equal to the Father and that he was in him from all Eternity but because the Son derives his Divinity from the Father who is the Source of the Godhead As to what he says That the Son is the Minister of the Father That the Father made use of him in making the World and that the Son was created These are Expressions that are too common amongst the Ancints to be particularly objected to Origen as a Crime S. Hierom accuses Origen for saying That the Son in comparison Epist. ad Avitum of the Father was not Goodness it self but only the Image and Representation of Goodness and Huetius confirms this to have been Tom. 2. in Joan. p. 56. Tom. 6. p. 130. Lib. 5. contra Celsum Tom. 15. in Mat. Origen's Opinion by some of his Greek Passages The same S Hierom upbraids him also for affirming that the Son in comparison of the Father was a lesser Light That he was not the Truth but the Image of the Truth That he was Visible and the Father Invisible but we may easily discern that these Expressions as harsh as they may seem being considered separately were meant by Origen in a good sense he having no other Design than to prove that the Father was the Source and Original of Goodness and Truth and that the Son received it from him and that in this sense he was the Image of the Father's Goodness the Brightness of his Godhead Expressions which in this sense are very Orthodox As to what he says that the Father is Invisible and the Son Visible we have shewn in other Places what the Ancients meant by this way of speaking Lastly It is easie to answer what S. Epiphanius and several others object to Origen That he denied that the Father was Visible to the Son and to the Holy Ghost for he affirms so expresly in so many places That the Father is perfectly Tom. 20. in Joh. p. 292. known of the Son and even of the Holy Ghost that he must of necessity have had some other meaning when he seems to assert the contrary Ruffinus answers this Objection That he denied that the Father was visible to the Son as Bodies are visible to Bodies that he might confute the Error of the Valentinians who believed that God was Corporeal and he cites a Passage of Origen where he distinguishes betwixt Seeing and Knowing and affirms That we may say that the Son knows the Father but that we cannot say that he sees him because Seeing is the Property of a Body I shall not make any Answer to other more trivial Objections because it is easie to satisfie them as well by what we have just now said as by what we have observed upon the other Fathers a Lib. 1 cont Celsum lib. 2. lib. 3. lib. 4 Com. in Joan. in Mat. passim lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Apol. Pamphili Vide Tom. 1. in Joan. p. 3. Tom. 20. p. 307. lib. 6. Lib. 1. cont Celsum Lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophil Ep. 2. Paschal Hier. Ep. ad Ruffinum lib. 1. cap. 5. Ep. 61. ad Avitum c. 4. Sulpit. Severus Dial. 1. c. 3. Bern. Serm. 44. Albert. in Ep. 8 Dion Hom. 40. in Lucam Hom. 1. in Levit. Lâ—b 5. in Ep. ad Rom. T. 1. in Joh. p. 32 38. T. 2. p 69. t. 1. in Mat. p. 313. 〈◊〉 15. in Mat. 313 L. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 3. Lib. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. Justin. Ep. ad Mennam Hier. Ep. ad Avitum Vide Hom. 1. in Levit. in Luc. c. 2. Hom. 12. in Lev. 8. Hom. 20. in Luc. lib. 2. de Princip c. 3. Tom. 1. Com. in Johan Tom. 2. p. 320. There are no very considerable Objections made against Origen's Doctrine concerning the Incarnation for though he be accused of several Errors he affirms so positively in all his Works That the WORD had taken a Body and a Soul like ours in the Womb of a Virgin by the Operation of the Holy Ghost That Jesus Christ had true Fesh That he really suffered That he is altogether God and Man in that the Human Nature was united with the Divine Nature in one and the same Person That it is impossible to accuse him of any Error concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation Perhaps as he was of Opinion That the Souls were in Heaven before they came down into their Bodies he might think the same thing of the Soul of Jesus Christ. But this was only a particular Error for which he was not very earnest He is accused of believing that the Death of Christ was of Advantage to all reasonable Creatures as Angels Devils and even insensible things and 't is certain that he does assert this wild Notion in several places of his Works He has feigned a Spiritual Death of Jesus Christ in the other World which has given occasion to tax him for holding that Jesus Christ died several times He believed that Christ did not come out of the Virgins Womb by Penetration and he accuses the Virgin Mary of Distrust But these are but slight Errors and common among the Ancients As he believed that the only Point of Faith relating to the Angels was That there were such Beings and that neither Scripture nor Tradition had determined any thing as to their Nature and their Number so he has taken the Liberty to deliver his own Thoughts hereupon He imagines that they are Corporeal though invisible having nevertheless a Spiritual Soul He says That the good Angels have a finer and the Evil ones a grosser Body The Principle from whence he has drawn this Conclusion is That all intelligent and spiritual Creatures having been created in Heaven with a perfect Freedom of Will they have been afterwards for a Punishment of their Faults confined to Bodies more or less gross according to the Quality of their Crimes and ranked in such and such Orders or Degrees of Creatures inferior one to another yet so nevertheelss as that after having suffered this Exile if I may so say for some Ages they may by living vertuously return to the Place from whence they were banished b This is the Principle of the Platonists Theophilus Justinian S. Epiphanius Methodius and an anonymous Author in Photius ascribed it to Origen He plainly asserts it in his first Book of Principles C. 6. Tom. 15. 13. in Matt. And going upon this Principle he affirms That men may become Angels and Angels Men That the Angels being free do often commit Faults That the Devils shall one day be delivered That the Angels are guilty of several Offences in their Administration of things here below for which they are immediately rebuked and for which they shall be judged in the Day of Judgment All these Fancies and several others are the Consequences of Plato's Doctrine to which Origen was wonderfully addicted We must nevertheless acknowledge that he does not propose these things as Doctrines of our Religion but
Euphration which Passage proved nothing neither for nor against Images yet it gave an Occasion to condemn the Memory and the Writings of Eusebius against whom they cite Antipater of Bostra The Sixth Piece alledged by the Council is an Extract of the Ecclesiastical History of one John whom they call the Separate who says That Christians would not have Angels Pictures to be drawn and that Philoxenus could not endure Doves They prove by a Passage of St. Sabas's Life that Philoxenus was one of the Hereticks Enemies to the Council of Chalcedon They cite in the Eighth Place a Fragment of the Council of Constantinople held under Mennas where Severus is accused of breaking down Altars and taking away the Doves hanging over them saying Doves ought not to be called the Holy Ghost In the Ninth they report a Testimony of John Bishop of Gabale accusing Severus of not honoring Angels The Tenth Monument is a Passage of Constantinian Library-Keeper of the Church of Constantinople maintaining that no Image can be made of the Deity but of Christ's Humanity there may The Eleventh is a Passage of Evagriâ—â—'s History about Christ's Image sent to Abgarss The 12th are some Extracts of the Spiritual Meadow From all these Passages they pretend to conclude that the Jews the Pagans the Samaritans the Manichaeans and the Severians were the first Enemies of Images Lastly They read an Account of the Origine of the breaking down of Images shewing that a certain Jew of Tiberius counterfeiting himself to be a Diviner and Sorcerer persuaded the King of the Arabians to order all Images to be taken away out of the Churches of the Christians in his Kingdom promising him a long Life if he would do it that this Order being given out the Christians refusing to take away the Images with their own Hands the Jews and the Arabians had pulled them down burnt torn or defaced them that the King instead of the long Life which the Magician had promised him died within two Years and some Months after and that his Son put the Magician to Death and suffered Images to be set up again After this Relation all the Bishops demanded the Restoration of Images they called for some to be brought in that they might honour them and repeated the Anathema's against those that broke or dishonored them In the 6th Action held the 5th or the 6th of October they read the Acts of the Council of Constantinople held against Images and a uu A Confutation of the Acts of the Council of Constantinople The Arguments drawn from the Scriptures and Fathers which the Council of Constantinople insists upon to shew the Incongruity of the Worship of Images to the Nature of God and the Design of the Christian Religion though not so clear and cogent as might be produced yet are so weakly and insufficiently answered by the Nicene Fathers that they may well pass for inconfutable till some better Answer of them appears which since M. du Pin hath not done but doth acknowledge the same It is needless to stand upon the Justification of the Former or labour to discover the Insufficiency of the Latter which is so evident to every Reader Refutation of what is in this Council The 1st thing they quarrel at is the Title it had assumed of The Holy Seventh General Council They pretend it cannot have those Titles since it was not received but contrary wise rejected and Anathematized by several Bishops nor was it approved by the Bishop of Rome and the Bishops about him nor by his Vicars nor by a Circular Letter according to the usual Law of Councils And lastly that the Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem did not assent to it neither in Person nor by the great Bishops of their Provinces Yet they do not question the Number of the Bishops set down in the Acts of 338 But they say that this Number could not make a General Legitimate Council because those that composed it had swerved from the Truth and embraced an Error I omit the Prefaces of the Council of Constantinople and the Reflexions of the Nicene Council which respects the Confession of Faith about the Trinity and the Incarnation and the Acknowledgment of what was decided in the six first General Councils which are Articles which both Councils agreed in But the former pretends that they who make Images do overthrow the six first Synods The others contrariwise maintain that they who condemn them do act contrary to the Spirit and the Practice of the Bishops who assisted at these Synods and contrary to their Tradition There is nothing weaker than what the former do alledge to prove that the Use of Images is contrary to the Decision of the General Councils There are nothing but a meer Petitiones Principii or evident Sophisms which deserve no Refutation There is one upon the Eucharist which is nothing better than the rest They pretend that no Image of Christ ought to be made because the Eucharist is the visible Image To which the Fathers of the Second Council answer That the Name of Image is not given to the unbloody Sacrifice offered by the Priest but it is the very Body and the very Blood of Christ that those Oblations before the Sanctification have been called Types by some of the Fathers as by Eustathius of Antioch and St. Basil but after the Sanctification they never were called Types or Images of Christ and that they are believed and properly called the Body and Blood of Christ. They add that their very Adversaries could not forbear acknowledging this Truth and that they confess in the same Place that the Eucharist by the Consecration is made Christ's Body which is an Argument that the two Councils held the Reality of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and that they differ only in the Expression and the Name they give it the one pretending that the Eucharist even after the Consecration may be called and considered as an Image and a Type and the others denying expresly that the Fathers did ever give it that Name after the Consecration which is not altogether true though is cannot be said that the Eucharist may be called a Type or Image as other Images and the whole arguing grounded upon this Analogy be very weak The Bishops of the first Council deny Images to be of the Tradition of Christ of the Apostles or of the Fathers Those of the second maintain them to be a Tradition of Christ which was not written and prove it by the Story of the Statue erected by the Woman with the Bloody-Flux to the Honour of Christ. I should desire a better Proof of it They alledge the other Proofs they had brought in some of which do indeed shew the Use of Images was common in Churches in the 4th and the 5th Century but never aâ— one comes up to the time of Jesus Christ the Apostles or their immediate Successors The Bishops of the first Council add That there is no Prayer in the
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
Routiers That he would maintain the Persons and the Privileges of Ecclesiasticks That he would cause the Sentences of Excommunication to be duly Executed That he would shun the Excommunicate and oblige them to Re-enter into the Bosom of the Church That he would set up Judges unsuspected of Heresy That he would restore to Churches and Church-men all the Estates which belong'd to them before the Croisado that he would cause the Tithes to be paid to the Churches That he would give Seventeen Thousand Marks for the Dammages done to the Churches of which Ten Thousand should be distributed by the Direction of the Legate Four Thousand to the Abbeys of Cisteaux Clairvaux Grand-Selve and Candeil Six Thousand to Fortify the Castle of Narbonne and the others which shall be put into the King's Hands Four Thousand to Found an University at Toulouse That after he had receiv'd Absolution he would take the Cross from the Hands of the Legate and depart within two Years to make War against the Saracens for Five Years That he would give his Daughter in Marriage to the King's Brother upon Condition That after the Death of the Count the City of Toulouse and the Diocess thereof should belong to that Prince and that in case he should Die without Heirs that Country should be annex'd to the Crown and no other Children or Heirs of Count Raymond to make any Pretensions thereto That they would likewise leave him the Diocesses of Agen and Cahors and part of that of Albi but that the King shall retain the City of Albi and what is on the other side the River Tarn towards Carcassonne That he would do Homage to the King for the Territories left him and that he would quit all his Pretences to the Country on this side the Rhone That he would stand by what had been done by the Count of Montfort that he would make War against the Count of Foix and the other Enemies of the Roman Church that he would demolish the Fortifications of the City of Toulouse and Thirty other Castles that for a Guarantee of this Treaty he would put into the King's Hands the Castle of Narbonne and several others which the King should detain for Ten Years and keep at the Charges of the Count. This Treaty was Concluded at Paris on April 18. 1228. Afterwards the Count and those of his Retinue who had been Excommunicated went into the Church of Notredame at Paris on Good Friday bare-foot in a Sheet to receive Absolution from the Legate This done the Count remain'd Prisoner at Paris till the Conditions of the Treaty were performed About the Feast of Pentecost the King sent him into his own Country whither the Legate accompanied him and held a Council at Toulouse in the Year 1229. wherein he set up the Inquisition and made several Orders for the Extirpation of Hereticks Count Raymond was not at first so violent against the Albigenses for which the Pope's Legate upbraided him in the Year 1232 in an Assembly held at Melun where he was resolv'd that this Count should make Laws against them according to the Instructions of the Arch-Bishop of Toulouse and of a Lord who should be Nominated by the King The Arch-Bishop drew up the Heads according to which the Count in the Year 1233 made a very large Declaration against the Hereticks which he Publish'd at Toulouse on the 14th of February This last Bâ—â—w put an end to the Contest of the Albigenses who were afterwards left to the Inquisitors who totally destroy'd the Unhappy Remainder of those Hereticks This Sect being as has been already obâ—erv'd compos'd of several other particular Sects 't is hard The Errors of the Albigenses to determine what Errors were common to all the Sect and what were only taught by particular Sects The following are such as are charg'd upon them by Alanus Monk of Cisteaux and Peter Monk of Vaux de Cornay who wrote against them at that time They accuse them 1. Of owning Two Principles or Two Creators the one Good and the other Bad the former the Creator of Invisible and Spiritual things the latter the Creator of Bodies and the Tutor of the Old Testament 2. Of admitting Two Christs the one Bad who appear'd upon Earth and the other Good who never liv'd in this World 3. Of denying the Resurrection of the Flesh and of believing that our Souls are Demons confin'd to our Bodies for the Punishment of their Sins 4. Of Condemning all the Sacraments of the Church Of rejecting Baptism as useless Of Abominating the Eucharist Of Practising neither Confession nor Pennance and of believing Marriage to be Unlawful 5. Of Ridiculing Purgatory the Prayers for the Dead Images Crucifiâ—…s and the other Ceremonies of the Church These are the Heads to which the Principal Errors charg'd upon the Albigenses may be reduc'd As to their way of Living There were two sorts of People among them the Perfect and the Believers the Perfect boasted of living Continently did neither Eat Flesh nor Eggs nor Cheese abhorr'd Lying and never Swore The Believers liv'd as other Men and were as Irregular in their Manners but were perswaded That they were sav'd by the Faith of the Perfect and that none of those who receiv'd the Imposition of their Hands were Damned Luke Bishop of Tuy in Spain has Compos'd a Work against the Albigenses divided into Three Parts The Treatise of Luke of Tuy against the Albigenses In the First he refutes their Errors about the Intercession of Saints Purgatory the Prayers for the Dead the State of departed Souls by Passages taken out of the Dialogues of Saint Gregory and Saint Isidore In the Second he refutes their Erroâ—s about the Sacraments and Sacramental things Benedictions Sacrifices the Authority of the Holy Fathers the Worship of the Cross and Images In the third Part he detects the Fallacies which the Hereticks were guilty of whether in denying of Truths or by dissembling their Sentiments or by spreading of Fables and setting up false Miracles or in imposing on the Church or in corrupting the Writings of the Catholick Doctors or by affecting to suffer with Constancy Among all the Sects which started up during the Thirteenth Century there was none more detestable The Stadings then that of the Stadings which shewâ—d it self by the Outrages and Cruelties which it exerâ—…s'd in Germany 1â—30 against the Catholicks and especially against the Church-Men Those Imâ—ious Persons Honour'd Lucifer and inveigh'd against God himself believing That He had unjustly Condemn'd that Angel to Darkness that one Day he would be re-establish'd and they should be â—â—ved with him Whereupon they Taught That till that time it was not requisite to do any thing that â—as pleasing to God but the quite contrary They were perswaded that the Devil appear'd in their Asâ—â—mbly They therein committed Infamous things and utter'd strange Blasphemies 'T is said that â—…er they had receiv'd the Eucharist at Easter from the Hands of the Priest they kept
extreamly different from the Style of the Pentateuch Origen rejects this Opinion Tom. 5. in Johannem where he formally denies that Moses wrote any other Books besides the Pentateuch St. Gregory who attributes it to Salomon brings nothing to prove this conjecture of his Those that ascribe it to Jeremiah justifie themselves by the Conformity of the Style and the Syriack Words that occur so frequently there Codurcus makes an Edomitish Prophet Author of it but upon very frivolous idle Surmises Some attribute it to the Captive Jews in Babylon without any Foundation so that we can say nothing of the Author of this Book but that he is altogether unknown x Who say that the History of Job is wholly feigned This is the Opinion of the Talmudists of Maimonides and several Rabbins but Ezekiel ch 14. v. 14. Tobit ch 2. v. 12. and St. James in his Epistle speaks of him as a Man that really was The proper Names of Job of his Friends of his Country of the Number of his Children serve to shew that it is a true History St. Cyprian in his Treatise of Patience St. Jerome in his Ep. 103 St. Basil Homily the 4th St. Austin in his Sermon 103 and all the Fathers speak of him after this manner 'T is alledged against this Opinion that the proper Names of this Book have Mystick Significations That Job signifies a Man in Grief Uz Counsel Zophar one that is Watchful Eliphaz the Law of God Elihu God himself To this it is answered That most Hebrew Names have such sort of Significations All the other Objections only prove That this History is delivered Poetically This is really true in this History that there was a certain great Person named Job who was reduced to the extremity of Misery by the loss of his Goods and his Children heighten'd by a very severe fit of Sickness that he supported himself under all these Afflictions with incredible Patience and at last was restored to a prosperous Condition Upon the Occasion of this remarkable Event some one or other composed the Book of Job the Discourses of his Friends the Answers of Job c. yz Some Persons make Job to have descended from Nahor the Brother of Abraham This is the Opinion of Bellarmine who makes him the Grandson of Nahor and older than Moses He concludes that 't is probable he lived long and that he lived not in Moses's timē but he produces no Authorities to back this Opinion Amongst the Grand-Children of Esau there is one called Jobab which Name is easily formed into that of Job Hence it is that some People believe he was one of the Descendants of Esau and an Edomite This is particularly observed in the Greek Addition which is without question very ancient since Theodotion has acknowledged it Grotius believes that in chap. 26. vers 12. there is mention made of the Drowning of the Aegyptians in the Red Sea but that is not certain Castellio assures us that in chap. 28. vers 28. there is a passage taken out of Deut. chap. 4. vers 56. but these two passages are different The first is Ecce timor Domini ipsa est Sapientia The Second is Haec est enim vera Sapientia Intellectus Grotius adds That this Book was written after David and Salomon but before Ezekiel pretending that as it is quoted by that Prophet so there are several passages in it drawn out of the Psalms and the Books of Salomon but this is not evident and it should rather seem that David and Salomon borrowed some of their Thoughts out of Job although it is not necessary either to say one or the other aa 'T is certain as St. Jerome has observed that all the Psalms were not written by David St. Jerome Epist. ad Cypr. Scimus errare eos qui Psalmos omnes David arbitrantur non eorum quorum nominibus Inscripti sunt Epist. ad Sophronium Psalmos eorum testamur Autorum qui ponuntur i◠titulis scilicet Asaph Idithum filiorum Chore Emon Esraitae Mosis Salomonis reliquorum quos Esdras uno volumine comprehendit This is also the Opinion of Origen of St. Hilary and the Author of the Abridgment attributed to St. Athanasius St. Augustine in his Exposition of the second Psalm seems to be of that opinion But in his Book of Heresies Heresie the 26th he takes the other opinion to be the more probable of the two Theodoret also is doubtfull in the matter as he testifies in his Preface upon the Psalms Some others of the Fathers seem to have been persuaded that they were all composed by David as St. Chrysostome Euthymius Cassiodorus and particularly Philastrius who in Heresie the 126th reckons all those for Hereticks that doubt the truth of it Nevertheless it is very certain that they were not all written by David for in the first place there are some of them that bear other names and secondly some passages are to be found there which happened after David's death as in Psalm the 137th where mention is made of the Captivity of the Jews in Babylon One may observe the same thing in Psalm the 64th and 124th bb It is difficult to name the Authors of them St. Jerome pretends that these Psalms belong to those whose names they carry but this is not certain 'T is I believe it should be 5 instead of 50 because the 146th Psalm has this Title in the LXX of Haggai and Zechariah believed that the fifty next immediately after that that carries for it's Title the return of Haggai and Zechariah were written by those Prophets The Author of the Abridgment commonly attributed to St. Athanasius believes that all the Psalms entituled to David ipsi David are nevertheless done by some other hand Our Blessed Saviour cites the hundred and tenth Dixit Dominus which is found to have that Title under the name of David Matt. 22. v. 42. The hundred and thirty seventh Psalm carries the name of David and Jeremiah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes it apparently thus to be understood A Psalm of Jeremiah composed in imitation of David The 64th Psalm in the Vulgar Translation bears the name of Isaac and of Ezekiel the 70th that of the Sons of Jonadab and the chief Captives The Jews make Salomon the Author of the 92d and of several others Origen says that the 90th was composed by Moses whose name it bears and the Jews tells us he made it upon the occasion of a Sedition that happened amongst the Children of Israel upon the return of those that were sent to discover the Land of Promise St. Jerome is of the same opinion The ten following Psalms are also attributed to Moses not only by the Jews but even by St. Hilary and Jerome This cannot possibly hold true of the 99th where mention is made of Samuel Some of the Rabbies attribute the 92d to Adam as the Talmudists do some to several of the ancient Patriarchs There is a Greek Psalm which is
out of another Mans Book I own it but I thought they were suitable to the present occasion e It is very certain that at first this Language was not common to all the Jews This is abundantly proved against the common opinion by what is said in the Book of Nehemiah ch 13. v. 24. that the Children of the Jews who had Married strange Women spoke Asotice and not Judaice In the Hebrew the words are Ashdodith and Jehudith and this last word in the second Book of Kings ch 18. v. 26. is opposed to Aramith which signifies in Syriack Precamur loquaris nobis Syriace non Judaice in the first Book of Ezrah ch 4. v. 7. and in the Prophet Daniel ch 2. v. 4. Aramith has still the same signification On the contrary Jehudith signifies the Hebrew Tongue in opposition to the Syriack as we may see in the second Book of Chron. ch 32. v. 18. 2 Kings 18. 26. and in Isaiah ch 36. v. 11. There were several Jews therefore in the time of Ezrah that still spoke Hebrew And this is evidently proved by the Books of Ezrah that were made since the Captivity and yet were written in Hebrew and not in Chaldee except some Chapters of the first Book of Ezrah where he tells us of the opposition that the Officers of the King of Persia who spoke Chaldee gave to the Jews From whence it follows that the Jews both understood and spoke Hebrew For otherwise why should Ezrah if he designed to have his Books intelligible by all the Jews write them in a Language which was not natural to them The same consideration will hold good as to the Books of the latter Prophets who wrote in Hebrew after the Captivity and yet addressed their Prophecies to all the People But lastly that which admits of no reply is a remarkable passage in the Book of Nehemiah ch 8. and 9. where we find that the Law was read in Hebrew before the People and all the People hearkened to it and understood it These Remarks have been lately made by a very Ingenious and Learned Person Mr. Simon indeed brags that he has invincible Reasons to overthrow them When he has honoured the World with a Sight of them we shall see whether they are powerful enough to make us retract this opinion as he would willingly perswade us they are but in the mean time he ought not to take it amiss if till then we continue in the same mind f The Syriack Tongue mix'd with Hebrew Words became the vulgar Language of the Jews which was afterwards called the Hebrew Tongue The truth of this appears by the Hebrew Words that we find in the New Testament which are all as St. Jerome observes Syriack Words and what our blessed Saviour says That not one Iota of the Law of God shall pass away c. makes it evident that the Jews at that time used the present Hebrew Alphabet and not the ancient and it is demonstrated from hence that the of the Jews was a little Letter which is true of the Syriack and Hebrew Jâ—d and not of the Samaritan which has three Feet g The Chaldee Paraphrasâ—â— which we have seen to be of a lâ—ter date The Câ—â—ldee Paraphrase is divided into three Parts The first that contains the Pentateuch is attributed to Oâ—kelos the second that contains the Prophets to Jonathan the third to one Josephus the blind There is likewise another Paraphrase of the Pentateuch called that of Jerusalem and another of the Canticles but all these Paraphrases are imperfect as well as new Since that time the Jews having committed to writing abundance of Traditions in a Book which they call Misna they afterwards composed Commentaries upon it whereof the most celebrated is called the Gâ—mera But all these Books are full of ridiculous foolish Fictions and have nothing common with the Scripture The Masora that is a sort of a Critical Performance upon the Bible is of more use and advantage The Follies and Whimsies of the Cabala are impertinent and impious h About the year of our Lord 500 the Jews of Tiberias invented the Points These Points were not used in St. Jerom's time as may be easily proved from several Passages of this Father drawn out of his 22th Question upon Jeremiah and out of his Commentary upon Habakkuk in Chap. 3. Vers. 20. which abundantly shew that in his time the Pronunciation of the Hebrew Words was not determined by the Points as it has been since i I am of opinion that one cannot absolutely deny that there was a Greek Version of the Books of the Bible made in the time of Ptolomy Philadelphus It is not credible that the Authors of the Books attributed to Aristeas and Aristobulus entirely invented the whole History and that there is no part of it true 'T is sar more probable that they only added several Circumstances to the Matter of Fact which was assuredly certain Mr. Simon imagines that this Version was called the Septuagint beause it was approved by the Sanedrim but this is a Conjecture without any Foundation k Some of the Fathers have believed this Fiction of the Talmudists The Author of the Discourse against the Greeks attributed to St. Justin St. Irenaeus and St. Clement believed it St. Austin questioned and doubted the truth of it St. Jeroâ—â— laughs at it l Aquila the Jew A certain Syriack Auther â—ited by Monsieur Le Jâ—i the Publisher of the French Poâ—â—gâ—â—ot tells us that he was descended from Adrian and adds many other Passages 〈◊〉 are extremely improbable St. Jerom assures us that he was a Jew in his Commentary upon the third Chapter of Habakkuk upon the third of Isaiah and in his Epistle to Marcellus m Theodotion the Disciple of Tatian St. Jerom's Testimony confirms what we have said here St. Irenâ—â—s names him in his Book against Hâ—â—esy from whence it follows that he lived when Elutâ—erius was Pope n Symmachus c. What we say concerning this Man is taken out of St. Jerom in his Preface upon Job Eusebius also says l. 6. c. 7. that he was an Ebionite and this is the reason why Hilâ—ry the Deacon Author of The Commentary of St. Paul attributed to St. Ambrose calls the Ebionites Sâ—…machians o We yet find another Version of the Bible in the time of the Emperor Caracalla St. Epiphanius is of opinion that this fifth Version was found at Jericho the Author of The Abridgment attributed to St. Athanasius is of the same opinion But Eusebius following the Testimony of Origen tells us that the sixth was found at Nicopolis that we don't know where Origen found the fifth and that the seventh which was only a Version of the Psalms was found at Jericho Consult Euseb. l. 6. c. 16. St. Jerom assures us that all these Translations were made by Jews p Eusebius St. Jerom and several other Ancients make no distinction between the Octapla from the Hexapla They place the fifth sixth and seventh Version in what they
should soon be destroyed 948 years after its Foundation and many other Things that could never be asserted by later Christians who would have been very far from admitting such Notions when they were convinced of the falsity of these Predictions Upon the whole matter it ought to be concluded that the Books of the Sibyls were certainly forged in the Second Century but it is difficult to determine the precise time and by whom this was done all that can be alledged as most probable is that they began to appear about the end of the Reign of the Emperor Antoninus Pius m They began to appear about the end of the Reign of Antoninus Pius Possevinus affirms that these Books were written under the Reign of Câ—mmodus but he is deceived in taking the Conflagration mentioned in Book V. for the Fire of the Temple of Vesta that happened in the time of that Emperor for the Temple of Jerusaleus is to be understood in this place which is called the desirable House and the Guardian Temple of God We have already shewn that the Author had seen Lucius and Marcus but that he knew not the later Emperors All the Fathers that have quoted the Sibylline Books wrote either under the Reign of Antoninus Pius or after that time Josephus indeed and Hermas cite the Sibyls but in general Terms and there were possibly some Verses extant under their Names even in the time of Josephus who produceth one of them concerning the Tower of Babel Lib. 1. Ant. c. 5. M. Vossius in his last Book gives us an Hypothesis of the Sibylline Oracles somewhat different from this he acknowledgeth that the ancient Writings of the Sibyls which were preserved until the burning of the Capitol were entirely prophane and differed from those that are cited by the Fathers But he maintains that among those that were brought from Greece by Octacilius Crassus there were some Prophecies inserted that had been received from the Jews who pretended that they were written by the Sibyls in which the Coming of the Messiah was foretold and that these were cited by the Fathers under the Name of The Books of the Sibyls which Title was actually attributed to them This Hypothesis which is well enough contrived yet lies liable to many Difficulties for first the Collection of Oracles ascribed to the Sibyls that was made after the burning of the Capitol related no less to the Pagan Superstitions than the ancient Verses ascribed to the Sibyl of Cuma Secondly Since the Predictions concerning Jesus Christ expressed in the passages of the Sibylline Books and quoted by the Fathers are clearer than those that were contained in the Prophecies of the Jews there is no probability that they could proceed from any of that Nation Lastly The Doctrine comprised in the Books of the Sibyls seems rather to be that of a Christian than of a Jew since the Coming of Jesus Christ is therein manifestly foretold the Resurrection of the Dead the Last Judgment and Hell Fire are expresly described in plain Terms and mention is made of the Millennium of the appearing of Anti-Christ together with many other Things of the like nature which could not be related but by one that had been instructed in the Christian Religion Therefore it is much more probable that the Writings attributed to the Sibyls were forged by a Christian rather than by a Jew However none ought to be surprised that we reject those Books as supposititious which have been quoted by the Ancients as real and it must not be imagined that we thereby contemn the Authority of the Fathers or that we impugn the Truth on the contrary we should do an Injury to it if we should endeavour to support it by false Proofs especially when we are convinced of their Forgery The Fathers are to be excused for citing the Sibylline Verses as true because they had not examined them and finding them published under the Name of the Sibyls they really believed that they were theirs but they that are certainly informed of the contrary would be inexcusable if they continued to rely on such Testimonials or refused ingenuously to confess what the Truth obliged them to own And indeed it ought not to be admired that the Fathers did not examine these Books critically it is sufficiently known that they wholly applied themselves to Matters of the greatest Consequence at that time and that they often happened to be mistaken in prophane Histories and to cite fictitious Books such are the Works of Hystaspes and Mercurius Trismegistus which they almost always joyned with those of the Sibyls as also the Acts of Pilate Apocryphal Gospels divers Acts of the Apostles and a great number of other Records that have been undoubtedly forged But altho' the most part of the ancient Writers cited the Oracles of the Sibyls yet there were even then many Christians that rejected them as Counterfeit and could not be perswaded to approve the practice of those that made use of their Testimony whom in derision they called by the Name of Sibyllists This is attested by Origen in his Fifth Book against Celsus Celsus says he objects that there are Sibyllists amonst us perhaps because he hath heard it reported that there are some amongst us who reprove those that affirm that the Sibyl is a Prophetess and call them Sibyllists St. Augustine hath likewise acknowledged the falsity of these pretended Oracles and as often as he makes mention of them he declares that he is not convinced of their Truth particularly in Lib. 18. c. 45. De Civit. Dei. Were it not says he that it is affirmed that the Prophecies that are produced under the Name of the Sibyls and others concerning Jesus Christ were feigned by the Christians And in cap. 47. It may be believed that all the Prophecies relating to Jesus Christ that are not contained in the Holy Scriptures have been forged by the Christians Wherefore there can be nothing more solid in confuting the Pagans than to alledge those Prophecies that are taken from the Books of our Enemies But the Heathens say they doubted not of the truth of the Predictions of the Sibyls that were urged by the Fathers they only put another sense upon them nay they even proceeded so far as to own that the Sibylline Verses foretold the Nativity of a certain new King and a considerable Revolution This is mentioned by Tully in divers places moreover when Pompey took the City of Jerusalem it was commonly reported that the Sibyl had foretold that Nature designed a King for the People of Rome the Senate was likewise astonished at it and by reason of this Prediction refused to send a General or an Army into Egypt Lentulus according to the Testimony of Cicero and Sâ—llust flatter d himself that he should become this King that was intimated by the Sibyl Others have interpreted this Prophecy with respect to Julius Câ—sar or Augustus as is observed by Cicero and Suetonius Virgil in his Fourth Eâ—logue produceth the Verses
of the Cuman Sibyl foreshewing the Birth of a new King that should deâ—oend from Heaven In short it is most certain that the Gentiles acknowledged that the Books of the Sibyls were favourable to the Christians insomuch that the later were prohibited to read them as appears from the Words of Aurelian to the Senate recited by Vopiscus I admire says he Gentlemen that you should spend so much time in consulting the Writings of the Sibyls as if we were debating in an Assembly of Christians and not in the principal place of the Roman Religion These Arguments seem to be very plausible but if we examine them we shall find that they contain nothing that is solid The Pagans never submitted to the Authority of these Books of the Sibyls that were quoted by the Fathers on the cantrary it is manifest that Celsus was perswaded that they were forged by the Christians and St. Augustine plainly declares that this was the general Opinion of all the Gentiles The Sibylâ—â—e Verses mentioned by Tully were Paracrosticks that is to say the first Verse of every Sentence comprehended all the Letters in order that began the following Verses now among all the Verses of the Sibyls only those cited by Constantine are composed in Acrosticks As for the Asseâ—tion that in the time of Pâ—â—pey Julius Caesar and Augustus there was a general report that it was â—oretold in the Sibylline Books that a new King should be born within a little while we may easily reply with Tully that the Verses attributed to the Sibyls by the Heathens were made after such a manner that any sense whatsoever might be put upon them and that perhaps mention might be made therein of a certain future King as it is usual in this kind of Prophecies Therefore when the Grandeur of Pompey began to be formidable to the Roman Empire they thought it fit to make use of this pretence to prevent him from going into Egypt with an Army And Lentulus to whom this Charge was committed being Governor of Syria vainly flattered himself with this Prediction which â—…ight peradventure be further confirmed by the Prophecies of the Jews who expected the Coming of the Messiah believing that he ought to be their King Afterwards when it happened that Julius Caesar and Augustus after him actually made themselves Masters of the Roman Empire the Prophetical Expressions of the Sibyls were interpreted in their favour neither was it necessary on this account that they should clearly point at the Coming of Jesus Christ â—s it is expressed in the Writings of the Sibyls that are alledged by the Fathers but it was sufficient that they mentioned a future King which is the usual practice of all those that undertake to utter Predictions of extraordinary Events This gave occasion to Virgil who intended in his fourth Ecâ—â—gue to compose Verses in Honour of Pollio his Patron as also to Extol Augustus at the same time and to describe the Felicity of his Reign this I say afforded him an opportunity to do it with greater Majesty to make use of the name of the Sibyl and to pronounce these Verses Ultima Cumaei venit jam carminis â—t as Magâ—… ab integro 〈◊〉 nâ—scitur or do Jam 〈◊〉 progenes Câ—… alto Jam redit Virgo redeunt Saturnia regna By which nothing else is meant but that at the Nativity of Saloninus the Son of Pollio under the Consulate of his Father and the Reign of the greatest Prince in the World the Golden Age should return as it was foretold by the Sibyl That Plenty and Peace should flourish throughout the whole Universe and that the Virgin Astrâ—â— the Goddess of Justice who had abandoned the Earth at the beginning of the Iron Age should descend again from Heaven What is there in all this that resembles the Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ Or rather what is there that is not altogether prophane and â—â—gned by an Heathen Poet who only makes use of the Sibyls Name to flatter the Ambition of Augustus and to add greater Authority and Lustâ—e to that which he says in his Commendation Lastly the Words of Aurelian do not intimate that the Christians were forbidden by the Pagans to read the Sibylline Books but only that the Christians looked upon them as prophane Writings which in no wise related to their Religion and to which they gave no Credit THE Books that are attributed to Hystaspes and Mercurius Trismegistus and cited likewise by the ancient Fathers are not more Genuine than the Verses of the Sibyls There is nothing now extant of Hystaspes and this Aâ—… was altogether unknown to the ancient Heathens but the same thing connot be said of Merâ—â—riâ—â— Sirnamed Trismegistus n Sirnamed Trismegistus In Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Egyptians call him Thaaut some affirm that he was styled Trismegistus by the Grecians because he was a great King a great Priest and a great Philosopher others as Lactantius that this Name was attributed to him by reason of his incomparable Learning who is mentioned by the most ancient Pagan Writers o Mentioned by the most ancient Pagan Writers Plato in Phaedrus declares that he invented the Characters of Letters together with Arts and Sciences Cicero in Lib. 3. de Natura Deâ—rum assures us that he governed the Egyptians and that he gave them Laws and found out the Characters of their Writings It is Recorded by Diodorus Siculus that he taught the Grecians the Art of discovering the Secrets of the Mind And we are informed by Jamblichus who quotes Manetho and Scleucus that he wrote above Thirty five thousand Volumes St. Clemens Alexandrinus in Stromat Lib. 6. makes mention of Forty two Books of this Author and gives an Account of the Subject of some of them The Works of Mercurius Trismegistus are cited as favourable to the Christian Religion by the Author of the Exhortation to the Centiles said to be St. Justin by Lactantius in the Fourth Book of his Institutions by St. Clement in Lib. 1. Stromat by St. Augustine in Tract de 5. Haeres and in Lib. 8. De Civit. Dei Chap. 23. by S. Gyril of Alexandria in Lib. 1. contra Julianum and by many others as an incomparable Person and an Inventer of all the Liberal Arts and Sciences He was an Egyptian and more ancient than all the Authors whose Works are still extant Hystaspes and Mercurius Trismegistus He is believed to be as Old as Moses he either wrote or at least it is said that he wrote Twenty five or Thirty thousand Volumes But we have only two Diologues at present under his Name one whereof is called by the Name of Poemander and the other of Asclepius who are the principal Speakers The first Treatise is concerning the Will of God and the second Treats of the Divine Power these have been cited by the ancienâ— Fathers to prove the Truth of our Religion by the Authority of so famous an Author But it is certain that they cannot be
de opere elâ—…synis were written in imitation of those of Tertâ—llian upon the same Subject Eusebius says of Tertullian that he was one of the ablest of the Latin Writers and that he has obtained a great Reputation in all the Churches Lâ—ctantius passes the Judgment which we have already related which is not very advantageous to him S. Hilary says in his Commentary upon S. Matthew that the Error into which he fell has taken away the Authority of his Books which deserved Approbation Câ—nsequens error hominis detraxit scriptis probabilibus Authoritatem S. Jerom speaks sometimes very advantageously of him as in his Catalogue where he calls him a Man of a quick and sharp Wit and in his Epistle to Magnuâ— he says that there was not any Author who had more Learning and Subtilty but in other places he reprehends his Errors and Defects In his Apology against â—uffâ—â—us he says I commend his Wit but condemn his Heresies and in his Book against Helvidius who opposed to him Tertullian's Authority he makes this Answer What I have to say to you concerning Tertullian is that he is not of the Church Ecclesiae hominem non esse S. Austin commends Tertullian's Style and always condemns his Error in his Book De Genesi at Literam he says that Tertullian having an excellent Apprehension did sometime discover the Truth and that he could not forbear sometimes to establish it even against his own Opinions Vincentius Lirinensis gives a Character of Tertullian in these Words Tertullian says he was among the Latins what Origen was among the Greeks that is to say the first and the most considerable Man they had In word Is there any Author more knowing and better versed both in Ecclesiastical and Prophane Learning Has he not comprized in his vast and prâ—digious Memory all the Philosophy of the Sâ—ges the Maxims of the different Sects with their Histories and what else appâ—â—tained to them Did he ever undertake to attack any thing which he has not almost always either pierced by the Vivacity of his Wit or overthrown by the Force and Weight of his Reasonings And who can sufficiently extâ—l the Beauties of his Discourse which is so well guarded and â—inked together by a continual Câ—nin of Argumâ—nts that he even forces the Consâ—nt of those whom he cannot persuade His Words are as so many Sentences His Answers are almost so many Victories as has been sufficiently experienced by the Marcions the Apelles ' s the Praâ—eas ' s the Hermogenes ' s the Jews the Gentiles the Gnosticks and a great many others whose Blasphemies he has silenced by great numbers of Books that have â—een as somany Thunderbolts which have reduced them to Ashes And yet though â—e has had all these Advantages he did not continue in the Ancient and Universal Faith of the Church and he has proved himself less faithful than Elâ—…t At last he altered his Judgment and his Error as has been observed by that blessed Câ—â—fessâ—r S. Hilâ—ry by which means he has taken away that Authority frâ—â— his Writings which otherwise they would have deserved I shall take no notice of the Judgment of Trithemâ—us Rhenanus Politian Paâ—elius Rigaltius and some other Moderns which every body may consult upon occasion and I shall conclude with the Judgments given by two of our French Authors who have both given us Characters of Tertullian but in a different way The first is the famous M. Balsac in a Letter written to Rigaltius which is the Second of the Fifth Book I expect says he the Tertullian whicâ— you are publishing that he may learn me that Patience for which he gives such admirable Instructions He is an Author to whom your Preface would have reconciled me if I had had an Aversion for him and if the Harshness of his Expressions and the Vices of his Age had dissuaded me from reading him but I have had an Esteem for him for a long time and as hard and crabbed as he is yet he is not at all unpleasant to me I have found in his Writings that Black Light which is mentioned in one of the ancient Poets and I look upon his Obscurity with the same Pleasure as that of Ebony which is very bright and neatly wrought This has always been my Opinion for as the Beauties of Africa are not less amiable though they are not like ours and as Sâ—phâ—â—isba has eclipsed several Italian Ladies so the Wits of that Country are not less pleasing with this foreign sort of Eloquence and I shall prefer him before a great many affected Imitators of Cicerâ— And though we should grant to the nicest Criticks that his Style is of Iron yet they must likewise own to us that out of this Iron he has forged most excellent Weapons and that he has defended the Honour and Innocence of Christianity that he has quite routed the Valentinians and struck Marcion to the very Heart The second Character of Tertullian Recherche 〈◊〉 to Verité is that which Father Mâ—llebranche gives us in his Search after Truth in his Second Book Chap. 3. Tertullian says he waâ— without doubt a Man of extraordinary Learning but he had more Memory than Judgment He excelled more in his Fancy and Imagination than in Judgment and true extent of Thought Therâ— is no doubt to be made but that at last he was an Enthusiast in that sense which I have explained it and that he had almost all the Qualities which I have attributed to these Fanaticks That Respect which he had for the Visions of Montanus and for his Prophetesses is an unquestionable Proof of thâ— Weakness of his Judgment That Fire those Heats those Enthusiasms upon little Subjects do evidently discover the Extravagancy of his Fancy How many Irregular Transports are there in his Hyperboles and Figures How many Pompous and Magnificent Reasons which prove only by their glittering and which persuade only by stunning and dazling of the Understanding He afterwards endeavours to shew that this is a true Picture by making some Excerptions out of his Book De Palliâ— which he thinks to be the most proper â—ook to justifie what he affirmâ— in the Judgments which they have given and which they still give of this Author which makes me believe that it is better to commend the Good and to blame what is amiss than to pretend to make an absolute Judgment which would be always subject to a thousand Disputes In the last place to speak briefly of the Editions of Tertullian there has hardly been any Author ofâ—…er Printed and upon whom more Persons have bestowed their Pains For which two Reasons may be given the Corruption of the Manuscripts and his Obscurity and these two Reasons are likewise the cause one of the other for his Obscurity induced the Transcribers who did not understand him to alter some Words that they might make such a Sense as they themselves understood And the Corruptions of these Transcribers have been so far from
Method but very exact The Books that are falsly attributed to St. Cyprian are Printed at the end in a smaller Character with the Works of Arnoldus Bonaevallis that carry his name with a Book of Meditations never Printed before The Calendar of Easter is at the end of the Volume At the head of all there is an Advertisement to the Reader containing the general design of this Edition St. Cyprian's Life by Pâ—…tius his Deacon some Testimonies of the Ancients concerning St. Cyprian a Table as well of the Books according to the different Editions as of the Texts of Scripture cited in the Works of St. Cyprian and the matter of them This is followed with a Book written by Dr. Pearson Bishop of Chester Intituled The Annals of St. Cyprian because it contains the History of the Life and Works of this Saint from Year to Year After all there are some Dissertations of Mr. Dodwell's upon difficult places wherein he not only explains his Author but makes large digressions to clear some of the most considerable Questions in all Ecclesiastical Antiquity and to illustrate those matters of Fact and points of Discipline which are only alluded to in St. Cyprian as things at that time perfectly known I have been lately Informed That a Doctor of the Faculty in Paris a Man of prodigious Learning designs to oblige the World with a new Edition of St. Cyprian It were to be wished that this design were put in Execution it being a matter of great Importance that St. Cyprian should be Published by a Catholick Divine who is throughly versed in the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church and who in his Annotations would not depart from the Rule of Faith nor condemn or disapprove the practice of the Church that so by this means the Works of the Father might without any danger be put into the hands of all People PONTIUS SAint Jerome reckons Pontius amongst the Ecclesiastical Authors who writ the Life of St. Cyprian whose Deacon he had been Some Learned Persons and Rigaltius in particular seem to Pontius have doubted whether this work was not Supposititious and indeed we must own that it is written with so much affectation of Eloquence that it might well be suspected to be spurious if St. Jerome had not owned it as genuine But after the Testimony of that Learned Father I don't think we ought to question the truth of it This Life is not written as Rigaltius has well observ'd after an Historical manner but in the Language of one that desired to be thought an Orator and has more Rhetorical Ornaments than Historical Exactness in it The Narration which ought to be plain and single is full of Rhetorical Figures and the Style which ought to be concise is swelling In short as I have observed already there is rather an affectation of Eloquence than any true Eloquence in this Book CORNELIUS COrnelius was ordained Bishop of Rome towards the beginning of the year 251. Soon after Novatian got himself ordained by three Bishops but his Ordination being Irregular was Condemned and Cornelius acknowledged to be the true Bishop of Rome by all the Bishops Cornelius in the World He was sent into Banishment in the Persecution of the Emperor Gallus and then receiv'd the Crown of Martyrdom towards the end of the Year 253. after he had presided in the Roman Chair two Years and some Months There are two Letters of this Pope amongst St. Cyprian's and a Eusebius mentions three more St. Jerome reckons Four Letters but he is mistaken and Eusebius takes notice only of three Eusebius mentions three more In the first he informs Fabius Bishop of Antiioâ— of what had passed in the Synod held at Rome against Novatian and sends him the opinion of the Italian and African Bishops In the second he gives a more particular Account of the Decrees of this Synod and in the third he describes the Manners and Actions of Novatian Eusebius has preserved a long Fragment of this last Letter wherein Cornelius describes the Artifices which Novatian had used to get himself Ordained Bishop by abusing the simplicity and easiness of three Bishops one of whom having acknowledged his Crime did Penance for it He afterwards observes that there were at that time in the Church of Rome 44 Priests 7 Deacons and as many Sub-Deacons 42 Acolyths 52 Porters and Exorcists without reckoning the Widows and Poor upwards of 1500 and a b And a very great multitude of People There were at that time several Churches at Rome for they had but one Priest to one Church And this is the Reason why Optatus speaking of the Churches that were at Rome in the Time of Dioclesian says that there were above forty of them very great multitude of People He adds That Novatian could never hope to arrive to the Episcopal Order because he was Baptized in his Bed and never received Imposition from the hands of the Bishop that is to say the Sacrament of Confirmation and was afterwards ordained Priest only at the request of a Bishop contrary to the Order of the Church which Prohibits the Ordaining of those who had been Baptized after that manner He reproaches him for denying his Sacerdotal Function in time of Persecution as also for obliging those of his own Party when he gave them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ instead of answering Amen as was the custom of the Church to Swear that they would never return to Cornelius's Party Lastly he informs Fabius that the Confessors of Rome had left his Party and that several Bishops whose names he sends him were condemned in a Synod This Letter as well as the others sent by Cornelius to the East were in all probability written in Greek In the Bibliotheca Patrum we find a very short Letter attributed to Cornelius directed to Lupinicus Bishop of Vienna but that Letter does not belong to this Pope no more than the two others which go under his name in the Decretals For first of all it is not of the same Style with those we find in St. Cyprian Secondly the word Mass which was unknown at that time occurs there And thirdly it is unworthy of this Pope and 't is plain it was counterfeited by some ignorant Impostor The Style of Cornelius as far as we are able to judge of it by those few Letters of his that are still extant is not very lofty though he sets off what ever he says turning every thing to his own advantage and does not spare his Enemy in the least NOVATIAN Novatian NOvatian who had been a Philosopher before he was a Christian was as we have hinted already Baptized in his Bed being dangerously ill He was afterwards ordained Priest of the Church of Rome at the instance of his Bishop who obtained this Favour for him from the Clergy and People who would have opposed it Cornelius accuses him for absconding in a Chamber during the Persecution and for answering the Deacons
the Incarnation he speaks after a manner which makes it credible that he had the Nestorians and Eutychians in view Canisius attributes this Profession of Faith to Apollinarius but it too plainly refutes the Error of that Heretick to be ever his However it be it was composed after the time of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus We ought to pass the same Judgment upon the twelve Anathema's which follow this Exposition and are likewise composed out of the Errors of the Nestorians and Eutychians No body doubts of the Canonical Epistle of this Saint which is cited in the sixth Council and is set down by Balsamon It has all the Characters of Antiquity which any one can desire in such Monuments It was written after the Goths had ravag'd Asia under Galienus and it is directed to a Bishop whose Name we know not to instruct him how he was to prescribe Pennance to those who had fallen into any scandalous Crimes during the Inundations of the Barbarians In the first Canon he says that those who having been taken Prisoners by the Barbarians had eaten the Food which was given them ought not upon that account to suffer Penance as well because the Barbarians did not sacrifice any Victims to Idols as also because that which defiles the Man is not the Meat which enters into the Man but that which goes out of the Man That for the same reason those Captive Women who had been forcibly carried away by the Barbarians were not to be blamed but nevertheless that those who had lived dissolute Lives before their Captivity were not easily to be admitted to Communion In the second Canon and the three following which to speak properly are only one Canon he detests the Avarice and Injustice of those Persons who took the advantage of the Captivity of these miserable Creatures to plunder them of their Goods He shews that they are obliged to make Restitution and that they cannot keep in their Possession the Goods of other Men. In the sixth he endeavours to shew with what Horror the World ought to look upon the Cruelty of those Persons who detained as Captives those who had freed themselves out of the hands of the Barbarians In the seventh he ordains that such Offenders should not be received so much as into the number of Hearers this was the first Degree of Penance who joyning themselves with the Barbarians had fallen upon the Christians either by Murdering them or shewing the Infidels where they were fled for shelter In the eighth he decrees the same Punishment against those who should be convicted to have broken open any ones House during the Ravage of the Barbarians but then he moderates this Rigâ—ur in favour of those who should make a voluntary Confession and these he places in the third degree of Penitents 'T is also under this Class that in the ninth Canon he ranges those who kept back the things which belonged to others which they found in the midst of the Field or in their Houses as soon as they were convicted of it But if they confessed the Fact he believed them not to be unworthy to communicate at Prayers which was the last degree of Penance In the tenth he exhorts those that were willing to restore their Neighbours Goods to do it without making any sordid Gain by exacting any thing for what they had discovered kept or found or for any other reason whatever it might be The last Canon is an Explication of the different degrees of Penance Weeping and Groaning says he consist in standing without the Church Porch where the Sinner ought to beg earnestly of those who go in to pray to God for him and this is the first degree The second degree is that of Hearers and is performed in the Church-Porch where the Sinner is to tarry with the Catechumens and go out with them after having heard the Holy Scripture as being unworthy of Prayer In the Substration which is the third degree the Party offending is admitted into the Body of the Church but must go out with the Catechumens Lastly the fourth degree is that of standing up when the Person may tarry in the Church with the Faithful without being obliged to go out of it with the Catechumens and this is followed with the participation of the Sacraments Morinus questions whether this last Canon belongs to Gregory Thaumaturgus and conjectures that it has been added by one of the Modern Greeks to explain the Letter of this Saint This Conjecture seems to be well grounded There goes likewise under the name of this Father a Discourse about the Soul addressed to one Tatian which contains the Decision of several Questions concerning the Nature of the Soul and follows the Principles of the Peripatetics but in truth it has not the least resemblance of St. Gregory's Style and besides it seems to be the product of the following Age when Aristotle's Philosophy began to be in some Reputation To be short it is rather the work of a Philospher than of a Bishop I am no less satisfied that the Sermons which carry the name of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus do really belong to another Author for besides that none of the Ancients have ever mentioned them they are altogether of a different Style which is so far from approaching the Elegance and Politeness so familiar to St. Gregory that it is mean and childish Secondly The Author of these Sermons speaks of the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation in such terms as shew that he lived after the rise of the Heresies of the a The Arians and Nestorians For Example in the first of these Homilies it is said that JESUS CHRIST is born of the Virgin that he is God and Man without Confusion and without Change perfect in the Divinity and the Humanity like his Father in all and consubstantial to us In the second there are extraordinary Praises of the Virgin whom he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was not begun to be commonly practised till after the Synod of Ephesus The Trinity is there called Consubstantial Axians and Nestorians He often affects to make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he speaks of the Virgin Mary and bestows excessive Praises upon her which were not customary till after the Council of Ephesus Lastly it is evident that these Homilies were composed when the Church enjoy'd Peace and celebrated it's Festivals with great Solemnity The three Sermons upon the Annunciation resemble the Style of Proclus of Constantinople as it has been observed by him who has made some Notes upon the Homilies of that Author The last of the three has also been attributed to St. Chrysostome but the difference of the Style shews that it is not his The fourth Sermon is upon the Baptism of JESUS CHRIST which Festival was anciently celebrated on the day of Epiphany it is more eloquent than the three preceding ones and appears to be composed by another Author who nevertheless was not St. Gregory Thaumaturgus
the Council to weep cannot be St. Athanasius's since the History which is there related happen'd not as is pretended till the Year 765 and moreover it is full of Fables and unworthy of St. Athanasius The Fragment upon the Incarnation against the Disciples of Paulus Samosatenus is done by an ancient Author but we have it not in Greek and there is no proof that it was St. Athanasius's The other Fragment of the Sabbath is an Extract from part of the Homily upon the same Subject which is in Greek Vol. I. of St. Athanasius's Works The Seven Homilies publish'd by Holstenius have nothing of the Stile of St. Athanasius but are written by some late Greek Declaimer There is nothing in them that is useful or sublime and they come not near the Noble Simplicity of St. Athanasius's Writings as those who have any relish of such things are all agreed The Four other Discourses publish'd by Father Combefis tho' they are more useful than the former yet they are not St. Athanasius's The First rejects so expresly the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches that 't is plain 't was compos'd after these Two Hereticks had publish'd their Doctrine The Two Last about Easter and Ascension are attributed in some Manuscripts to St. Basil of Seleucia and 't is probable that they are all Four written by him St. John Damascene or the Author of a Discourse upon the Dead cites a Discourse of St. Athanasius upon the same Subject but we have none that bears this Title and 't is probable that this which is cited by this Author is supposititious I say nothing of the Commentary upon the Psalms which in its First Edition bore the Name of St. Athanasius because now 't is certainly known that 't was written by Theophylact. When we consider the Works of St. Athanasius with respect to the Subject on which they treat they may be distinguish'd into four sorts The First are Historical and relate to the History of his own time the Second sort are purely Dogmatical the Third concern Morality and the Last are upon the Holy Scriptures His Apologies ought to be rank'd under the First Head The First Apology was written immediately after he was driven out of Alexandria and is address'd to the Emperour Constantius There he refutes the Calumnies which his Enemies had made use of to render him odious to Constantius And the better to insinuate himself into the Emperour's Favour he begins his Discourse with saying That he made his Defence with much assurance before an Emperour who had been long a Christian and whose Ancestors had embrac'd the true Religion That having made use of the Words of St. Paul for his own Defence he took him for his Intercessor with the Emperour to whom no doubt he would give a favourable Hearing Then he adds That 't was not necessary for him to purge himself from the Accusation relating to Ecclesiastical Matters which his Enemies had formerly fram'd against him since as to them he was sufficiently justified by the Testimony of an infinite Number of Bishops and by the Retraction of Ursacius and Valens who had acknowledg'd that all those Accusations were pure Calumnies invented by them to destroy him and that tho' these things were not so yet he ought not to have any regard to an Information made in his absence by his Enemies which should be of no weight according to all Laws both Divine and Humane And therefore without insisting upon those former Accusations in this Apology he refutes those which were made use of since his Return to blacken his Reputation with the Emperour First of all he is accus'd of having spoken ill of this Emperour to his Brother Constans But he takes God to Witness that he never did it and says That it had been a madness in him to have attempted so bold a thing That Constans would never have suffer'd it That he had not so great an Interest in him as to dare say any thing against his Brother That he never spoke to him but in the presence of many Persons who were Witnesses of what he said But to prove the falseness of this Accusation beyond exception he makes a faithful Relation of all that pass'd in his Voyage to Italy wherein he says That he parted from Alexandria to put his Person and Reputation under the Protection of the Church of Rome That â—e assisted at the Assemblies of the Faithful there That he wrote but twice to Constans while he staid at Alexandria The First time to defend himself against some Letters full of Calumnies which his Enemies had wrote to him And the Second time to send him some Copies of the Holy Scriptures and that he never went to wait on him but twice and both times by his own Order At Last he says That the Emperour may judge by the manner of his speaking of his greatest Enemies whether he was capable of speaking ill of him to his own Brother The Second Accusation was no less heinous for they accus'd him of having written a Letter to the Tyrant Magnentius and they said That they had the Original of his Letter To which St. Athanasius answers That this Accusation had no appearance of Truth That he had never seen nor known Magnentius That he never had occasion to write to him That he had all the reason in the World to detest him and to hold no Correspondence with him That the first Calumny destroy'd this since 't was incredible that one who was so much for the Interest of Constans should be of this Tyrant's Faction who had revolted from him and cruelly kill'd him And as to their pretending to have this Letter he says 'T was not to be wondred at that they had found out an Impostor since 't was very well known that they had counterfeited the Emperour's Letters But he prays Constantius to enquire from whence they had this Letter and who gave it them and to Summon before him the Secretaries of Magnentius and inform himself if they had ever receiv'd it He conjures him to examin this Cause as if Truth it self were present at his Decision for says he If they had accus'd me before any other Judge I might have appeal'd to the Emperour but being accus'd before the Emperour to whom can I appeal but to the Father of him who is call'd the Truth that is to God Then he addresses to him in a lively and elegant Prayer That he might enlighten the mind of the Emperour to judge in a Cause which concern'd the whole Church The third Accusation is concerning his Celebration of the Holy Mysteries in the Great Church before it was Consecrated To which he answers That he did not Celebrate the Dedication of this Church which he could not do without the Order of the Emperour but he confesses that he did Celebrate there the Divine Mysteries before its Consecration He excuses himself upon the account of the great Concourse of People that came to Alexandria on Easter-Day and says
Hilary confirms this Answer by many places of Scripture where Jesus Christ gives himself the Title of Good and of Master from whence it appears that the Title was not here refus'd upon its own Account Upon this occasion he Answers the Objection of the Arians who say That Jesus Christ call'd his Father the only God and shows that the Father is the only God because the Divinity of the Father is the same with that of the Son which Truth he proves by many Passages of Scripture The Second Passage objected by the Arians is taken out of the Gospel of St John Chap. 17. This is life Eternal to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent from whence the Arians concluded That Jesus Christ was not â—he true God but one sent from the true God St. Hilary answers That this Passage does not exclude the Essential Unity of the Father and the Son since in this and other places Jesus Christ affirms That he came forth from God That he is with God That he had overcome the World That he should be honour'd as the Father That he had received the Power of giving Eternal Life That all things which are the Father's are his He adds That in the same Place Jesus Christ prays the Father to glorify him with the Glory that he had with him from all Eternity which evidently proves the Unity of the Essence of the Father and the Son Moreover the words alledg'd in the Objection prove nothing contrary to the Faith of the Church which acknowledges that the Father is the only true God though Jesus Christ is also God because the Father and the Son are not two Gods but one God only The Third Objection is taken from Ch. 5th of the same Gospel of St. John The Son can do nothing of himself he doth only what he seeth his Father do St. Hilary shows that this Passage establishes the Divinity of Jesus Christ and is very far from destroying it because it proves the Unity and Equality of the Father and the Son The Fourth Passage is the grand Objection of the Arians founded upon those words of Jesus Christ in St. John Chap. 14. My Father is greater than I. St. Hilary says That the Father is greater than the Son consider'd as Man and as Mediator The last Objection is taken from those words of Jesus Christ in St. Mark Chap. 13. No Man knoweth the Day of Judgment nor yet the Angels nor the Son but the Father only From whence the Arians concluded That the Knowledge of the Father being more extensive than that of the Son his Nature must be more excellent St. Hilary having in answer to this Objection proved by many Reasons that Jesus Christ could not be Ignorant of the Day of Judgment and having demonstrated this Truth he adds That what Christ says in this place that the Son knew not the Day of Judgment ought not to be understood literally as if he were really ignorant of it but in this sence that he did not know it not so as to tell it unto Men. Wherefore being ask'd about the same Matter after his Resurrection he does not say That he was ignorant of it but he reproves his Apostles with that heat which testified his Knowledge of it by saying unto them 'T is not for you to know the times and the seasons which my Father has reserv'd in his own Power He adds also that it may be said in another sence That the Son of Man was ignorant of the Day of Judgment because he knew it not as he was Man but as he was God For says he as we may say That the Son of God was subject to Fear to Sadness and to Sleep because the Humanity of Jesus Christ was subject to these Infirmities So we may say That he was ignorant of the Day of Judgment because he knew it not as he was Man but upon the account of his Divinity In the Tenth Book he Answers the Objections which the Arians draw from those Passages of Scripture which prove that Jesus Christ was subject to Fear to Sorrow and Pain And here he maintains That Jesus Christ had not truly any Fear or Pain but only the Representation of those Passions within him In which if his Judgment is not different from that of the Church yet it must be confess'd that the manner of expressing it is very harsh He had answer'd the Arians better if he had said That the Fear the Sorrow and Pain of Jesus Christ did belong to his Humane Nature and not to his Divinity He acknowledges in this Book That all Men are conceiv'd in Sin and that none but Jesus Christ ought to be excepted from this General Law He says That the Soul is not communicated to Children by the Parents He observes That what is said in the Gospel of St. Luke concerning the Bloody Sweat of Jesus Christ and of the Angel that appear'd unto him is not to be found in many Greek and Latin Copies of this Gospel In the Eleventh Book he Answers some Passages of the Gospels and of St. Paul concerning Jesus Christ's being risen from the Dead and becoming Glorious which are alledg'd by the Arians to prove that the Son is not equal to the Father But St. Hilary shows That those Passages do much rather prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ than destroy it In the last Book St. Hilary explains that Passage of the Proverbs God created me in the Beginning of his Ways c. He demonstrates that the Word of God was not properly created but begotten of God from all Eternity which he proves by many Passages of Scripture He expounds this Passage of the Proverbs of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. He adds some Proofs of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit and Ends with a Prayer to God wherein he begs Grace to preserve in his Heart that Faith whereof he made Profession at his Baptism that he may always worship the Father and the Son and receive the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father by the Son His Book of Synods is Address'd to the Bishops of France and Britain He commends them for the Constancy which they had shown in refusing Communion to Saturninus and for the Zeal wherewith they maintain'd the Faith of the Church by condemning the Impieties of the Arians so sharply After this he sets himself to explain the Creeds made by the Eastern Bishops after the Council of Nice He declares That if there were any Error in some of those Creeds it ought not to be attributed to him since he only relates what others had said and if they were found agreeable to the Doctrine of the Apostles the Praise of it ought not to be given to him but to the Original Authors He leaves it to the Judgment of the Bishops to whom his Book is written whether they be Heretical or Catholick Then he intimates to them what Obligation lay upon him to instruct them in the Opinions of the
of Jerusalem which is word for word found in the 4th Catechetical Discourse to the Catechumens St. John Damascen relates also a Passage taken out of the 12th in his Orat. 3. de Imag. Cyparissiota Dec. 6. cites the 10th Catechetical Discourse by St. John Damascen by Cyparissiota and there are 5 others called Mystagogick Lectures for the Instruction of those that are newly baptized Cook Rivet Aubertin and other Calvinistical Criticks do all that they can to prove these Catechetical Discourses supposititious because they contain many things that displease them e Many things that displease them The real Presence Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass the Ceremonies Prayers for the Dead the Exorcisms Invocation of Saints the Honour due to Relicks the Celibacy of Priests the Veneration of the Cross c. are Opinions which the Calvinsts cannot endure and they are mightily troubled to see them established by an Author of the 4th Age of the Church and destroy their Errors But the Conjectures which they alledge to overthrow their Authority are too slight f The Conjectures which they alledge are too slight They say That there is a Greek Catalogue wherein they are attributed to John of Jerusalem but of what Authority is a Catalogue the Antiquity whereof is not known Can it be opposed to the Testimony of Theodoret who cites those Catechetical Instructions under the Name of St. Cyril and to that of St. Jerom who testifies That this Father wrote one There is no probability says Rivet that the Care of Instructing the Catechumens should be entrusted to a young Man Why not If he was capable of it as it appears St. Cyril was If there was no probability of it Why does St. Jerom assure us that it was so 'T is said adds Rivet That they were spoken ex-tempore and St. Jerom says that he wrote them A pleasant Objection indeed as if it were not known that Authors do often set down those Discourses afterwards in writing which they spoke without premeditation at first The same Rivet is of Opinion that those places which concern Celibacy Virginity Relicts the Cross of Jesus Christ c. are added in these Catechetical Discourses what proof has he for this but only that those things do not please him He accuses St. Cyril of Blasphemy because he says If the Virgin Mary were so much honoured for carrying Jesus Christ the space of nine Months we ought yet more to honour Christians for keeping their Virginity for very many years This thought is not exact 't is a little too blunt but such things did often escape the Fathers in their Sermons and it is capable of a good Sence Another Objection of Rivet's is this This Author says That the Wood of the Cross is amongst us to this Day Now these Words to this Day cannot agree says he to St. Cyril who might be present at the finding of the Cross. To which I answer That the Words to this Day respect the time which was already past since the Passion of Jesus Christ. To conclude All these Catechetical Discourses have the Character of Antiquity they are simple and natural and explain the Doctrines of the Church after the ancient Way The Author says at the beginning of his 6th Catechetical Discourse That he wrote 70 Years after the beginning of the Heresy of the Manichees The Canon of the Sacred Books which he recites is ancient and the Creed which he makes use of does not betray his Age The manner in which he explains the Mystery of the Trinity shows that he was a Catholick but that he managed himself slily for tho' he always confirms the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit he does not always make use of the Word Consubstantial The two Arguments of Rivet against the Mystagogical Discourses are as weak as the former The Ancients says he do not distinguish these two kinds of Discourses But neither do they say that there was but one St. Jerom who is the only Person that speaks of them all says only That St. Cyril wrote Catechetical Discourses without telling how many The other Authors speak of those which they had occasion to quote 2. He says That the last are short whereas the first are very long But this is no Argument why they should not be all the same Author 's The three first to the Illuminated are shorter than the last and are not much longer than the Mystagogical Discourses The time and Matter that he writes about makes any Author longer or shorter and after Easter the Instructions ought not to be so long Aubertin adds That Praevotius says he supplied many Letters and corrected many places And what follows from thence Is there any one Book to which the first Publishers have not done the same thing They have added sometimes half a word or a whole one or sometimes some words which they thought necessary But they cannot be suppos'd to add whole Periods Pages and Books and indeed if ye compare the Edition of Praevotius with that of Morellus which preceeded it made by a Manuscript of Monsieur De Mesmes and with the Latin Versions made from other Manuscripts you may see that the Differences among them are of very small Consequence and that they neither alter the Sence nor the Doctrine of this Father to call in question the Truth and the Interest which they have to Oppose them renders their Censure suspected Their endeavours are chiefly against the 5 Mystagogical Catechisms which are not indeed cited by the Ancients as the first Discourses are But the Agreement of the Stile g But the Agreement of the Stile c. There is the same Stile the same Method the same Air of Writing The Stile both of the one and the other is familiar and unaffected He explains the Mysteries by Passages of Scripture and moralizes them after the same manner in them all shows that they are the same Author's and the End of the 18th Catechetical Discourse h The end of the 18th Catechetical Discourse After Easter says he with the help of God you shall hear other Catechetical Lectures First About what is done before Baptism This is the Subject of the First Catechetical Discourse Secondly To explain how ye are purified from your sins by the Baptism of Water That 's the Subject of the Second Thirdly How ye have received the Seal of the Holy Spirit That 's the Subject of the Third And Lastly Concerning the Holy Mysteries of the Altar That 's the Subject of the Two last But besides the Order which he promised to observe in speaking of Holy Mysteries is that which is observed in these two Catechetical Discourses demonstrates it clearly For there he promises to Compose 5 other Instructions after Easter whereof he tells you the Subjects which are very near akin to the Subjects of those which we still have In short he cites the first in the last and since the last are promised in the first and these
and he promises them That he will not deliver his Letter till he has received their Answers and those Assurances that he shall desire St. Athanasius having received these Letters would not write at all but he sent one of his Priests call'd Peter to dispose their Minds to Peace This Priest was very well received by St. Basil and he perform'd his Message as well as he could But this Affair being of too great Consequence to be so easily determined St. Basil thought it necessary to write to Pope Damasus Having taken up this Resolution he sent the Deacon Dorotheus to Meletius by whom he wrote the 57. Letter wherein he tells him his Design which he had of sending this Deacon to Rome and of desiring some Deputies out of Italy He prays him if he thought it convenient to give him necessary Instructions and to write a Letter in his own Name and in the Name of all the Bishops of his Communion and to direct it to the Western Bishops He writes at the end of this Letter That the Affairs of the Church were in the same state That the Civil Powers would not meddle with them to restore those that were banish'd That Euvippus an Arian Bishop was come but that he had done nothing yet in Publick though he had threatned to fetch the Bishops of his Party from Tetrapolis and Cilicia to Condemn the Orthodox Meletius sent back Dorotheus and thought it necessary for him to go into the West 'T is not certainly known whether he wrote at that time to the Bishops of the West but 't is certain that St. Basil then address'd his 220 Letter to Damasus It has no Superscription but 't is easy to see that 't was address'd to the Bishop of Rome He begins with showing the Advantage which that Bishop had to restore the ancient Union between the Eastern and Western Churches After this he describes the unhappy State to which the Persecution of the Arians had reduc'd the Churches of the East He represents to Damasus That he might give them Ease and Comfort by writing and sending Deputies to them to re-establish Peace and Union in the Church He remonstrates to him that what he desir'd was not extraordinary since it had been the practice of the Saints and particularly of the Church of Rome He observes to him That St. Dionysius had formerly Comforted the Church of Caesarea by his Letters and that he had sent some of his Brethren to deliver Christians from Captivity That now there was more Reason to complain of the Misery of the Church since not only the Captivity of the Body but that of the Soul also was to be fear'd St. Basil gave this Letter to Dorotheus to carry into the West and he sent this Deacon to St. Athanasius to conferr with him about the means of procuring Peace that so after he had met with him he might Embark from Alexandria to go into Italy He charg'd him also with a Letter for St. Athanasius which is the 52. And tho' in it he says That he referr'd himself wholly to the Prudence of St. Athanasius as to the Management of this Affair yet he says That his Advice should be to write to the Bishop of Rome and to pray him since there was no probability of calling a Synod that he would send by his own Authority Deputies into the East He observes That he must chuse such Persons as were able to endure the Fatigues of Travelling and who had much Meekness and Moderation to Correct the Eagerness and Passionate Heats of some of the Bishops of the East And in fine who could speak at a fit Season and accommodate themselves to the Times He would have them carry with them the Acts of the Council of Ariminum and an Account of the Transactions in the West that they may be null'd That they should come by Sea without letting any body know of it That at first they should address themselves to those of his own Communion before they were pre-engaged by the Associates of Paulinus the Enemies of Peace and in short That they should condemn the Heresy of Marcellus of Ancyra This Letter is the 52. At the end he conjures St. Athanasius to send forthwith the Deacon Dorotheus into the West that so the Business might be done the next Year which was 371. He advertises him also That he must take care to recommend to the Deputies from the West that they be very Cautious lest they encrease Divisions instead of allaying them and that they preferr to all things the Good of Peace and that they do not maintain a Schism in the Church of Antioch out of Affection to some particular Persons The desire of Peace and the Fear that St. Basil had of bringing Persecution upon the Church oblig'd him to be very cautious in his Discourse Wherefore though he profess'd to Believe and to defend the Divinity of the Holy Spirit yet he said nothing of it unless he was oblig'd And therefore when he was in an Assembly of Bishops held in the Year 370. at the Feast of St. Eupsichius in the City of Caesarea he discoursed largely of the Divinity of the Father and the Son and said nothing almost of the Holy Spirit Whereupon a Religious Person who was present at this Assembly accus'd St. Basil of betraying the Truth by a Cowardice unworthy of a Bishop and publish'd this Accusation at a Feast where he was present some time after St. Gregory Nazianzen who was one of the Guests at this Feast endeavoured in vain to defend his Friend for all the Company blam'd him and at last St. Gregory himself was offended with his Conduct and wrote to him his Judgment about it in Letter 26. St. Basil having received this Letter by Hellenius was a little offended with it and answered him in Letter 33 That he was surprized that he should so lightly give credit to a Caluminator He signifies a great Contempt of these kind of Accusations He invites St. Gregory to come and see him and says That what was quickly to come to pass would serve for his Justification before all the World because it might be foreseen that he must suffer for the defence of the Truth and perhaps should be forc'd away from his Church and his Country Which discovers that this Letter was written before the Persecution of Valens in the Year 370. This Emperour had a Design to divide the Province of Cappadocia into two St. Basil thought that it was his Duty to defend the Rights of his People and his Church For this Reason he wrote to a great Man of his Country called Martinianus the 376 Letter to pray him to go to Court and hinder this Division This Letter was written in the Year 370 as well as the 362 which was plainly written upon the same Occasion The 309 Letter wherein he declares That he continued unshaken though he had been attack'd by the most powerful at Court referrs to the Sollicitations which the Prefect Modestus
a Spiritual Sence of a State of Righteousness and Holiness In the Homily upon the Words of the Proverbs Give no sleep unto your Eyes publish'd by Cotelerius St. Basil exhorts to Watchfulness and the Practice of Good Works His Homilies upon the Psalms are written in the same Stile but they are more fill'd with Morality He departs sometimes from the Literal Sence and does not always apprehend the true Sence of the Prophet Yet he does not make use of obscure and forc'd Allegories but all that he says is Intelligible Natural Useful and Pleasant The Commentary upon Isaiah is not so lofty nor so full of Morality but 't is very Intelligible and very Learned The Five Books against Eunomins are a most compleat Work of Controversy he recites the Arguments and Words of this Heretick and refutes them very solidly and very clearly In the Two first Books he refutes the principal Arguments which this Heretick used to prove that the Son was not like to his Father He answers them very clearly and discovers the Falshood of this Heretick's Reasonings In the Third he answers the Objections which he made against the Divinity of the Holy Spirit In the Fourth he proves that the Son of God is not a Creature but is truly God And Lastly in the Fifth he proves the same thing of the Holy Spirit He handles the most intricate Matters of Theology in a manner very Learned and Profound and yet without perplexing and entangling them with the Quirks the Difficulties and Terms of the Schoolmen He proves also the Trinity of Divine Persons and their Equality in the 16th Homily upon the Beginning of the Gospel of St. John and in the Book against the Sabellians He particularly Establishes the Divinity of the Holy Spirit in the Treatise of the Holy Spirit address'd to Amphilochius He compos'd it upon occasion of a Complaint that some Persons had made against him that at the Conclusion of his Sermons he had said Glory be to the Father and to the Son with the Holy Ghost instead of saying as some do In the Holy Ghost Amphilochius had ask'd him the proper Signification of these Terms and the Difference between the one and the other Expression St. Basil commends him for this Exactness and observes that 't is very useful to search out the proper Sence of the Terms and Expressions which we use In the 2d Chapter he makes this Observation That those who will use different Terms in Glorifying the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost do it for no other End but to conclude from thence the Dissimilitude and Inequality of the Three Persons of the Trinity In the 3d. Chapter he shews That the difference of these Terms of whom by whom in whom have no place but in Philosophy and we ought not to use them when we speak of the Three Divine Persons In the 4th he shows That this Particle of whom signifies in Scripture the Efficient Cause since 't is said that all things are of God In the 5th he shows That the Scripture says of the Father by whom and of the Son of whom and that it uses the same Expressions when it speaks of the Holy Ghost In the 6th he answers those who affirm That we cannot say the Son of God is with his Father because he is after his Father St. Basil maintains that the Son of God is not at all inferiour to the Father neither in respect of Time nor in respect of the Place he holds nor in respect of Honour and Glory being Eternal as the Father Infinite as the Father and having a Glory and Majesty equal to that of the Father In the 7th he proves That this Expression with the Son is not New That the Church has used it to denote the Majesty of his Divine Nature as she has also used that other by the Son to signify the access which we have to God the Father by his Son and therefore we ought to use the former Expression when we sing the Praises of God and the latter when we thank him for the Favours he has done us He explains this Distinction in Ch. 8. and there he recites many Names of Jesus Christ. In the 9th he explains his Judgment concerning the Divinity of the Holy Spirit which he received by Tradition and which is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Holy Scripture He proves that the Holy Spirit is a Spiritual Person Eternal Infinite Unchangeable c. who strengthens us and gives us Life by his Gifts In the 10th and 11th he refutes those that would not joyn the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son He proves the contrary by the Institution of Baptism and accuses those that would not add the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son Of Violating the saving Sacrament of Baptism Of Prevaricating in the Vow which they had made and of Revolting from the Religion which they had once professed In Chapter 12. he answers the first Exception of his Adversaries who said That Baptism given in the Name of Jesus Christ was sufficient St. Basil answers First That the Name of Jesus Christ denotes the whole Trinity because it signifies the Anointed of the Lord. Now he says that the Word Anointed designs him that does Anoint and him by whom he is anointed Secondly That Faith is inseparable from Baptism because Faith is perfected by Baptism and Baptism supposes Faith That the Profession of Faith precedes Baptism which is as it were the Seal of it Lastly He maintains that 't is not sufficient to Baptize in the Name of Jesus Christ but that we must invoke the Three Persons of the Godhead according to Inviolable Tradition and that we ought to add nothing to nor take any thing from this Invocation In the 13th he refutes a Second Answer of his Adversaries who say That tho' the Holy Spirit were oftentimes in Scripture joyn'd to the Father and the Son yet it would not follow from thence that he was equal to them since the Angels are there sometimes joyn'd with God St. Basil answers That there is a great Difference between the manner in which the Scripture speaks of Angels and of the Holy Spirit because it considers the former merely as Ministers whereas it considers the Holy Spirit as the Fountain of Life and joyns him with the Father because of the Unity of Essence In the 14th he resolves also a third Difficulty It was objected to him That tho' Men be baptiz'd in the Name of the Holy Spirit yet it does not follow that the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son since 't is also said in Scripture That they were all baptiz'd into Moses in the Cloud St. Basil answers That this Expression of St. Paul signifies only that Moses and the Cloud were the Figure of the Baptism of Jesus Christ but that the Truth is much more Excellent than the Type In the 15th he answers a fourth Sophism We are baptiz'd in Water said the Hereticks and yet
to whom St. Amphilochius made answer That it was enough that he had Saluted him Whereupon Theodosius fell into a Passion and declar'd how much he was offended with him for his neglecting of his Son That then Amphilochius discreetly told him You cannot suffer an Injury to be done to the Emperour your Son and do you suffer those who dishonour the Son of God That the Emperour being surpriz'd with this Reply made a Law wherein he forbids Hereticks to hold their Assemblies any longer Theodoret says That this happen'd after Theodosius's Return into the East that is about the Year 392. But 't is much more probable that St. Amphilochius spoke thus to the Emperour sometime after the Council of Constantinople in the Year 382 since it was then that the Law of Theodosius was made against Hereticks forbidding their Assemblies The Year of Amphilochius's Death is not certainly known St. Jerom in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers written in 392 mentions him as one then living There also he mentions a Treatise of the Holy Spirit which St. Amphilochius had read to him a little while before wherein he proves that the Holy Spirit was God Adorable and Almighty The Works of this Father have been quoted with Commendation by the Councils and the Ancients The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon produce some Testimonies out of them against the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches but they do not tell us out of what Book they are taken Theodoret in his Dialogues produces others which are taken out of the Homilies upon these Words of the Gospel My Father is greater than I and upon these other Words The Son can do nothing of himself and out of a Homily upon these other Words of Jesus Christ in St. John Chap. 5. He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath eternal life and out of a Homily upon these Words of Jesus Christ in St. Matth. Chap. 26. My God let me not drink of this Cup out of a Discourse against the Arians which is the same with that upon these Words My Father is greater than I as appears by Leontius and out of another Sermon upon the Word the Son of God Facundus in Ch. 3. of B. XI of his Treatise cites Four Passages out of St. Amphilochius whereof the First is taken out of the Homily upon these Words My Father is greater than I the Second out of the Homily upon these Words He that believeth in him that sent me hath eternal life the Third out of the Homily upon these Words I ascend to my Father and my God and the Last out of the Homily upon these Words Let me not drink of this Cup. The Seventh Council in Action Five quotes a Fragment of St. Amphilochius against the Books written by Hereticks who bear the Name of the Apostles Leontius and Anastasius Sinaita quote also some Passages of St. Amphilochius St. John Damascene produces some Passages taken out of Two of his Letters whereof one was address'd to the Suadrenses and the other to Seleucus There is also a Fragment and a Question concerning the Flesh of Jesus Christ which is thought to have been extracted by Photius and another Fragment of a Letter written to the Deacon Pancarius Barlaam has also collected some Passages taken out of the Letter to Seleucus out of the First Sermon upon these Words No Man knows either the day or the hour of judgment out of another upon these Words The Child Jesus grew out of another upon these Words Destroy this Temple These Fragments have almost all been collected together by Father Combefis who has also publish'd the entire Works as many as could be found under the Name of Amphilochius and printed them at Paris in 1644. These are Eight Sermons a Poem upon the Holy Books and the Life of St. Basil. The 1st Sermon is upon the Nativity of Jesus Christ. The 2d is upon the Circumcision wherein he enlarges upon the Praise of St. Basil. The 3d. is upon the Purification of the Virgin the Mother of God upon Anne and Simeon The 4th is a second Sermon upon the Virgin and Simeon which is not written by St. Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium the Friend of St. Basil but by another Amphilochius Bishop of Syda who was present at the Council of Ephesus for this Sermon is written directly against Nestorius and is of a Stile different from the former The 5th is upon Lazarus The 6th upon the Woman in the Gospel that was a Sinner The 7th which had been formerly printed at Antwerp in 1598 is of the Holy Saturday The Last is about Penance This has not the same Stile as the others The Author speaks against the Heresy of the Iconoclasts and relates Fabulous Stories from whence it appears that this Homily is the Work of some Modern Greek It cannot be certainly known of any one of these Sermons that it belongs to St. Amphilochius of Iconium rather than Amphilochius Bishop of Syda The Poem to Seleucus has the Stile of St. Gregory Nazianzen whatever Father Combefis says to the contrary and it is very probable that it was written by this Father under the Name of Amphilochius There he makes an Enumeration of the Canonical Books which is not different from that which is in the 33d Poem For tho' he speaks of the Book of Esther and the Revelation yet he does not put them in the Rank of those Books which all the World receives for Canonical he only observes that some have admitted them and others have rejected them The Life of St. Basil attributed to Amphilochius translated into Latin by Cardinal Ursus whose Translation was printed by Rosweydus publish'd in Greek and Latin by Father Combefis contains many Fables and many particulars of the Life of St. Basil contrary to the Truth of History b Contrary to the Truth of History The Author of this Life supposes that St. Basil was Bishop in the time of Julian that Libanius was of Julian's Retinue that when this Emperour was kill'd he was converted in a few Days after and retired with St. Basil. Now 't is evident that St. Basil was not Bishop in the Emperour Julian's time and that Libanius was so far from being converted after his Death that he wrote a Panegyrick in his praise All the Histories which are related in this Life are Fabulous and do no ways agree with what the Ancients have said of St Basil. In a word No body can read this Piece but they may presently discover its Imposture so that it is plainly the Work of a Modern Greek Father Combefis who endeavours to maintain its Authority against the Opinion of Possevinus Baronius and Bellarmin says That some places in it are added and corrupted but that the Body of the Work is Amphilochius's which he does not prove at all nor can it appear probable to those that read it who will neither find in it the Stile nor the Genius of the Fourth Age of the Church The Life of
Variety of Conceptions and Figures He extendeth his Matters by an infinite Variety of Expressions He is very ingenious in finding out Similitudes between things abundant in Examples and Comparisons His Eloquence is popular and very proper for Preaching His Style is natural easie and grave He equally avoideth Negligence and Affectation He is neither too plain nor too florid He is smooth yet not effeminate He useth all the Figures that are usual to good Orators very properly without employing false strokes of Wit and he never introduces into his Discourses any Notions of Poets or prophane Authors neither does he divert his Auditory with Jests His Composition is Noble his Expressions Elegant his Method Just and his Thoughts Sublime He speaks like a good Father and a good Pastor He often directs his words to the People and expresses them with a Tenderness and Charity becoming an holy Bishop He teacheth the principal Truths of Christianity with wonderful Clearness and diverts with a marvellous Art and an agreeable way of ranging his Notions and persuades by the strength and solidity of his Reasons His Instructions are easie His Descriptions and Relations pleasant His Inducements so meek and insinuating that one is pleased to be so persuaded His Discourses how long soever are not tedious there are still some new things which keep the Reader awake and yet he hath no false Beauties nor useless Figures His only Aim is to convert his Auditors or to instruct them in necessary Truths He neglects all Reflections that have more subtilty than profit He never busies himself to resolve hard Questions nor to give mystical Sences to make a shew of his Wit or Eloquence He searcheth not into Mysteries neither endeavours to comprehend them He is contented to propose after an easie way palpable and sensible Truths which none can be ignorant of without danger of failing of Salvation He particularly applies himself to moral Heads and very seldom handleth speculative Truths He affects not to appear Learned and never boasts of his Erudition and yet whatever the Subject be he speaks with Terms so strong so proper and so well chosen that one may easily perceive he had a profound Knowledge of all sorts of Matters and particularly of true Divinity He proveth the truth of the Christian Religion by the strongest the most probable and sensible In lib. Quod Christus sit Deus In Orat de S. Babylâ contra Gentes In exposit Ps. xliv Hom. contra Judaeos Hom. 4. in illud Vid. Dominum lib. Quod unus Christus sit Deus Reasons He urgeth Miracles Prophecies and other Proofs of the truth of Religion but particularly insists upon the miraculous Establishment of the Church and in this Argument he triumphs He shews that it is impossible that the Doctrine of Jesus Christ could have been received and believed all the world over notwithstanding the opposition of Secular Powers the Contradictions of the Wise men in the World and the endeavours of Devils had it not been supported by the power of God himself For says he there is need of more than humane Ability to produce such wonderful Effects both in the Earth and upon the Sea and to oblige Men already prejudiced by extravagant Opinions and prepossessed with prodigious Malice to such Actions yet Jesus Christ delivered all mankind not only Romans but Persians also and all other barbarous Nations from their Calamities And to bring about these Wonders he made use of no Arms and was at no expence raised no Armies and fought no Battles but by eleven Men who at first were unknown despicable ignorant Ideots poor naked and without Arms He persuaded different Nations and made them embrace an high Philosophy not only relating to the Government of this present Life but also to things to come and Eternity self His power over all minkind was such as that it made them abolish the Laws of their Fathers renounce their ancient Customs and follow new ones He spoiled them even of the love of those things they were most fond of to fasten their Affections upon such things as are most difficult and painful But the Promulgation of the Gospel and the setling of the Church are not the only Proofs of the truth of our Religion the Stedfastness and perpetuity of the Church is also in S. * In Ps. xliv Chrysostom's Opinion an invincible Argument of it For he addeth that it is not only a thing worthy of Admiration that Jesus Christ should settle his Church over all the Earth but also that he should render it invincible against so great numbers of Enemies as assaulted it on every side The Gates of Hell that cannot prevail against it are the Dangers which seem to hurry it to the very Gates of Hell Doe you not perceive the truth of that prediction of Jesus Christ .... Tho' Tyrants took up Arms against it tho' Soldiers conspired her Destruction tho' the People raged furiously tho' a contrary Custom opposed it self tho' Preachers Philosophers Magistrates and rich Men stood up to destroy it The Divine word breaking with greater force than fire it self consumed these Thorns cleansed these Fields and disseminated the Seed of preaching over the whole Earth And though such as believed the Gospel were shut up in Prisons sent into Banishment spoiled of their Goods thrown into the Fire cast into the Sea and exposed to all manner of Torments Reproaches and Persecutions and tho' they were treated every where as publick Enemies yet they multiplyed daily their being persecuted increased their Zeal ..... Those Rivers of Blood caused by the Massacres of the Faithful before their Eyes excited their Piety and the Pains they endured inflamed their Zeal This same Saint observes in another place that Christians are never so disorderly in their Behaviour Orat. contra Gentiles de S. Babyla and so cold in their Devotion as when he that sits on the Throne is of their Religion Which saith he justifies that this Religion is not established by the Powers of the World and is not upheld and preserved by Earthly force S. Chrysostom's way of dealing with Hereticks is not less rational than that which he useth towards Heathens and Jews He expoundeth the Mysteries very plainly and proveth them by Testimonies of Holy Scripture and the Authority of the Church not pretending to penetrate or give the Reasons of them and to answer those Difficulties which have no other Foundation but humane Reasonings He confesses that he does not understand the Reasons of what he believes Orat. 1. de incompreh Homil. 24. in Joannem I know saith he that God is every where and entire in every part of the World but I know not how this can be I doubt not but that God is without beginning but I conceive not how that is for humane Reason cannot comprehend a thing that hath no beginning I know that the Son is begotten of God the Father but I cannot imagine how that was done He believes that
Panegyrici in S. S. Martyres Burd 1601. Duae homil de S. S. Lugd. 1624. Gr. Lat. Paris 1594. IN FESTA In Nat. Christi in prâ—cursorem Ant. apud Tornes 1609. Sermo in Pascha Ant. 1598. Sermones in Ascensionem alii ... ex Ed. Vossii Mog 1604. Orat. de occursu Domini Col. 1568. Note Antiochus and Severianus of Gabala IN the days of S. Chrysostom there were two famous Preachers who preached in his Church in his Absence The first Antiochus was Bishop of Ptolemais in Phoenicia and the Second Antiochus and Severianus of Gabala Severianus was Bishop of Gabala in Coelesyria Antiochus came first to Constantinople where having preached a long time and got some Money he returned to his Church Severianus having heard that Antiochus was become rich by preaching at Court resolved to imitate him and therefore went thither with several Sermons which he had prepared He was well received by S. John Chrysostom into whose favour he endeavoured at first to insinuate himself afterwards he grew acquainted with several Persons of Quality and got into the favour both of the Emperor and the Empress and tho' he wanted Antiochus his parts yet he got into great Esteem and Reputation S. Chrysostom being obliged as hath been observed to go into Asia to compose the Affairs of the Church of Ephesus found not a Bishop fitter to preach in his Absence than Severianus of Gabala whom he thought to be his Friend But whether this Bishop taking occasion of S. Chrysostom's Absence had a design to get into the Esteem and Affection of the People of Constantinople to usurp that See or whether Serapion S. Chrysostom's Archdeacon had by his Letters begot in S. Chrysostom an Aversion to Severianus of Gabala as a Person that disturbed the Peace of his Church aiming at getting into his place or Lastly whether there was any secret Jealousie betwixt them These two Bishops were never Friends ever afterwards S. Chrysostom being come back drove away Severianus accusing him of saying that the Son of God was not made Man because that Bishop finding that Serapion would not stand up before him had uttered these Words If Serapion dies a Christian the Son of God is not made Man This Serapion told S. Chrysostom leaving out the first part If Serapion dies a Christian. But Severianus being well at Court the Empress recalled him and did all she could to reconcile them which S. Chrysostom refused to do till the Empress intreated him for the sake of Theodosius her Grand-Child whom she laid at his Feet in the Church of the Apostles S. Chrysostom if Socrates may be credited could not then resist the intreaties of the Empress but this Reconciliation was not sincere and both these Bishops harboured still an Aversion one to the other And therefore in the time of S. Chrysostom's Disgrace Severianus sided with Theophilus and the rest of his Enemies to destroy him This is the Account which Socrates gives of the Dissention of Severianus of Gabala Hist. Eccl. B. VI. cap. 11. The Author of S. Chrysostom's Life accuses this Historian of want of sincerity upon this occasion But till we meet with another Historian of greater credit setting forth the matter of Fact after another manner we cannot reject this Relation nor feign other Motives of Dissention betwixt these two Bishops than those related by Socrates who lived near S. Chrysostom's time The ancient Translator of some of S. Chrysostom's Homilies Anianus observes That Antiochus had plausibilem dicendi pompam a pompous and lofty Stile which got him the applause of the People There is no doubt but formerly they had several of his Sermons Gennadius mentions but two of his Books The former is a long Treatise against Covetousness and the latter a Discourse upon the Miracle of the blind Man to whom Jesus Christ restored sight spoken of in the Ninth Chapter of S. John's Gospel a work of Unction and Humility Trithemius mentions several Sermons and other unknown works of this Author Theodoret quoteth a passage of his but does not Name the Book where he found it the words are these That if we do not confound the two Natures in Christ there will be no difficulty in understanding the Mystery of the Incarnation Gelasius in his Book of the two Natures citeth also some places of Antiochus upon the Incarnation taken out of his Sermons upon the Nativity Easter against Hereticks and from another Sermon Lastly Possevinus tells us That there were some Homilies of this Author in the Medicean Library at Florence I don't know whether they were ever published Severianus of Gabala was less eloquent dryer and more barren than Antiochus Socrates observes that he pronounced the Greek Language ill because he still kept some thing of the Syriack Accent Gennadius says That he had read a Commentary of this Author upon the Epistle to the Galatians and a Treatise upon the Festival of Christ's Baptism and the Epiphany We have observed already that among S. Chrysostom's works there are several Sermons which in all appearance belong to Severianus of Gabala and among the rest a Discourse of the Seals and upon the brazen Serpent which are quoted by Theodoret under the Name of Severianus of Gabala and several others in the same Stile whereof we have given a Catalogue amongst S. Chrysostom's works To these we may joyn the Homily upon Christ's Nativity which is in the Fifth Volume of the Eaton Edition of S. Chrysostom's works Pag. 843. and the Sermon of the Cross in Greek in the same Volume P. 898 which afterwards was Printed in Greek and Latin by Father Combefis cited by S. Damascen in the third Discourse of Images under the Name of Severianus of Gabala We have also Six Sermons of the same Man upon the Creation of the World Printed in Greek in the Eaton Edition of S. Chrysostom and in Greek and Latin in the last Volume of the Supplement to the Bibliotheca Patrum by Father Combefis Severianus observes in the Preface that all the Books of the Holy Scripture have the Salvation and Benefit of Men for their ultimate End but that the Book of Genesis is the Ground and Fountain of all the Truths both in the Law and in the Prophets because it containeth the History of the World's Creation without which God's works cannot be known He adds That he very well knew that several Fathers had written of that matter but that it did not discourage him from writing upon the same Subject since the latter Writers were not discouraged by the Discourses of the former that he pretended not to destroy what others had done but to add such things as might serve for the Edification of the Church At last he desireth his Auditors not to inquire whether his Notions be new but only whether they are right In Prosecution of the same Subject he saith that Genesis is an History written by the Lawgiver Moses and dictated by the Holy Ghost who inspired him That tho' it be a
and were forced either to remain Speechless or to have recourse to the Rabbins He sheweth how necessary it was that a Christian learned in the Hebrew Tongue should make a Translation conformable to the Hebrew Text. S. Jerom had another Argument to recommend his Translation to the Latins and that was point of Honour The Greeks says he boast that the Latins have the Holy Scripture only thro' their Channel it is good to beat down their Pride and to let them know that the Latins have no need of them but could go to the Fountain-head themselves Interest and Conveniency were Considerations that S. Jerom also made use of to bring his Translation into credit There were a great many different Greek Translations and several Editions of the Seventy quite different one from the other It was impossible to compare them together without great pains and much labour and to have them without a great deal of Money And after all that Variety brought in great Confusion and rendred the Scripture almost unintelligible to those that did not understand the Hebrew Text. How necessary then was it to deliver the World out of that perplexity by setting forth a Translation conformable to the Original which should make all the rest almost useless How good soever these Reasons were in themselves yet they were not strong enough to make S. Jerom's Translation welcome to the Latins at first they kept for the most part to the ancient vulgar Version being unwilling that any thing should be altered it But by little and little S. Jerom's got some credit tho' the ancient vulgar was still in use so that in S. Gregory's time both these Translations were followed and this Father observes that himself used sometimes one and sometimes the other Since that time S. Jerom's Translation got the upper hand and was received and read publickly in the Churches of the West excepting the Translation of the Psalms and some Mixtures of the ancient vulgar Translation q Excepting the Translation of the Psalms and some mixtures of the ancient vulgar Translation It is certain that our vulgar is not the ancient Translation that was made from the Septuagint It is certain also that it was made from the Hebrew but none of the Fathers understood Hebrew besides S. Jerom and so the Body of that Translation cannot be attributed to any Body else Besides the Tran slations of the Books of the Bible which are in his Commentaries are almost wholly consormable to our vulgar We find also in the other Books a great many of those Alterations which S. Jerom professes to have made in his Translation It is certain that the vulgar Translation of the Psalms is not S. Jeroms's It was not made after the Hebrew but after the Septuagint tho' it is in some places conformable to the Translations of Theodotion Aquila and Symmachus and different from that of S. Jerom which is yet extant among his Works The Additions to the Books of Hester and Daniel are not of S. Jerom's Translation no more than that of the Books that were not in the Jewish Canon In shorâ— in our vulgar Latin are many places which are remains of the ancient Translation mingled with the new for there are several places agreeable to the Translation of the LXX and differing from the Hebrew Text as well as from the Observations and Translation of S. Jerom who scrupulously tyed himself to the Hebrew Truth some passages whereof have been preserved in the vulgar Latin As for the New Testament S. Jerom did not undertake to make a new Translation but contented himself with comparing the old one with the Greek and to correct the principal passages where it disagreed with the Text as he said himself in the Preface of the Gospels to Damasus in a Letter to S. Augustin and in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers This work was much better received than the new Version of the Old Testament from the Hebrew and hardly any Body was offended at it because the Greek Tongue being easily understood it was not difficult to discover the Alterations that might be made in the Greek Text which could not be done in the Hebrew which was understood by the Jews only S. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Scripture have great Relation to his other Studies and those Writings that we have hitherto spoken of First of all he sets down the ancient vulgar Translation and with it joyns commonly his New Translation Secondly He enquires after the Sence of the Hebrew Text exactly and compares it with the several Greek Versions He cites the other places of Scripture which have any Relation to that which he expoundeth In making these Observations he clears the literal Sence of the Scripture and discovers the Prophecies by shewing their Accomplishment And in the last place he adds mystical Explications and short Allegories which most commonly are only Etymologies and Turns of Wit about words He confesseth that very often he barely translated some passages of Origen's Commentaries and other Greek Authors without naming them Wherefore he pretends that the Errors and Contradictions in his Commentaries are not to be imputed to him because he only related the Opinions of others without approving them that if he condemned them not yet he did not intend to defend them but would spare the others Reputation And lastly That this Moderation should give his Enemies no occasion to Calumniate as they did and to accuse him of upholding such Errors that he was so far from and which he refuted in other places These Remarks may give a General Idea of S. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Bible especially upon the Books of the Prophets wherein he followeth this method now described exactly and insists particularly upon the Exposition of the Historical Sence of the Prophecies He divided his Commentaries into several Books and intermix'd here and there some Prefaces in which he explains in general the subject of his Commentaries and then answers the Calumnies that were raised against him The Fourth Volume contains his Commentaries upon the Four great Prophets namely eighteen Books of Commentaries upon Isaiah Six upon Jeremiah Fourteen upon Ezekiel and one upon Daniel The Fifth Volume contains the Commentaries upon Ecclesiastes and the Twelve minor Prophets In the Sixth Volume are S. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Books of the New Testament after these there is a Preface to Damasus upon the Four Evangelists a Canon or a Table of the Harmony of the Four Evangelists Four Books of Commentaries or Notes upon S. Matthew's Gospel wherein he explains very clearly the Letter of the Gospel only adding now and then some moral Reflections but he doth not inlarge upon Allegories He observeth very near the same method in his Commentaries upon S. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians Ephesians Titus and Philemon which are in the same Volum with the Translation of Didymus's Book of the Holy Ghost These Commentaries were not written by S. Jerom in the same order as they are set down in this
Cyprian St. Ambrose St. Maximus St. Leo Faustus St. Gregory Alcuinus and Ivo Carnutensis St. Augustin's Sermons are written neither Artificially nor Methodically They are not regular Orations composed of all their Parts They are familiar Discourses spoken without much Preparation Most of them are very short and made up of concise Sentences and Phrases He doth not go to the depth of Points either of Doctrine or Morality as the Greek Fathers do but contents himself to speak of them succinctly and in few words Interrogations Antitheses and Quibbles are almost all the Figures that he beautifies his Discourse withal He doth not assert the Truth strongly nor inculcate it Pathetically but barely proposes it with agreeable Expressions and impresses it with some pleasant Thoughts This kind of Eloquence is much inferior to that of the Greek Orators but it may be that it relished best with the Men of St. Augustin's Age and agreed with the Genius of the Africans who not only admired his Sermons but were moved by them It would not be so now and I question whether a Sermon of St. Augustin's preached in our Pulpits would draw many Auditors Yet it must be confessed That few Latin Preachers are to be compared with him and that if he be much inferior to the St. Basils or the St. Chrysostomes he is much above the St. Maximus's the St. Chrysologus's and several other Latins that came after him I shall not enter into particulars upon his Sermons which were both a tedious and an endless Work The SIXTH TOME THE Sixth Tome of St. Augustin's Works contains his Dogmatical Books upon several Tome VI. Points both of Morality and Discipline He begins with some small Treatises containing Answers to several Questions upon various Subjects The First Is a Collection of Answers to 83 Questions which he resolved after his return into Africa about the Year 388. and which he Collected after he was a Bishop These are the Resolutions contained in those 83 Questions with most of the Principles from whence they are taken I. The Soul is not of its self nor by its self since it is not essentially the Truth II. God did not make Man like himself He is not good by Nature but by Will therefore he must be free III. If a Wise Man's Advice never makes another man worse than he was before Is it credible That God should make Men more wicked IV. What then may be the Cause of Man's Wickedness We must seek for it either in himself or in others or in nothing Consider it well and you will find That the Will of Man is the Cause of his Depravation V. Animals have no Knowledge and therefore cannot be Happy VI. All Corporeal and Spiritual Beings have a Perfection which makes their Essence Evil hath none therefore it is no Being VII Sometimes we confound the Soul with the Spirit and sometimes we distinguish them when the Actions of Man that are common to him with Beasts are attributed to his Soul the Spirit cannot be meant by that term for Beasts have no Reason and Reason is a necessary Adjunct of a Spirit VIII The Soul hath no other Motion besides its Will and its Actions It makes the Body change its place but changes not her self IX Our Senses only acquaint us with those Things that are in a perpetual change Therefore they cannot give us the Knowledge of Eternal and Immoveable Truth X. Whatsoever hath any Perfection cometh from God Bodies have Therefore God is the Author of them XI Jesus Christ was Man but he is Born of a Virgin Who can doubt then of his being come to save both Sexes XII God may be present indeed yet a defiled Soul cannot see him This Notion is not St. Augustin's but an Heathen's called Fonteius who was afterwards Baptized and died a St. Augustin Tome VI. Christian as St. Augustin assures us in his Retractations XIII Man can tame and dress a Beast but do we find that Beasts can do the same to Man XIV If Christ's Body had been but a Phantome Christ had deceived us but he is not capable of so doing XV. The Spirit of Man comprehends it self and knows no infinite Perfection in it self wherefore it is finite XVI The Time past is no more The Future is not yet Every thing is present with God XVII There should be three Causes of a Creature That which gives it a Being That which gives it such a sort of Being and that which gives it a Love to its Being Therefore the Cause of it is a Trinity This Argument is not the most convincing XVIII In Eternity there is neither time past nor to come all is present XIX God is no where and comprehends all things without being the place of any thing for he could not be in a place nor be a place without being Corporeal XX. Since God is the Author of Being he cannot be the Author of what tends to nothing Evil tends to nothing therefore God is not the Author of Evil. XXI The only reason why we need any thing is a defect in our selves God therefore needs nothing XXII Man is wise because he partaketh of wisdom but God is wise through Wisdom it self It is the same in all other Perfections XXIII If any thing should happen in the World by chance then there would be no longer Prudence but there is a necessity of Prudence for all Beings are perfect but can no further be so than as they participate of the Goodness and Perfection of God God and Man are the Authors of all that is done in the VVorld Good and Evil depend upon our own VVills XXIV It was the part of VVisdom to show that the most shameful Death is not to be feared And that 's one of the Reasons for which Christ endured such a one XXV There are Sins of Weakness Ignorance and Malice Weakness is contrary to the Strength of God Ignorance to his VVisdom and Malice to his Goodness Thus whosoever knows what God's Strength and VVisdom are may know which are Venial Sins And whosoever knows God's Goodness knoweth also what those Sins are which deserve to be punished both in this VVorld and in the next This well understood ought to be a Rule whereby to judge what sort of Sinners should be obliged to do Publick Penance though they confess their Sins Yet this Rule is very general and very equivocal XXVI God makes use of the VViâ—ked both to punish and to help Afflictions are an Exercise to the Righteous and a Punishment to the VVicked Rest and Peace corrupt the VVicked and sanctifie the Righteous God makes use of Men to accomplish the designs of his Providence though they know it not VVe act our selves when we follow God's Commandments but in all other things God guides us by the Springs of his Providence and we have no share in the Events XXVII VVe should not ask why God would create the VVorld that were to seek after a Cause of that which is the
Order they were written This Commentary is literal He follows exactly the Explications of S. Chrysostom which he does no more often than abridge by cutting off the Moral Observations This Commentary is the First Work of the Third Tome It hath been translated by Gentianus Harvet The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret which is divided into Five Books is a kind of Suppliment to Socrates and Sozomen as being written after theirs a After theirs Cassiodorus Theodorus Lector and Photius name Theodoret last of these Three Ecclesiastical Authors Theodoret corrects some of their Errors he clears the History of S. Athanasius and relates a great many things which concern the â—astern Church which the other Two Authors had not reported particularly what concerns Meletius Flâ—viâ—n Eusebiâ—â— of Samosata and other Oriental Bishops This seems to be the meaning of that which he hath written in the beginning That his Design is to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the remaining part of Ecclesiastical History although it may be understood of the Continuation of Eusebius about the Year 450 b About the Year 450. Theodoret in his 82d Letter to Eusebius written in the Year 445. making a Catalogue of his Works doth not mention his History It is manifest that he wrote it after the Council of Ephesus since he speaks l. 5. c. 36. of the Translation of the Reliques of S. Châ—ysostom made in 438. He speaks of the Contests which were raised in the Church about the Incarnation and seems to take notice of the Doctrines of Euâ—yches l. 5. c. 3. He wrote it before the Death of Theodosius which happen'd on July 29. 450. because he speaks of that Emperor as then reigning l. 5. c. 36. In the same Book c. 35. he counts Thirty Years from the Martyrdom of Abdas which is put in 420. He hath not brought it down to that Time It begins where Eusebius ends i. e. at the Rise of the Arian Heresy in 322 or 323 and ends in 428 c Ends in 428. Gennadius saith that he continued it to the Time of the Emperor Leo and that he had done it in Ten Books This would make us believe that we have lost the Five last but there is no likelihood that he hath composed more than Five He declares in the End of his Fifth Book That he hath ended his History there Evâ—grius saith in the beginning of his That the History of Theodoret ends at the Empire of Theodosius the Younger at the Time of the Death of Theodorus and just when Sisinnius was made Bishop Photius says the same thing Lastly No Man ever saw these five last Books It is true that Theodorus in his Collections 〈◊〉 2. cites Theodoret in the Business of Petrus Mongus and Calendion S. John Damascene in his Third Book of Images cites some Places of the History of Theodoret which are not to be found there but they are mistaken for by their account Theodoret must have lived till he was an hundred Years old Their Words have given occasion to some to conjecture That there was another Theodoret the Author of an History younger and F. Garner pretâ—nds that it was a Bishop of Alindes in Cariâ— who assisted at the Council of Constantinople under Menâ—as But this seems to me very doubtful we had better say that these two Authors who in other Matters are not exact are mistaken in this before the beginning of the Heresy of Nestorius Photius thinks the Style of Theodoret's History much more agreeable to his Matter than Soâ—omen and Socrates's For it is saith he clear and sublime and hath nothing Superstuous But he useth too bold Metaphors which are sometimes altogether extravagant He hath had no great Care to observe the Years in which those Things happened which he relates but he hath taken pains to collect and copy out in his History Original Pieces as the Letters of the Synods Emperors and Bishops and hath made mention of some remarkable Circumstances which Socrates and Sozomen have not spoken of He gives us a more exact History of the Arians than they do He describes many Particulars which those two Historians have taken no notice of and he discovers many things concerning the Churches and Bishops of Anticch which had remained in Oblivion if he had not preserved the Memory of them He hath committed some Faults d Some Faults Here are some Examples of them He places the Death of Ariâ—s among the Circumstances of the Council of Nice l. 1. c. 14. He makes Eusebius of Nicomedia successor to Alexander in the See of Aâ—tiâ—câ— ibid. c. 16. He relates the Election of Eusebius of Câ—sareâ— to fill the See of Antioch after the Death of Eâ—lâ—lius c. 21. He makes S. Atâ—anasius's Exile to continue Five Months longer than it did l. 2. c. 1. He fixes the Ordination of S. Ambrose in the beginning of Valentinian altho' it did not happen till 370. l. 4. c. 5. He commits a like Fault almost in relating the Sedition of Antiâ—â—h after the Murder of Thessaloâ—ica He mistakes in the Number of the Bishops of the Council of Sardica He counts 250. l. 2. c. 7. when they were no more than 170. He confounds the Seige which the Persians laid before Nisibis in 350 with that which they laid there in 359 l. 5. c. 3. He says That Paulinus refused the Agreement which Meletius offered him as it appears by the Letters of the Bishops of Italy l. 4. c. 30. He is also mistaken ch 8. ibid. where he hath written That Maximus was Ordained Bishop of Constantinople by Timoâ—heus whenas it was his Successor Peter that ordained him but Baronius being prejudic'd against him reproves some Places of Theodoret's History where that Father hath not at all departed from the Truth e Baronius beiâ—g prejudiced c. Theodoret puts the Deposition of Eustâ—thiâ—s Bishop of Antioch in 330. Baronius reproves him but he is mistaken for Eusebius confirms the Opinion of Theodoret. Baronius accuses him further for being too Favourable to Meletius and Flavian but 't is rather the Cardinal who was too much incensed against them Yet this is much more tolerable than to accuse him as a Modern Author does That he hath composed his History for no other end but to abuse the Orthodox and to make a Comparison between Nestorius and S. Athanasius and S. Chrysostom and between S. Cyril and Eusebius of Nicodemia and Theophilus There appears no such thing in Theodoret's History but on the contrary he shews a great Aversion to all Heresies a great Zeal for Religion a great Love for the Church and a great Respect for all the Holy Bishops who have defended the Faith and a great Esteem for all Men who lived well This History hath been printed in Greek at Basil 1536 * 1535. Dr. Cave Eight Years after Rob. Stevens printed it at Paris with the other Ecclesiastical Historians in Greek F. Sirmondus hath put it in the Second Volume of his Edition of Theodoret's Works And
Lives and that sometimes many Days together to be exposed to all the Injuries of the Air to load themselves with Chains to make long and tedious Journeys to put themselves into unnatural and inconvenienâ— Poâ—â—ures 〈◊〉 â—â—e on the bare Ground to be cloathed with course and unseemly Garments to wear Hair Câ—oth to have neither Bed nor Table nor any other Houshold-stuff to pray continually to â—ortify all the Senses to abstain from all Pleasures to keep Silence to shut themselves up in a narrow Place to stand or bow down always c. But among these Austerities there is nothing spoken of Whipping it seems this was not used unless for the Punishment of Monks who had offended There were few of the Monks that were in Holy Orders They had a great Antipathy against that Dignity insomuch that some Bishops conferred it on them against their Consent Nevertheless many were brought out of their Privacy and their Monasteries to be raised to the Episcopal Seat Usually when they were Bishops they kept the same way of Living Some Monks were a longtime without heaâ—ing the Mass preferring a continual Retreat before the Presence at the Holy Sacrifice others came every Sunday to Church This History of Theodoret is written in a swelling Style rather in the Form of a Dialogue than an History He often compares the Anchorites with the Patriarchs and Prophets Although the Epistles of Theodoret be placed at the End of the Third Volume after his Treatise called Philotheus yet we shall speak to them when we have treated of the Works which make up the Fourth Volume The First is a Work which he hath named * This Book was printed by it self in Greek at Rome in 1547. In Greek and Latin with Beumler's Note at Zurich in 1593. In Greek at Leips in 1568. Eranistes or Polymorphus because he intends to write against certain Persons whose Error was deduced from the Principles of many Sects of Hereticks wholly different from each other Although the Heresy of Eutyches was not yet broken out when he composed this Work for it was made before the Year 448 a Before the Year 448. Theodoret speaks of this Treatise in his Sixteenth Letter to Irenaeus and Eighty third to Dioscorus The First was written in 448. and the Second in 449. before Dioscorus was condemned it was then precedent to these two Letters but yet was made after the Death of S. Cyril whom he there cites among the Fathers whose Authorities he produces and in the Time when the Quarrel which broke out upon the Account of Eutyches began to be formed yet he there assaults the Opinions which that Monk maintained and which were common in Aegypt and many Monasteries He holds That they come near the Impiety of Simon Magus Cerdo and Marcion in attributing to Jesus Christ the Divine Essence only That they departed not far from the Principles of Valentinus and Bardesanes in asserting That the Divine Essence did only pass through the Virgin without taking any thing of her Nature And lastly That they said with Apollinarius That there was but one Nature in Jesus Christ. These are the Doctrines which he attacks in the Three Dialogues which make this Treatise He shews in the First That the Divinity of the Word hath not been changed In the Second That the Union of the Divine with the Humane Nature is made without any Confusion of the Two Natures In the last That the Divinity of the Son remained impassible This is that which hath made him give to each of these Dialogues a a Title agreeable to its Subject The First is named Immutable the Second without Confusion the Third Impossible He ends with a Fourth Part wherein he propounds many Arguments against the Three Errors which he opposes In the First Dialogue after he hath distinguished between Substance and Hypostasis and shewn that Hypostasis in the Usage of the Church denotes a Person he examines in what Sence the Word was made Flesh and makes it appear that it cannot reasonably be said That the Divinity hath been changed into the Nature of Flesh. He overthrows this Error by Texts of Holy Scripture out of which he makes very subtile Arguments and by express Testimonies of Holy Fathers of the Church from S. Ignatius to S. Chrysostom He adjoyns also some Passages of Apollinarius which the Force of the Truth had wâ—…g from him in explaining this Text of the Gospel the Word was made Flesh after an Orthodox manner In the Second he makes use of the same Arguments to prove that the Two Natures which are united in Jesus Christ remain distinst without Confusion or Mixture He produces several Examples to explain after what manner the Two Natures are united without being mingled and Confused and a great number of Testimonies of Holy Scripture which prove that the Qualities and Proprieties of the Humane Nature are preserved entire in Jesus Christ even after the Resurrection He afterward produces the Tradition of the Greek and Latin Fathers among whom he quotes Theophilus and S. Cyril In fine he shews in the last Dialogue that it can't be said That the Word hath suffered altho we add likewise in the Flesh 〈◊〉 because altho it be true That Jesus Christ hath suffered according to the Humane Nature yet those Sufferings may not be attributed to the Divinity He maintains That the Scripture never attributes the Sufferings to the Word of God but only to the Person of Jesus Christ. He joins also the Tradition of the Fathers to his Authorities and Arguments The last part of this Work is a Collection of very strong Arguments which he uses utterly to beat down the 3 Errors which he hath resisted in the Dialogues The Style of this Work is clear and plain Theodoret explains in it many obscure Difficulties in a very intelligible and grateful way He propounds his Arguments in a good Order and conceals not the Exceptions or Reasons of his Adversary but forces him out of his last hold and at length brings him over to the Truth after such a manner as that he seems compelled to it by the Proofs which he hath urged against him He nevertheless sometimes uses Texts of Scripture improperly and draws from them far-fetch'd Consequences brings Comparisons not always just Proofs not over solid and Reasonings not very convincing The Tradition of the Fathers which he alledges against the 3 Errors he opposes are of very great force The Passages he relates are decisive and very well chosen The Doctrine which he confirms is as Orthodox as that which he opposes is contrary to the Faith of the Church And in my Judgment they do him a great deal of wrong who pretend that he designs to introduce Nestorianisin and that he allows only a moral Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ. On the contrary there is hardly a Page in which he doth not acknowledge That the Word was made Man That Jesus Christ is both God and Man That the two Natures
That he was ready to be Judged by a Council of Bishops and that in the presence of the most Illustrious Magistrates The Enemies of Theodoret were not satisfied to have accused his Behaviour but they would render his Faith suspected and to this end published in Alexandria that he taught that there were Two Sons of God This obliged him to write his Eighty Second Letter to Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra wherein he declares that he was so far from that Errour that when he discovered some of the Fathers of the Nicene Council to incline to a Division of the Two Natures he was much troubled because he knew that the excessive use they made of it had given occasion to that Errour And for fear addeth he that it should be thought that it is fear which makes me now speak in this manner let those who would inform themselves fully of my Opinion read the Works which I have composed either before the Council of Ephesus or within these Twelve Years last past which if they examine and judge of my Opinions by them they will find that I have no other The Accusation which Theodoret endeavours to clear himself of in this Letter was greedily received by Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria who besides the old Controversie of the Aegyptians had another private Quarrel with Theodoret about the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria He wrote to Domnus who had succeeded John in the See of Antioch that it was told him that Theodoret Preaching publickly at Antioch had divided the Person of Jesus Christ into Two Theodoret having seen this Letter which was given to him in the Seventh Year of the Pontificate of Domnus in 447 he wrote the Eighty Third Letter to Dioscorus wherein he complains that Dioscorus had given Credit to the Testimony of a few Persons so easily He opposes to their Testimony the infinite number of those who had heard the Sermons which he Preached at Antioch in Twenty Six Years time under Three Arch-bishops without incurring blame from any person for that matter He professes to follow the judgment of the Fathers to defend the Doctrine of the Nicene Council and to acknowledge but One Jesus Christ the Son of God as he did confess but One Father and One Holy Ghost He proves this Truth likewise and shews That tho' there are Two Natures in Jesus Christ there is nevertheless but One Jesus Christ to whom the Proprieties of the Two Natures agree He adds That he hath taken this Doctrine out of the Writings of S. Alexander S. Athanasius and S. Basil and that his Writings make it appear that he made use of the Books of Theophilus and S. Cyril to confute the Errours of those that say That One of the Two Natures hath been changed into the other That he hath written to S. Cyril and that that Saint received his Letters That he hath read and admired his Books against Julian That he wrote to him upon that Subject and that he yet hath the Answer which he made S. Cyril He then desires Dioscorus not to harken to his Calumniators nor to reject him from his Communion and after he hath Cited his Books as Authentick Witnesses of the Purity of his Faith he concludes with this Protestation If any one refuseth to confess that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God or says that Jesus Christ our Lord is but a mere Man or divides him into Two he who is the only Son of God and the first Born of every Creature Let him lose all the hope which he hath in God Altho' Theodoret seemed to have fully justified himself by this Letter nevertheless Dioscorus gave not over his Enterprize and instead of rejecting the Calumnies which were so ill grounded he called together his Accusers caused them publickly to pronounce him Accursed and did the same himself When Theodoret heard it he implored the help of other Bishops but particularly Flavian Bishop of Constantinople The Letter which he wrote to him is the Eighty Sixth After he hath related the Attempt of Dioscorus he says that he heard that that Bishop of Alexandria had sent some of his Bishops to Constantinople hoping to raise great Commotions against him but he put his Confidence chiefly in God since he is Assaulted upon the account of the true Faith and next in the protection of Flavian whom he prays to maintain the Orthodox Faith and vindicate the Canons which were slighted For saith he the Fathers of the Council held at Constantinople following the determination of the Nicene Council have distinguished the bounds of Diocesses expresly forbidding the Bishops of one Diocess to eńcroach upon the Rights of another They ordered the Bishop of Alexandria not to concern himself but in Aegypt only and have left to others the Government of their own Diocesses But Dioscorus contemning these Laws boasts that his See is S. Mark 's that he may assume the Rights that do not belong to him We might oppose to him that the Church of Antioch was the See of S. Peter the Prince and Head of the Apostles But we do not regard the Dignity of the See we know and keep within the bounds of Humility which the Apostles have taught us Theodoret says further to engage Flavian on his side that Dioscorus had hated him ever since he consented to the Rules made in the time of Proclus in favour of the See of Constantinople He wrote also Letters to Domnus Bishop of Antioch to the Bishops of Cilicia and to many Officers of the Emperour's Court whom he fills with Complaints We may see upon this subject the Eighty Third Letter and the following to the One Hundred and Tenth But all his endeavours were to no purpose he became every Day more and more odious to the Emperour and the main thing that was sought was an occasion to ruin him This was thought a very fit One to Depose Irenaeus whom he had Ordain'd Bishop of Phoenicia Two Faults were found with that Ordination The first was That Irenaeus was a Nestorian and did not believe that the Virgin ought to be called the Mother of God The other was That he had been Twice Married The Emperour wrote to Domnus to Depose him Theodoret tells him in his Hundred and Tenth Letter that he could not do it without an Offence against God because he had Ordained him pursuant to the Declaration of the Bishops of Phoenicia who had judged him worthy to be a Bishop for his rare Vertues and as to that charge That he had been Twice Married he had passed by the ordinary Rules according to the Example of Alexander Bishop of Antioch who with Acacius Bishop of Beraea had Ordain'd Diogenes a Man Twice Married and of Prailus Bishop of Jerusalem who also had Ordain'd Domnus Bishop of Caesarea altho' he was Twice Married That in fine Proclus had approved the Ordination of Irenaeus and the Bishops of Pontus Palaestine and Cappadocia had acknowledged him and that no Man had ever called in Question
Church He Judges saith he like Pythagoras he Divides like Socrates he 〈◊〉 like Plâ—to â—e Puzâ—les like Aristâ—â—le he Delights like Aeschiâ—es he stirs up the Paâ—â—ions like Deâ—â—sthenes he Diverâ—s with a pleasing Variety like Hortensius he Embroils like Cethegus â—e Exâ—iteâ— like Curiâ— he Appeases like Fâ—bius he Feigns like Crassus he Dissembles like Caesâ—r â—e Advises like Cato he Disswades like Appius he Perswades like Cicero And if 〈◊〉 will coâ—pare him to the Fathers of the Church he Instructs like S. Jerom he overâ—hrâ—ws Eâ—â—o◠〈◊〉 Lactantius he maintains the Truth like S. Austin he Elevates himself like S. Hilary he speaks also as fluently and as intelligibly as S. Chrysostom he Reproves like S. Baâ—il he Comforts like S. Gregory Nazianzen he is Copious like Orosius and as Urgent â—s Rufinus he relates a Story as well as Eusebius he Excites as S. Eucherius he Stirs up like Paulinus he Holds up as S. Ambrose Altho' all these Commendations are excessive yet we must own that this Treatise of Mamertus is very well written and that he hath joined a great deal of Elegancy with his great Acuâ—eness and that he handles the most Metaphysical Questions with all the clearness and pleasaâ—â—ness possâ—ble Bâ—t that which is most worthy of Commendation in him is the fitness of his Arguments and subtlety of his Wit by which he hath discovered and explain'd such very abstruse Trâ—ths as most others have hardly so much as taken notice of Sidonius also commends a Poem of Mamertus's and gives it these praises It is says he Solid Witty Pleasant Lofty and far excelling all sorts of Verses of that Nature as well for the Elegancy of the Poetry as for the Truth of the History It is plainly the Hymn Of the Passiâ—n which begins with Pange Lingua Gloriosi of which he speaks as the following description of it sufficiently evidences He speaks as highly of it as possible and wonderfully eâ—â—olls its Beauty And indeed it is no marvel being an Oratour and Mamertus's special Friend The last of these Qualities taught him to spy out those Excellencies in Mamertus's Books which others would not perceive and the first gave him freedom and easiness to render them both Admirable and Credible to others No fitter Person could have been pitched upon to make his Epitaph so well hath he acquitted himself and hath not omitted any Epithete which could well be bestowed upon him as you may see Germani Decus Dolor Mamerti Miraâ—tum Unica Gemma Episcoporum Hoc dat Cespite membra Claudianus Triplex Bibliotheca quo Magistro Romana Attica Christiana fulsit Quaâ— tota Monachus virente in aevo Secreta bibit Institutione Orator Dialecticus Poeta Tractator Geometra Musicusque Doctus solvere vincla quaestionum Et Verbi gladio secare Sectas Si quae Catholicam fidem lacessunt The Honour and Grief of his Brother The Pearl of Bishops A Threefold Library Greek Latin and Christian. He hath joined Divinity with Prophane Sciences An Orator Logician Poet Writer Geometrician Musician Expert in resolving Difficulties opposing Heresies and in composing Hymns and Psalms in Honour of our Saviour Altho' he was but a Priest he performed the Office of a Bishop his Brother had the Honour but he had the Burden of a Bishoprick Thus much Friendship and a Poetick Faculty enabled Sidonius to speak of Mamertus his Friend who had certainly a large share of those Accomplishments which he attributes to him tho' it may be he possessed them not in so excellent a degree as he describes him We have also a Poem of his wherein he shews That Christian Poets ought to abandon Prophane Subjects and sing Sacred Histories and Holy Things PASTOR PASTOR the Bishop hath Composed a little Book in the form of a Creed which contains in Sentences all that a Christian ought to believe Among the Errors which he condemns Pastor without Naming the First Teachers of them he accurseth the Priscillianists with their Head It is Cum ipso Auctoris Nomine with the very Name of the Author I believe it should be Praetermisso Autoris Nomine The Author's Name being left out VOCONIUS VOconius as Gennadius calls him or Buconius according to Honorius and Trithemius Bishop of Castellanum a City of Mauritania has Written against the Enemies of the Church Jews Voconius Arians and other Hereticks He hath also composed an Excellent Work upon the Sacraments and other Religious Mysteries EUTROPIUS EUtropius the Priest hath written two Letters to two Sisters very Devout Servants of J. C. who had been disinherited by their Parents for their Love to Religion and Vowing a Single Eutropius Life in which he Comforts them for that loss These Letters are written with a great deal of Wit and Elegancy In them he makes use not only of Reasons but also Testimonies of Holy Scripture to comfort them This is what Gennadius says of this Author whom we must beware not to confound with Eutropius who has made the Abridgment of the Roman History This of whom we are speaking was the Scholar of Saint Austin EVAGRIUS THis Evagrius a distinct Person from Evagrius of Pontus is by Gennadius reckoned among the Ecclesiastical Writers of the V Age. He atrributes to him a Disputation between a Jew Evagrius named Simon and a Christian called Theophilus which was very well known in his time but is now lost TIMOTHEUS TImotheus the Bishop hath written a Book of the Nativity of our Lord according to the Flesh Timotheus which he believes to have happened on the Feast of Epiphany as Gennadius informs us Chapter 58. EUSTATHIUS THis Eustathius hath Translated Nine of St. Basil's Homilies upon the beginning of Genesis into Latin and Dedicated his Translation to his Sister Syncletica who was a Deaconess Cassiodorus Eustathius says That his Version equals the Original in Elegancy Sedulius commends this Syncletica in the Preface to his Book of Easter Junilius Cassidorus Bede and Sigibertus mention this Translation which is to be found among the Latin Works of St. Basil. THEODULUS THeodulus a Priest in Caelosyria is said to have Written many Works Gennadius tells us Chapter 91. That he had never seen but one of his Books which he Composed about the agreement Theodulus of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament against those ancient Hereticks who observing a difference between the Commands and Ceremonies held That the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New He shews That it was by a Dispensation of Providence that GOD had given to the Jews by Moses a Law incumbred with Ceremonies and Judicial Statutes and to us another by Jesus Christ made up of Sacred Mysteries and Promises of future Good things but for all this we must not look upon them as distinct that it was the same Spirit that dictated them and the same Author that established them and that the Old Law which brings Death being observed in the Literal Sense bestows
be joyned the Letter to Rusticus Lugdunensis Published in F. Dacherius in Tom. V of his Specilegiâ—… In which he thanks that Bishop of Lyons for his assistance and relates how much trouble he had in the business of Acacius but this Letter doth not seem to me to be Gelasius's Style But Pope Gelasius hath not only written Letters but also hath composed some small Treatises We have already observed that several of these Letters may pass for Works Memoirs or Manifesto's Of this Nature is his Treatise De Anathematis Vinâ—â—lo He begins it with an Answer to the Objection of those who complained that he urged the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon in the business of Acacius too much but would not consent to the Privileges which the Council had granted to the Bishop of Constantinople He answers that all the Church embraced such definitions of this Council as were consonant to Holy Scripture to the Tradition of the Holy Fathers and the Decrees of the Church concerning the Orthodox Truth and the Common Faith of all the Church But as to other things therein treated of which the Holy See gave no Person Commission to meddle with to which the Legats of the Holy See oppose themselves and which the Holy See never would approve of which Anatolius himself had abandoned by referring them to the Approbation of the Holy See and which are contrary to the Privileges of the Universal Church he never would in any wise defend them After this he discourses of Excommunication and Absolution He acknowledges that all Sinners may be absolved in this Life if they do Repent and althô it be said in the Sentence given against Acacius that he shall never be loosed from the Curse pronounced against him this ought not to be understood but in case he do not Repent for if that be done in this Life he may be Pardoned but if he go on and Die in that estate he cannot be Absolved That the Judgment of Absolution which the Emperor had caused to be pronounced in favour of Peter of Alexandria was void being done by his own Authority contrary to the Canons of the Church and without the Consent of the Bishop of the Holy See by whose authority he had been Condemned The second Treatise of Gelasius is a Discourse against Andromachus a Roman Senator and * Caeterosque Romanus other Persons who endeavoured to restore the Lupercalia at Rome which were at that time utterly Abolished Superstitiously believing that the Diseases with which the City was then afflicted proceeded from the neglect of those Sacrifices This Pope smartly reproves those who were of this Opinion and proves they are unworthy of the Name and Profession of Christians That they commit a Spiritual Adultery and fall into a kind of Idolatry which deserves a separation from the Body of Christ and severe Penance In sum That their Opinion was a foolish and groundless Imagination because the Lupercalia were not appointed to avert Diseases but to make Women Fruitful as T. Luvius relates in the second Decad of his History That the Plague and other Distempers were as Common when the Lupercalia were Celebrated as they are now and if Rome be afflicted with Diseases the Plague Barrenness c. it ought to be imputed to the corrupt and disorderly manners of the Inhabitants That if the Lupercalia have any thing Divine they ought to be Celebrated with the same Ceremonies and in the same manner that they were heretofore and what Man is there that will be guilty of such shameless Impudence That they were a Remnant of Paganism which was the reason that they were Abolished and thô indeed they remained in use a long time under the Christian Emperors yet it doth not follow from thence that they ought always to be preserved for all Superstitions could not be abolished at once but by little and little Lastly He tells them that a 〈◊〉 Christian cannot nor ought to do it And althô his Predecessors did tolerate it they had some reasons which hindered them from abolishing them but yet he doubts not but that they did endeavour it The third Treatise was composed * D. Cave Entitles it Dicta adversus Pelagianam Haeresin against this Doctrine of the Pelagians that Men may pass their Life without Sin He proves the contrary by several Reasons grounded upon the Testimonies of Holy Scripture In it also he explains in what sense St. Paul says That the Children of the Faithful are Holy and the believing Wife sanctifieth the unbelieving Husband But the most eminent Treatise of Gelasius is his Treatise against Eutyches and Nestorius concerning the two Natures in Jesus Christ. The Criticks at first doubted whether it belonged to this Pope and * The Popish Writers are generally of Baronius judgment because there is a clear testimony against Transubstantiation in this Book Dr. Cave Baronius affirms it with greater Confidence than any that it is not his but Gelasius Cyzicenus's and Bellarmine followeth his Judgment The Conjectures which they bring seem to have some resemblance of truth if we consider them alone They are as follows 1. The Author of this Treatise quotes the Greek Fathers only and never mentions the Latins now what probability is there that Pope Gelasius would not alledge St. Jerom St. Ambrose St. Austin and St. Leo. 2. He numbers Eusebius Caesariensis among the Orthodox Doctors Now Gelasius thought him an Arian and puts his Books among the Apocryphal 3. The Treatise of Gelasius against Eutyches was a large Work according to the testimony of Gennadius this that we have is a small Tract These Reasons seem to prove that 't is not probable that it is Pope Gelasius's On the other hand there are no Objections against Gelasius Cyzicenus all things concur to attribute it to him for the time and name agree there is no other Gelasius to whom it can be attributed the Style of this Book is very like that of the History of the Council of Nice written by Gelasius Cyzicenus Lastly The Author of that History says in the Preface that he hath written against the Eutychians and commends Eusebius in the Body of his Work All this makes it sufficiently evident that this Work belongs to Gelasius Cyzicenus rather than Gelasius Bishop of Rome Nevertheless there want not convincing proofs to evince that it is really the Work of this Latter For first It is found in the MSS. joyned with the Letters of this Pope Second St. Fulgentius who is a Witness beyond exception cites it as Pope Gelasius's Lib. de 5. quest apud Ferrand Diac. c. 18. and John II. uses the Testimony of this Author as Pope Gelasius's in Epist. ad Avieâ—â—m Thirdly Gennasius * De Scrip. c. 94. assures us that this Pope made a large Treatise against Eutyches and Nestorius This agrees to this Book which bears the same Title and is very considerable for thô it be not a great Work in it self 't is a great Volume
in Gennadius's sense We ought not to wonder that he doth not quote the Latin Authors being engaged with the Greeks against whom he might very well use the Authority of Eusebius Caesariensis Lastly The Style of this Treatise demonstrates plainly that it is Pope Gelasius's In it he shews that there are two Natures in Jesus Christ united in one Person and that these two Natures have retain'd their Properties This truth is proved in the first part by the Authority of Holy Scripture and in the second by the Testimonies of the Greek Fathers About the end of the first part we meet with a passage about the Eucharist exactly like Theodoret's This Treatise hath been Printed at Basil in 1528 in Antidoto adversus Haereses and at Tigur 1571. 'T is also extant in Biblioth Pat. Tom. 8. p. 699. This Pope had made also some other Treatises upon different subjects and some Hymns in imitation of St. Ambrose of which Gennadius makes mention but we have no more of his than the Works above-mentioned Besides these Works which are his alone the Decree concerning the Apocryphal and Canonical Books composed or rather approved by a Council of 70 Bishops held at Rome in 494 may also be attributed to him for indeed * Dr. Cave thinks them not the Work of Gelasius 1. Because it doth not bear his name in the ancientest Editions 2. Because some Books arecited in it which were not then Written or unknown as Sedulius's Paschal Work a Treatise de Revelatione Capitis S. Baptistae c. 3. It contains many absurd things in it unbecoming the Judgment of Gelasius and a Synod c. 't is the Work of Gelasius This Decree contains first of all a Catalogue of such Books as the Church of Rome acknowledges to be Canonical both in the O. and N. Testament like to the Decree of the Council of Trent save that he reckons but one Book of the Macchabees Next he establisheth the Authority of the Church of Rome and its Primacy which according to him was not before confirmed â—y any Synodical Decree but only by the words of Jesus Christ to Saint Peter to whom St. Paul was joyned and with whom he suffered Martyrdom under Nero insomuch that these two Apostles have Consecrated the Church of Rome and by their Presence and Martyrdom given it a pre-eminence above all other Churches So that the first See of the Churches of the World is Rome and the second Alexandria the third Antioch where St. Peter abode before he came to Rome After this Declaration comes a Catalogue of the Councils and the Books which are received by the Church of Rome viz. The four first General Councils and other Synods received and authorized in the Church The Works of St. Cyprian St. Gregory Nazianzene St. Basil St. Athanasius St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Hilary St. Ambrose St. John of Constantinople St. Theophilus of Alexandria St. Austin St. Jerom St. Prosper the Letter of St. Leo to Flavian and all the Treatises of the Orthodox Fathers that dyed in the Communion of the Church and the Decretals of the Popes As for the Acts of the Martyrs he observes that although he did not doubt of the truth of them nevertheless the Church of Rome doth not read them because the Authors of them are not known and there are some of them forged by the ignorant Men and Infidels and others full of falshood such as are the Acts of St. Quiritius St. Julitta St. George and several others Nevertheless it receives the lives of St. Paul St. Arsenius St. Hilarian and other Holy Men but it is only because they are written by St. Jerom. The Acts of St. Silvester are read in some Churches althô the Author be not known The Stories of the finding of the Cross and of John Baptist's Head are Modern Relations which some Christians read but when such sort of Works fall into our hands we must then follow the Apostles direction who teaches us to try all things and make use only of that which is good He commends some works of Ruffinus and Origen although he will not leave the Judgment which St. Jerom gives of them nor approve what he hath condemned in them He doth not wholly reject the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Caesariensis because it relates many Important matters although he condemns the Praises which he gives of Origen He commends the History of Orosius Sedulius's Paschal Work and the Poem of Juvencus Lastly He sets down a Catalogue of some of those Apocryphal Works which the Church rejecteth After the Acts of the Council of Ariminum he places the false Gospels and other Apocryphal Books of Holy Scripture the Works of Hereticks and of some Orthodox Authors who have departed from the Doctrines of the Church in some things such as Eusebius Tertullian Lactantius Africanus Commodianus Clemens Alexandrinus Arnobius Tichonius Cassianus Victorinus Petavionensis and Faustus Reiensis In the next year this Pope held another Council of 55 Bishops at Rome where Misenus the Legat of his Predecessor who had been Excommunicated for Communicating with Acacius was absolved having humbly begged Pardon for his fault This is all we have been able to Collect of Pope Gelasius He was a subtle and intelligent Man who much enlarged his Authority He Wrote well but obscurely He is guilty of much false Reasoning and often supposes those things for certain which never were done He was very skilful and knowing in the Customs and Usages of the Church of Rome He loved Order and Discipline and joyned Prudence and Courage with them both He gave an ample demonstration of it in the business of Acacius which he maintained against all opposition and would not remit any thing for Peace sake which he might easily have procured if he had not so severely insisted upon the Condemnation of Acacius By which it appears that the Popes were sometimes a little too stiff and resolute for although Acacius had been more blame-worthy than indeed he was yet the Pope ought to have more mildly dealt with him for Peace-sake and not to have persecuted with so much rigour the Memory of a Bishop whose Sentiments were Orthodox and whose Fault seems to have been nothing but this that he was not careful to please the Bishop of Rome and was too submissive to the Will of his Prince He is also thought to be the Addition Author of the Codex Sacramentarius which is a Collection of such Forms of publick Prayers and Administration of Sacraments as were in use in the Church of Rome in his time which he digested into one Volume putting them into a good Order and adding much of his own This Book lay hid for many Ages but at last falling into the hands of Paulus Petavius it was published at Rome in 1680 4to And not long after it was Reprinted with some other ancient Liturgies at Paris in 1685 4to by the Care of F. Mabillon ANASTASIUS II. Anastasius II. ANastasius II. Succeeded Pope Gelasius
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
Conference with the Arian Bishops The King told him with a stern Countenance If your Religion be good why do not you hinder the King of the Franks your Soveraign from making War upon me Avitus answer'd That he did not know the Reasons which his Prince had to make War upon him butif he would submit to the Law of God he did not doubt to obtain a Peace for him The King answer'd That he did acknowledge the Law of God but he would not acknowledge three Gods Avitus gave him to understand that the Catholicks do not acknowledge but one God only and then he fell prostrate at his Feet The next day the King told them That his Bishops were ready to enter into a Conference with them but that it must not be held before the People but only in his presence and before such Senators as he should choose To Morrow is appointed for the day The same Night the Lessons were read which mention'd the hardning of Pharaoh's heart and of the Jews which was a bad Omen When the time for the Conference was come the Bishops of both Parties were present at the Place appointed Avitus explain'd the Faith of the Church about the Mystery of the Trinity and prov'd it by Testimonies of the Holy Scripture Boniface being the Arian Bishop that was to speak answer'd nothing to Avitus's Discourse but only propos'd many subtil and entangling Questions about the Mystery of the Trinity and then broke forth into reproachful Language The King respited the Answer of Boniface till to morrow An Officer call'd Aredius would have perswaded the Catholicks to retire telling them That this sort of Conferences did nothing but exasperate mens minds Bishop Stephen answer'd him That on the contrary it was the only means to clear up the truth and to reconcile men to one another and bring them to a good understanding But notwithstanding this Admonition the Catholick Bishops entred into the Place King Gondebaud seeing them came to meet them and spoke reproachfully of the King of the Franks whom he accused of solliciting his Brother against him The Bishops answer'd him That the way to make Peace was to agree about the Faith and that they themselves would be Mediators for it and then every one took his place Avitus being desirous to wipe off the Calumnies of Boniface who had accus'd the Catholiks of worshipping many Gods prov'd that the Catholicks acknowledg'd one God only Boniface instead of answering continued still to reproach them The King seeing that this would not put an end to the difference rose up with indignation Avitus insisted that he should either answer his Reasons or yield But to shew clearly on whose side the Truth was he propos'd That he should go immediately to the Monument of St. Justus and ask the Saint about the truth of the one and the other's Belief and then report what he had said The King approv'd this Proposal but the Arians refus'd it saying They would not do as Saul did who had recourse to Charms and Divination that the Scripture was sufficient for them which was much more powerful then all other means The King going away carried with him to his Chamber Stephen and Avitus and bidding them farewel he embraced them and intreated them to pray to God for him Which discover'd to them says the Author of this Relation what a perplexity he was in But because the heavenly Father had not drawn him he could not come to the Son that this word of truth might be fulfill'd 'T is not he that willeth nor he that runneth but God that sheweth mercy After this day many Arians were converted and baptiz'd some days after and God exalted our Faith by the Intercession of St. Justus These are the very words of the Acts of this Conference ENNODIUS Bishop of PAVIA MAgnus Felix Ennodius descended of an illustrious Family among the Gauls a Descended of an illustrious Family among the Gauls says in many places of his Works that his Parents were Gauls He was a Kinsman to the greatest Lords in his time as to Faustus â—oetius Avienus Olybrius Senarius Florianus c. was born in Italy b In Italy 'T is certain that he pass'd his first years in Italy in the Year 473 c In the Year 473. In the Panegyrick which he made upon Theodoric he declares that he was sixteen years old when that King entred into Italy in the Year 489. Having lost at the Age of Sixteen an Aunt who gave him Maintenance and Education he was reduc'd to low Circumstances in the World but by marriage to a rich Fortune he was restor'd to a plentiful Estate He enjoy'd for some time the Advantages and Pleasures which Riches afford but knowing the danger of them he resolv'd to lead a more Christian Life He entred into Orders with the consent of his wife who for her part embrac'd a chast and religious Life 'T was at this time that he became famous for his Letters and other Writings He was chosen to make a Panegyrick upon King Theodoric and undertook the Defence of the Council of Rome which acquitted Pope Symmachus For his Merits he was promoted to the See of Pavia about the Year 510 d About the Year 510 Father Labbe says that he was made Bishop of Pavia in 490 but this cannot be since he was not then seventeeen years old He was not yet Bishop when his Book was approv'd in the Synod of Rome in 503 for the Title of Bishop is not given him After this he was made choice of to endeavour the Re-union of the Eastern to the Western Church Upon which occasion he made two Journeys into the East the first in the Year 515 with Fortunatus Bishop of Catana and the second in 517 with Peregrinus Bishop of Misena These Journeys had not the success which he desir'd but they discover'd his Prudence and Courage For the Emperor Anastasius did all he could to seduce or corrupt him but not being able to compass his design after many affronts at last he caus'd him to put to Sea in an old rotten Vessel and forbad all persons to suffer him to land at any Port of Greece whereby he was expos'd to manifest danger Nevertheless he arriv'd safe in Italy and return'd to Pavia where he died a little time after on the first day of August in the Year 521 aged 48 years There are many Writings of this Author which have no relation to Ecclesiastical Matters Among his 297 Letters which are divided into nine Books there are but very few from whence any weighty observation can be made about the Doctrine or Discipline of the Church The fourteenth Letter of the second Book is one of this number It is written to the Christians of Africk whom he comforts under the Persecution which they had suffer'd for a long time and the loss of their Bishops Fear not says he to them because you see your selves destitute of Bishops you have amongst you him who is both
Treatises of Cassiodorus about the Sciences and Liberal Arts concern not Ecclesiastical Matters that of the Soul has a nearer relation to the Dogmes of the Church There he maintains that the Soul is spiritual that God created it that it is immortal and that it has no quantity nor extension Having spoken of the Powers of the Soul he says that it contracts Original Guilt from which it is not deliver'd but by Baptism and that during this Life it is capable of Vertues and Vices Lastly he says that the Soul being separated from the Body by Death is no more capable of doing Good or Evil nor subject to the Infirmities of this Life but that it expects either with Joy or Sorrow the Time of the General Judgment at which it receives the reward of its good Actions or the punishment due to its Crimes * In these words Cassiodorus plainly asserts that there are only two different states after this Life the one of a joyful and the other of a sorrowful expectation of a future Judgment and that these two states are immutable since good Souls are reserv'd with Joy and wicked Souls with Sorrow to the Sentence of the last Day And so they plainly exclude the Romish Purgatory which is a state of Sorrow after this Life from which some Souls are deliver'd at last to a state of endless Joy And then having described the Happiness of Paradise he concludes with an excellent Prayer The style of Cassiodorus is of a middle size he writes cleanly enough for his time He is full of Sentences and very useful Moral thoughts The Works of Cassiodorus which had been printed separately were all collected together by the caâ—e of Father Garetus of the Congregation of St. Maurus and printed at Roan in 1679. St. BENEDICT ALtho St. Benedict is more considerable among the Monks then among Ecclesiastical Writers yet he is rank'd among these also He was born in the Province of Nursia about the year 480. He was carried very young to Rome from whence he retir'd to Sublacum which is forty miles from Rome where he shut himself up in a frightful Cave There he continued for three years without acquainting any body but St. Romanus who let him down Bread by the help of a Rope Being afterwards known the Monks of a neighbouring Monastery chose him for their Abbot But he not agreeing with their way of Living retir'd to his Desert where many Persons came to him and desir'd to put themselves under his Conduct insomuch that in a short time he built twelve Monasteries in this place From thence he pass'd in the Year 529 to the Mount Cassinus where he laid down solid Foundations of an Order which in a little time spread it self over all Europe There is a difference about the time of his Death and his Disciples look upon this as a very important Question As to us it does not so nearly concern us as to insist upon it and therefore we will suppose with Father Mabillon that he died in 543 or with the Author of the Treatise concerning the Hemina in 547. St. Gregory in his Dialogues wrote the Life of this Saint which is full of Miracles very extraordinary I shall not stay here to relate them nor to enquire into the truth of them this being no part of my Province The Rule of St. Benedict is the only Work that is truly his St. Gregory thinks it better written and more prudent then all the rest Sermone luculentam Discretione praecipuam 'T is divided into 77 Chapters St. Benedict there distinguishes four sorts of Monks the Caenobites who live in a Monastery under the Government of an Abbot the Anchorets who having learn'd the Exercises of a Monastick Life in a Monastery retire alone into the Deserts the Sarabaites who dwell two or three in the same Cell and the Gyrovagi who go from Monastery to Monastery without staying in any place He condemns these two kinds of Monks and chiefly the last and without insisting upon what concerns the Anchorets he composes his Rule only for the Caenobites There he speaks first of the Qualifications which an Abbot ought to have after what manner he should serve for an Example to his Monks and treat them all alike well without showing more affection to one then another how he should reprove and even punish those who commit Faults He proposes to them afterwards many Christian and Spiritual Maxims he recommends to them Obedience Silence and Humility he notes the Hours for Divine Service by Day and Night and the order and manner of repeating it After this he speaks of the Punishments which should be inflicted on those who offend The first is Excommunication or a Separation from the Fellowship of the Brethren whether at Table or at Prayers the second is the Chastisement of those with Rods whom the Excommunication cannot reform and the last is the Expulsion out of the Monastery Nevertheless he permits a Brother to be received three times who is turn'd out for his Faults provided he promise to amend He orders That the Monks have all things in common and that every thing be at the disposal of the Abbot and under the care of the Steward that in the distribution of things necessary for Maintenance no respect is to be had to the Quality but to the Weakness of the Brethren He enjoyns the Brethren to serve in the Kitchin and Refectory by turns He requires that special care be taken of the Infirm of Children and Old Men he appoints the Hours and the quantity of Meat and Drink and Penances for lesser faults He recommends to them Labour and notes the hours for it he provides for the Entertainment of Strangers he forbids the Monks to receive Presents or Letters from their Kinsfolk He leaves the Abbots at liberty to give Habits to their Religious proportion'd to the temper of the place where they are yet he thinks that 't is sufficient in temperate Places to give them a Cowle a Tunique and a Scapulary He would not have the Monks complain of the colour or coarsness of these Habits but that they should take such as are given them and such as are to be had in the Province where they are The following manner wherein he would have one receiv'd who presents himself for admission into the Monastery is very rude He must patiently suffer for four or five days the Repulses and Rebuffs of a Porter after this he must be put for some days into the Chamber of the Guests where an ancient Man will come to speak to him and to represent to him that which is the rudest thing in all the Rule If he be obstinate the whole shall be read to him but if he promise to observe it he shall be admitted into the Chamber of the Novices where he shall be try'd At the end of six Months the Rule must be read over to him again and if he be obstinate after this it shall yet be read over to
he had even ventured to take away the Altar consecrated in the Church of S. Placidia and hindered the Apocrisiarii of the Roman Church to offer thereon or to receive the Sacraments That he had persecuted them and several Bishops Defenders of the Orthodox Faith causing some to be banished others imprisoned and some abused That Complaints of these things having been made at several times to the Holy See and to his Predecessors they used Letters Advertisements Threatnings Protestations to repress those Novelties and re-establish the sound Doctrine but all these means having proved in vain he did think it necessary to call them together to the end that having produced and examined the Writings of those Hereticks and heard the Charges brought against them they might pass their Judgment for the confirmation of the Faith and rejecting of Error Maurus Bishop of Cesena and Deusdedit Deacon of Ravenna told them in the Archbishop of Ravenna's name That having heard the same things from his Apocrisiarii he designed to come to the Council but being hindered from coming he had sent them as his Representatives and had given them a Letter which they required to have read and inserted in the Acts. It is directed to Martin to whom he gives the Title of gg Universal Bishop This Title which is here given to Mâ—â—tin Bishop of Rome doth not import as is pretended by the Church of Rome the absolute Supremacy of that Bishop over the whole Church but only the large extent of his Jurisdiction above all other Bishops as a great Patrâ—areh For we find the like Titles given to the other Patriarchs not only by private Persons and Councils but even by the Bishops of Rome themselves For thus the 5th Council of Constantinople salutes 〈◊〉 and John their Patriarchs â—cumenico Patriarchae Conc. Constantinop 5. Act. 1. Nicâ—ph l. 14. c. 34. Authen Const. 3. Joanni Meâ—â—a To the Universal Patriarch John Meâ—aâ— So Nicephorus calls the Patriarch of Alexandria Judex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Judge of the whole World And the Emperor Justinian writing to Epiphanius Patriarch of Constantinople thus superscribes Epiphaniâ— oeoumenico Patriarchae To Epiphanius the Universal Patriarch Noâ— doth the Bishop of Rome himself look upon it so much his own peculiar Title but that he thinks it due to Theâ—â—sâ—us Bishop of Constantinople writing thus to him Therasio Generali Patriarchae Adrianus servus servorum Dei To Therasius the general Patriarch Adrian the meanest of Gods Servants So evident is it That this great Title of Universal Bishop imports no such Conc. Nicen. 2. Act. 2. Greg Magn. l. 4. Ep. 34. Pre-eminence as is pretended and tho the Title was commonly used yet it was thought an Antichristian Usurpation in John Bishop of Constantinople to assume such a Power and Prerogative to himself Universal Bishop After having excused himself for not coming in Person to the Council he declareth That he rejects the Exposition of Faith defended by Pyrrhus and all that was done in confirmation of it and professeth to believe two Operations and two Wills in Jesus Christ. Maximus Bishop of Aquileia said he was also of the same Mind and believed two Operations in Christ. Deusdedit Bishop of Calaris requested that this Matter might be searched to the bottom and all the Bishops were of that mind This Examination was begun in the second Action which is of the 8th of October Steven Bishop of Dora of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem presented a Petition in which he sets forth Act. II. That Cyrus Sergius Pyrrhus and Paul have published a new Heresie teaching That there was but one Operation and one Will in Christ both of the Godhead and Manhood That Sophronius of blessed Memory Patriarch of Jerusalem opposed that Error vigorously and had made a Writing in which he alledged an infinite number of the Holy Fathers Testimonies to convince them of Impiety and to establish the Truth That before he died he had made him to promise him upon the Calvary that he would go to Rome to sollicite the Condemnation of this Error That he had performed his Promise notwithstanding all their endeavours to hinder him from it That he had already demanded it of Theodorus and did renew his request to the Council Some Greek Presbyters and Monks who had been a while at Rome presented also a Petition against Cyrus Sergius Pyrrhus and Paul against the Ecthesis the Type and the Doctrine of one Operation only and desired the Council carefully to examine that Question and to determine it according to the Doctrine of the Church Then Sergius's Letter to Theodorus was read written in 643. wherein this Patriarch having extolled the Authority of the Holy See declares That he follows Pope S. Leo's Doctrine who taught That the two Natures do operate in Jesus Christ but in conjunction one with another That he does anathematize and condemn all those that do not hold this Doctrine The rest of this Action was spent in reading 4 Synodical Letters sent by the African Bishops against the Monothelite's Exposition of Faith one whereof is directed to Pope Theodorus the other to the Emperor the 3d. to Paul of Constantinople They alledge in this last the Testimonies of S. Austin and S. Ambrose to prove the two Wills The last Letter is Victor's Bishop of Carthage to Theodorus upon the same Subject In the 3d. Action of the 16th of October they produced the Extracts of the Works of Act. III. those who were accused of Error They begin with those of Theodorus Bishop of Pharan who owns many sorts of Operations in Christ but affirms They all proceed from the Word which gives motion to the Body Soul and the other Faculties of the humane Nature as an Instrument which he maketh use of Martin the First confutes his Opinion to which he opposes some Testimonies of S. Cyril S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Basil and the Council of Chalcedon Cyrus succeeds Theodorus They read his 7th Article wherein he owns two Natures in Jesus Christ but united in one Christ who doth that which is divine and that which is humane by one Theandrick or Deivirile Action according to * S. Dion Ep. ad Catum S. Denys They join to this Article Sergius his Letter to Cyrus wherein he approves this Doctrine and congratulates with him for the re-union of the Theodosians with him Upon occasion of S. Denys's citation they consulted the original and they found that Cyrus and Sergius had changed the Terms of * Novam Deivirilem Operationem into Unam Deiv operationem New Will Theandrick into that of One Will Theandrick They compared their Expression with Themistius's and they proved by some Passages of that Heretick That Severus and he were the first that said There was but one Deivirile operation in Jesus Christ. They explain the meaning of the Deivirile operation and they say 't is nothing else but two sorts of operations of the same Person whichyet proceed from two different Natures viz. God and Man
Emperor he will approve of what he hath done for Images but at the same time he will maintain the Quarrel with him about the Diocesses and Patrimonies of the Church of Rome and if he do not restore them he will declare him an Heretick for it This Letter of Adrian did not alter the Sentiments nor the practice of Charles nor of the Gallican Churches For in the Synods of Francfort held in 794. where this Question was again debated after they had done with the Opinion of Felix and Elipandus they rejected the Opinion of the Greeks and condemned all manner of Adoration or Worship of Images This is the second Canon of that Synod In the East thô the Definition of the Nicene Council had restored Images in several places yet it was not equally observed every where and Constantin himself abrogated it Leo the 5th his Successor re-established the Decree of the Council of Constantinople so that the East was altogether divided in the point of Images Anno 820. Michael Balbus succeeding Leo and being desirous to settle Peace in the Church assembled a Council in which they followed the sentiments of the Gallican Church for they took away the Images that were set up in dirty corners and they left those which were in high places where they might be seen that the Picture might serve for a book to instruct the Ignorant upon condition that they should not adore them and that they should burn no Lamps nor Incense before them Some of those that were most Zealous for Image-worship came to Rome to complain of this Council Which forced Michael to send Deputies thither whom he directed to Lewis the Meek First that he might help them with his credit This Emperor finding such a fair Opportunity to procure Peace to the Church sent Freculphus and Adegarius to Rome with the Deputies of the Greek Emperor to treat of this Affair But Lewis's Envoys not finding the Romans complying desired the Pope's consent that their Master might discuss the matter with his Bishops Having obtained it they came back again to France They held at Paris An. 124. an Assembly of the ablest Bishops of the Kingdom and this question was searched to the bottom They read Adrians first Letter written upon this subject to Constantin and Irene They found that he was in the right to condemn those that broke down Images but that he Acted indiscreetly when he permitted them to be Adored because they may be had but may not be Adored They Examined a new the Nicene Synod held in persuit of this Letter and they thought that they found in these Acts that it did not only Establish Image-worship but enjoyn'd them to be called Holy and to believe some Holiness to be derived from them They caused what had been written by Charles the Great 's Order against this Council to be Read over again They made no great reckoning of Adrian's answers in which nothing was found considerable besides the Pope's Name which they did bear They complain'd that this abuse was Established at Rome and in Italy They commended the Emperor for opposing this pretended supposition and for endeavouring to restore Peace to the Church by avoiding the extreams which both sides had run into They approved the prudent Carriage of the Deputies in demanding this matter should be debated in France They judged that for the better affecting of their design it was necessary to lay the Fault at the Greeks Door to pacifie the Pope and to commend his Zeal and Piety yet so as to Eshablish the Truth by places out of the Scripture and the Fathers and to set it forth with Sincerity and Modesty that by this means they might draw the Pope over and reclaim him and if they could not effect that they would still have the satisfaction to have spoken the Truth and done their Duty Lastly They made a Collection of the passages of the Fathers divided into Fifteen Chapters The first is against those that pretend that Images ought to be taken away out of the Churches and to be defaced upon the Sacred Vessels The 2d contains some Testimonies of St Gregory the Great about Images Shewing the Use that may be made of them The 3d contains Testimonies of St. Austin against those that would Adore them or that believe any Holiness or Virtue to be in them The 4th contains several other passages against the Worshipping of images The 5th contains some passages proving that Saints and their â—â—licks may be Honoured but not Adored from whence it is inâ—â—rred that much less may Incense be Burnt and Offered to them The 6th contains some Testimonies against them that maintain Image-Worship by the Usage of those that introduce it In the 7th They pretend to shew from some Passages of the Fathers that honouring of Images ought to be avoided that we may give no Scandal to the Weak In the 8th and 9th They bring some Explications of the Fathers to shew that the Passage of Genesis where it is said that Jacob worshiped * This is a false Translation It ought to be worshipped upon the Top of his Staff As Heb. 11. 21. the Top of his Son Joseph's Staff and that of the Kings where Nathan is said to have worshipped David proves nothing for the Worshipping of Images The 10th Chapter contains a Testimony of St. Austin concernin the Sacred Vessels The 11th contains one about the Cherubâ—â—s The 12th contains some to shew that Adoration is due to God alone The 13th contains several of them upon the Cross to prove that a great difference is to be made between that and Images This Difference is confirmed in the 14th Chapter by the Usage of the Church which hath always worshipped the Cross and used that Sign in Benedictions Consecrations and Exorcisms In the 15th They advise the Destroyers of Images not to take from thence an occasion to break them down or to scorn them and they put them in mind that have them not to adore them And to establish the Truth of those two Points they cite several Passages of the Fathers Lastly They drew up the Form of two Letters one whereof is that which Lewis was to write to the Pope to exhort him to procure the Peace of the Church by correcting the Abuses that stir up Tuâ—â—ults in the East some being for adoring of Images and others against the very tolerating of them The Second is a Form of that which they will have the Pope to write to the Greek Emperors It begins with a long Exhortation to submit themselves to the Roman Church and to pay her Reverence and then they advise the Emperors to restore Peace to the Church by following the Opinion of the French that is by permitting Images to be had but not to be honoured Lastly They alledge some of the most express Passages of the Fathers to establish that Usage Lewis the Meek sent this Deliberation and these Acts to Pope Eugenius by Jeremy Arch-Bishop of Sens and Jâ—… Bishop
Adult Persons who are Baptized but are not of the number of the Elect are not true Members of the Church of Jesus Christ. In the fourth place he doth not like his words where speaking of Predestination he saith That the Devils and Reprobates are Predestined to Damnation so that none of them can be saved He affirms That this is an horrible Blasphemy against God and an Impiety that makes Sin necessary That God indeed foresees the Siâ—s of Devils and wicked Men without which they would be necessitated and that he hath not Destined them to eternal punishments but upon the prevision of their Sins which he knew they would commit freely Fifthly He abhors the Proposition delivered by Gotteschalcus that the Damned are as infallibly and irrevocably Predestined to Damnation as God is Infallible and Immutable And he laughs at that which he adds That the Bishops ought to exhort the Reprobate to Pray that tho' their Damnation is irrevocable yet their Torments may be less Sixthly He can't endure what he hath said That God and his Saints rejoyce at the Eternal Condemnation of the Reprobates He says That God rejoyces in their Destruction but not for it That he rejoyces not in their Evil doing but in the Exaltation of his own Justice Lastly He condemns his behaviour toward the Bishops by railing at them contemning them and calling them that are not of his Judgment Hereticks and Rabanists He chides him for being unconcerned at the separation of the Church which he had suffered a long time for exalting himself against his Spiritual Fathers the Bishops for submitting to no Authority nor desiring a peaceable Decision of the Controversie in hand with humility and for thinking himself the only Person enlightened and inspired by God to confirm the Truth He exhorts advises and conjures him to reflect upon himself return from his Errors to the Church and submit himself to the Bishops and gives him with a Fatherly goodness such other Counsels as were proper for him to follow This Epistle is Printed by Mauguin in Collect. Script 9 Saeculi Tom. 2. and with his other Works at the end of Agobardus's Works put out by Balurius at Paris 1666. Some have pretended that this Writing of Gotteschalcus which Amolo confutes in this Letter was Forged by Hincmarus whom they accuse of this Forgery but they have no proof of it and the two conjectures upon which they ground the Accusation are took weak to raise any Credit upon so that 't would be a very rash thing to condemn so illustrious an Archbishop of so scandalous a Crime without better proofs especially since we do not find any of the Favourers of Gotteschalcus to have laid any such thing to his Charge It is most reasonable for us to believe that Gotteschalcus composed this Writing privately and sent it to Amolo Archbishop of Lyons supposing that that Church would be more favourable to him because it was of S. Austin's Judgment about Predestination and Grace but since he strain'd his Opinions to too high and faulty a pitch and drew hard and unwarrantable Consequences from them 't is no wonder that Amolo gave him such an Answer which is written with all the insinuating Art possible to appease Hincmarus and oblige this Monk to make him satisfaction There is another small Piece which is annexed to this Letter to Gotteschalcus which is thought to be a fragment of the Letter written at the same time to Hincmarus in which he treats of Grace and Predestination In it he teaches us to believe that 't is Grace by which men are saved which is not given them according to their merits but through the pure and free Mercy of God which moves them to good not by Necessity but by their Will and Love That this Grace is given to Infants in their Baptism to Adult Persons and all the Faithful in all their Actions Thoughts and Words that are good because there is no good but is the gift of God That his Prescience is certain and that he foresees how all things will come to pass so that the number of the Elect is known to him and cannot be changed That the Predestination of the Just is of free Mercy and is not done in consideration of their Merits but that he hath justified and sanctified by his Grace in time all those who have been Predestinated from all Eternity through his meer Mercy that they may be holy and just That Perseverance is a Gift of God That our Free-will is so much weakened by Sin that it can't raise it self to the love of Truth and Justice if it be not excited healed and strengthned by the Grace which frees it He adds That this Doctrine needs not to cast us into Despair but gives us confidence in the Mercy of God That that which is found in S. Austin and some other Fathers that God hath Predestinated the Wicked to Damnation and eternal Death ought not to be understood as tho' God constrained them by his Power or Predestination to be Sinners and so Damned but in this sense That God hath Ordain'd by his just Judgment eternal punishments for those that he foresaw would continue in the Mass of Perdition by the Sin of Adam or who would make themselves subject to Damnation by their own voluntary Sins This fragment of Amolo's Epistle is also extant in the forementioned Edition of Agobardus Hincmarus seeing Amolo thus in a manner to condemn Gotteschalcus thought it convenient to write Hincmarus's Letter to the Church of Lyons to the Church of Lyons upon that subject Whereupon he wrote a Letter to him giving him an account after what manner Gotteschalcus was Judged and Condemned in two Councels and comprises his Doctrine under five chief Heads 1. That God hath Predestined from all Eternity those whom he pleaseth to the Kingdom of Heaven or Eternal Damnation 2. That they that are Predestined to Eternal Death can't be Saved and those that are Predestined to Eternal Glory can't be Damned 3. That God will not have all Men to be Saved and that the Apostles Words ought to be understood only of those that are Saved 4. That Jesus Christ came not to save all Men that he hath not suffered for all Men but for those only who are saved by the Mystery of his Passion 5. That since the Fall of Man no Man can keep himself safe by his own Free-will from the commission of Sin Pardulus Bishop of Laon wrote also to the Church of Lyons upon the same subject telling them that of those six Persons who had written upon these Questions none of them had sufficiently cleared them Some join to these Letters one of Rabanus's written to Notingus Pardulus's Letter is not extant to the Church of Lyons When these Letters were carried to Lyons Remigius who succeeded Amolo in the Archbishoprick of The Answer of the Church of Lyons to Hincmarus by Remigius Lyons wrote in the Name of his Church an Answer to three Letters
he added some other Rules which ordered That Publick Sinners should be put to Penance in Publick by the Authority of the Bishops to whom the Curates are obliged to send them That if they do not present themselves to receive them after they have been advertised of it by the Priests they shall be Excommunicated within 15 days That they shall require nothing for Burials and no Man shall Celebrate Mass but upon a Consecrated Altar or Table He also made some other Constitutions in 874 in July Commanding That Priests Curates and Prebends should reside in their Benefices and not retire into Monasteries That they should take nothing to make Church-Wardens and should allow those that are chosen a part of their Tithes to be employed about the Buildings and Ornaments of the Church That Priests should not be familiar with Women nor enrich themselves with the Revenues of the Church That they should give nothing to Patrons to be Nominated to any vacant Church These are the Constitutions which Hincmarus made for the Priests but lest the Archdeacons who are to put them in Execution in their Visits should not give them in Charge to the Curates he made July 877. an Order in which he forbids them to go their Visitations with many Attendants or Horses to require or exact any thing of them to stay long with them Not to meddle with the Division of Parishes to make the Ancient Churches to be still subject to their Parishes in which there have always been Priests to suffer no Man to have a Chapel without the permission of the Archbishop to Discharge no Penitents through favour before they have done their Penance nor to Ordain any Persons not duly qualified or to settle any Deans without the Authority of the Bishops After these Constitutions follows in the Works of Hincmarus a Recital of the Ceremonies and The Coronations of Kings Prayers used at the Coronation of Charles the Bald for the Kingdom of Lotharius Celebrated at Metz by Hincmarus Sept. 8. 869. as also at the Coronation of Lewis Dec. 8. 877. and of Judith the Daughter of Charles when she was Married to Ethelwolfe King of England An. 856. as also of Queen Hermentrude celebrated at Soissons Hincmarus also in a Letter to Charles the Bald gives various Instructions to Princes out of the Some Instructions of Hincmarus to Charles the Bald. Fathers which he lays down as undoubted Truths viz. That God makes good Kings and permits bad ones That a good Prince is the greatest Happiness of the People and a bad one their greatest Misfortune That a Wise Government is the greatest Proof of great Power That a King should choose Wise Experienced and Virtuous Men That nothing is better than for Rulers to know how they ought to Rule That it is most profitable that good Kings have the greatest Kingdoms That Necessity only should make them make War That War is Lawful if it be Just That God gives the Victory to whom he pleases That they ought to be Prayed for that Dye in Battels That Kings serve God by making Laws for his Honour That they are obliged to compel Men to do good and punish them justly That they may sometimes shew favour but they should be careful they do it not unfitly That they should be continually upon their Guard that they be not surprized by their Favourites or Flatterers They should have no Wicked Men about them nor Pardon their Relations That they ought to mix Justice with Mercy After he hath thus spoken of a Prince as endued with Kingly Powers he then lays down the Virtues of a Prince considered as a Christian which is nothing but a Collection of Texts of Scripture and Sentences of the Fathers concerning the Duties of a Christian Life He hath also a third Letter to the same King concerning the Nature of the Soul He holds that it is Spiritual not confined to a place and doth not move locally altho' it changes its Will and Manners He also moves this Question Whether we shall see God in another World by the Eyes of our Body or only by the Eyes of the Soul In the Year 858 Lewis Emperor of Germany entred Charles's Kingdom to Invade him while Hincmarus's Advice to Lewis of Germany he was gone to War against the Britans and Normans Hincmarus and the other Bishops of his Diocess whom he had told the States that they must stay a Reims sent a Remonstrance to him in which they tell him plainly That he was Unjust to his Brother in entring into his Kingdom in an Hostile manner exhorting him to make Peace with him to turn his Arms against the Pagans to preserve the Priviledges of the Church and suffer no Man to Rob it of its Revenues to restore those Monasteries of the Monks which are in the possession of Lay-men to take care that the Monks live according to their Rule and that the Revenues of Hospitals should be disposed of rightly by the Overseers with the Authority of the Bishops He then gives him some Directions how he ought to Live and Reign and how he ought to govern the General Synod of France In 859 Charles being ready to march against Lewis Hincmarus wrote to him to hinder the Disorders His Advice to King Charles and Pillaging which the Soldiers use to make He also admonishes the Church-men at Court by another Letter to hinder the Soldiers which were used to Pillage to do it again Lastly He admonisheth the Priests of the Diocess of Reims to Excommunicate them who after Admonition should continue to Pillage any In 875 after the Death of Lewis King of Italy and Emperor Charles the Bald being gone into A Remonstrance to Lewis of Germany Italy to be Crowned Emperor and possess himself of Italy Lewis of Germany falls upon France to give him a Diversion Hincmarus presents him with a long Petition full of Quotations of the Fathers to stop him in this Enterprize and was effectual The same Year John Bishop of Cambray was written to by Hincmarus who gave him Directions The manner of proceeding against a Priest how he should deal with the Priest Hunoldus who was suspected of an unlawful familiarity with a Woman He says That the Custom of the Province hath been to make inquiries about the Priest who is thus charged and defamed that their Witnestes must be Sworn and Interrogated concerning his frequent converse and familiarity with Women That after the Deposition of 6 Witnesses there ought to be a 7th to prove the Fact That if there be no Witnesses but it be only a Common report the Priest must clear himself by the Oath of 6 of his Neighboring Priests Some time after in 878 he condemned a Priest of his Diocess himself Named Goldbaldus The Condemnation of a Priest who was accused of conversing with a Woman the Fact was proved but the Priest fled from Judgment The Instrument of this Priest's Deposition is among Hincmarus's Works In the
words Quippe ante Paschasii Librum de Corpore Sanguine Domini confitebantur Catholici omnes Christi Domini verum Corpus verumque Sanguinem revera existere in Eucharistia itemque Panem Vinum in illa converti at nemo Paschasii tempore illud Corpus esse idem quod ex Maria Virgine natum est tam directe asserere auditus fuerat These Expressions says the same Author again are indeed to be found in the Ancient Fathers but this Age was either ignorant of those Passages or did not take notice of them Id quidem antea ex Patribus tradiderant non pauci sed ignota erant illo aevo aut certe non observata eorum hac de re Testimonia Paschasius therefore adds Father Mabillon teaching this Doctrine in his Book so positively gave occasion for some eminent and learned Men to oppose his Opinion These are his Words Quapropter cum Paschasius in Libro suo tam sidenter asseveranter illud docuisset hujus rei Novitate ut sibi videbatur commoti sunt quidam Viri docti haud incelebres qui scriptis editis hanc The State of the Question betwixt Paschasius and his Adversaries ejus sententiam acriter impugnarunt Paschasius maintained it by a Passage of S. Ambrose in his Book of Mysteries whence he concluded that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was the very Flesh of our Saviour born of the Virgin crucified and raised again from the Dead Which Expression being made publick was disliked by Rabanus Ratramnus and an Anonymous Author in the time of Paschasius then in the next following Age by Erigerus They look'd upon Paschasius as one that receded from the express Words of S. Austin and S. Jerom who said our Saviour's Body might be taken in two or three manners and they could by no means approve of such Expressions Their Controversie was †Not about the Real Presence but only about the Expression Although Transubstantiation be not plainly asserted in this Controversie for it was not yet come so far as to determine how Christ's Body was present in the Sacrament whether In or Trans or Sub or Con yet this Dispute laid the Foundation for it though our Historian would perswade us 't was but a verbal one only Yet the Opposition of such learned men as appeared against Radbertus do plainly intimate more who would not fight with Shadows These Expressions had a plain Tendency to a great Error for though both Parties acknowledged a Real Presence yet herein was the Difference Radbertus was for a carnal and bodily Presence Bertram Scotus c. were for a spiritual and figurative Presence according as the Ancient Fathers had always held which is not less real than the other And if we keep in mind this Distinction Radbertus and Bertram are as far from agreeing as Truth and Error not about the real Presence which they owned with Paschasius but only about the Expression it self Paschasius maintained that not only the Body of our Saviour was really in the Eucharist but also that Christians ought plainly to say that there was no Difference betwixt the one and the other His Adversaries on the other side to whom this Expression appeared too harsh as if there were no Figure in the Eucharist and the outward Species were the very Body of our Saviour were disgusted at it So that the state of their Controversie was not whether Christ's Body was truly and really in the Eucharist but whether we ought to say that he was there in the same manner as he was born crucified and raised from the dead whether he was there without Veils or Figure or whether the outward Signs that appeared to our Senses were the Body and Blood of Christ. 'T is true Paschasius owned the Figure in the Eucharist as they did the real Presence But his Adversaries represented him as one that denied the Figure and he thought his Adversaries disowned the real Presence or at least that they had some Objections against it Thus the whole Controversie betwixt them was merely about Expressions and for want of a right Understanding The first Author that writ against Paschasius was a nameless Author whose Writings upon this The first Author who opposed Paschasius was Anonymous Subject Father Mabillon found in a Manuscript of Gemblours at the end of Erigerus his Treatise with this Title Dicta cujusdam sapientis de corpore sanguine Domini adversus Ratbertum This Author says that as all the Faithful ought to believe and confess that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are one and the same Flesh so they ought to believe that of the Bread is made his real Flesh and of the Wine his real Blood by the Consecration and Virtue of the Holy Ghost Yet he opposes Paschasius his Expression viz. Quod non sit alia caro Christi quam quae nata est de Maria passa in Cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro and says that the Notion was perfectly new he never read or heard of it and wonders S. Ambrose should make use of it But he opposes S. Austin to him who says that our Saviour's Flesh is not eaten with our Teeth such as it was upon the Cross or as after it rose from the Dead And to reconcile S. Ambrose with S. Austin he says that our Lord's Body in the Eucharist does not differ in Nature but in Species from his Body born of the Virgin meaning as he explains himself that it is really the same though in another state and under another form viz. under the Species of the Bread and Wine So fully convinced was this Author that Paschasius believed our Saviour's Flesh to be in the same manner and as visibly in the Eucharist as upon the Cross that he charged him with this impious Assertion that as often as Mass is celebrated our Saviour suffered as really as he did upon the Cross. Father Mabillon affirms that this anonymous Book is Rabanus's Letter to Egilo but he brings no certain Proof for it The Title is different nor is the Treatise made in the form of a Letter so that I am apt to think it another Thing However 't is certain Rabanus has also found fault with Paschasius his Expressions for besides Erigerus his Authority who joyns him with Ratramnus as one of Paschasius his Adversaries Rabanâ—… himself in his Letter to Heribaldus speaks on that Subject in these Words Some Men says he not having true Sentiments upon the Sacrament of the Body and Blood assert that that very Body and Blood of our Saviour which was born of the Virgin and in which our Saviour suffered Death upon the Cross is the same Body we receive at the Altar which Opinion we have confuted as much as in us lay in our Letter to Egilo the Abbot wherein we teach what ought to be believed concerning Christ his Body 'T is true these very Words Idem esse quod sumitur in Altari are not in
this Observation that the Body of Christ is upon Earth as often as he pleases that nothing but an ill Disposition of the Mind can make the Body incapable of receiving it so that tho' any part of Christ's Body should come out of his Mouth unknown to him one ought not therefore to think him irreligious or that he despised the Body of our Saviour nor think that his Body went to any place where God would not have it that our Saviour's Body quickens our Souls or rather is the Life of our Souls and therefore we do not take its Life away tho' we part with it To conclude he says 'T is needless to enquire whether our Saviour's Body after it is received with an upright Intention be invisibly raised up into Heaven or kept in our Body till its Burial whether it be exhaled into the Air or issues out of the Body with the Blood or through the Pores the Lord saying that whatever comes into the Mouth goes down into the Belly and from thence into the Draught but the chief thing that we ought to mind is that we do not receive it Judas-like with a treacherous Heart that we do not â—light it but distinguish it as we ought from common Food Thus Amalarius propounds the Question without deciding it and does not declare his Opinion in the Matter Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerre having propounded the same Question to Rabanus Archbishop of Rabanus's Opinion upon the Question of Stercoranism Mentz the Archbishop returned him this Answer As to your Question concerning the Eucharist Whether being consumed and voided out of the Body as other sorts of Food are it re-assumes the Nature it had before its Consecration upon the Altar This Question says he seems to me superfluous because our Saviour himself says in the Gospel That wharever comes into the Mouth goes down into the Belly and from thence into the Draught The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour is made of Things visible and corporeal but it works Sanctification and the invisible Salvation both of the Body and Soul There is no ground to think that what is digested in the Stomach should return into its former state a Thing avouched by no Man as yet Here Rabanus supposes that the Species of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are under the same Laws and Contingencies with our common Food and that they do not re-assume their proper Nature which they had before the Consecration For it is plain that he does not speak of our Saviour's Body but of the outward Species of Bread and Wine Some Authors that were more scrupulous fansied this Opinion unsuitable to the Dignity of the The Sentiment of a nameless Author upon the Question of Stercoranism Mystery and that it was more decent to think either that the Species are annihilated or that they have a perpetual Being or else are changed into Flesh and Blood and not into Humours or Excrements to be voided 'T is the Opinion of an anonymous Author quoted by Erigerus under the Character of a certain Learned Man whose Work is inserted in the second Volume of Dacherius's Spicilegium This Author distinguishes two Things in the Eucharist viz. the invisible Body of our Saviour which is spiritual Food to the Soul and the outward Food which nourishes the Body And telling us what becomes of this he opposes two contrary Places of Scripture one of our Saviour teaching us that whatever goes into the Mouth goes down into the Belly and thence into the Draught and the other of the Apostle that makes a great Difference betwixt the Eucharist and other sorts of Food The first Place makes no Exception at all of the Sacrament but the second teaches us to distinguish it from our usual Food That indeed it is eaten and swallowed down in the same manner as our usual Food putting it into our Mouths and conveying it down into the Belly but when 't is come thither none but the Lord knows how he disposes of it For we know says he that it may be consumed by a spiritual Power that it may be kept for ever from Corruption because God may do what he pleases with his Sacrament But God forbid it should be subject to be conveyed into the Draught or capable of being digested corrupted or consumed by Heat or altered by any other Cause c. Erigerus makes a more strong Opposition against the Opinion of Rabanus and says 't was a scandalous Erigerus's Opinion upon the Questiâ—n of Scercoranism Thing for Heribaldus to propose such a Question to him but more scandalous for Rabanus to have minded it and most scandalous to have solved it as he has done He declares himself against him assirming that the Symbols of Bread and Wine are not voided out of our Bodies nor changed into useless Humours or Excrements but into our Flesh and Blood to be raised again from the Dead Guitmondus was of the same Opinion with Erigerus affirming That though a Man may be nourished Guirmondus and Algerus their Opinion upon the Question of Stercoranism by the Species of the Eucharist yet no part of it is turned into Excrements That they are never putrify'd corrupted or any way alter'd whatever they seem to be either to try the Faith of the Elect or to punish the Neglect of those who keep 'em too long That no Vermin can gnaw 'em no Beast eat them and if such a thing happen the Sacrament is by Miracle convey'd to some other place Now to obviate this Objection That if a Priest should Consecrate one great Loaf or several Loaves a Man might live upon it and shall void his Excrements in the usual manner he declares that in this case the Sacrament is also miraculously convey'd away and an Unconsecrated Loaf substituted in the room of it by the Angels or by the Evil Spirits to cheat the Hereticks Algerus speaks much to the same purpose and holds That the Species do not come out of our Bodies by Excrements but are annihilated He utterly denies that Excrements can arise from the Species eaten and will not allow 'em to be corrupted or putrefy'd burnt or alter'd in the least though they seem so to be Lastly He taxes the Greeks with an Erroncous Belief The Greeks Opinion as to Stercoranism That the Eucharist is liable to the same Laws and Contingencies with other sorts of Food because they say That the Fast ordained by the Church is broken by the Communion and calls 'em therefore by the Infamous Name of Stercoranists Which Accusation he got from Cardinal Humbertus who lays the same Thing to the charge of Nicetas Pectoratus But he fathers upon him that Opinion as a consequence of his Assertion that the Fast was broken by the Eucharist and not as a Doctrine formally asserted by him The Truth is there is nothing of that in the Writings of Nicetas who blaming the Latins for Celebrating the Mass in Lent upon other days than
Saturday and Sunday says Their Practice is not well-timed because Celebrating the Mass at the Third Hour which is the time appointed to Offer this Sacrifice they cannot keep the Fast till the Ninth Hour Afterwards he quotes some Canons to prove the Unreasonableness of this Custom and justifie the Practice of the Greeks who Offer this Sacrifice on Saturdays and Sundays onely at the Third Hour and Communicate on other days at the Ninth Hour upon the Presanctify'd Elements So that Nicetas does not say positively That the Fast is broken by the Eucharist and though he should say so it would not follow that he believ'd it subject to the same Laws and Contingencies as our usual Food for that one might believe that to ease one from the trouble of Fasting and feed the Body in any manner of way is ipso facto to break the Fast which is not the Thing insisted on by Nicetas or the Greeks Who believed the Celebration of the Sacrifice broke the Fast for that it is an Action full of Joy and Solemnity This is the Reason given for 't by Balsamon upon the Fourth Canon of the Council of Laodicea To offer Says he the Sacrifice is to Celebrate a Feast and express the Solemn Joy of the Church and to do this is not to weep or fast Besides Nicetas does suppose that presently after the Celebration of the Mass it is lawful to eat and consequently that the Latins having finished in the Morning that Celebration of the Mass broke the Fast presently after In which particular he errs for the Latins did not Celebrate Mass in Lent at the Third Hour but in the Evening and so broke their Fast but late However neither Nicetas nor the Greeks did ever say That the Body and Blood of Christ were under the same Laws as common Food nay 't is probable they did not believe that the Species of Bread and Wine went into the Draught their great Doctor S. John Damascene having Taught the contrary As for Algerus he accused them of Stercoranism only upon the Credit of Humbertus whose words he does but Transcribe And Humbertus charges Nicetas with it by a Consequence that has failed and which does not necessarily follow It does not appear that there has been since that time any farther Contest with them upon this Point and amongst the Errors which the Latins afterwards condemned in Michael Cerularius there is no mention made of this Therefore this Error can by no means be proved upon the Greeks Now to come back to the Latins we have sufficiently proved that there was no difference amongst them about the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour contained under the Species that none was The State of the Question amongst the Latins so much Infatuated as to think that that Mystical Flesh and Blood were subject to the same Laws and Contingencies with our usual Food but that they had debated amongst them this Scholastical Question What becomes of the Species of Bread and Wine and that many of them being of Opinion That it was Indecent to conceive that they were subject to the same Laws and Contingencies with our common Food would not have it thought that any part of it were converted into Excrements or voided out of the Body and therefore conceived that they were either Annihilated or Converted into the Substance of our Flesh to be Raised again from the Dead This Opinion which had the Vogue in this and the following Centuries has been since rejected by our Schoolmen who doubt not but that the Species of the Eucharist may be corrupted and converted into another Substance God by his Infinite Power producing another * Another Matter What a many Transubstantiations must follow upon the first Forgery Transubstantiation on the Altar creates another in the Belly least Christ's Body should be subject to Indecent Evacuations So necessary it is to fall into many Absurdities to maintain one wilâ—l Error To what is said in Page 78. Paschasius is of the same Opinion and says 'T is a weakness to think that any part of this Mystery is under the same Laws with other Food this Note the Author hath added at the end of the Book viz. This is not without difficulty for Paschasius says well Frivolum est ergo sicut in Apocrypho libro legitur in hoc mysterio cogitare de stercore But this will bear two Interpretations That it is a frivolous opinion to believe That the Essential part of the Eucharist passes or returns or It is a frivolous question to trouble our selves about whether it passes or not since we need not to fear its mingling with other Aliments I rather think that Paschasius is of the latter opinion for though he Asserts That the Eucharist nourishes our Body â—e does not intend that we should by that word understand a Carnal Nourishment of our Bodies but a Spiritual Nutriture of our Souls See the intire Passage in Paschasiuâ—s Treatise Chap. 20. and the 71 Page of this Work Matter in stead of that which is Converted into the Body and Blood of our Saviour CHAP. VIII The History of the Controversie about the Manner in which the Virgin Mary brought forth Christ. PAschasius and Ratramnus had another Controversie about the Manner in which our Saviour Ratramnus his Opinion of our Saviour's Birth came out of the Virgin 's Womb. Ratramnus being informed There were some in Germany that maintained Our Saviour did not come out of the Virgin 's Womb per virginalis januam vulvâ—e sed monstruose de secreto ventris incerto tramite he thought such an Opinion dangerous conceiving it followed from thence that Christ was not truly Born but Issued from the Virgin quod non est nasci sed erumpi He therefore opposed it in a small Treatise Entitled De partu Virginis published by Father Dacherius in the Second Volume of his Spicilegium wherein he owns it as an undoubted Truth That Mary lived all her life-time a Virgin ante partum in partu post partum but confutes those who believed That our Saviour came not into the World per Semitam Vulvae but some other Way He brings in against them several Places of Scripture and Passages of the Fathers which prove That Christ came out of the Virgins Womb yet he owns withall that he came out per Vulvam clausam as he came into the Place where his Disciples were met through the Door and not through the Wall yet without opening the Door Paschasius Ratbertus who had been Abbot of Corbey and who was then but one of the Private Paschasius his Opinion of our Saviour's Birth Monks as appears by the Title he assumes in his Epistle Dedicatory thinking that Ratramnus heretofore his Monk but who perhaps had before this quitted that Abbey had deliver'd in his Treatise such Things as seemed prejudicial to the perpetual Virginity of Mary and that he had disposed Men to believe That she had brought forth our Saviour
extolled that Arch-bishop and Complimented him about the Deputy he had sent unto him he Argues against the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as an Error contrary to Tradition He says that the Popes Leo the I. and Leo the III. have rejected that Doctrine The first by saying in his Letter against Nestorius and Eutyâ—…jus that the Holy Ghost doth proceed from the Father and the last by disproving those that had added the Filioque to the Creed and causing it to be Ingraven on Plates without that Addition He afterwards brings in many Arguments grounded upon some places of Scripture against the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son He answers to the place alledged by the Latins The Holy Ghost shall receive from me and will declare it to you He objects to himself That S. Ambrose S. Austin S. Jerom and some other Fathers have said That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son He owns it to have been their opinion and that they ought not therefore to be called Hereticks But he pretends their Authority must not be preferred before that of a greater Number who spoke according to the Councils and the Holy Writ He adds that some Fathers of the Church may have swerved from the Truth but whatever respect we have for their persons we ought not to follow their Errors As for Instance though Dionysius of Alexandria be ranked amongst the Fathers the Arian Expressions he used are not to be approved as well as some Tenets of Methodius S. Irenaeus and Papias Lastly he dares affirm That if all the Men in the World should oppose us we ought still to adhere to our Saviour's Words and those of the Gospel and if we do seek after Proofs next to our Saviour we have the Suffrages of Oecumenical Councils the greatest Number of the Fathers the Bishops of Rome and amongst these S. Leo and Adrian the I. That the Legates themselves of the Holy See which lately have been in the East Three several times have alledged nothing contrary to that Doctrine and that in the Council held by him the Legates of Pope John had Subscribed unto and approved of the Creed without that Addition Thus much is alledged by Photius in his Letter to make good his Opinion His Work containing a compendious History of the first seven General Councils which has been several times published separately is nothing but part of the first Letter directed to Michael King of the Bulgarians But as Photius had skill in Composition so he was no less versed in Preaching We have many Photius's Sermons Manuscript Homilies of his whereof Father Combefis has printed the Titles and Beginnings in the last Addition to the Biblioth Patrum But there are only two whole ones extant one upon the Virgin 's Nativity inserted by the same Author into his first Continuation of the Biblioth Patrum and written with much Eloquence and Politeness The other containing the Description and Encomium of a new Church in the Emperour's Palace at Constantinople published by Codinus and Combefis in their Collections In fine Photius had joyned all the Subtilty of the most refined Schoolmen to his other sorts of Photius's Treatise concerning the Wills of Christ. Learning In Canisius's Collection we have some small Treatises of his in Latin which are a convincing proof of his great Ability in School-Learning The principal of which is that of our Saviour's Wills which are called Gnomical found in the Tome added by Stuart to Canisius's Collection It was in Greek in the Emperour and the Duke of Bavaria's Libraries out of which Turrian took it and put it into Latin The state of the Question is to know whether our Saviour had besides a general Will to do a Thing a particular Will to do it in such and such manner whether he has chosen and affected the one more than the other Photius in the first place says That this Question having been but slightly handled by the Fathers is the more difficult to solve but that 't is an easie matter to find out all that has been written upon it S. Maximus being the only Father that he found treating of this Question And to expound him he distinguishes many sorts of Wills The first a Natural Will which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being nothing but a Desire of doing a Thing without any Reason for it The second a General Will by him called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being an Effect of Reason The third called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Inclination to one Thing rather than another The fourth is the Choice one makes of one Thing rather than another The fifth is the Determination of the Will to do this or that Thing And lastly the Execution The Matter being thus stated he says that our Saviour had unquestionably a general Will attended with Reasoning but that he has not a Will of Choice nor of Deliberation or Design to do one Thing rather than another because having a perfect Knowledge of all Things by his Nature by reason of the Hypostatical Union and his humane Will being wholly subject to the divine Will he cannot deliberate upon what he must do nor will any Thing but what pleases the divine Will That there being two Natures in Christ there ought to be likewise two Wills that is to say two Faculties but by reason there is but one Hypostasis or but one person that wills he therefore wills but one Thing and has but one general Will that is but one sole Affection because the humane Will does in all Things concur with the divine Will This is the Opinion of Photius in this Matter which he backs with many Reasons and gives shrewd Answers to all Objections against it In the fifth Tome of Canisius we find moreover seven short Dissertations of Photius upon several Photius's Theological Treatises Scholastick Questions In the first he puts this Question How God is every where and answers the Objections made against his Omnipresence He shews that God is not in the World as created Beings are but in a more sublime manner that he is in every Thing and above all Things that he is in all Things by his Operation but that his Act being his Substance one may truly say he is both in Act and Substance every where that he is every where without being of the same Substance with the Things in which he is that he makes no part of them not being tied mingled confounded or any way changed by them In the second Dissertation he shews how we know God in this Life and says that we cannot perfectly define or know him but that he is known to us by a small beam of his Majesty shining upon his Creatures and by way of Negation that is by denying that he is any of those Things we see That all Men naturally know that there is a God because there ought to be an Eternal Being a Soveraign Lord of all Things and a
same Nature in all Men though the inequality of Organs hinders it from acting every where alike He Treats afterwards of the Principal Vertues of the Soul of the Form of the Body and of the Senses The Treatise of the Rise Life and Manners of Anti-Christ contains a Description of his Life and Actions framed out of what is said of him in the Holy Scriptures That he should be of the Race of the Jews and of the Tribe of Dan That he should be born according to the order of Nature of a Father and Mother That at the very Minute of his Conception the Devil should enter into his Body and always dwell there That he should be born in Babylon That he should extend his Dominion to a great distance That he should do Signs and Prodigies That he should stir up a great Persecution against all Christians That when he should come the Roman Empire would be entirely ruined and Judgment would be at hand That he should call himself Christ and draw all the Jews after him That he should also sit in the Temple of God that is to say the Church That he should have Elias and Enoch for his fore-runners That they should be killed after three Years and a half 's Preaching That the great Persecution of Anti-Christ should commence from their Death and that it should continue three Years and an half but that although the Anger of God should be enflamed against him and that he should be slain by Jesus Christ or the Angel Michael armed with his Power That 't is thought this shall be on the Mount of Olives That the Judgment shall not follow his Death immediately but that God should grant some time to those that have been seduced to Repent and acknowledge their Transgressions At the end of these Works we find Rabanus's Verses in which he confesses that his Writings are only Collections and Composures out of others Writings The Martyrology attributed to Rabanus is very short and seems to be a Genuine Piece It has already been published by Canisius Antiq. Lect. Tom. VI. We owe to the Jesuit Brouverus the Collection of Rabanus's Poetry where there is Sence and Wit although it is every where full of Barbarous Terms and have neither Elegance nor Politeness The Commentary upon the Rules of St. Benedict attributed to Rabanus belongs to the Abbot Smaragdus as we have noted before The List of some Latin words rendred into High Dutch Terms and the Figures of the Letters or Characters of the Hebrew Greek Latin and Tutonick Tongues are taken from the Second Tome of the History of Germany composed by Goldastius which are such Ancient Pieces that they may very well be attributed to Rabanus These are the whole Contents of the Six Tomes of this Author Printed at Antwerp in the Year 1626. bound in Three Volumes in Folio And by the Care of Georgius Colvenerius at Colen 1627. Fol. Vol. 3. There have been since published some other Works of Rabanus For without reckoning the three Letters of Predestination and Grace written against Gotescalcus and published by Sirmondus at Paris 1647. Octavo of which we have spoken M. Balusius has given us in the last Edition of the Works of M. de Marca two Treatises which without doubt do belong to Rabanus and which are most elaborate useful and best Written than any of his other Works The first is Dedicated to Drogo Bishop of Mets which is concerning Suffragans Opinions were then divided in the Gallican Church about the Dignity and Power of Suffragans some affirmed they were real Bishops by their Ordination and that they might ordain Priests and Deacons Confirm Consecrate Altars and do all the Office of a Bishop But others denied this and affirmed that their Ordinations and Confirmations were null and void Charles the Great consulted Pope Leo the Third upon this Question who Answered That he was certain that Suffragans had not this Power and that all they had done belonging to Bishops was ipso facto void and that they ought to be deprived of any such Power The Council of Ratisbon followed the Popes Advice and ordered them to remain in the rank of Priests This Decision did not hinder but that there were yet Suffragans in many Diocesses and that the Bishops did still allow them Privileges which belonged only to them There has always been many Churches and chiefly in Italy and Spain where Suffragans have been esteemed no more than Ordinary Priests where they Re-ordained such as were made Priests or Deacons by them Confirmed anew those they had been Confirmed by and Consecrated anew such Churches as they had Consecrated Rabanus having understood this undertook to defend the Suffragans He says that their Order had its Original from the times of the Apostles and that they had such Assistants who could Ordain and do the same Offices with them He believes that St. Linus and St. Cletus were Suffragans to St. Peter and St. Paul in the Church of Rome He accuses those Bishops that undervalue Suffragans and who look upon them no more than Ordinary Priests of overthrowing the Order by their Ambition He endeavours to prove by the Canons of the Councils of Ancyra and Antioch that Suffragans might Ordain thro the permission of their Bishops and that they have received the Episcopal Consecration and Ordination He asserts that if Suffragans had not this Right they would be of no use to the Bishops as they now are And upon what was objected against him that it is said in the Acts that the Apostles themselves had been sent into Samaria to bestow the Holy Ghost on those that were newly Baptiz'd He answered that the Apostles were sent thither because there was then no Suffragan at Samaria but only the Deacon Philip who had Baptiz'd them The rest of the Treatise contains some Admonitions to the Bishops about Humility The other Treatise of Rabanus Publisht by M. Balusius is concerning the respect Children owe to their Parents and Subjects to their Prince It was writ upon the occasion of the Conspiracy of Lewis the Godlie's Children against their Father Rabanus there quotes several places in the Scripture which prove that every one ought to obey his Prince and his Parents He confirms these Truths by Examples and shows in particular that it was never permitted to a Subject to take Arms against his Sovereign upon what account soever He mightily condemns those children who would deprive their Parents of their Estates He speaks against unjust and rash Judgments openly blaming that which the Bishops pronounc't against Lewis the Godly He shows plainly that Clergy-men ought not to meddle with Secular or Temporal Affairs He maintains that none can Condemn or put to publick Penance a Sinner that accuses himself unless he be otherwise Convicted He adds that those that are sorry for their Sins and are converted deserve forgivness At last addressing himself to the Emperour he exhorts him to despise the false Judgments given against him
this Error but the Maintainer thereof having abjur'd it in a Council held by the Arch-bishop of Rheims in his Province he left the Work imperfect yet compleated it afterward in England being there inform'd that he who broach'd this Error persisted therein and declar'd that he abjur'd it only for fear of being Assassinated by the People St. Anselm at first lays down for a Maxim That we ought not to argue against that which the Church believes nor against that which Faith Teaches us and that we ought not to Reject that which we cannot Comprehend but that we ought to acknowledge that there are many things which are above our Understanding Afterward he relates Roscelin's Proposition expressed in these Terms If the three Divine Persons be one and the same Thing and not three Things consider'd every one apart as three Angels or three Souls nevertheless in such a manner that they are the same Thing in Will and Power it follows That the Father and the Holy Ghost were Incarnate with the Son St. Anselm declares that this Man admits three Gods or else that he does not know what he says He asks him what he means by three Things and acknowledges that in one sence it may be said That the three Persons of the Trinity are three Things if their Relation one to another be understood by that Term but that it cannot be so said if their Substance be understood which seems to be Roscelin's meaning since he says That they are Three distinct Things as three Souls and three Angels He confutes this Opinion and shews that the distinction of the Persons is sufficient to the end that it may be said That the Son is Incarnate without inferring That the Father and the Holy Ghost are so Afterward he resolves this Question Why the Son was Incarnate rather than the Father or the Holy Ghost shews that there is but one Person and two Natures in Jesus Christ and explains the Procession of the Divine Persons The Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost against the Greeks is no less Theological than the former For the Arch-bishop proves therein That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father and discusses the principal Questions relating to his Procession His Treatise of the Fall of the Devil is written in form of a Dialogue and the Subject of it is less obscure He shews That altho' the Good Angels receiv'd from God all the Good that was done by them and even the Gift of Perseverance yet it cannot be said That the Bad did not persevere because God deny'd them that Gift but because they would not persevere That the Good Angels were in a capacity of Sinning as well as the Bad but that having freely preferr'd Righteousness to Unrighteousness they had as a recompence the assurance of never swerving from the former And that the Bad on the contrary having voluntarily fallen from Righteousness lost for ever the Good which they had and put themselves out of a Capacity of ever becoming Righteous Afterward he treats of the nature of Evil and proves that it consists only in a privation of Good and debates some other subtil Questions The Treatise which shews Why God was made Man Discovers its Subject in the very Title and is more particularly explain'd in the Preface This Treatise says he is divided into two Books the first of which contains the Objections rais'd by the Infidels who imagine it to be contrary to Reason That a God should become Man with the Answers of the Faithful to their Arguments and it is shewn therein That 't is impossible for any Man to be Sav'd without the Mediation of a God Incarnate In the second Book 't is prov'd That Humane Nature is design'd to enjoy everlasting Life both in respect of the Soul and of the Body and that this advantage cannot be obtain'd but by the means of a God-Man The Treatise of Original Sin was compos'd immediately after the preceeding and in it are discuss'd many Questions about the nature of Sin and the manner how it is communicated to all the Posterity of Adam The Treatise of Truth of the Will and of Liberty contains variety of Metaphysical Principles concerning those Matters to explain their Nature and Kinds These Discourses are written in form of Dialogues as well as the preceeding In the following Treatise he enquires into the means of reconciling Free-will with Fore-knowledge Predestination and Grace As for Fore-knowledge and Predestination all his Discourse on those Matters is rambling and in some places very obscure The Subject of the Three next Treatises is less intricate and the first of them Dedicated to Valeran Bishop of Naumburg is about the use of Unleavened Bread in which the Author maintains against the Greeks that altho' the Eucharist may be administred with Unleavened and Leavened Bread yet 't is most expedient to make use of the former The second is a Letter written by the said Valeran complaining of the great number of Ceremonies used in the administration of the Sacraments and entreating St. Anselm to resolve this Question viz. Why the sign of the Cross is made on the Bread and on the Chalice and why the Chalice is usually cover'd with a Vail or †A Squâ—re Past-board cover'd with fine Linnen Pale before the Consecration In the end he gives him to understand that he was reconcil'd with Pope Paschal II. St. Anselm returns him an Answer in the following Treatise That the variety of Customs and Ceremonies does not hinder the Unity of the Faith and alledges certain Mystical Reasons for making the sign of the Cross on the Host and on the Chalice and for covering the latter with a Vail To these Treatises is annex'd another small Tract in which he asserts That Clergy-men who make Confession of Sins of the Flesh committed privately may be re-establish'd in the Functions of their Order after having done Pennance This Piece is only an extract of St. Anselm's Letter to the Abbot William In the Treatise of Marriages forbidden between near Relations he enquires into the Reasons of that Prohibition which he extends only to the sixth degree of Consanguinity There is nothing relating to Divinity in his Treatise of the Grammarian In that of the Will of God being the last of the Dogmatical of which the first Part of his Works is compos'd he explains the different Senses in which the Term of the Will of God is taken and the different kinds of Wills that may be distinguish'd in him To these Works is to be added a Treatise of Peace and Concord which is inserted in the end of the Volume a Piece that is well worthy of St. Anselm and which is altogether written in his Style The second Part of the Works of this learned Prelat contains the Paraenetick and Ascetick Treatises viz. 1. Sixteen Homelies the First of which is on the 24th Chapter of Ecclesiastes and the others on divers Gospels Indeed the first is only
be distributed to them and that they who put it to another use are to be look'd upon as Robbers This Discourse is follow'd by another pronounc'd in a Synod held for the Ordination of a Bishop He begins with the Commendation of the Church and afterwards rejects the Person of Girard who was propos'd alledging That although there was a form of Election in his favour nevertheless he ought not to be ordain'd by reason that it is not to be endur'd that the Liberty of Elections which was introduc'd for the Benefit of the Churches should be made prejudicial to them and therefore that the Election of Girard was null as having been carry'd on only by some few Persons devoted to his Interest He acquaints that Pope in another Letter That he had pass'd Sentence in favour of Hugh Abbot of Senlis in a Cause that was depending between that Abbot and Garnier a Priest concerning the Church of Marine for the Tryal of which he was nominated a Commissioner with Henry Bishop of Senlis He likewise gave him notice in the following Letter that the King of England had favourably receiv'd his Letters and Nuncio's and that he had re-instated the Arch-bishop of Canterbury but he complains that the Nuncio's did not promote the making of Peace and entreats the Pope to do it In another Letter he informs the same Pope That he had put an end to the Contest between the Abbot of La Couture and Hermier the Priest about the Church of Breule In one of the Letters directed to the Pope's Legates Albert and Theodin he determines That it is not expedient to bestow Altars that is to say Benefices on the Sons of Priests lest it should occasion disorders Afterwards he writes to Pope Alexander against those Monks who refuse to obey their Bishop and claim a right to retain Cures and Tithes He complains in particular of the Abbot of St. Evrou who presum'd to celebrate Divine Service notwithstanding the Sentence of Suspension he had pronounc'd against him The Poems of this Author are not very considerable as to the Subjects but they are exact in reference to the Rules of Poetry and the Verses are very fine The first is on the Nativity of Jesus Christ the second is an Encomium of the Bishop of Windsor and the rest on the alteration of the Seasons and on some other profane Subjects There are also two Epitaphs of Queen Mathilda one of Algarus Bishop of Coutances and another of Hugh Arch-bishop of Roan Father Dachery has publish'd in the second Tome of his Spicilegium an excellent Discourse dedicated to Geffrey Bishop of Chartres and compos'd by Arnulphus when as yet Arch-deacon of Seez against Peter de Leon the Antipope and Gerard Bishop of Angoulesme his Legat. It is written with a great deal of earnestness and energy so that the Author gives us a very lively description of the Irregularities and Vices of that Antipope and of his Legate maintains the Election and Proceedings of Innocent II. and makes it appear that the latter is the true Pope Father Dachery has likewise set forth in the end of the Thirteenth Tome of the Spicilegium a Sermon upon the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary and five Letters by the same Author The other Works of Arnulphus Bishop of Lisieux were printed at Paris from a Manuscript of Adrian Turnebus's Library A. D. 1585. and afterwards in the Bibliotheca Patrum PETER de CELLES Bishop of Chartres PETER sirnam'd de Celles from the Name of his first Abbey commonly call'd Monstierla-Celle Peter de Celles Bishop of Chartres in the Suburbs of the City of Troyes was descended of an honourable Family of Champagne He apply'd himself to Study at Paris and was apparently a Novice in the Monastery of St. Martin des Champs He was chosen Abbot of Celles A. D. 1150. translated from thence to the Abbey of St. Remy at Rheims in 1162. and at last made Bishop of Chartres in 1182. in the place of John of Salisbury After having govern'd that Church during five Years he died Feb. 17. 1187. The following Works of this Author were collected and publish'd by Father Ambrosius Januarius of the Congregation of St. Maur and printed by Lewis Billaine in 1671. But the first of his Works is a Course of Sermons on all the Festivals of the Year which were never as yet printed However notwithstanding the Reputation they might have in his time Father Januarius observes that they are weak and that Peter de Celles is not very sollicitous to prove a Truth thoroughly but passes lightly over from one Subject to another although his Writings are full of pious Conceptions Flowers of Scripture and very useful Instructions He might also take notice that they are full of Puns affected Antitheses sorry Allusions mean Descriptions and Notions which have not all the Gravity that is requisite in Discourses of that Nature In his Eighth Sermon on the Lord's Supper we find the Term of Transubstantiation which is also in Stephen Bishop of Autun who liv'd in the same Century And indeed those two Authors are the first that made use of it The three Books of Bread dedicated to John of Salisbury contain a great number of mystical Reflections on all the sorts of Bread mention'd in the Holy Scripture The Mystical and Moral Exposition of the Tabernacle is a Work almost of the same Nature The Treatise of Conscience dedicated to Aliber the Monk relates altogether to Piety and that of the Discipline of the Cloister comprehends many Moral Instructions in the Exercises of the Monastick Life which he follow'd above Thirty Years This Piece was set forth by Father Dachery in the third Tome of his Spicilegium The last Work in this Edition is a Collection of the Letters of Peter de Celles which were already publish'd with Notes by Father Sirmondus A. D. 1613. They are divided into nine Books and relate either to pious Subjects or to certain particular Affairs or are merely Complimental Indeed they are written with greaâ—er Accuracy than his other Works being of a more natural and less affected Style nevertheless they are full of verbal Quibbles and Puns In this Collection are three Letters on the Festival of the Conception of the Virgin Mary in which Peter de Celles strenously maintains St. Beâ—nard's Sentiments on that Subject NICOLAS a Monk of St. Alban was of a contrary Opinion and averr'd That Nicolas Monk of St. Alban the blessed Virgin was never obnoxious to Sin This is the Subject of the Twenty third Letter of the Sixth Book but the Monk vindicates his Opinion in the Ninth Letter of the last Book and confutes that of St. Bernard yet not without expressing a great deal of Respect for the Person of that Saint However he does not treat Peter de Celles with the same Moderation who being nettled returns him a somewhat sharp Answer in the Tenth Letter of the same Book Peter was then Bishop of Chartres JOHN of SALISBURY Bishop of Chartres
suddenly expire and that the Law of the Spirit a great deal more perfect would succeed it This Doctrine spread among a great many Spiritual Men and one of â—hem made a Book to establish it to which he gave the Title of The Eternal Gospel This Piece The Book call'd the Eternal Gospel appear'd about the beginning of this Century but what is the Author's Name is not known Matthew Paris ascribes it to the Order of the Jacobines Aimeric to John the Seventh General of the Franciscans Let the Case be how it will 't is certain that a great many Monks approv'd of this Work and that some of them would have Taught this Doctrine Publickly in the University of Paris in the Year 1254 but the Bishops oppos'd it And the Book of the Eternal Gospel was Condemn'd to be The Condemnation of that Book Burnt in the Year 1256 by Pope Alexander IV. who at the same time Proscrib'd those who maintain'd the Doctrine of that Book as William of Saint Amour and Ptolemey of Lucca assure us All the Errors of this Book turn upon this Principle That the Law of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was The Errors of that Book imperfect in comparison of the law of the Spirit which was to succeed it For according to this Book the Law of the Gospel was to last no longer than Twelve hundred and sixty Years and consequently was upon expiring The Author of that Book advanc'd besides this several particular Errors viz. That none but Spiritual Men had the true Knowledge of the Scriptures That only those who went Bare-foot were capable of Preaching the Spiritual Doctrine That the Jews tho' adhering to their Religion shall be loaded with good things and deliver'd from their Enemies That the Greeks were more Spiritual than the Latines and that God the Father should Save them That the Monks were not oblig'd to suffer Martyrdom in Defence of the Worship of Jesus Christ That the Holy Ghost receiv'd something of the Church as Jesus Christ as Man had receiv'd of the Holy Ghost That the Active Life had lasted till Abbot Joachim but that since his time it was become useless That the Contemplative Life had begun from his time and that it should be more perfect in his Successors That there should be an Order of Monks by far more perfect which should flourish when the Order of the Clergy was perished That in this Third State of the World the Government of the Church would be wholly Committed to those Monks who should have more Authority than the Apostles ever had That those Preachers persecuted by the Clergy should go over to the Infidels and might excite them against the Church of Rome These are some of the Extravagancies which the Authors relate as extracted out of the Book of the Eternal Gospel The Maintainers of this Work are call'd Joachites or rather Joachimites in the Council of Arles 1260 The Condemnation of the Joachimites in the Council of Arles 1260. wherein their Doctrine was Examin'd and Condemn'd in these Terms Among the False Prophets who appear at this time none are more Dangerous than those who taking for the Foundation of their Folly several Ternaries in part true and making false Applications of them establish'd a very pernicious Doctrine and wickedly affecting to do Honour to the Holy Ghost do impudently derogate from the Redemption of Jesus Christ by aiming to include the Time of the Reign of the Son and his Works within a certain Number of Years after which the Holy Ghost shall Act As if the Holy Ghost were to Act with more Power and Majesty for the future than he has done yet since the beginning of the Church These Joachites by a Chimerical Concatenation of certain Ternaries maintain That the time of the Holy Ghost shall for the future be inlighten'd with a more perfect Law laying down for the Foundation of their Error this Holy and Coelestial Ternary of the Ineffable Persons of the Ever-blessed Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost and are for establishing their Error on the Basis of all these Truths They add to this Sovereign Truth other Ternaries by asserting That there shall be Three States or Orders of Men who have had or shall have each their proper Season The First is that of Marry'd Persons which was in Repute in the time of the Father that is under the Old Testament The Second is that of Clerks which has been in esteem in the time of Grace by the Son in this Age of the World The Third is the Order of the Monks which shall be glorify'd in time with a larger measure of Grace which shall be given by the Holy Ghost Three sorts of Doctrines answer to these Three States the Old Testament the New and the Eternal Gospel or the Gospel of the Holy Ghost Lastly They distinguish the whole Duration of the World into Three Ages The time of the Spirit of the Law of Moses which they attribute to the Father the time of the Spirit of Grace which they attribute to the Son and which has lasted 1260. Years and the time of a more Ample Grace and of unveil'd Truth which belongs to the Holy Ghost and of which Jesus Christ speaks in the Gospel when he saies When that Spirit of Truth shall come he will teach you all Truth In the First State Men liv'd according to the Flesh in the Second between Flesh and Spirit and in the Last which shall endure to the end of the World they shall live according to the Spirit The Consequence which they draw from this Fiction of Ternaries is That the Redemption of Jesus Christ has no more place and that the Sacraments are Abolish'd which the Joachites have almost the Impudence to Advance by asserting That all Types and Figures shall be Abolish'd at this time and that the Truth shall appear all naked without the Veil of Sacraments Maxims these are which ought to be Abominated by all Christians who have Read the Holy Fathers and who firmly believe that the Sacraments of the Church are visible Signs and Images of Invisible Grace under the Elements of one of which the Son of God abides as he has promised in his Church to the End of the World This Council adds That tho' this Doctrine had been Condemn'd a while ago by the Holy See in its Censure of the Book of The Eternal Gospel yet because several Persons maintain'd it under a pretence That the Books which serv'd as a Foundation to that Error had not been Examin'd nor Condemn'd viz. the Book of Concordances and the other Books of the Joachites which till then remain'd undiscuss'd because they lay conceal'd in the Hands of some Monks and began then to appear in the World and to Infatuate the Minds of many it Condemns and Disapproves of those Works and prohibits the making use of them under pain of Excommunication In the Year 1240 William Bishop of Paris having Conven'd all the Regent Doctors of the University
The Propositions Condemned by William of Paris Condemn'd Ten Propositions which had been Taught as Matthew Paris observes by the Professors of the Dominican and Franciscan Orders who willing to Dispute with too much Subtilty and to dive too far into Mysteries were faln into Error by the just Judgment of God saies that Author to whom the Wisdom and Simplicity of a firm Faith is more acceptable than too great Subtilty in Divinity it being more Safe and Meritorious to receive and believe with Simplicity what the Fathers have Taught than to adhere to that which must be Prov'd and Discover'd by Humane Reason The Ten Propositions are these 1. That the Essence of God shall not be seen by Men or Angels 2. That the Divine Essence tho' the same in the Father Son and Holy Ghost yet as it is that Essence and the Form 't is one in the Father and the Son and not in the Holy Ghost 3. That the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Son since he is Love and Unity but only from the Father 4. That there are several Eternal Truths which are not God himself 5. That the first moment the Creation and the Passion are neither the Creator nor the Creature 6. That the Wicked Angel had been Wicked from the first instant of his Creation 7. That the Souls in Bliss and even that of the Blessed Virgin her self shall not be in the Empyreal Heaven with the Angels but in the Crystalline Heaven 8. That an Angel may be in many Places at one and the same time and even every where 9. That he who is endu'd with better Natural Parts shall have more Grace than another 10. That the Devil had no Support to keep him from falling nor Adam to keep in his State of Innocence The Assembly after they had Censur'd these Propositions declar'd That Men ought firmly and without doubt to Beleive 1. That the Substance Essence and Nature of God shall be seen by the Holy Angels and the Blessed Souls 2 That there is but only one Substantial Essence and only one Nature in the Father Son and Holy Ghost even as it is the Form 3. That the Holy Ghost as Unity and as Love proceeds from the Father and the Son 4. That there is but only one Eternal Truth which is God and that no other has been from all Eternity 5. That the first Moment the Creation and the Passion are Creatures 6. That the Bad Angels have been Good and became Bad by their Sin 7. That the Souls of the Blessed and their Bodies shall be in the Empyreal Heaven as well as the Holy Angels 8. That the Angels are in a distinct Place so that they cannot be in two Places at once much less every where 9. That Grace and Glory are granted according to the Order and Predestination of God 10. That the Wicked Angels and Adam had Support to keep them from Falling tho' not sufficient to carry them on into Perfection About the same time William Professor of the Franciscan Friars having Advanc'd in a Sermon The Recantation of William the Franciscan Preach'd on the Festival of St. John Baptist in the Church of his Monastery several Propositions about Free Will and Free Grace was oblig'd to Retract the two following in an Assembly of the Doctors of Divinity of Paris 1. Free Will has a Natural Power to receive Grace but not an Effective or Co-operating Power for the entertaining of Grace 2. He who is Damn'd has never been in a State of Grace but has been always an Ishmael or a Judas never a Saint John In the Year 1270 in December Stephen Templar Bishop of Paris Condemn'd other Propositions Propositions Condemn'd by Stephen Templar Bishop of Paris Taught by several Professors in Philosophy and Divinity of the University of Paris which are Thirteen in Number 1. That the Understanding of all Men is one and the same in Number 2. That this Proposition Homo intelligit is false and improper 3. That the Will chuses and wills by necessity 4. That all Sublunary things are subjected to the Influences of the Heavenly Bodies 5. That the World is Eternal 6. That there never was a first Man 7. That the Soul of Man as being the Form of him is Corruptible 8. That the separated Soul does not suffer Eternal Fire 9. That Free Will is a Passive not an Active Power and that 't is led by the Sensitive Appetite 10. That God has no knowledge of singular things 11. That he knows nothing Externally without himself 12. That the Actions of Men are not Govern'd by Providence 13. That God cannot give Immortality or Incorruptibility to a Mortal and Corruptible Creature The Bishop of Paris order'd the Rector of the University not to suffer that Questions of Faith should be Disputed in the Philosophy-Schools and the University provided against it by a Statute made April the First 1271 by which it declar'd That all those who after they have propos'd Questions which may concern Faith and Philosophy shall Decide them against the Faith or shall maintain those Propositions true according to the Principles of Philosophy tho' contrary to the Faith shall be expell'd the University Notwithstanding this Maxim That one and the same thing may be true according to Philosophy and false according to Faith spreading it self The same Bishop being admonished by Pope John XXI forbad it in the Year 1277 and Condemn'd a great many Errors which they took the liberty to maintain under this Pretence as if there might be two Truths one according to Philosophy and another according to Faith He likewise Condemn'd a Book call'd Of Love or Of the God of Love and some Writings of Geomancy Necromancy and Witchcraft CHAP. IX An Account of the Sects of the Vaudois and Albigenses and other Hereticks Of their Errors Condemnation Adversaries of the Inquisitions Croisades and Wars Rais'd against them ABout the Year 1160. Peter Valdo a Rich Merchant of Lions being in an Assembly of his Brethren The Rise of the Sect of the Vaudois was so sensibly affected at the sudden Death of one of them that he took upon him a Resolution of altering his way of Living and explaining the Words of Jesus Christ against Riches in a Literal Sense he distributed all his Goods to the Poor of the City to make a Profession of Voluntary Poverty and to revive as he pretended the way of Living among the Apostles Several Persons having follow'd his Example they Form'd a Sect of People whom they call'd the Vaudois or Waldenses from the Name of their first Founder The Poor of Lions because of the Poverty of which they made Profession Leonists from the Name of the City of Lions and Insabbates upon the Account of certain Shoes or Sandals which they wore cut on the Top to shew their bare Feet in imitation of the Apostles as they suppos'd Valdo having some Learning explain'd to them the New Testament in the Vulgar Tongue He Instructed them so well
Father and the Son being a matter decided was no more liable to dispute nor debate The Greek Deputies proposed that at the least the Greeks be left at liberty to continue in their same Judgment it was replied they could not dispense with it because there was but one Faith in the Church and there was propounded to them an easie way of Agreement viz. That the four Patriarchs should depute some Persons of note in the West with sufficient Power to confer with such as the Pope should nominate not to dispute but to be instructed in the Truth and to remove their Scruple That for the Meeting of a General Council it was to no purpose neither could it be effected especially at this Juncture Barlaam return'd That though the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son went for currant truth among the Latines the Greeks notwithstanding were in a doubt of his Proceeding from the Son and that they could not be convinced herein but by the way of discussion that this was ever practised in the Church that if it were refused them they should suspect the Latines distrusted the goodness of their Cause That General Councils had ever been Useful and done the Church credit In fine he propounded to make a Re-union and leave both Parties free to hold what they pleased as to this Question to oblige the Greeks to grant the Church of Rome the Honours which the ancient Patriarchs had allowed and which were determined by the Laws of the Emperors and by the Canons of the Holy Fathers and that the Latines on their part should give way to allow to the Church and Empire of Constantinople the Rights they enjoy by ancient Custom by the Laws and by the Canons He concludes with demanding of Succours The Pope denied him for fear the Greeks when strengthened and raised by the Holy See and by the Catholick Princes of Europe should afterwards desert them as they had done before Barlaam before his departure delivered a fresh Memorial to the Pope wherein he set forth That it was impossible to send Deputies from the East as he demanded because whatever good Design the Emperor might have to settle the Union he durst not discover it and that the Patriarch of Constantinople could not send Legates without consulting the other Patriarchs which he could not do by reason of the Wars and that otherwise he was not certain the other Patriarchs would consent to it he added a Promise that notwithstanding he would do his utmost This Project had no issue and things remained in Greece in the posture they were in as to the Latines Andronicus being Dead in the Year 1341. the Empress to strengthen her self against Cantacuzenus Projects for Union under Cantacuzenus writ to Pope Clement VI. that if she were able to conquer her Enemies she would embrace the Doctrine and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome The Pope commended her Design exhorted her to persist in it and promised her Succours Cantacuzenus sent some time after George Spanopulus Master of his Wardrobe and Sigerus Praetor of the People in Quality of Ambassadors to whom he joined a Latine named Francis a Friend of the Pope's giving them in Charge to remove any Prejudice he might have against this Prince and to demand Aid against the Infidels Clement VI gave these Ambassadors a kind Reception and sent with them two Bishops one of the Oâ—… of the Grey-Friars and the other of the Order of Friars-Preachers to treat of the Union They agreed with the Emperor that the Pope should call a Council that he should give the Emperor notice of the time and place and that the Emperor should call the Patriarchs together to the intent they might send Deputies thither The Pope accepted this Proposal but he wrote to the Emperor that he could not put it in Execution suddenly because of the Wars in Italy Câ—…zenus gave him Thanks for his good Intentions and intreated him to do what was possible for the assembling of this Council but the Pope died and it was no more mention'd In the Year 1369. the Emperor John Palaeologus seeing himself hard beset on all sides by the The Union of John Palaeologus Turks made a Voyage into Italy to demand Succours of the Christian Princes in Europe He was well received there and repaired to Rome where Pope Urban V. came to meet him on the 13th of October and on the 18th of the same Month he made a Profession of Faith which he Signed with his Hand and Sealed with his own Seal in the presence of Five Cardinals and other Witnesses to the end he might be received into Communion whereby he acknowledged the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the Pains of Purgatory Prayers for the Dead the Vision of Souls purged from all Sin soon after Death the Seven Sacraments the Validity of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist offered with Unleavened Bread the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST the validity of Second Third and Fourth Marriages the Primacy of the Church of Rome over the whole Catholick Church given with full Power by JESUS CHRIST to â—t Peter to whom the Pope of Rome is Successor to whom recourse ought to be had in all Causes that concern the Church to whom all Churches and all Bishops owe Obedience and Submission who hath the fulness of Power c. He promises and engages by Oath upon the Holy Gospels inviolably to hold this Doctrine and utterly renounces the Schism Notwithstanding this Act of Submission John Palaeologus drew not much Assistance from the Western Princes but was Arrested by the Venetians for the Payment of his Debts and was not released till his Son Manuel had discharged them This latter coming to the Empire went also to the West about the end of this Century there to demand Succours against Bajazet who had laid Siege to Constantinople but he in vain went over Italy France England and Germany and could obtain but very little Aid from the French King insomuch that he not only rejected the Opinion of the Latines but also wrote against them about the Procession of the Holy Ghost The Greeks had likewise in the Fourteenth Century Disputes among them upon Points of The Contests between the Bâ—rlaamites and Palamites Doctrine which were pushed on with great heat on both Sides The Heads of the two Parties were Barlaam and Palamas The first was a Monk of Calabria Learned and Cunning who being come to Constantinople buoyed up by the Authority of the Emperor the young Andronicus undertook the Monks stiled Hesicasts or Quietists examined their Method of Prayer and having therein observed things he did not like he writ against them and accused them of reviving the Errors of the Euchites and the Messalianists giving them a new Name of Omphalo Psychi that is to say Navellists because as we have noted in speaking of Simeon of Xeroxerce one of the
with the Catholick Church nor Profession be made of believing in the Roman Church as one believes in the Catholick Church Thus you see what he offers in the Treatise of the Primacy set forth by Salmasius But he destroys these Principles in his Letters which he wrote to the Greeks while he was in the West for he there maintain'd that every Church ought to be Subject to the Church of Rome and her Bishop who hath received his Ordination from JESUS CHRIST that his Decrees ought to be consider'd as the Divine Scriptures that we owe them a blind Obedience that it belongs to him to correct all other Bishops and to examine their Judgments and to confirm them or make them void that he has right to ordain other Patriarchs that St. Peter received this Primacy from JESUS CHRIST that his Successors have ever enjoyed it that the Schism of the Greeks took beginning but Four Hundred Years ago that since this time the Greek Church is fallen to decay and sensible she is reduced to the last Extremity that the Latines cannot be accused of Heresie for using Wafers nor for holding the Procession of the Holy Ghost seeing they follow in it the Opinion of the ancient Doctors of their Church and the Practice of their Ancestors and that the Greeks who obstinately assert that the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father are not only Schismaticks but also Hereticks seeing they deny a Truth grounded upon the Holy Scriptures and on the Tradition of the Fathers GREGORY ACINDYNUS followed not the example of Barlaam in his Union with the Latines Gregorius Acindynus a Greek Monk but remain'd concealed in Greece continually writing against the Palamites Gretser has set forth two Books of Acindynus concerning the Essence and Operation of God written against Palamas Gregoras and Philotheus printed at Ingolstadt in the Year 1626. Allatius has published in his Graecia Orthodoxa i. e. Orthodox Greece a Poem in Iambick Verse made by Acindynus against Palamas and two Fragments against the same in one of which he makes mention of Five Volumes which he wrote against Barlaam to defend the Monastick Discipline of the Greeks The Works of GREGORY PALAMAS which are extant follow Two Prayers upon the Transfiguration Gregory Palamas Archbishop of Thessalonica of our Lord wherein he explains his Doctrine of the Light which appear'd on Mount Tabor that it was Uncreated and is not of the Essence of God set out in Greek and Latin by Father Combefisius in his Addition to the Bibliotheca Patrum A Prosopopoeia which contains two Declamations one of the Soul against the Body which she accuses of Intemperance and Disobedience and the other of the Body which defends it self against the Soul together with the Sentence given by a third Party set forth in Greek by Turnebus printed at Paris in the Year 1553. and in Latin in the last Bibliotheca Patrum Two Discourses of the Procession of the Holy Ghost against the Latines printed at London The Confutation of the Expositions of Johannes Veccus on the Procession of the Holy Ghost set forth in Greek and Latin together with the Answers of Cardinal Bessarion by Arcudius and printed at Rome in 1630. He made a great many Works for the Defence of his Opinions whereof divers are cited by Manuel Calecas and by other Greeks which wrote against him and among others A Treatise of Divine Participation A Catalogue of Absurdities which follow from the Opinion of Barlaam Dialogues Letters Discourses c. of which the Extracts are to be seen in Manuel Calecas There is in the Library of Ausburgh a Treatise in MS. of Palamas on the Transfiguration of our Lord more large than the Prayers beforementioned The other Authors who have written for or against Palamas shall be inserted in the Succession of Greek Authors of this Century which we proceed to recite according to the Order of the times NICEPHORUS the Son of Callistus Xanthopylus a Monk of Constantinople a studious and laborious Nicephorus Callistus a Greek Monk Man undertook under the Empire of Andronicus the elder to Compose a New Ecclesiastical History which he dedicated to that Prince it was divided into Twenty three Books began at the Birth of JESUS CHRIST and ended at the Death of the Emperor Leo the Philosopher that is to say at the Year 911. we have no more than the Eighteen first Books which end with the Emperor Phocas that is to say in the Year of our Lord 610. He collected his History out of Eusebius Socrates Sozomen Theodoret Evagrius and other good Authors but he has mixed it with a great many Fables and has faln into many Mistakes the style is not disagreeable and is Correct enough for his time The only Copy of this History which was in the Library of Matthias King of Hungary at Buda was taken by a Turk and Sold at an Auction in Constantinople where it was bought up by a Christian and after carried to the Library of the Emperor at Vienna where it is at this present Langius has translated it into Latin printed at Basil in 1553. at Antwerp in 1560. at Paris in 1562. and 1573. and at Francfort in 1588. and Fronto Ducaeus hath since published it in Greek and Latin printed at Paris in the Year 1630. Father Labbe has set out a Catalogue of the Emperors and Patriarâ—… of Constantinople collected by Nicephorus in his Preliminary Treatise of the Byzantine History printed at Paris in 16â—8 and there was printed at Basil in 1536. An Abridgment of the Scripture in Iambick Verse which aâ—… bears the Name of Nicephorus There is exâ—… under the Name of ANDRONICUS of Constantinople a long Dialogue between a Andronicus the Elder a Greek Emperor Jew and a Câ—…n wherein the Christian proves the principal Points of the Religion of JESUS CHRIST by Quotations out of the Old Testament This Work is published in Latin in the Translation of Liveneius by Stuart and printed at Ingolstadt in the Year 1616. and in the Bibliothecis Patrum It is doubtful who is the Author but the time is certain for the Author counts 1255. Years from the Captivity of the Jews which reckoning since the taking of Jerusalem by Titus fall in the Year 1527. from JESUS CHRIST which makes it appear that Liveneius is deceived in ascribing this Work to Euthymius Zigabenus who died before that time The Politick Verses which he found in the Front of the Book seem to intimate that this Andronicus was of the Family of the Commeni but one may likewise understand them otherwise and perhaps not much strain his Faith The Greek Original is in the Library of the Duke of Bavaria where also are to be found other Dialogues which â—…ry the Name of Andronicus the Emperor viz. A Dialogue between the Emperor and a Cardinal concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost a Dispute of the Emperor 's with one Peter an Armenian Doctor a Treatise of the two Natures in JESUS CHRIST
Venice to take up some Gallies there After he had said this he would have given a Writing to the Emperor who refus'd to receive it The Pope being angry at this Refusal withdrew but he caus'd tell the Emperor by the Cardinal Julian that after the Affair was concluded he might return that he would defray his Charges as far as Venice and give him assistance to go to Constantinople The Greek Prelats having examin'd a-new the Articles propos'd by the Latins found them reasonable and pass'd even the Article of Purgatory On the 17th of June the Emperor call'd together the Greek Prelats who were all found to be of the same Opinion about the Union except Mark of Ephesus who remain'd unmoveable The next Sunday they examin'd the Privileges of the Pope and approv'd them all adding to them two Conditions First That the Pope could not Call an Oecumenical Council without the Emperor and the Patriarchs Secondly That in Case of an Appeal from the Judgment of the Patriarchs the Pope could not call the Cause to Rome but he must send Judges to sit in the Places where the Fact is committed The Pope being unwilling to pass these two Articles the Emperor was ready to break off the whole Negotiation but the Greek Prelats some Days after drew up the Article concerning the Pope in these Words As to the Pope's Supremacy we confess That he is the High-Priest and the Vicar of Jesus Christ the Pastor and Teacher of all Christians who governs the Church of God saving the Privileges and Rights of the Eastern Patriarchs viz. of Constantinople who is next after the Pope and then of Alexandria of Antioch and lastly of Jerusalem This Project was agreed to by the Pope and Cardinals and all Parties consented to labour from the next Day in composing the Decree of Union The first Difficulty which presented it self was to fix upon the Name that should be put at the Head the Latins would have it to be that of the Pope and the Emperor pretended to the contrary that it should be his At last it was order'd That the Pope's Name should be put there but then it should be added with the Consent of the Emperor the Patriarch of Constantinople and the other Patriarchs There was another Difficulty about the manner of expressing the Pope's Privileges The Latins would have it put thus that he should enjoy them as was determin'd in Scripture and the Writings of the Saints This Expression pleas'd not the Emperor for says he If any Saint has made honorary Complements in a Letter to the Pope shall this be taken for a Privilege And therefore he said That he would not pass this Article as it was thus express'd The Pope consented but with Difficulty that it should be amended and that in stead of saying according to the Writings of the Saints it should be put according as was contain'd in the Canons The Archbishop of Russia and Bessarion would have an Anathema pronounc'd against those who did not approve this Decree but the Archbishop of Trebizonde and the Protosyncelle oppos'd it and the Emperor was of their Opinion At last all the Words of the Decree having been for a long time weigh'd and examin'd on both sides it was fairly written out in Greek and Latin and a Day was set for Signing it and then concluding solemnly the Union The manner of expressing this Decree is as follows The Title of it is The Definition The Decreâ— of Union between the Greeks and the Latins of the Holy Oecumenical Council celebrated at Florence of Eugenius the Servant of the Servants of God to serve for a perpetual Monument with the Consent of our dear Son John Palaeologus the Illustrious Emperor of the Greeks and of those who supply the place of our most venerable Brethren the Patriarchs and of the other Prelats representing the Greek Church The Preface is a kind of an Hymn which contains the joyful Thoughts and Thanksgivings for the Union of the two Churches after which the Definition is express'd in these Words The Greeks and Latins being Assembled in this Holy Oecumenical Council have us'd all Care to examine with the greatest exactness possible the Article which concerns the Holy Spirit and after the Testimonies of Holy Scripture and the Passages of Greek and Latin Fathers were related whereof some import that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and others that he proceeds from the Father by the Son it was acknowledg'd That they had all the same Sense tho' they make use of divers Expressions That the Greeks by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father did not intend to exclude the Son but in regard the Greeks thought that the Latins by affirming The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son admitted of two Principles and two Spirations therefore they abstain from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son The Latins on the contrary affirm'd That by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son they had no design to deny that the Father was the Fountain and Principle of the whole Divinity viz. of the Son and of the Holy Spirit nor to pretend that the Son does not receive from the Father that wherein the Holy Spirit proceeds from him nor lastly to admit two Principles or two Spirations but that they did acknowledge there was one only Principle and one only Procession of the Holy Spirit as they had always held And forasmuch as these Expressions came all to one and the same true Sense they did at last agree and conclude the following Union with unanimous consent Therefore in the Name of the Holy Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost by the Advice of this Holy Oecumenical Council Assembled at Florence we Define that the truth of this Faith be believ'd and receiv'd of all Christians and that all profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son that he receives his Substance and his Subsisting Being from the Father and from the Son and that he proceeds from these two eternally as one only Principle and by one only Procession declaring That the Holy Doctors and Fathers who say That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son have no other Sense which they discover by this That the Son is as the Father according to the Greeks the Cause and according to the Latins the Principle of the Subsistence of the Holy Spirit and by this That the Father has Communicated to the Son in his Generation all that he has except that he is the Father and also has given him from all Eternity that wherein the Holy Spirit proceedeth from him We define also That this Explication and of the Son was added lawfully and justly to the Creed to clear up the Truth and not without necessity We declare also That the Body of Jesus Christ is truly consecrated in Bread-Corn whether it be Leaven'd or Unleaven'd and that the Priests
the 16th of October That Eugenius should be cited to answer what had been produc'd against him Another Assembly was held towards the end of the year at Nuremberg to which the Pope sent the Cardinal of Sancta â—â—uze the Archbishop of Tarente John de Turrecremata and Nicholas Cusanus to act there on his behalf the Council of Basil sent thither also the Patriarch of Aquileia and other Deputies There it was propos'd That a third place might be made choice of where the Prelats of Basil and Ferrara might Assemble The Deputies of the Council having maintain'd That this Proposal was not reasonable made answer That they had no Commands about this from the Council They desired on behalf of the Council That the Princes of Germany would receive its Decrees and provide for its Security To which it was answer'd That the Emperor and Princes would make known their thoughts to the Council by their Ambassadors while those from France advis'd the Fathers of the Council to hold to the three places they had made choice of Basil Avignon and the Savoy if they could make the Pope and the Greeks agree to them if not to name many Cities among which there should be some which the Pope could not reasonably refuse The Ambassadors of the Emperor and the Princes of Germany being arriv'd at Basil declar'd to the Fathers of the Council That the Germans did acknowledge the Council for General That the Emperor meant that all those who were Assembled should have security in that place but that the Neutrality had been accepted by all the Prelats Princes and People That they honour'd the Council and Eugenius both together That they were of Opinion it was necessary for promoting Peace that the Fathers of Basil and Ferrara should meet in a third Place The Ambassadors of the other Princes joyn'd with those of Germany and desired the same thing At last after much Dispute a Project was set on foot whereby the Fathers of the Council were to name the Cities of Strasburgh Constance or Mayence That the Emperor should communicate this choice to the Pope and the Greeks within a Month and that a Month after he should be bound to accept one of these Cities That the Pope should confirm the Decrees of the Council and the Council should take off the Suspension enacted against the Pope This Project was neither acceptable to the Council of Basil nor to Pope Eugenius and so these matters remain'd in the same state in which they were In the year 1439 the Council sent Deputies to the Assembly which was held at Mayence in the Month of March The Ambassadors of the Princes who were at Basil came thither also and some persons came thither secretly on behalf of the Pope among whom was Nicholas Cusanus The Deputies of the Council urg'd earnestly That he should be oblig'd to receive its Decrees and the Ambassadors of the Princes That they would â—urcease the Decison of the Process against Eugenius After much contest the Assembly receiv'd the Decrees of the Council except those that were made against the Pope and the Deputies of the Council promised that it would consent to the desire of the Emperor the Kings and Princes on condition that they would engage to continue the Council after its Translation upon the same foot according to the same Laws the same Order and Customs which were observ'd at Basil and that in case Eugenius did not acknowledge the Truths establish'd by the Council within the time that should be prefix'd nor execute what the Council had Ordain'd they would abandon him and assist the Council and adhere to its Decision The Bishop of Quensa said That the Pope could not accept these Conditions and that the Princes would never consent to them And thus the Deputies of the Council retir'd without making any agreement After their departure two Deputies of the Pope's Legats arriv'd at Mayence and would have them revoke the Resolution of the Assembly about the Decrees of the Council of Basil which not being able to Compass they oppos'd them and made great Complaints That the Princes maintain'd the Fathers of Basil to the prejudice of the Pope's Autority During this Negotiation at Mayence the Divines which were at Basil disputed this Question The Disputes of the Divines at Basil abouâ— the Authority of a Council viz. Whether Eugenius could be declar'd a Heretick upon the account of his Disobedience and the Contempt he had shewn to the Orders of the Church Some held the Affirmative and others the Negative and among them who maintain'd the Affirmative some held him simply Heretical and others an Apostate at last after much Dispute they drew up eight Theological Propositions or Conclusions express'd in these words First It is a Truth of the Catholick Faith That the Holy General Council has Power over the Pope and every other Person Secondly The General Council being lawfully Assembled cannot be Dissolv'd Translated or Adjourn'd by the Authority of the Pope without its own consent This is a Truth of the same nature with the former Thirdly He that does obstinately resist these Truths ought to be accounted Heretical These three Propositions are about Law the other five concern the Facts and Person of Eugenius and are as follows Fourthly The Pope Eugenius the 4th has opposed these Truths when he attempted to Dissolve or Translate the first time the Council of Basil by the plenitude of his Power Fifthly Being admonished by the Holy Council he hath revok'd the Errors contrary to these Truths Sixthly The Dissolution or Translation of the Council attempted the second time by Eugenius is contrary to these Truths and contains an inexcusable Error in the Faith Seventhly Eugenius renewing his attempt to Dissolve or Translate the Council has relaps'd into the Errors which he had revok'd Eighthly Being admonish'd by the Council to revoke the second Dissolution or Translation which he attempted and persisting in his Disobedience after he had been Contumacious and holding a Conventicle at Ferrara he has discover'd his Obstinacy These eight Conclusions being read in the Assembly rais'd great Disputes among the Fathers of the Council some meaning to approve and others to reject them The Archbishop of Palerma who had formerly been one of the great Adversaries to Eugenius having receiv'd Orders from the King of Arragon was at the Head of those who would have them rejected He acknowledg'd this Truth That the Council is above the Pope but he maintaind That this Doctrin ought not to pass for an Article of Faith He confess'd That Eugenius had done wrong but he did not believe that he ought to be look'd upon and treated as a Heretick Dr. John of Segovia maintain'd on the contrary That this Truth was a matter of Faith and that Eugenius by opposing it had fall'n into Heresy Amedaeus Archbishop of Lyons Ambassador from the King of France accused also Eugenius of Heresy on the contrary the Bishop of Burgos Ambassador from the King of Spain