and Photius Those of Photius's side were drown'd for the most part and there appear'd in his behalf but one inconsiderable Monk call'd Methodius who durst not maintain his Cause and who suffer'd himself to be cited thrice and was at last condemn'd for Non-appearance But the Officer of the Greek Emperour and John Metropolitan of Caesaria in Cappadocia having presented to Pope Adrian the Transactions of the pretended Council which Photius had assembled against Pope Nicholas the first he caused them to be examined and condemned in a Council which pronounced an Anathema against Photius and had the Book burnt which he wrote against Pope Nicholas After this Adrian sent Legates to Constantinople to assist in his name at the eighth General Council They had at first all the satiâ—…ction they could wish but after the Council they enter'd upon the Affair of Bulgaria and after it was debated in their hearing judged that it ought to be subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople which troubled the Legates extreamly Wherefore having protested against and declared this Judgment null they immediately left the City dissatisfied And being but very meanly accompanied they fell into the hands of the Sclavonians who robbed them and took them Prisoners They soon after made an escape and came to Rome at the end of the year 870. There are five Letters of this Pope concerning the Affair of Ignatius and Photius in the Version of the Acts of the eighth Council done by Anastasius The three which follow relate to the Affairs of France and the Churches of Brittany to Lotharius and Weldrada Actardus Wulfadus and the other Clergy-men Ordained by Ebbo To the Kingdom of Lotharius on which Charles the Bald seiz'd after his death and which Adrian would have had been left to Lewis the Emperour To the pretended Privileges of Caroloman and to the Quarrel of Hincmarus Bishop of Laon with his Uncle It is not necessary to give any Extracts of these Letters in particular having spoken of them particularly elsewhere Adrian dyed the first of November in the year 872. He was naturally good and well temper'd zealous for Peace and for the welfare of the Catholick Church His Letters are written in a Style mixt with Gravity and Modesty Zeal and Humility he maintaining in every part of them his Authority without Affectation or Contempt of any Body He behaves himself towards those he had Business with according to the Rules of Honesty and Charity not Flattering them by a base Complaisance or Offending them by high Words nor Enraging them by his extraordinary Claims John the VIII was Arch-Deacon of Rome when he was rais'd to the Holy See it was in December 872. that he came to this Dignity at a time when all Italy began to be very much molested by the inroads of Barbarians and Divisions between the Dukes and Lords He was obliged to make a Treaty with the Sarazens to hinder their Invasions After the death of the Emperour Lewis the II. he set the Imperial Crown upon the Head of Charles the Bald in the year 875. and supported himself by his Protection as long as this Prince lived But having
going to the Council of Pisa wherein he congratulates them that they were going to this Council to endeavour after the Peace of the Church exhorts them to make a Peace and shews them the means of procuring it There is a Trialogue of his about the matter of the Schism wherein he introduces Zeal Good-will and Discretion disputing together about the means of putting an end to Contention a Letter in the Name of the University of Paris against the Letter in the Name of the University of Tholouse and a Letter in the Name of the King of France to justify his Substraction of Obedience from Peter de Luna After these Works follow many Sermons preach'd at Constance during the time of the Council In the second he sets himself against the Partizans of the Duke of Burgundy who would hinder the Council from Examining and Condemning the Errors of John Petit and shews by many Reasons that 't is very necessary to be done At the end of this Sermon there is a small piece wherein he recollects divers Errors chiefly about this Precept of the Decalogue Thou shalt not kill against which some had advanc'd many cruel and sanguinary Propositions prejudicial to the Security of Princes and about the Validity of Confessions made to Friars Mendicants The Duke of Burgundy having caus'd the Proposition of John Petit to be maintain'd by Peter Bishop of Arras That it was lawful to kill Tyrants Gerson reply'd to him in the Name of the King of France in a long Discourse spoken in an Assembly of the Fathers of the Council on the 5th of May 1416. and made two other Sermons wherein he searches this Matter to the bottom and refutes at large the Propositions of John Petit and relates the Censure of it made at Paris both by the Bishop and the Doctors The three following Treatises are not concerning the Affair of the Schism but the Principles of Faith The first is entitled a Declaration of the Truths which must be believ'd and according to him they are as follow First All that is contain'd literally in the Canonical Books Secondly All that is determin'd by the Church and receiv'd by Tradition from the Apostles not all that it tolerates or permits to be read publickly but only what it defines by a Judgment condemning the contrary Thirdly The Truths which are certainly reveal'd to some private Persons Fourthly The necessary Conclusions of Truth which are establish'd upon the preceding Principles Fifthly The Propositions which follow from these Truths by a probable Consequence or which are deduc'd from a Proposition of Faith or any other suppos'd to be true Sixthly The Truths which serve to cherish and maintain Devotion though they be not perfectly certain provided they be not known to be false From these Propositions he draws the following Corollaries First That 't is false and heretical to affirm That the literal Sense of Scripture is sometimes false Secondly That 't is Blasphemy and Heresie to maintain That nothing that is evidently known can be of Faith Thirdly That 't is also Heretical and Blasphemous to say That the Precepts of the Decalogue are not of Faith and that the contrary Propositions are not Heretical Fourthly That the Learned are obliged to believe with an explicite Faith many Propositions that are the Consequences of the prime Truths which the common People are not oblig'd to believe Fifthly That the Pastors Doctors and other Persons plac'd in Ecclesiastical Dignity are oblig'd to believe explicitly the Precepts of the Decalogue and many other Points of Faith which other Christians are oblig'd to believe only implicitly The second Treatise is entitled Of Protestation or Confession in Matters of Faith against Heresies where he treats of Protestations both general and particular and of Revocations and Retractations which we are oblig'd to make in Matters of Faith and shews that a general Protestation is not sufficient to justifie a Man when he is guilty of particular Errors that a particular Protestation which is conditional and express'd in these Words I would believe this Truth if it were known to me to be so does no justifie neither before God nor Men. He that revokes an Error which he hath held ought no to satisfie himself with making a particular Protestation of the contrary Truth but ought to mention that he retracts the Error which he maintain'd and this Revocation does not hinder him from being an Heretick before Yet this is not necessary with respect to those who have been in Error but did not know it nor maintain it obstinately Lastly A Retractation does not hinder but he who has made it may still be suspected of Heresie if he discovers by external Signs that his Revocation is not sincere The third Treatise coâ—tâ—iâ—s the Characters of Obstinacy in Matters of Heresie In it he defines Obstinacy a Depravation of the Will caus'd by Pride or some other Vice which hinders him that is in Error from seeking carefully after the Truth or embracing it when it is made known to him The Signs of Obstinacy are these when he who is in Error suffers Excommunication when being Cited he does not appear when he defends an Error contrary to the Truth which he is oblig'd to believe with an explicit Faith when he hinders the explaining and defining of the Truth when he declares himself an Enemy to those who would have the Matter decided when he denies a Truth which he had formerly taught when being requir'd to explain the Truth to the Doctoâ— or Judges he will not follow their Advice when he stirs up Wars and Seditions because the Truth has been explain'd when he declares That he would rather die than change his Opinion when he defends or maintains a Heretick knowing that he is in an Error lastly when one does not oppose an Error as he may or ought either by his Office if he be a Judge or from brotherly Charity These according to Gerson are the 12 Signs of Obstinacy The Treatise upon that Question Whether it be lawful to appeal from the Judgment of the Pope in Matters of Faith was compos'd by Gerson after the Election of Martin V. upon occasion of that Pope's refusal to condemn the Propositions of which the Polanders desired the Condemnation There he maintains the Affirmative because the Judgment of the Pope is not infallible as that of a General Council is wherefore in Matters of Faith no judicial Determination of any Bishop or even of the Pope himself does oblige the Faithful to believe a Truth as of Faith although it oblige them under pain of Excommunication not to be Dogmatical in affirming the contrary unless they have evident Reason to oppose against the Determination founded on the Holy Scripture or Revelation or the Determination of the Church and a General Council but in every Case as we may appeal from the Judgment of a Bishop to the Pope so we may appeal from the Judgment of a Pope to a General Council The following Pieces are concerning
spoke some Words prejudicial to the Faculty was obliged to make Satisfaction in 1428. In 1429 John Sarrazin Licentiate in Theology of the Order of Friars Preachers was delated to the Faculty and accused of having advanc'd in his Act de Vesperiis Eight Propositions concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction contrary to the Doctrin of the Faculty viz. 1st That all the Powers of Jurisdiction in the Church which are different from that of the Pope are from the Pope in their Institution and Collation 2dly That these Powers are not of Divine Right nor instituted by God immediately 3dly That Jesus Christ says nothing of these Powers but only of the Supream to which he intrusted the founding of his Church 4thly That when any thing is decreed in a Council all the Authority which gives force to its Decrees resides only in the Pope 5thly That there is no Text in the Gospel by which it expresly appears That the Power of Jurisdiction was granted to any other Apostle but St. Peter 6thly That it is repugnant in some manner to Truth to affirm that the Power of Jurisdiction in Inferior Prelates whether Bishops or Parish-Priests is immediately from God as the Power of the Pope is 7thly That no other Spiritual Authorities can do any thing of Right against the Pope 8thly That the Pope cannot commit Canonical Simony which is forbidden by a positive Law The Faculty having caus'd these Propositions to be examin'd by Deputies obliged Sarrazin to retract them publickly and to make Profession of eight Propositions contrary to them wherein he owns 1st That all the Powers of Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions which are different from that of the Pope are from Jesus Christ as to their first Institution and Collation and from the Pope and the Church as to their Limitation and Ministerial Dispensation 2dly That these Powers are of Divine Right instituted immediately by Jesus Christ 3dly That we find in Scripture that Jesus Christ founded his Church and expresly instituted other Powers besides that of the Pope 4thly That when any thing is decided in a Council the Authority which gives force to its Decrees does not reside only in the Pope but chiefly in the Holy Spirit and the Catholick Church 5thly That there are express Texts in the Gospel by which it appears That Jesus Christ has given his Apostles and Disciples an Authority of Jurisdiction 6thly That 't is agreeable to Evangelical and Apostolical Truth to affirm That the Power of Jurisdiction in inferiour Prelats whether Bishops or Parish-Priests is immediately from God 7thly That there is a Power viz. That of the Church which can do something of Right in certain Cases against the Pope 8thly That every Man in this Life having the Use of Reason of whatsoever Dignity Authority and Preheminence even the Pope himself may commit the Crime of Simony This Retractation was spoken by Sarrazin in an Assembly of the Faculty March the 30th 1429. according to the way of reckoning in France at that time i. e. in 1430. In 1432. The Faculty was consulted in the Name of the Bishop of Evreux and the Inquisitor A Censure of a Proposition about the Admonitions of Bishops of that Diocese about a Proposition which one had advanc'd That the Admonitions of Bishops are Abuses and it declar'd by its Conclusion dated May the 16th That this Proposition was reproachful presumptuous rash scandalous tending to Sedition and Rebellion and to weaken the Ecclesiastical Censures contrary to the Doctrin of Jesus Christ and the Apostles and favourable to some Errors condemn'd in the Council of Constance In 1442. Nicholas Quadrigarii a Doctor of Divinity of the Order of Friars Hermites of A Censure of the Errors of Quadrigarii and Augustin St. Austin having advanc'd in his Act de Vesperiis two Propositions 1st That every thing which happens by Divine Providence comes to pass necessarily the other That there is no other Power of Jurisdiction in the Church but the Pope's which is immediately from Jesus Christ was obliged by the Order of the Faculty to retract these two Propositions on the 9th of January and to make Profession of the contrary Doctrin In 1448. a Regular of the Order of Friars Minors having advanc'd in the Diocese of Tournay A Censure of the Propositions of a Friar Minor about the Hierarchy in 1448. A Censure in 1451. against the Propositions of John Bartholomew a Friar Minor contrary to the Rites of Parish Priests many Propositions contrary to the Rights of Parish-Priests like those which had been formerly advanced in 1429. by John Sarrazin the Grand Vicars of the Bishop address'd themselves to Giles Charlier who wrote a piece to refute them which is agreeable to the Doctrin of the Faculty of Theology at Paris in the Censure against Sarrazin In 1451. John Bartholomew of the Order of Friars Minors advanc'd at Roan in his Sermons many Propositions contrary to the Rights of Parish-Priests chiefly about Confession viz. That the Parishioners may freely confess themselves to Regulars Mendicants without asking leave of the Parish-Priests Whereupon the Proctor of the Archbishoprick caus'd an Information to be drawn up against him and the Affair being brought before the University of Paris this Regular appear'd in the Assembly of the University December the 4th and refusing to own that the Parishioners were obliged to confess themselves once a Year to their Parish Priests it was resolved That the Degree of a Licentiate should be denied him and that the deciding of the Question should be referred to the Faculties of Theology and Law In 1456. this Question was started again with some Warmth in the University upon occasion The Differences of the University with Regulars Mendicants about a Bull of privilege which they had obtaimed of a Bull obtain'd from Pope Nicholas V. by the Mendicants who gave them leave to take Confessions to the prejudice of the Right of Parish-Priests established by the Canon Omnis utriusque Sexus and also by Order of the Clementine Dudum The University understanding that it had been presented to the Official of Paris by some Regulars Carmelites interposed an Appeal and cited the Mendicants to appear on Monday May the 24th to declare to them That they should be excluded from the University unless they renounc'd the obtaining of that Bull and would promise to obtain the Revocation of it within a certain time The Mendicants having appear'd and refusing to do it the University declared them perjured and excluded from their Society The Mendicants instead of procuring the Revocation of that Bull address'd themselves to Pope Callistus complain'd of the Treatment they met with from the University and obtain'd of him a Bull which confirm'd that of Nicholas V. and null'd all that the University had done against them Notwithstanding this the University continued firm and the Mendicants were obliged to seek out some ways of Accommodation the Archbishop of Rhemes the Bishop of Paris and the Parliament concern'd themselves in the Affair
and indeed if such Reasonings were to be allowed I don't know one single Book in the World which might not upon as good Grounds be taken away from the true Author and bestowed upon another From hence we may see of what ill consequence it is to give ones Imagination too large a Scope and mistake bare Conjectures for eternal Truths h They would only prove that the same thing has happened to the Books of Moses which has almost happened to all the ancient Authors viz That some few Words Names and Terms have been added or altered to render the Narrative more intelligible If one examines all these Objections that I have already answered he will be convinced they prove no more and that one might have answered almost all of them by this very Remark Mr. Simon who cannot contradict me in this Point is mighty desirous to set upon me another way by objecting that in my Preface and other places of my Book I have laid down Rules which seem to prove from these Additions that the Pentateuch is a supposititious Work For it seems I had affirmed in the first part of my Preface That impostors for the most part relate Matters of Fact that happened after the Death of those whom they speak of and they give an Account of Cities and People that were not known in the time of those Authors whose Names they assume From whence Mr. Simon draws this Consequence that since I own there are several such Additions in the Pentateuch a Disciple of Spinosa may thence conclude that according to my Rule 't is a supposititious Work To this I answer that this Objection of Mr. Simon shews that he has not so great a share of good Sense and closeness of Arguing as he has of Rabbinical Learning For if he had only considered the General Remark which I made in my Preface about the Rules of Criticism there laid together he could not have been guilty of so manifest a Solecism as this I desire him to mind these Words a little A Man may say that all these Rules which I have here laid down are convincing and probable in different degrees but that the Sovereign and Principal Rule is the Judgment of Equity and Prudence which instructs us to ballance the Reasons of this and t'oher side in distinctly considering the Conjectures that are made of both sides Now this is the General Rule of Rational Criticism and we abuse all the rest if we don't chiefly make use of this Let us now apply it to the present Question There are in the Pentateuch some Terms and Names of Cities and other Passages that could not come from Moses must we therefore hastily conclude that it was not written by Moses because 't is a certain sign that a Book is spurious when one finds such Occurrences in it as have happen'd after the Death of the Author to whom it is attributed and because we there meet with some Names of Cities and People that were not known in his time Or on the other hand Does it follow because the Pentateuch was writ by Moses notwithstanding some Additions which are there to be found does it I say thence follow that the above-mentioned Rule is false These two Consequences are very indiscreetly drawn but the Rule is still good and the Books of the Pentateuch may yet be written by Moses The Rule is good but we ought to make a good use of it When there are no certain Proofs of the Antiquity of a Book and besides there are other Conjectures to incline us to doubt of it we may in pursuance to this Rule conclude it spurious But when it is past Dispute that such a Book is written by such an Author and there is an infinite number of evident Arguments to demonstrate the truth of it then we are necessarily to conclude that these Words and Terms and Names were afterwards added After all where there are Reasons on one side as well as on the other we ought carefully to ballance them to weigh one against the other and at last to determine the matter on that side where the greatest appearance of probability lies These are the true Rules of Criticism which it seems Mr. Simon is ignorant of or at least does not rightly examine otherwise he could never have forgot himself so far as to accuse me wrongfully for giving favourable Rules to the Disciples of Spinosa The fault is by no means to be imputed to these Rules which almost every Critick has given before me but 't is his way of Arguing and drawing of Inferences that has been favourable to the Spinosists His Conjectures and Objections and in short his Hypothesis has served to confirm those Persons in their Errors besides that several places of his Book give the greatest Blow imaginable to the Authority of the Holy Scripture When he asks me What answer I will return to a Spinosist who to prove that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses shall use my own Reasons to show that the Liturgy of St. James as 't is commonly received by the Oriental Nations was not made by him I will answer him that there are not the same Reasons to induce a Man to believe that St. James was the Author of that Liturgy which goes under his Name as that the Books of Moses were written by him That this was never affirmed in any of the Epistles of the Apostles that the Ancients never speak of it that this Liturgy does not agree with the Discipline that was in use in St. James's time Whereas the Scripture informs me that Moses was Author of the Pentateuch and Jesus Christ and his Apostles have assured me of the truth of it and all the ancient Writers have testified so much besides the Universal Agreement of all People in this matter 'T is therefore a manifest Injustice and Calumny in Mr. Simon to accuse me for designing to destroy the Books of Moses under a pretence of defending them against the Spinosists Nor does Mr. Simon reason better in applying what I have said with regard to the Book of Joshuah to the Books of the Pentateuch 't is but comparing the Arguments I brought to prove that the Books of the Pentateuch belonged to Moses with those that are commonly produced to prove that the Book of Joshuah was written by Joshuah and any Man will soon perceive the mighty difference between one and the other and that the Reasons that are alledged in favour of Moses are infinitely stronger than those that are urged to prove that Joshuah composed the Book that bears his Name No Man ever yet doubted that the Pentateuch was written by Moses but 't is not the same case with the Book of Joshuah Mr. Simon supposeth there is as much evidence for one as the other in order to prove this he imagines that all those formal places of Scripture that are produced to shew that Moses was Author of the Pentateuch reduce themselves to this Head viz. That Moses wrote the
his p But it is certain that they cannot be his The Eternity and Divinity of the Word is clearly explained in the Poemander and the Author of this Book attributes to the Son the quality of being Consubstantial with the Father he declares that he is the Son of God our God who proceeds from the Intellect of the Father and he makes use of the very words of the Septuagint in describing the Creation of the World he Discourseth of the Fall of the first Man In short he Copies out several passages of the Old and New Testament and follows the Principles of the Modern Platonick Philosophy But the Book Entituled Asclepius hath not quite so great a Tincture of Christianity The Author Treats therein of Idolatry after an exquisite manner he explains the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he Transcribes many things out of the Holy Scriptures and the Works of the Grecian Writers Lastly he foretels the Extirpation of the Egyptian Religion for the Author of these Treatises is a Modern Platonick Christian who argues from the Principles of that Philosophy and hath taken from the Holy Scripture that which he writ concerning the Word of God and the Creation of the World IT were needless to shew the falsity of a Letter attributed to Lentulus and directed to the Senate A Letter of Lentulus and People of Rome concerning the Actions of Jesus Christ since the Forgery is apparent It is pretended to have been written by Lentulus as Governour of Jerusalem altho he never was so the Superscription thereof is inscrib'd to the Senate and People of Rome whereas ever since there were Emperors it was the general Custom among the Governours of Provinces to write immediately to them Moreover the Contents of this Letter are ridiculous there is a mean and unworthy Deseription of the Person of Jesus Christ as particularly it is said that his Hair was of a light Colour long and loose after the manner of the Nazarenes the style is also very far from the Purity and Elegancy of the Age wherein Augustus lived In short this Letter is not so much as mentioned by any of the ancient Writers THE Letter of Pilate to Tiberius on the same Subject concerning the Miracles of Jesus Christ seems Pilaet's Letter to be more Authentick for it is recorded by Tertullian in his Apologotick that Tiberius being informed of the supernatural and wonderful Operations that were performed by our Saviour in Palestine which were so many Testimonies of his Divinity made report thereof to the Senate and determined that he ought to be Enrolled among the Gods but that the Senate having rejected this Proposition Tiberius nevertheless persisted in his Opinion and forbad his Subjects to persecute the Christians It is added a little after by the same Author that Pilate being a Christian in his Heart wrote to Tiberius concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Eusebius in the second Book of his History Chap. 2. produceth this passage of Tertullian and giving a large Account how the same of our Saviour was spread abroad and came to the Ears of Tiberius he says that Pilate sent a Letter to the Emperor according to the usual Custom of the Governors of Provinces who were obliged to give an Account of the most remarkable Occurrences that happened within their Jurisdiction and that he wrote to him concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ avouching that he had been informed of his Miracles by many and that a great number of People esteemed him as a God after he rose again from the Dead We find in the Orthodoxographa after the Epistle of Lentulus another attributed to Pilate and directed to Tiberius wherein the same things are contained But it is difficult to determine whether this Letter was extant in the time of Eusebius or afterwards forged from his Story However there are divers learned Men that doubt of the Truth of this History which hath but very little probability in its Foundation for what Likelihood is there that Pilate should transmit these things in writing to Tiberius relating to a Man whom he had condemned to Death And altho he had written them is it credible that Tiberius should have made a Proposition to the Senate for the admitting this Person into the number of the Gods upon the bare report of a Governour And if he had propounded it who can doubt but that the Senate would have immediately submitted to his Judgment Therefore tho' this Relation cannot be absolutely Charged with Falsehood yet it ought at least to be accounted as dubious Dr. Pearson late Bishop of Chester in his Lectures upon the Acts of the Apostles p. 64 65. vindicates the Truth of this Story against the Objections of Tanaquil Fâ—â—â—â— so fully that I shall set down his Reasons at large And 1. He says that Tâ—… might have taken his Information from the Acts of the Senate wherein the Votes and Acts of every day were â—â—â—stantly set down 2. He observes from Sâ—â—â—â—â—ius that Tiberius acquainted the Senate with every thing that he was informed of whether publick or private of great or of little Concern 3. He observes that Tibâ—â—iâ—s often took no notice when the Senate decreed things against his own Opinion and this also is expresly affirmed by 〈◊〉 4. The Senate refused to Rank Jesus Christ amongst the Gods out of a Complement to Tiâ—â—â—ius who had before refused Divine Honours Commanding that no Staâ—â—â—â— of his should be Erected in their Temples unless for Ornament they might probably therefâ—â—â— suspect that this was propos'd by Tiâ—â—â—ius who never spoke his mind plainly in any thing to 〈◊〉 them who could not attribute those Honours to any Body else which Tiberius had forbidden to be paid to himself without making that Person greater than Tiberius 5. It is not probable that Pontius Pilate should neglect so remarkable a thing as the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ when all the Governours of particular Provinces were obliged to send Relations of every one that was considerable under their Governments to the Emperors who sent them And the Question is not â—s Fâ—â—â—r mis-understood it whether the Christians then made any considerable Figure in the World but whether upon Pilate's transmitting an Account to Tiberius of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ at Jerusalem when he was Procurator of Judâ—â— the Emperor did not propose to the Senate that this Jesus Christ might be ranked amongst the Gods which being positively asserted by Tertulliâ—n cannot be disproved by any Negative Arguments that may at this time of day be brought against it But tho' these Reasons which are urged by this great Man against Tanaquil Faber sufficiently vindicate the Truth of Tertullian's Authority in this Matter yet that is no Argument why the Epistle that go's under Pilate's Name should be Genuine Pilate sent this Account of Jesus Christ in the Acts of his Administration not in a particular Letter to the Emperour The Acts are quoted by Justin Martyr
famous Opinion or rather Dotage of Antiquity This was the opinion of S. Justin Athenagoras S. Irenaeas S. Clement Tertullian Lactantius and many other ancient Writers concerning the Temporal Beign of Jesus Christ which they fansied should happen on Earth a thousand years before the day of Judgment when the Elect should be gathered together after the Resurrection in the City of Jerusalem and should enjoy there all the Delights imaginable during these thousand years S. Irenaeus produceth a fragment taken from the fourth Book of Papias wherein he endeavours to prove this Opinion by a passage of the Prophet Isaiah And Eusebius having cited a Paragraph of his Preface to these Books in which he shews the great care that he took to be informed of the Doctrine of the Apostles by interrogating their Disciples adds That this Author hath set down many things which he pretended to have learnt by an unwritten Tradition of which sort there are several new Parables and Instructions of our Saviour Jesus Christ that are not contained in the Gospels together with other fabulous Histories among which we may reckon the Reign of Jesus Christ on Earth during the space of a thousand years after the Resurrection of the Body That which led him into this Error continueth Eusebius is that he understood the Discourses and Instructions of the Apostles too literally not understanding that a mystical sense ought to be given to this sort of Expressions and that the Apostles only made use of them as Illustrations for â—e was a Man of a very mean capacity as appears from his Books who nevertheless gave occasion to many of the ancient Fathers and among others to Irenaeus to follow this Error which they maintained by the authority of Papias Eusebius in the same place relates two Miracles the account whereof Papias declares that he had received from the Daughter of Philip the Deacon who resided at Hierapolis That a dead Man was raised at that time and that Barsabas sirnamed Justus Elected to be an Apostle together with S. Matthias having swallowed deadly Poison was not hurt by it Moreover he assures us that Papias had collected in his Books divers Explications on some words of Jesus Christ composed by Aristion a Disciple of the Apostles and the Traditions likewise of the venerable Elder S. John but omitting these things he is content only to recite a passage wherein this ancient Writer affirms that S. Mark compiled his Gospel from what he had heard S. Peter tell of the Actions and Discourses of Jesus Christ and this is the reason that he hath not observed an Historical Method That S. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and that it was afterward Translated into Greek Lastly Eusebius affirms that he cited the first Epistles of S. Peter and of S. John and that he explained the History of a Woman that was accused before our Saviour of several Crimes which was found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews Thus we have given an account of all that is recorded by Eusebius concerning Papias Andreas Caesariensis and Oeoumenius have likewise produced some Passages d Andraeas Caesariensis and Oécumenius have likewise produced some Passages Andraeas Caesariensis in Serm. 12. in Apocalyps cites a Passage of Papias wherein he says that the disposing of Sublunary Things was committed to the Care of the Angels that are round the Earth but that they did not perform their Duty as they ought to do Oecumenius upon the Acts observes that Papias believed that Judas did not end his Life by hanging but that he was run over with a Chariot which is the Opinion of Theophylact Euthymius and Oecumneius of his Works in their Commentaries on the Holy Scripture but it is not certain whether they were Papias's or no. The Judgment that ought to be given concerning him is that which hath been already given by Eusebius that is to say that he was a good Man but very credulous and of very mean Barts who delighted much in hearing and telling Stories and Miracles And since he was exceedingly inquisitive and inclined to believe every thing that was told him it is not to be admired that he hath divulged divers Errors and extravagant Notions as the Judgments of the Apostles and hath given us fabulous Narratives for real Histories which shews that nothing is so dangerous in Matters of Religion as lightly to believe and too greedily to embrace all that hath the appearance of Piety without considering in the first place how true it is e Without considering in the first place how true it is This is conformable to an excellent Passage of S. Augustin Non sit Religio nostra in Phantasmatibus nostris melius est enim qualecumque verum quà m omne quicqùid pro arbitrio fingi potest melior est vera stipula quà m lux inani cogitatione pro suspicantis voluntate formata De ver Rel. c. 55. QUADRATUS and ARISTIDES THese two Defenders of the Faith presented Apologies for Christians to the Emperor Adrian The first was a Disciple of the Apostles a A Disciple of the Apostles Hieron Ep. 84. ad Magnum This appears from the Fragment that is set down afterward We must not confound this Quadratus with another of this Name who was Bishop of Athens and the Successor of Publius mentioned by Eusebius Lib. 4. cap. 23. S. Jerom makes no distinction between them in his Catalogue nor in his Epistle to Magnus and they are likewise confounded in the Menâ—logium Graecâ—rum But Valesâ—us clearly proves that they are different for the first was not a Bishop as appears from the Testimony of Eusebius Lib. 3. c. 37. and Lib. 4. c. 3. Besides the former Quadratus was a Disciple of the Apostles and lived in the time of the Emperor Adrian whereas the other never saw the Apostles as being Contemporary with Dionysius Corinthius under the Reign of Antoninus And it cannot be doubted but that it was the Elder who presented the Apology to Adrian and it is said that he had the Gift of Prophecy Quadratus Aristides b It is said that he had the gift of Prophecy Eâ—sebius Lib. 3. cap. 37. assures us that he was endued with the Gift of Prophecy as were the Daughters of Philip the Deacon and Miltiades in Euseb. Lib. 5. cap. 17. reckons him in the number of the Prophets of the New Testament Eusebius assures us that the Apology of this Author was extant in his 〈◊〉 and that it shewed the Genius of this Man and the true Doctrine of the Apostles But we have only a small Fragment produced by Eusebius in the fourth Book of his History chap. 3. wherein the Author declares that none could doubt of the Truth of the Miracles of Jesus Christ because the Persons that were healed or raised from the Dead by him had been seen not only when he wrote his Miracles or whilst he was upon Earth but even a very great while after his Death So that there
assembled in the same place to deliberate upon the Affairs of the Church that concern either the Faith or the Discipline or the Manners of Christians These Kinds of Assemblies were used in the First Ages of the Church and the Apostles were the first Authors of them For the Christians of the Primitive Church having had some Disputes Whether they were Obliged to Circumcise and Follow the Law of Moses The Apostles and Priests convened at Jerusalem to Examine and Resolve upon this Matter and at last concluded That it was not necessary to impose these Burdens upon Christians but only enjoined them to abstain from Meats offered to Idols from Blood and from things Strangled and from Fornication a And only Council of the Apostles They usually reckon Four The first concerning the Election of St. Matthias Acts. 1. The Second concerning the Election of Deacons Acts 6. The Third that whereof we now speak Acts 15. The Fourth Acts 21. Where the Priests of Jerusalem declare That the Converted Jews might observe the Law and Exhort St. Paul to make a Vow But in strictness of Speech only the Third of these Assemblies deserves the Name of a Council The two First were not held upon the account of any Controversie nothing was there decided the Christians found themselves Assembled together but were not expresly Summoned In short they were Assemblies of allâ—the Christians and not of the Apostles only The fourth was rather a famaliar Conversation than a Synodical Deliberation and they only give some Counsel and an Advertisement to St. Paul without deciding any Matter And thus 't is the Third Assembly alone that deserves to be called a Council The Council of Antioch is spurious as we have elsewhere shown This was the First and Onely Council to speak properly that was held by the Apostles themselves After their Examâ—lâ— when â—ny Differenâ—e 〈◊〉 in the Church or when it was necessary to make any Regulations the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 the Priests themselves met together to decide the 〈◊〉 Questionâ— and appoint Laws for the better Government and Discipline of the Church 'T is true indeed that in the Three First Ages of the Church these Assemblies were more rare and less remarkable than they were in the following Centuries as well because the continual Persecutions of the Emperours hindered the Bishops from meeting freely and in Publick as also because the Tradition of the Apostles being as yet fresh in Mens Memories it was not supposed necessary to Summon a Council for the Establishing of every Truth and Condemnation of every Errour Hence it is that we don't find b In any Credible Authors The Author published by Sirmondus under the Name of Praedestinatus mentions some Councils that were held against the Ancient Hereticks but he is a Modern Author and does not deserve Credit upon his own Authority in any credible Authors that any Councils were held to Condemn the first Hereticks such as were the Simonians the Carpocratians the Basilidians the Gnosticks c. The Errours of these Hereticks were looked upon with horrour by all the Christians who considered the Authors of them and likewise those that maintained them as Persons already Excommunicated and separated from the Church without the Solemnity and Trouble of Convening a Synod to Excommunicate them by Name In short every Bishop instructed his own People in the True Faith of the Chuch and confuted all sorts of Errours by the Authority of Scripture and Tradition The first Councils that are mentioned in Antiquity are those that were held under the Pontificate of Pope Victor to adjust the celebrated Controversie about keeping Easter and some others that were Assembled almost at the same time to suppress the growing Faction of the Montanists Eusebius mentions the last in the Fifth Book of his History Chap. 15. and Tertullian assures us That in his time the Montanists also met together c For themselves Tertull. in lib. De Jejun Aguntur praecepta per Gaercias illas certis in locis Concilia per quae altiora quaeque tractantur Some Persons understand this Passage of the Councils of the Catholicks but he speaks of those held by the Montanists as the following words plainly shew for themselves As for what relates to the Synods that were convened upon the Dispute concerning the Celebration of Easter though the Number of them is usually reckoned to be great yet Eusebius mentions but Three one of which was held in Palaestine another in Asia and a Third at Rome And then as for what concerns the Churches of France of Pontus of Corinth and of the East he barely tells us That the respective Bishops there wrote to Pope Victor about this Matter without speaking of any Council Assembled in these places Agrippinus towards the Beginning of the Third Century held a Council in Africk where it was Ordained that Hereticks should be Re-baptized There were likewise Two Councils held in Arabia under the Emperour Gordianus one against Berillus Bishop of Bostra who maintain'd That Jesus Christ was not a different Person from the Father before he made himself Man and the other against the Arabians who affirmed That the Souls of Men were Mortal We don't know at what time the Councils of Iconium and Synnada were Assembled that Decreed It was Necessary to re-baptize Hereticks I shall say nothing more of the Councils held in Africk and at Rome in St. Cyprian's time because I discoursed largely about them when I had occasion to consider the Writings and Life of that Father Dionysius Bishop of Rome Summoned a Council in which he Established the Divinity of the Word and the Mystery of the Trinity against the Errours of the Sabellians and that which was afterwards the Errour of the Arians He wrote a Letter upon this Occasion to Dionysius of Alexandria St. Athanasius mentions this Synod In the time of Pope Stephen a Council was held at Antioch where the Bishops Condemned the Practice of the Novatians St. Dionysius of Alexandria sent word to Sixtus that he was invited thither Eusebius Lib. 7. Hist. c. 8. St. Epiphanius in his Account of the Heresie of the Noetians mentions Two Synods that were assembled in Asia against Noetus and gives us an Account of some Words of that Heretick and of the last Synod But of all the Councils that were Summoned in the Three First Centuries the most Celebrated and Famous are the Two Councils of Antioch Assembled against Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of that City who maintained That the Word was not truly United to the Humanity in the Person of Jesus Christ and who likewise according to the Testimony of some Authors denied that the Word was a distinct Person from the Father The First Council assembled against him was held at Antioch about the Year 264. Eusebius tells us That the principal Bishops who assisted there were Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia Gregory and Athenodorus Bishops of Pontus Helenus Bishop of Tarsus Nicomas Bishop of Iconium Himenaeus of Jerusalem
all the Earth Now this Prayer convicts you of a Lye for how can you offer Sacrifice for one only Church since you have divided it into two How can you offer for the whole Church since you are not within the Catholick Church Parmenianus objected to the Catholicks That they had exercis'd Violence and Persecution against them and concluded from thence that they could not be the true Church because that ought never to be cruel nor to feed it self with the Flesh and Blood of the Saints Optatus answers him That the Church had never Persecuted them and that he could Name none of the Church that had done it He retorts this Charge upon the Donatists by observing that in the time of the Emperour Constantine the Church enjoy'd a profound Peace and all its Members liv'd in wonderful Union That then Pagans were forbidden to exercise their Sacrilegious Ceremonies then the Devil groan'd in their Temples where he was shut up and then the Donatists were banish'd into Foreign Countries lest they should disturb the Peace of the Church But no sooner was Julian declar'd Emperour but they begg'd his leave to return into their own Country which he granted them very willingly knowing that they were most fit to trouble the Peace of the Church He observes That the same Edict by which he open'd the Pagan Temples he also restored Liberty to them That they had not so soon obtain'd it but that they exercis'd horrible Violences in Africk He accuses the Donatists of tearing the Members of the Church of driving away the Bishops of invading the Churches of committing Murders of killing two Deacons at the feet of the Altars of rending Mens Garments of dragging the Women stifling the Children and in fine of violating every thing that was most Sacred â—our Bishops says he cause the Eucharist to be thrown to the Dogs and presently the Tokens of God's Anger appear for the Dogs being enrag'd turn'd upon their Masters and tore them as if they had been Thieves whom they never knew the Justice of God making use of their Teeth to revenge this Sacrilege They also caus'd a Bottle full of holy Oil to be thrown out at a Window on purpose to break it But though it was cast down from a very high place yet being supported by Angels it fell upon the Stones without breaking He accuses also a Bishop of their Party nam'd Felix of abusing a Virgin to whom himself had given the Veil and of having afterwards depriv'd an ancient Catholick Bishop 62 Years old of his Bishoprick and put him under Penance Here he makes a Digression about the Vanity of the Donatists who boasted themselves to be Holy and Innocent Whence comes this Sanctity of yours says he which the Apostle St. John durst not attribute to himself seeing he says If we say that we have no Sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us He that speaks after this manner does prudently referr himself to the Mercy of God for a Christian may desire Good and endeavour to walk in the way of Salvation but he cannot be perfect of himself For though he does run yet there will always remain something to be done by God to perfect him and 't is necessary that he should help a Man in his Weakness for he is Perfection and there was never any but Jesus Christ the Son of God who was perfect all other Men are imperfect It belongs to us to will and to run but God only can give Perfection Jesus Christ has not given us perfect Holiness but has only promis'd it Optatus afterwards returns to his Subject and goes on to charge the Donatists with the Crimes and Sacrileges which they had committed and accuses them of exorcising and washing the Walls of Churches of breaking down the Altars of throwing the Eucharist to Dogs of making the People Swear by their Name of shaving the Bishops and putting them under Penance of sparing neither Priests Deacons nor the Faithful of reproaching the Innocent and putting Christians against their will under Penance and in fine of doing an infinite number of things against Piety and Christian Charity In the Third Book Optatus vindicates the Church from those Violences of which it was accus'd In the first place he says That if some of those Violences were committed by Macarius's Order the Predecessors of the Donatists gave occasion to them because their Seditious Behaviour oblig'd the Governour to call for Aid which they no sooner saw come to him but they presently fled of themselves and that none but those that were most obstinate had been Banished But then he maintains That the Church did not contribute to this Persecution in the least and that there was nothing of all this done by Her Advice that she neither wish'd for it nor knew of it nor contributed any thing towards it but the Justice of God alone had sent this Persecution upon the Donatists to revenge the Dishonour they had done to the Waters of Baptism Here Optatus makes a very obscure Digression concerning Baptism and the Church And afterwards returning to his Subject he says That Paul and Macarius were not sent by Constantine to Persecute the Donatists but to carry Alms That Donatus being transported with Rage demanded of them with unsupportable Pride what the Emperour had in common with the Church That from that time he carried on a Design of doing Injury to the Kings and Princes of the Earth contrary to the Precept of St. Paul who commands us to pray for them that we may lead a quiet Life For says Optatus the State is not in the Church but the Church in the State that is in the Roman Empire Thus St. Paul had reason to say That we must pray for Kings even when they made Profession of Paganism But how much more reason have we to show respect to a Christian Prince one that is Religious and Fears God and has sent Alms to the Poor Wherefore then was Donatus transported with Fury Wherefore did he refuse the Alms which the Emperour sent His Officers said That they were come to distribute Alms in all the Provinces to those that would receive them and Donatus told them That he had written to all places forbidding them to receive them Does this look as if he took Care of those that are in Misery or would relieve the Necessities of the Poor God hath said 'T is I that make Rich and Poor Can he not then give Riches to the Poor Yes but if he had given them to all the World then sinners had wanted the means of expiating their Faults for 't is written That as Water quenches Fire so does an Alms expiate Sin This being so What Judgment should we give of him that would give to the Poor and him that would hinder the giving What would Donatus answer if God should ask him O Bishop What do you think of Constantine Do you take him for an Innocent Man or a Sinner If you believe him to
Abbots who are not Priests upon pain of Expulsion from their Monasteries Nevertheless it permits those who are admitted into Monasteries or their Parents or Relations to give voluntary Gifts yet upon this condition That those Gifts shall belong to the Monasteries whether he that is Admitted stays or goes away unless the Emperor turn him out The 20th prohibits making double Monasteries that is for Men and Women and as for those that are Founded it ordains That the Monks and Nuns shall dwell in two several Houses that they shall not see one another nor have any Commerce together The 21st forbids Monks to quit their own Monastery to go to others The 22d forbids Monks to eat with Women unless it be needful for their Spiritual Good or upon a Journey yea though they be their Relations Moreover to the Acts of this Council is joyned a Panegyrick pronounced in Commendation of it by Epiphanius Deacon of Catana in Sicily a Letter of Tarasius to Pope Adrian about the Subject of the Council another Letter of the same Person against the Simonists in which he hath gathered together several Canons upon that Subject another Letter of his to John the Abbot upon the Definition of the 2d Nicene Council and against Simoniacal Ordinations The Acts of this Council being brought to Rome they sent Extracts of them into France where they had a different Practice about Image-worship They were indeed permitted to have them and to put them in their Churches but they could not endure that any Worship or Honour should be paid them whilst the Cross and Sacred Vessels were permitted to be honoured Charles who was then King of France and afterwards was Emperor caused these Extracts to be Examined by * Of whom Alcuin was the chief and R. Hoveden says He it was that composed the Caroline Books some Boshops of his Kingdom who composed a Treatise to vindicate their own Usage and to answer the Proofs alledged in the Council of Nice for the Worship of Images This Work was put out by Charles's Order and under his Name within three Years or thereabouts after the Nicene Council It is divided into four Books In the Preface having observed that the Church redeemed with the precious Blood of Christ her Spouse washed with the saving Water of Baptism fed with the precious Blood of her Saviour and anointed with Holy Oyl is sometimes assaulted by Hereticks and Infidels and sometimes vexed by the Quarrels of the Schismaticks and the Proud that she is an Ark containing those that are to be saved figured by that of Noah which undergoes the Storms of the Deluge of this World without any danger of Shipwrack which does not yield to the deep and deadly Whirlpools of this World and which cannot be overcome by the Hostile Powers wherewith she is surrounded by reason Christ does continually fight for her so that she does still withstand her Enemies and inviolably maintain the true Faith and Confession of the Trinity That she is a Holy Mother without Spot and Corruption always Fruitful and yet a Virgin that the more she is set on by the Contradictions of the World the more she encreases in Virtue the lower she is brought the higher she raiseth up her self After this Encomium of the Church they add in Charles's Name That seeing he hath taken the Reins of his Kingdom in his hands being in the Bosom of this Church he is obliged to endeavour her Vindication and Prosperity that not only the Princes but the Bishops also of the East puffed up with sinful Pride had swerved from the Holy Doctrine and the Apostolick Tradition and do cry up impertinent and ridiculous Synods to make themselves famous to Posterity that some years ago they had held in Greece a certain Synod full of Imprudence and Indiscretion in which they went about to abolish the use of Images which the Ancients have introduced as an Ornament and a Remembrance of Things past and to attribute to Images what God hath said of Idols though it cannot be said that all Images are Idols But it 's plain there 's a difference between an Image and an Idol because Images are for Ornament and Remembrance whereas Idols are made for destroying Souls by an impious Adoration and vain Superstition That the Bishops of this Council had been so blind as to Anathematize all those who had Images in Churches and so boast that their Emperor Constantine had freed them from Idols That besides this there was another Synod held about three years since composed of the Successors of those of the former Council yea and of those that had assisted at it which was not less Erroneous and Faulty than the former though it took a clean contrary way That the Bishops of this Synod order Images to be Adored which those of the former would not permit to be had or seen and that whenever these find Images to be spoken of whether in the Scripture or in the Writings of the Fathers they conclude from thence that they ought to be Worshipped That thus they both fall into contrary Absurdities those and confounding the Use and the Adoration of Images and the other believing Idols and Images to be one and the same thing As for us says he being content with what we find in the Gospels and the Apostle's Writings and instructed by the Works of the Fathers who have not swerved from him who is the Way and the Truth we receive the 6 first Councils and reject all the Novelties both of the first and the second Synod And as to the Acts of this latter which are destitute of Eloquence and common Sense being come to us we thought our selves bound to write against their Errors to the end that if their Writing should defile the Hands of those that shall hold it or the Ears of those that shall hear it the Poison which it might instill may be expell'd by our Treatise supported by the Authority of the Scripture and that this weak Enemy which is come from the East may be subdued in the West by the Sentiments of the Holy Fathers which we have produced In fine we have undertaken this Work with the consent of the Bishops of the Kingdom which God hath given us not out of any ambitious Design but animated with the Zeal of God's House and the Love of Truth because as it is a holy Thing to pursue good Things so it is a great Sin to consent to Evil. This is the Subject of his Preface In the first Book after having made some Cursory Observations upon some Terms of the Council he shews that the places of the Scripture alledged in that Council for Image-worship being explained in their genuine Sense and according to the Fathers do not at all prove what they pretend In the first Chapter he reproves this Expression in the Letter of Constantine and Irene By him that Reigns with us He says That it is a piece of intolerable Rashness in Princes to compare their Reign
Opinion for there it is said Trophimus being sent to Arles by the Holy See was as it were the Spring of all those Rivers that run through the whole Body of France Which Passage shews that it is probable that he came some years before the Empire of Decius though it were a long time after the times of the Apostles and several years after the Martyrdom of St. Irenaeus who advised Stephen in the Sixty sixth Letter to satisfie the Desires of the Gallican Bishops and dispatch Letters into Provence and principally to the Inhabitants of the City of Arles wherein he should declare Marcian Excommunicated and give them notice to elect another Bishop in his Room He remonstrates to him that since this Bishop had joyned himself to Novatian who was notoriously excommunicated there was no necessity of having a new Judgment against him that all Bishops were obliged to take care that Admission into the Church should not be denied to Penitents that the numerous Body of Bishops being united to one another by a Bond of mutual Charity they were all bound in case any one should make himself Chief of an Heresie or the Flock of Jesus Christ which they feed in common should be attacked or carried away to come to their Relief and to re-unite the Sheep of Jesus Christ like good Shepherds that truly love their Flock The Bishops of Spain likewise had recourse to St. Cyprian about an Affair of the same Nature Basilides and Martialis one the Bishop of Leon the other of Astorga having been publickly proved to have taken Certificates of their having Sacrificed and convicted of several other Crimes were deposed and Felix and Sabinus elected in their Places Basilides owning his Crime had voluntarily quitted his Bishoprick and was placed in the Rank of Penitents where he thought himself over happy if he could but communicate as a Laick Nevertheless these two Bishops being afterwards pushed on by their Ambition and Envy used their utmost Endeavours to regain their Sees and finding they could not compass their Designs there they went to Rome not to demand their re-establishment from Stephen but only that he would be pleased to admit them to his Communion which they said would be very serviceable to them to procure their Re-establishment They acted their Parts so dexterously that Stephen granted them what they requested so upon this they went back to Spain where they became more insolent than ever and would by all means re-possess themselves of their Sees by Force The Clergy and People of Spain writ to St. Cyprian about it and deputed Felix and Sabinus who were ordained Bishops in the room of these two Apostates to go to him to know what they were to do in this Exigence But Felix Bishop of Saragossa whom St. Cyprian calls a great Defender of the Faith writ to him likewise in particular The Saint judging this to be an Action of no small Importance read the Letters sent him from Spain in a Synod of the African Bishops who after they had diligently examined the matter came to this Resolution That the Deposition of Basilides and Martialis ought to stand good as well as the Ordination of Felix and Sabinus in their Place They writ a Synodical Letter concerning it to the Clergy and People of Leon and Astorga which is placed the 67th amongst those of St. Cyprian and sent them word that they had no reason to suffer Basilides and Martialis to re-enter upon their Episcopal Functions after they had been found guilty of such enormous Crimes and Basilides himself had acknowledged so much that since the People had Power to elect good Bishops and to reject the bad they would appear culpable before God if they communicated any longer with them That the Ordination of Felix and Sabinus was lawful since it was made with the Consent of the People by the neighbouring Bishops That it ought not to be reversed though Basilides had surprized Stephen who by reason of his great distance from the Place could not exactly inform himself of the truth of Affairs That this Conduct was so far from effacing their Crimes that on the other hand it augmented their Guilt because though Stephen was in some sort excusable for suffering himself to be deceived merely out of Negligence yet we ought to have a Detestation for those Persons who had so maliciously imposed upon his Easiness That they extremely commended their Faith and Zeal and desired them to maintain a Correspendence no more with Bishops of such a profligate Character who were notorious for so many Crimes u In the same Year another Synod of Bishops was held This Synod must of necessity have been assembled in the Year 255 as what followed sufficiently shews It is different from that which was held upon the account of Basilides and Martialis at least the Names that are to be seen at the Head of two Synodical Letters are different Hence it follows that there must have been more than one held that very year and we are not to wonder at it because it was the custom of the Africans to hold two every Year one in the Spring and the other in Autumn This might be assembled in the Month of September in the Year 255 the next in the Spring 256. and the last in the Month of September in the same Year In the same Year another Synod of Bishops was held in Carthage who being consulted by Januarius and the rest of the Numidian Bishops about the Baptism of Hereticks returned them this Answer that it was necessary to re-baptize all those who had been Baptized by Hereticks according to the ancient Regulation made by Agrippinus in Africk St. Cyprian writ the same Year to one Quintus a Bishop who had ordered the same Question to be put to him by Lucian the Priest This Letter is the 71st as Pamelius has ranged them He assures him that some of his Brethren were of a different Opinion from him in this Affair who pretended that it was the ancient Custom before Agrippinus not to re-baptize Hereticks after they had been once admitted into the Church To weaken the Authority of this pretended Custom he lays it down for an undoubted Truth that we are not to be determined by any Customs of that Nature but to examine whether they will bear the Test of Reason That St. Peter in his Dispute with St. Paul upon the Business of Circumcision did not treat that Apostle with Arrogance and Pride That he never alledged his Primacy or told him that the new Disciples of Jesus Christ as St. Paul was who had likewise been a Periecutor of the Church ought blindly to obey him and not to question his Decisions but gave him the Hearing and humbly received the Counsel of Truth which St. Paul gave him and readily submitted to the powerful Reasons of that Apostle teaching us by that Behaviour to be peaceable and Patient and not to espouse our own Opinions with Heat and Obstinacy but to embrace the
Advices of our Brethren when-ever they are useful and agreeable to Truth Some time after this St. Cyprian assembled at Carthage a Council of Seventy one Bishops as well of the Province of Africk as Numidia who confirmed all that had been determined by the preceding Synod concerning the Baptism of Hereticks and decreed that all Priests and Deacons who were ordained amongst them or who after having been some time of their Party returned to the Church should be received only in the Quality of Laicks And after this to maintain that Honour and Friendship which Bishops owed to one another they acquainted Pope Stephen with these Constitutions by a Synodical Letter which is the Seventy second amongst those of St. Cyprian in Pamelius's Order and towards the end of it represented to him that since the things they had ordained were conformable to the Christian Religion and to Truth they hoped he would make no difficulty to approve them That nevertheless they knew there were some Bishops in the World who could be hardly perswaded to change their Opinions and yet though they kept up their own particular Customs would never break the Laws of Peace and Charity That after the same manner they would not pretend to prescribe Laws or constrain any Persons since they were satisfied that every Bishop was free to behave himself as he saw expedient in the Administration of his own Church for which he was accountable to God alone About the same time likewise St. Cyprian immediately after this Council writ a long Letter to Jubaianus a Bishop who had also consulted him about this Question wherein he urges abundance of Reasons and Texts of Scripture to support his own Opinion and after he has answered the Objections that were brought against it concludes with this new Protestation that he had not the least Design to impose Laws upon any of his Colleagues or to fall out with them upon this Occasion but inviolably to preserve Faith and Charity the Dignity of the Priesthood and Concord with his Brethren Stephen having answered St. Cyprian very roughly Pompey Bishop of Sabra a Maritime City of Africk desired him to let him know what Stephen had writ to him So he sent him a Copy of the Letter with another of his own wherein he bestows a particular Answer upon the Pope's Letter which is the Seventy third as Pamelius has placed them In it he principally opposes the Truth of the Gospel and the first Traditions of the Apostles both to the Custom and Tradition which Pope Stephen had alledged for himself He sent likewise by Rogatianus the Deacon another Copy of Stephen's Letter to Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia and to the other Bishops giving them an Account of what had been determined in Africk upon this Question and desiring them to acquaint him with the Opinion of their respective Churches He could not have expected a more favourable Answer than what he received from Firmilian for that Bishop openly condemns and that in Terms severe enough the Procedure of Stephen extols St. Cyprian's Conduct declares himself entirely in favour of the last proves it by several Reasons and assures him it was the ancient Custom of the Asiatick Churches and that it had been regulated many years before in two numerous Synods held at Synnada and Iconium This Letter of Firmilian which is the Seventy fourth amongst those of St. Cyprian x It was written in the Autumn in the Year 256. We are told in this Letter that it was written about Twenty two years after the Empire of Alexander who died in the year 235 and that it was composed in haste because Rogatianus was obliged to return by reason of the approaching Winter It could not be written in 257 because St. Cyprian was banished at the end of that Year was written in Autumn in the Year 256. Before this Letter came to St. Cyprian's hands he writ to Magnus who had asked his Opinion about the Baptism of the Nâ—vatians whether these Hereticks were to be excepted out of the Number of those who were to be re-baptized since they owned the same Faith as the Catholicks did in relation to the Trinity and Baptized after the same manner He answers him I say y In the 75th Letter The English Annalist thinks that this is the first Letter which was written concerning the Question of Baptism because it does not plainly and openly make mention of the Synods that were held in Africk upon that Occasion It appears more probable to me that it was written afterwards because it supposes the general Question to be decided and the Author clearly speaks of some of his Colleagues that received the Baptism of Hereticks He says he knew no reason why Christians should take the Part if he might so say of Antichrists which induces me to believe that it was written after his Qâ—rrel with Stephen besides it is more natural to imagine that this Question which regards the Excâ—ption of the general Rule was made after the Decision For Magnus proposes it to him as a new difficulty You demand of me says he whether those that come from Novatian ' s Party are to be baptized as well as other Hereticks in the Seventy fifth Letter that they ought to be re-baptized as well as the rest forasmuch as there was no true Baptism out of the Church In this Letter he answers another Question proposed to him by Magnus concerning the Baptism of Clinicks that is to say of those that were Baptized in their Sickness that there was no reason to doubt of the Validity of this Baptism That the Sacrament was equally efficacious whether the Person was plunged in the Water or had it sprinkled upon him He concludes with repeating his usual Protestation that he would give Laws to none but leave them an entire Liberty of doing what they thought convenient and that every one must give an Account of his Conduct to GOD alone Thus we have given an exact Account of all the Letters extant in St. Cyprian's Works that treat of the Baptism of Hereticks To these we ought to add the Acts of the last Council of Carthage consisting of Eighty seven Bishops who assembled there the same Year in the Month of September In the first place the Letters of Jubaianus to St. Cyprian and those of St. Cyprian to that Bishop were read in the Council After that St. Cyprian proposed to all the Bishops that were present to deliver their Opinions freely but yet so as not to condemn or excommunicate those that were of a different Judgment For none of us says he ought to make himself a Bishop of Bishops or pretend to awe his Brethren by a Tyranical Fear because every Bishop is at liberty to do as he pleases and can no more be judged by another than he can judge others himself But all of us ought to wait and tarry for the Judgment of Jesus Christ who alone has Authority to set us over the Church and to