Concerning the Right Use of the Fathers in Controversies, Book 2 · Chapter 4

Concerning the Right Use of the Fathers in Controversies · Book 2 · Chapter 4

p. 60CHAP. IV.

Reaſon IV. That the Fathers have erred, in divers Points of Religion; not only ſingly, but alſo many of them together.

I Conceive, that that which hath been delivered in the two preceding Chapters, is ſufficient to make it appear to any moderate man, that the Authority of the Fathers is not ſo Authentick, as People commonly imagine it to be. Thou therefore whoſoever thou art, if thou beeſt but an indifferent and impartial Reader, mayeſt omit the reading of this, and the following Chapter; both which I am fain to add, though much againſt my will, to anſwer all Objections that may yet be made by perverſe and obſtinate perſons. For the prejudice, wherewith they are before-hand poſſeſſed, may hinder them perhaps from ſeeing the clearneſs of Reaſon, and from hearing the voice of the Fathers themſelves; whoſe words they perhaps will be ready to impute to their modeſty, rather than they will conſent to yield unto them no more honour than they themſelves require. The ſtubbornneſs therefore of theſe men, and not any need that thou haſt of my doing ſo, hath conſtrained me to lay aſide ſome of that Reſpect, that I bear towards Antiquity; and hath obliged me to give them a ſight of ſome Errours of the Fathers, which are of much more importance than the former, if by this means at leaſt I may be able to overcome this their obſtinacy. For, when p. 61they ſhall but ſee, that the Fathers have erred in divers very conſiderable Points; I hope they will at length confeſs, that they had very good Reaſon, gravely to adviſe us not to believe, or take upon Truſt any of their Opinions, unleſs we find that they are grounded either upon the Scriptures, or elſe upon ſome other Truth. I confeſs, I enter upon this Inquiry very unwillingly, as taking very little pleaſure in diſcovering the Infirmities and Failings of any Men, eſpecially of ſuch, as are otherwiſe thought worthy of ſo great Eſtimation and Honour: but yet there is nothing in the World, …how precious or dear unto us ſoever it be, that we ought not to account as Dung, if it be compared with Truth, and the Edification of men. And I am verily perſwaded, that even theſe bleſſed Saints themſelves, were they now alive again, would give us thanks for the pains we have taken, in endeavouring to make men ſee, that they were but men; and would account themſelves beholding to us, for having taken the boldneſs upon us, for the ſame reaſon to diſcover thoſe Imperfections and Failings of theirs, which Divine Providence hath ſuffered them to leave behind them in their Writings, to the end only that they might ſerve as ſo many Arguments to us of their Humanity. If there be any notwithſtanding, that ſhall take offence hereat, I muſt intreat them once again to conſider, that the perverſneſs only of thoſe men, with whom I have to deal, hath forced me to this Irreverence, (if at leaſt we are to call it ſo) together with the deſire I have to manifeſt to the World ſo important a Truth as this is. If I would go about to defend my ſelf by Examples, I could here make uſe of that of Cardinal Perron; Du Perron, Repliq. lib. 6. cap 6 p. 949.who, to juſtifie the Church of Romes interdicting the reading of the Bible to any of the Laity, ſave only ſuch as ſhould be allowed ſo to do; makes no more ado but falls to laying open to the view of the World (not all the Faults) for there are no ſuch there; but) all the Falſe Appearances of Faults, that are found in the Bible, making a whole p. 62Chapter expreſly of the ſame. How much more lawfully then may we adventure here, to expoſe to publick view ſome few of the Failings of the Fathers, unto whom we owe infinitely leſs Reſpect, than unto God; only to moderate a little, and to allay the heat of that exceſſive Devotion, that moſt men bear towards their Writings; that ſo the one Party may be perſwaded to ſeek out for ſome other Weapons, than the Authority of theſe men, for the defence of their Opinions; and that the other Party may not ſo eaſily be induced to give ear to the bare Teſtimony of Antiquity. It was the Saying of a Great Prince long ſince, that the vileſt and moſt ſhameful Neceſſities of his Nature, were the things that moſt clearly evinced him, that he was a Man, and no God, as his flattering Courtiers would needs have made him believe he was. Seeing therefore it ſtands us ſo much upon, to know, that the Fathers were but Men, let us not be afraid to produce here this ſo clear and ſo evident Argument of their Humanity. Let us boldly enter into their moſt hidden Secrets, and let us ſee what ever Marks of their Humanity they have left us in their Writings; that we may no longer adore and reverence their Authority, as if it were wholly Divine. Yet I proteſt here, before I begin, that I will not make any advantage at all of thoſe many Arguments of their Paſſion, which we meet withal; partly in their own Writings, and partly in the Hiſtories of their Life. I heartily wiſh rather, that all of this kind might be buried in an Eternal Oblivion, and that we would account of them, as of Perſons that were moſt accompliſhed for Purity and Innocency of Life, as far forth at leaſt, as the frail Condition of Humane Nature can bear. I ſhall only touch upon the Errours of their Belief, and thoſe things wherein they have failed, not in Living, but in Writing. The moſt Ancient of them all is Juſtin Martyr, a man ſo renowned in all Ancient Hiſtories for his great Knowledge, both in Religion and Philoſophy; and alſo for the Fervency p. 63of his Zeal, which is ſo evidently manifeſied, by his ſuffering a Glorious Martyrdom for our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt. And yet for all this, how many odd Opinions do we meet withal in his Books, which are either very trivial, or elſe are manifeſtly falſe? Do but hear how he ſpeaks of the Laſt Times, immediately preceding the Day of Judgment, and the end of the World. **Juſtin. contr. Tryph. p. 307. foreign &c.As for me, (ſaith he) and the reſt of us that are true Chriſtians, we know that there ſhall be a Reſurrection of the Fleſh, and that the Saints ſhall ſpend a thouſand years in Jeruſalem, which ſhall be rebuilt, enriched, and enlarged, as the Prophets aſſure us, Ezechiel, Iſaiah, and others. And to this purpoſe he citeth that which is written Iſaiah, Chap. 65. and beſides, that other Paſſage in the Revelation, where it is ſaid,††Id foreign. That thoſe which had believed in Chriſt, ſhould live and reign with him a thouſand years in Jeruſalem; and that after this there ſhould be a General and Final Reſurrection and Judgment. In which words you ſee plainly, that he holds with the Chiliaſts, that the Saints ſhall reign a thouſand years in Jeruſalem, before the Reſurrection be perfectly accompliſhed. Which is an Opinion that is at this day condemned as Erroneous, by the whole Weſtern Church, both on the one ſide, and on the other. He ſeems in another place to have held, that the Eſſence of God was finite, and was not preſent in all places; where he endeavours to prove againſt a Jew, that it was not the Father, **Idem contr. Tryph pag …83. & 357. foreign, &c.who rained fire and brimſtone upon Sodom, becauſe that he could not then have been at that time in Heaven. That which he hath delivered, concerning the Angels, is altogether as ſenſeleſs, though not ſo dangerous; namely,††Idem in Apol. pr…ing ad Senat. pag. 44. foreign. That God having p. 64in the beginning committed unto them the Care and Providence over men and all ſublunary things, they had broken this Order, by ſuffering themſelves to be overcome by the Love of Women, by companying with whom had been alſo born Children, which are thoſe we now call Demons, or Devils. I know not neither, whether he will be able eaſily to bring any one over to that other Opinion of his where he ſays; that**Juſtin. contr Tryph. p. 333. foreign, &c. All the Souls of the Saints, and of the Prophets, had fallen under the power of Evil Spirits, which were ſuch, as were the Spirits of Python: and that this was the reaſon, why our Saviour Chriſt, being now ready to give up the Ghoſt, Ibid. foreign.recommended his Spirit to God. I pray you tell me, out of what part of Gods Word he learnt this Doctrine, which he delivers in his ſecond Apologie: where he ſays,††Id. Apol. 2. p. 83. foreign, &c. That all thoſe, who lived according to the Rule of Reaſon, were Chriſtians, notwithſtanding that they might have been accounted as Atheiſts; ſuch as among the Greeks, were Socrates, Heraclitus, and the like; and among the Barbarians, Abraham and Azarias: repeating the ſame Doctrine, within a few Lines afterward, and ſaying, that**Ibid. foreign. All thoſe who lived, or do now live according to the Rule of Reaſon, are Chriſtians, and are in an aſſured, quiet condition. Irenaeus, Biſhop of Lyon, who lived very near his time, was alſo▪ of the ſame Opinion with Juſtin, touching the ſtate of the Soul, after it is once departed out of the Body, till the hour of Judgment. For, towards the concluſion of that Excellent Book of his, which he wrote againſt Hereſies; after that he hath told us, that our Saviour Chriſt had deſcended into Hell, and had been in the place where p. 65the Dead were; which place he oppoſed to the Light of this World: he further addeth, ThataaIren. l. 5. contr Haereſ. c. 26. M… nifeſtum eſt, quia & diſcipulorum ejus, propter quos & haec operatus eſt Dominus, animae abibunt in inviſibilem locum, definitum eis à Deo, & ibi uſ que ad Reſurrectionem commorabuntur, Su…inente… Reſurrectionem, &c. it is evident, that the Souls of the Diſciples of our Saviour, for the love of whom he did all theſe things, ſhall go alſo into a certain Inviſible place, which is pr…vided for them by God, there to expect the Reſurrection; and ſhall afterwards reſume their Bodies, and be raiſed up again in all Perfection; that is to ſay, Corporally, in the ſame manner as our Saviour was raiſed up again, and ſo ſhall they come into the preſence of God. And this Opinion he oppoſeth againſt that of the Valentinians, and Gnoſticks, which he had before produced in the beginning of that Chapter of his, who held, That the Souls of Men, immediately after they were departed out of the Body, were carried up above the Heavens, and the Creator of the World, and went to that Mother, or that Father, which theſe Hereticks had fancied to themſelves: Which Opinion of theirs, is in like manner rejected by Juſtin Martyr, Juſtin. contra Tryph. p. 307.in the Paſſage a little before alledged, out of his Book againſt Tryphon: Whence it plainly appears, (that we may not trouble our ſelves to produce any other Proofs) that Juſtin and Irenaeus were both of the ſame Belief, touching the State of the Soul after Death. But to return to Irenaeus, in his Second Book againſt Hereticks, Iren. contr. Haer. l. 2. c. 39.he maintains very ſ…iffely▪ That our Saviour Chriſt was above Forty years of age, when he ſuffered death for us: bringing in, in defence of this Opinion of his, which ſo manifeſtly contradicteth the Evangelical Hiſtories, certain Probabilities onelyonly; as namely, That our Saviour paſſed through all Ages, as heing come into the World to ſanctifie and ſave People of all Ages; urging alſo thoſe words of the Jews to our Saviour, Thou art not yet fifty years old, Joh. 8. 57.John 8:57and haſt thou ſeen Abraham? In the Concluſion of all, ſaying, That S. John had delivered it by Tradition to the Prieſts of Aſia, That Chriſt was ſomewhat Ancient when he began to p. 66preach, being then about the age of Forty or Fifty years. This Fancy of his appeaſed ſo ridioulous to Cardinal Baronius, Baron. Annal. T. 1. ar. 34 num. 137.as that, notwithſtanding the Faith of all the Copies of this Father, and the Contexture, which appears evidently to be his, together with the Vein and Marks of his Fancy and Stile; he hath yet had the confidence to ſay, That this whole Paſſage had been ſoiſted into the Text of Irenaeus, either by ſome ignorant, or ſome malicious Perſon, and that it could not be Irenaeus his own.

But it ſeemeth, that he had no great reaſon for this his ſuſpicion, as the JeſuitebbPetav. in Epiphan. p. 143. Petavius hath clearly made it appear, in his Notes upon Epiphaniu…. However you may hence perceive, that Baronius thinks that very Poſſible, which we have endeavoured to prove in the Former Part of this Treatiſe, namely, That there may Poſſibly have been very many and great Alterations and Corruptions in the Books of the Writers of the Firſt Ages, by many Paſſages and Clauſes having been either inſerted into them, or elſe maliclouſly raſed out of them.

The ſameccIren. l. 2. contr. Haer. c. 62. Animas, &c. Characterem corporis, in quo etiam adaptantur, cuſtodire cundem, &c. &c. 63. Animas hominis habere figuram ut etiam cognoſcantur. Irenaeus holds, and endeavours to prove, in the ſame Book, That the Souls of Men, after death, retain the Character (that is to ſay, the Figure) of the Bodies to which they were formerly united, and that they repreſent the ſhape of the ſaid Bodies, ſo as to make Men take them for the ſame. I ſhall here paſs by that which heddIren. contr. Haer. l. 2. c. 49. ſaith in the 49 Chapter of the ſame Book, namely, That our Saviour Chriſt did not at all know when the Day of Judgment ſhould be, neither according to the one, nor according to the other of his Natures: although theſe words of his look as if they would very hardly be reconciled to any good fenſe. Neither ſhall I yet take notice of what both he and Juſtin Martyr have in divers places ſo raſhly delivered, touching the ſtrength of Humane Nature, in the Buſineſs of Salvation; becauſe I conceive, witheeCaſſand. in defenſ libelli de Offic. pii Viri. Caſſander, that all thoſe Paſſages may, and indeed ought to be underſtood with reſpect had to p. 67the ſcope and drift of theſe Authors, whoſe Buſineſs there was to confute thoſe Hereticks of Their time, who maintained, That there was a Fatal Neceſſity in the Actions of Men, by this means depriving them of all manner of Election, or Judgment. Neither hath the great Learning of ffClem. Alex. Strom. lib. 1. foreign.Clemens Alexandrinus kept him from falling▪ in…o very many the like, Errors: as for inſtance, where in divers places he ſays plainly, That the Heathen, who lived before the coming of our Saviour Chriſt, were juſtified by Philoſophy, ggIli…. p. …7. foreign.which was then Neceſſary for them whereas it is now only Ʋſeful unto them; and that this Philoſophy was tho… choolmiſter of …he Gentiles, which brought them to Chriſt, or ſerved to guide them till the time of his Coming, in like manner as the Law did the Jews; and that the Greeks were juſtified by i… alone…; and, that it was given unto them, as their hhId. lib. 6. Strom. p. 279. foreign.Covenant, being a ſtep to, and, as it were, a Foundation laid for Chriſtian Philoſophy. He was of Opinion alſo, in order to this,iiId. Strom lib. 6. p. 269. foreign, &c. fusè. That our Saviour went down into Hell, to preach the Goſpel to the Departed Souls; and that he ſaved many of them, that is, all that believed: And that the kkforeign (in inferis) foreign.Apoſtles alſo, after their Death, deſcended likewiſe into the ſame place, and for the ſame purpoſe: Conceiving, that God otherwiſe ſhould have been Unjuſt, and an Accepter of Perſons, if ſo be he ſhould have condemned all thoſe who died before the Coming of his Son. For (ſaith he) if llId. p. 271. foreign;He preached to the Living, to the end they might not be condemned Ʋnjuſtly; why ſhould …e not, for the ſame Reaſon, preach alſo to thoſe who were departed this Life before his Coming? p. 68From theſe and the like Conſiderations, he concludeth, That it was neceſſary that the Souls of all the Dead, as well Gentiles, as Jews, ſhould have been made Partakers of the Preaching of our Saviour,mmIbid. p. 270. foreign. and ſhould have had the Be…fit of the ſame Diſpenſation, which he uſed towards others here upon Earth, in order either to their Salvation, through Repentance; or their juſt Condemnation, for their Impenitency.

He plainly maintains alſo, in ſeveral places of his Works, That all the Puniſhments which God inflicts upon M…n, tend to their Salvation, and are ſent them for their Inſtiuction and Amendment; comprehending alſo within this number, even thoſe very Pains which the Damned endure in Hell: and from hence it is, that he ſomewhere alſo affirmeth, That wicked Men are to be purged by Fire: And hereto doth he refer the Conflagration ſpoken of by the Stoicks, alledging alſo to this purpoſe certain Paſſages out of Plato, Id. Strom. l. 5. p. 227.and out of a certain Philoſopher of Epheſus, which I conceive to be Heraclitus; by all which it clearly appears, that he had the ſame Belief touching the Pains of Hell, that his Scholar Origen had, who maintains in an infinite number of places up and down his Works, That the Pains of Hell are Purgative only; and conſequently are not Eternal, but are to have an end, when the Souls of the Damned are once throughly Cleanſed and Purified by this Fire. nnId. Strom. l 5. p. 227. foreign, &c.He believes alſo with Juſtin Martyr, That the Angels fell in love with the Firſt Women, and that this Love of theirs tranſported them ſo far, as to make them indiſcreetly to diſcover unto them many Secrets which they ought to have concealed. But now, quite contrary to Irenaeus, who maintains, That our Saviour Chriſt lived upon Earth to the Age of Fifty years; Clemens will have him to have Preached p. 69in the Fleſh but one year onelyonly,Id. Strom. p. 127. foreign. and to have died in the Thirty firſt year of his Age. But ſince it is confeſſed by both Parties, That there are very many abſurd Tenets in this Author, I ſhall not meddle any further with him. As for Tertullian, I confeſs his very turning Montaniſt, hath taken off indeed very much of the repute which he before had in the Church, both for the Fervency of his P…ety, and alſo for his Incomparable Learning. But yet, beſides that a great part of his Works were written while he was yet a Catholick; we are alſo to take notice, that this his Montaniſm put no ſeparation at all betwixt him and other Chriſtians, ſave only in point of Diſcipline, which he, according to the Severity of his Nature, would have to be moſt Harſh and Rigorous. For, as for his Doctrine, it is veryooVid. lib. de M…n. cap. 2. &c. & l. contr. Pſych. cap. 1. evident, that he conſtantly kept to the very ſame Rule, and the ſame Faith, that the Catholicks did: whence proceeded that tart Speech of his,ppId. contr. Pſych c. 10 Si Paracleto controverſiam ſaciunt propter hoc, prophetiae novae recuſantur, non quòd alium Deum praedicant Montanu, & Priſcilla, & Maxim…lla, &c. ſed qùd planè doceant ſaepiùs jejunare, quàm nubere. That People rejected Montanus, Maximilla, and Priſcilla, not becauſe they had any whit departed from the Rule of Faith, but rather becauſe they would have us to Faſt oftner than to Marry. And this is evident enough out of all thoſe Books which were written by him, during the time of his being a Montaniſt, wherein he never diſputeth or contendeth about any thing, ſave onelyonly about Diſcipline. And this is ingenuouſly confeſſed alſo by the LearnedqqNicol. Rigaltius Prolog. in animad. ad Tertul. 9. Tract. an. Lutet. 1628. Nicalaus Rigaltius, in his Preface to thoſe IX Books which he hath lately publiſhed. Now notwithſtanding the great Repute which this Father had in the Church, and his not departing from it in any thing, in Point of Faith; yet how many Wild Opinions and Fancies do we meet withal, in his Books? I ſhall here ſpeak onelyonly of ſome of the principal of them, paſſing by his ſo Dangerous Expreſſions touching the Perſon of the Son of God, as having touched upon this Particular before. But how ſtrange is his manner of Diſcourſe p. 70touching the Nature of God,rrTertul. l. 1. ad…. Mare. c. 25. & l. 2. c. 16. whom he ſeems to render ſubject to the like Paſſions that we are; as namely, to Anger, Hatred, and Grief? He attributes alſo to him a ſſId. adv. Orig. cap. 7. & l. 2. contr. Marc. c. 16. Quis negabit Deum corpus eſſe, etſi Spiritus eſt?Mark 16Corporeal Subſtance, and does not believe (as he ſaith himſelf) that any man will deny, but that God is a Body: So that we need the leſs to wonder, that he ſo confidently affirms,ttId. lib. adv. Hermog c. 35. Cùm ipſa ſubſtantia corpus ſit cujuſque. That there is no Subſtance which is not Corporeal: or, that with Juſtin Martyr, and Clemens Alexandrinus, he makes theuuId. l. de Idol. cap. 9. Angelos eſſe illos deſertores Dei, Amatores ſoeminarum, &c. Angelical Nature obnoxious to the Carnal Love of Women; which occaſioned thoſe words in that Book of his, De Virginibus velandis, where he ſays, xxId. de Virg. veland. cap. 7. Debet & adumbrari facies tam periculoſa, quae uſque ad coelum ſcandala jaculata eſt.That it is neceſſary that ſo dangerous a Face ſhould be veiled, which had ſcandalized even Heaven it ſelf. We need no, after this, think ſtrange of his Doctrine, touching theyyId. lib. de Anim. paſſim: nominatim c. 22. Definimus Animum dici ſtatu naturam immortalem, Corporalem, effigiatam, &c. & unà redundantem, &c. Nature of Mans Soul, which he will have to be Corporeal, and endued with Form and Figure, and to be propagated and derived from the Subſtance of the Father, to the Body of the Son, and ſowed and engendred with the Body, increaſing and extending it ſelf together with it; and many other the like Dreams: in the maintaining whereof, he uſeth ſo much Subtilty, ſtrength of Reaſon, and Eloquence, as that you will hardly meet with, throughout the whole Stock of Antiquity, a more Excellent and more Elegant Piece, than that Book of his De Anima. He alſo, with Irenaeus, ſhuts up the Souls of Men, after they are departed this Life, into a certain Subterraneous place, where they are to remain till the Day of Judgment; the Heavens not being to be opened to any of the Faithful, till the end of the World: onelyonly he allows the Martyrs their entrance into Paradiſe, which he fancies to be ſome place beneath the Heavens; and here p. 71he will have them continue till the Laſt Day.zzId. lib. de An. c. 55, 56, 57, 58. Quò (in inferis) ſpe… ſequeſtratur, tota Paradiſ… … ſangu…s tuus eſt, cap. 55. Nulli patet coelum, terrâ ad…uc ſalvâ, ne dixerim clauſâ. It is thy Blood (ſaith he) which is the onelyonly Key of Paradiſe. And this place, whither the Souls of the Dead go, is to continue cloſe ſhut up till the end of the World, according to him; who beſides is of a quite contrary Opinion from that of Juſtin Martyr, ſpoken of before, and maintains, That all Apparitions of Dead Men are onelyonly meer Illuſions, and Deceits of the Devil; and that this Incloſure of the Souls of Men ſhall continue till ſuch time as the City of the aaId lib. 3. adv. Marc. c. 24 Nam & confitemur in terra nobis regnum repromiſſum poſt reſurrectionem …n mille annos in civitate divini operis, Hieruſalem coelo delata, &c. inter quàm aetatem (1000 annorum) concluditur Sanctorum reſurrectio, pro meritis maturiùs, vel tardiùs reſurgentium.New Jeruſalem, which is to be all of Precious Stones, ſhall deſcend Miraculouſly from Heaven upon the Earth, and ſhall there continue a Thouſand years, the Saints ſo long living in it in very great Glory: and, that during this ſpace, the Reſurrection of the Faithful is to be accompliſhed by degrees; ſome of them riſing up ſooner, and ſome later, according to the difference of their Merits. And hence are we to interpret that which he ſays in another place, to wit, That bbId. l de An▪ c. 58. Modicum quoque delictum morâ reſurrectionis illic luendum.ſmall Sins ſhall be puniſhed in Men, by the Lateneſs of their Reſurrection: and, That ccId. lib. 3. adv. Marc. c. 29. Poſt cujus mille annos, &c. tunc & mundi deſtructione, & judicii conflagratione commiſ…â, demutari in atomo in Angelicam Subſtantiam; Scilicet per illud Incorruptionis ſuperindumentum transferemur in coeleſte Regnum, &c.when the Thouſand years are expired, and the Deſtruction of the World, and the Conflagration of the Day of Judgment is paſt, we ſhall all be changed in a moment into the Nature of Angels.

I paſs by his Invectives againſt Second Marriages, and alſo his evil Opinion of all Marriage in General; theſe Fancies being a part of the Diſcipline of Montanus his Paraclete.

But as for his Opinions touching the Baptiſm of Hereticks, he hath many Fellows among the Fathers, who held the ſame; namely, That their p. 72ddTertul. l. de Bapt. adv. Quint. c. 15. & de Pudi…. l. 19. Apod nos ut ethnico par, imò & ſuper ethnicum Haercricus etiam per Baptiſma veritatis utroque homine purgatus admittitur.Baptiſm ſignified nothing: and therefore they never received any Heretick into the Communion of the Catholick Church, but they firſt rebaptized him, Cleanſing him (ſaith he) both in the one, and in the other Man; that is to ſay, both in Body and Soul, by the Baptiſm of the Truth, accounting an Heretick to be in the ſame, or rather in a worſe condition than any Pagan. And as for the reſt, he is ſo far from preſſing Men to the Baptizing of their Children while they are young, which yet is the preſent Cuſtom of theſe Times, that he allows, and indeed perſwades the Contrary, not onelyonly in Children, but even in Perſons of Riper years; counſelling them to defer it, every Man according to his ccId. l. de Baptiſm. c. 18. Itaque pro cujuſque perſonae conditione, ac diſpoſitione, etiam aetate cunctatio baptiſmi utilior eſt, &c.Condition, Diſpoſition, and Age. And as his Opinion, touching this Particular, is not much different from that of the Anabaptiſts of our Time; ſo doth he not much diſſent from them neither in ſome other. For, he will not allow, no more than they do, that a Chriſtian ſhould take upon him, or execute any Office of Judicature, orffId. lib. de Idol… c 17. & 19. &c. & lib 1. de Cor. Mil. c. 11. Jam verò quae ſunt poteſtatis. neque judicet de capite alicujus, vel pudore, (feras enim de pecunia,) neque damner, neque praedamnet, neminem vinciar, neminem recludat, aut torqueat, &c. omnem poſteà militem Dom…nus in Petro exarmando diſcinxit. That he ſhould condemn, or bind, or impriſon, or examine any Man; or that he ſhould make War upon any, or ſerve in War under any other; ſaying expreſly, That our Saviour Chriſt, by diſarming S. Peter, hath from henceforth taken off every Soldiers Belt: Which is as much as to ſay, That the Diſcipline of Chriſt alloweth not of the Profeſſion of Soldiery. So that I cannot but extremely wonder at the Confidence (ſhall I ſay, or rather the Inadvertency) of ggPamel. in Scap. Tertul. c 2. num 15. & in l ad Scap c. 2. num. 7.ſome, who will needs perſwade us, from a certain Paſſage of this Author, which themſelves have very much miſtaken, that this ſo Innocent and Peaceable Father maintained, That Hereticks are to be puniſhed, and to be p. 73ſuppreſſed, by inflicting upon them temporal puniſhments: which rigorous proceeding was as far from his thoughts, as Heaven is from Earth.

I ſhall add here, before I go any further, that**Tertul. lib. adv. Jud. c. 8. Chriſtus annos habens quaſi triginta cùm pateretur, &c.Judg 8 he held, that our Saviour Chriſt ſuffered death in the Thirtieth year of his Age, which is manifeſtly contrary to the Goſpel: And he thought alſo that the††Id. de Bapt. adver. Quint. cap. 10. Heavenly Grace, and Prophecy ended in St. John Baptiſt, the Fulneſs of the Spirit being from henceforth transferred unto our Saviour Chriſt. St. Cyprian, who was Tertullians very great Admirer, calling him abſolutely, The Maſter, and**Hieron. lib. de Script. Eccleſ. in Tertul. Vidi ego quondam Paulum, &c. qui ſe B. Cypriani, &c. Notarium, &c. Romae vidiſſe diceret, referri que ſibi ſolitum, nunquam Cyprianum abſque Tertulliani lectione unum diem praeteriiſſe, ac ſibi crebrò dicere, Da Magiſtrum, Tertullianum videlicet ſignificans. who never let any day paſs over his head, without reading ſomething of him, hath confidently alſo maintained ſome of the aforeſaid Opinions; as namely, among others, that of the Nullity of Baptiſm by Hereticks,††Cypr. Epiſt. 47. ad Steph. & alibi paſſim. which he deſendeth every where very ſtiffely; having alſo the moſt Eminent Men of his time conſenting with him in this Point; as namely,**Firmil. Epiſt. 75. inter Ep. Cypr. Firmilianus, Metropolitan of Cappadocia, ††Hieron. lib. de Script. Eccleſ.Dionyſius, Biſhop of Alexandria, together with the Councils of Africk, Cappadocia, Pamphilia, and Bithynia, notwithſtanding all the Anger, and the Excommunication alſo of Stephen, Biſhop of Rome, **Cypr. epiſt. 74. init. ubi referuntur haec Stephani verba. Si quis ergo à quacunque haereſi venerit ad nos, nihil innovetur, niſi quod traditum eſt, ut manus illi imponatur ad poenitentiam, &c.who for his part held a particular Opinion of his own, allowing of the Baptiſm of all ſorts of Hereticks, without rebaptizing any of them; as it appeareth by the Beginning of the LXXIV Epiſtle of St. Cyprian; whereas the Church, about ſome LXV years after, at the††Con. Nic. Can. 19. foreign. Council of Nice, declared Null the Baptiſm of the Samoſatenians, by permitting, as it ſeems, that all other Hereticks p. 74whatſoever ſhould be received into the Church, without being rebaptized. But the Fathers of the * II. General Council went yet further, rebaptizing all thoſe, no otherwiſe than they would have done Pagans, who came in from the Communion either of the Eunomians, Montaniſts, Phrygians, or Sabellians; or indeed any other Hereticks whatſoever, ſave only the Arrians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Quartodecimani, and Apollinarians; all which they received without Rebaptization, as you may ſee in the Greek Copies of the ſaid Council, and the VII. Canon, which Canon you alſo have in the Greek Code of the Church Univerſal, Num. CLXX. And thus you ſee, that Stephen and Cyprian maintained each of them their own particular Opinion in this point; the one of them admitting, and the other utterly rejecting the Baptiſm of all manner of Hereticks: whereas the two aforenamed General Councils, neither admitted, nor rejected, ſave only the Baptiſm of ſome certain Hereticks only. But St. Cyprian however ſeems to have dealt herein much more fairly than his Adverſary; ſeeing that††Cypr. Praefat. Conc. Carth. Neminem judicantes, aut à jure Communionis aliquem, ſi diverſum ſenſerit, amoventés. He patiently endured, and was not offended with any of thoſe, who were of the contrary Opinion; as it appears clearly by the Synod of Carthage, and as it is alſo proved by**Hier. contr. Lucifer. T. 2. p. 197. &c. St. Hierome: whereas Stephen, according to his own hot, cholerick Temper,aaFirmil. epiſt. ad Cypr. quae eſt 75. inter epiſt. Cypr. pag. 204. declared publickly againſt Firmilianus his Opinion, and bbCypr. epist. 74. pag. 194. & epiſt. 75. quae eſt Firmil.Excommunicated all thoſe, that diſſented from himſelf.

The ſame bleſſedccCyp. ep. 59. p. 137. Ut intra octavum diem eum qui natus eſt baptizandum, & ſacrificandum non putares. Martyr of our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, was carried away with that Errour alſo of his time, touching the Neceſſity of adminiſtring the Sacrament of the Holy Euchariſt to all perſons when they were Baptized, and even to Infants too, as appears by his LIX Epiſtle, where, by the ſuffrages of LXV other Biſhops, he admitteth Infants to Baptiſm, and the p. 75Lords Supper, ſo ſoon as ever they are born; againſt the Opinion of one Fidus, who would not admit of them till the Eighth Day after they were born: and alſo by that ſtory of his, that he tells us of a certain young Girl, who being not as yet of years to ſpeak, by a remarkable Miracle, put back the Liquor which had been conſecrated for the Blood of our Saviour, and was preſented unto her by a Deacon to drink in the Church; as judging her ſelf unworthy to receive it, by reaſon that not long before, ſhe had been carried to the celebration of ſome certain Pagan Sacrifices. Now the Original of this Errour of theirs was, the Belief they had, that the Euchariſt was as neceſſary to Salvation, as Baptiſm; as may eaſily be collected out of the words of the ſaid Author, delivered Lib. 3. Teſt. ad Quirin. Where having firſt laid down this for a Ground; to wit,**Id. l. 3. Teſt. ad Quir. Ad regnum Dei niſi baptizatus, & tenatus quis fuerit, pervenire non poſſe: in Evang. ſecundum Joan. Niſi quis natus fuerit, &c. item illic: niſi ederitis carnem Filii hominis, & biberitis ſanguinem ejus, non habebitis vitam in vobis. That no man can come into the Kingdom of God, unleſs he be baptized and regenerated; he produceth, for a proof hereof, firſt that Paſſage out of St. John, where it is ſaid, that Except a man be born of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, &c. and then this other: Except you eat the fleſh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no life in you: urging the firſt of theſe places to prove the neceſſity of Baptiſm; and the other for that of the Euchariſt, accounting each of them neceſſary to Regeneration. And hence it is, that we find him ſpeaking ſo often of being born again, by virtue of the one, and of the other Sacrament: in which words he doth not mean Baptiſm and Confirmation (as ſome will needs perſwade us) but rather Baptiſm, and the Lords Supper; as is evident alſo by the following words, namely, that ††Id. ibid. c. 26. Parum eſſe baptizari & Euchariſtiam accipere, niſi quis factis & opere proficiat, al. perficiat.It is to very little purpoſe to be baptized, and to partake of the Holy Euchariſt, unleſs a man proceed in good Works, &c. I ſhall here paſs by ſome words, which he hath p. 76ſometimes let fall,**Id. epiſt; 63. Quando nec oblatio ſanctificare illic poſſit, ubi Spiritus Sanctus non ſit, nec cuiquam Dominus per ejus orationes & preces proſit, qui Dominum ipſe violavit. touching the Point of the Baptiſm of Hereticks, by which he ſeems to make the Efficacy of the Sacrament, to depend upon the Integrity and Sanctity of the perſon who adminiſtreth it.

We ſhould now come in the next place to ſpeak of Origen; but ſince that there have been ſome ſince his time, who have very much cryed down both him and his Doctrine; and others again on the other ſide, who have as ſtifly defended him, we ſhall forbear to ſay any thing of him, that we may not ingage our ſelves in ſo long and tedious a Quarrel: we ſhall only obſerve, from this example of his, that neither the Antiquity, nor yet the Learning or holy Life of any man, neceſſarily withholdeth him from falling into very ſtrange and groſs Errours. For, Origen was one of the moſt Ancient among the Fathers, having lived about the middle of the Third Century; and having been ſo eminent for thoſe two other excellencies, of Innocence and Learning, as that his fierceſt Adverſaries cannot deny, but that he had them both in a very high degree.

Neither ought theaaEpiphan. 64. Haer. quae eſt Orig. Story of his Fall, related by Epiphanius, to take off any thing from the Reputation of his Vertue: for though perhaps it might have been true, yet hath it frequently hapned to others of the Faithful to fall into great Temptations alſo; as appears evidently enough, by the Example of Saint Peter himſelf.

But, that I may not diſſemble, I profeſs my ſelf much inclined to be of CardinalbbBaron. Annal. ad An. 253. num. 120, 121, 122. Baronius his Opinion; who thinks this ſtory to be an arrant Fable, maliciouſly deviſed by thoſe who envied the Fame of this excellent, admirable Wit; and that it was ſoiſted into Epiphanius by ſome ſuch hand; or elſe (as I rather believe,) was taken upon truſt by himſelf, and thruſt into that Book of his, without any further Examination, as many other things p. 77have been; in the relating whereof this Father hath ſhewed himſelf a little over-credulous; as is alſo obſerved by his††Petav. Not. ad Haer. 55. p. 217. laſt Interpreter.

And yet Origen, notwithſtanding all thoſe excellent Gifts of his, hath not ſpared to broach very many Opinions, which by reaſon of the abſurdneſs of them, have been utterly rejected (and certainly very deſervedly too) by the Church in all the Ages ſucceeding: which is an evident Argument, that how ancient, learned, and holy ſoever an Author may have been, we ought not however preſently to believe him, and to urge him as infallible: ſince there is no reaſon in the world to be given, why the ſame thing which hath befallen Origen, in ſo many Points, may not in ſome or other have alſo befallen any other Author, whoſoever he be. But this I am very well aſſured of, that thoſe very men, who have written againſt Origen, have not been ſo throughly happy in their undertaking; but by oppoſing to the utmoſt ſome certain Errour of his, have ſometimes fallen into as great a one of their own.**Method. apud Epiphan. in Panar. haer. 54. quae est Orig. foreign. Id. ibid. foreign. One of them for example, Methodius by name, as he is cited by Epiphanius, maintains, that after the Reſurrection, and Final Judgment, we ſhall dwell for ever upon the Earth, leading there a holy, bleſſed, and everlaſting life, exerciſing our ſelves in all good things, like as the Angels do in Heaven.

He alſo as well as the reſt, maketh the Angels obnoxious to the Love of Women: and he will have Gods Providence to extend it ſelf only to Ʋniverſal Cauſes, affirming, that††Id. ibid. foreign. He hath committed the Care of Parlicular things to the Angels: which Opinions of his, if they be throughly examined, will be found to be not much leſs dangerous, and contrary to the Scriptures, than ſome of thoſe very Opinions, which he reproves in Origen. I ſhall alſo, for the p. 78ſame reaſon, paſs by Euſebius, Didymus, Apollinaris, and the like; who though they are very Ancient Authors, yet there is ordinarily little account made of them, by reaſon of the hard Opinion, that the greateſt part of the Church had of them.

As for the two firſt of theſe, (although perhaps their Faith may not have been much freer from ſtains than the reſt,) they have yet been more favourably dealt withal by Poſterity, than their brethren; whether it were, becauſe that the time they lived in being ſo far diſtant from the Ages of our Ariſtarchi, and Cenſors of other men, they have ſo much the leſs moved their envy and paſſion: or elſe becauſe that they were willing to ſpare them, by reaſon of the Great Opinion that the Ordinary ſort in the Church had of them. Lactantius Firmianus, whoſe Repute was ſcarcely queſtioned at all among the Ancients, had notwithſtanding his Errours too. For it is a long time ſince, that**Hieron. epiſt. 65. ad Pani. & Octav. Lanctantius in libris ſuis, ut maximè in Epiſtolis ad Demetrianum, Spiritus Sancti omnin… negat ſubſtantiam, & errore Judaico dicit, eum vel ad Patrem referri, vel ad Filium, & ſanctificationem utriuſ que perſonae ſub ejus nomine demonſtrari. St. Hierome obſerved one very ſtrange one in him, in an Epiſtle that he wrote to Demetrianus; where he denies, that The Holy Ghoſt is a Diſtinct Perſon in the Godhead, ſubſiſting together with the Father and the Son. His other Errours are not ſo dangerous, and are indeed common to him, with ſome other of the Fathers: as, where he ſays,††Lact. Firm. lib. 2. divin. Inſtit. cap. 15. that the Angels defiled themſelves with Women; and that from this their companying with them were born Demons, or Devils. As likewiſe where he teacheth, **Id. lib. 7. cap. 21. extr. Omnes (Animae) in una communique cuſtodia detinentur, donec tempus adveniat, quo maximus judex meritorum faciat examenThat the Souls of Men, after this life, are all ſhut up together in one Common Priſon, where they are to continue till the Day of Judgment: and, That our Saviour Chriſt ſhall come again upon the Earth, before the Laſt and Final Reſurrection; and that ††Id. lib. 7. c. 24. Tum qui erunt in corporibus vivi, non morientur, ſed per eoſdem mille annos infinitam multitudinem generabunt, &c. qui autem ab inferis ſuſcitabuntur, ii praeibunt viventibus velut Judices.thoſe who ſhall then be found alive, ſhall not dye at p. 79all, but ſhall be preſerved alive, and ſhall beget an infinite Number of Children, during the ſpace of a Thouſand years; living all of them peaceably together, in a moſt happy City, which ſhall abound with all good things, under the Reign of our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, and of ſome of the Saints, who ſhall be raiſed from the Dead.

But what will you ſay, if St. Hilary alſo himſelf who flouriſhed about the middle of the Fourth Century, hath his Tares alſo; which are ſo much the more obſervable in him, by how much the greater his eſtimation was among the Ancients. The principal and moſt dangerous of all is, that ſtrange Opinion which he held, touching the Nature of Chriſt's Body, which he maintained had no ſenſe, or feeling of thoſe ſtripes and torments which he ſuffered,**Hilar. de Trin l. 10. Paſſus quidem Dominus Jeſus Chriſtus dum caeditur, dum ſuſpenditur, dum crucifigitur, dum moritur; ſed in corpus irruens Paſſio, nec non fuit Paſſio, nec tamen naturam Paſſionis exercuit, dum & poenali miniſterio illa deſaevit, & virtus corporis ſine ſenſu poenae vim poenae in ſedeſaevientis excepit; habuit ſanè illud Domini corpus doloris noſtri naturam, ſi corpus noſtrum id naturae habet, ut calcet undas, & ſuper fluctus eat, & non deprimatur ingreſſu, neque aquae inſiſtentis veſtigiis cedant: ponatur etiam ſolida, nec clauſae domus obſtaculis arceatur. Et paulo poſt: Et homo ille de Deo eſt, habens ad patiendum quidem corpus, ut paſſus eſt; ſed naturam non habens ad dolendum. Naturae enim propriae, ac ſuae corpus illud eſt, quod in coeleſtem gloriam, transformatur in morte. But that he really ſuffered indeed at that time, when he was beaten, and when he was put upon the Croſs, and faſtned unto it, and died upon it: but, that this Paſſion falling wholly upon his Body, notwithſtanding that it was a real Paſſion; yet did it not ſhew upon him the Nature of a Paſſion; and that while the furious ſtrokes were dealt upon him, the ſtrength and vigour of his Body received the force of the ſtrokes upon it, yet without any ſenſe of the pain. I ſhall confeſs (ſaith he) that the Body of our Saviour had a Nature ſuſceptible of our griefs, if the Nature of our Body be ſuch, as that it is able to tread upon the water, and to walk upon the ſtoods without ſinking, or without the Waters yielding to our Footſteps, when we ſtand thereon: if it can penetrate ſolid bodies, or can paſs with eaſe through doors that are ſhut. And within two or three lines after: Such is the Man ſent from God, having a Body capable of Suffering, (for he p. 80really ſuffered; Id. ibid. In quo quamvis aut ictus inciderit, aut vulnus deſcenderit, aut nodi concurrerint, aut ſuſpenſio elevarit, afferunt quidem haec impetum paſſionis, non …amen dolorem paſſionis inferunt: aut telum aliquod, aut aquam perforans, aut ignem compungens, aut aëra vulnerans, omnes quidem has paſſiones naturae ſuae infert, ut perſoret, ut compungat, ut vulneret, ſed naturam ſuam in haec paſſio illata non retinet, dum in natura non eſt vel aquam forari, vel pungi ignem, vel aëra vulnerari, quamvis natura teli ſit vulnerare, compungere, & forare.) but not having a Nature capable of pain. When the blows (ſaid he a little before) fell upon him, or a ſtripe pierced his skin, it brought indeed with it the violence and impetuoſity of Paſſion, but yet it wrought no pain in him: in like manner as when a ſword is thruſt through and through the water, or through and through the fire; it goes through indeed, and pierceth the water, or the fire, but it woundeth it not; theſe things having not a Nature that may be wounded or hurt, notwithſtanding that the Nature of the ſword be to work the ſaid effect. And in concluſion, that you may not think this to be a ſudden fancy, that he fell upon by chance, before he was aware; you muſt know that he repeats the ſame thing in divers ſeveral places: as namely, in his Comment upon the Pſal. 53.††Hilar. in Pſ. 53. Suſcepta voluntariè eſt (paſſio) officio quidem ipſa ſatisfactura poenali, non tamen poenae ſenſu laeſura patientem, &c.Ps 53 The Paſſion of Chriſt (ſaith he) was undergone by him voluntarily, to make an acknowledgment, that pains were due; not that he that ſuffered, was at all touched by them. **Id. in Pſ. 138. Putatur dolere, quia patitur; caret verò doloribus ipſe, quia Deus eſt.Ps 138And again, in another place; Chriſt is thought to have felt pain, becauſe he ſuffered; but he was really free from all pain, becauſe he is God. Do but think now, whereunto all this tendeth, and what will become of our Salvation, if the Paſſion of our Saviour Chriſt, which is the only Foundation whereon it is built, were but a meer imaginary Paſſion, without any ſenſe of pain at all. And, as one abſurdity being granted, there will neceſſarily others always follow upon it; ſo hath this ſtrange particular Fancy of his made him to corrupt and ſpoil the whole ſtory of our Saviours Paſſion.

For, he ſuppoſeth that, in that diſmal night, wherein Chriſt was delivered up for our ſins, all his anguiſh, his p. 81Diſtreſs, and Drops of Bloody Sweats, proceeded not from the conſideration of the Torments, and the Death which He was now going to ſuffer, (and indeed, according to his Account, ſince he will not allow him to have felt any Pain, he was neither bound to be, nor indeed could be in any Agony,) but rather from the fear that he was in,aaId. in Matth Can. 31. Scribit exterrendos, ſugandos, negaturos; ſed quia ſpiritus blaſphemiae nec hic, nec in aeternum temittitur, metuit ne ſe Deum abnegent, quem caeſum, & conſputum, & crucifixum eſſent contemplaturi; quae ratio ſervata eſt in Petro: qni cum negaturus eſſet, ita negavit, Non novi hominem: quia dictum aliquod in filium hominis remittitur. leſt his Diſciples, being ſcandalized at theſe Sad ſights, might haply have ſinned againſt the Holy Ghoſt, by denying his Godhead: And that from hence it was, that S Peter, in his Denial of his Maſter, uſed theſe words, Non novi hominem, I know him not as Man; becauſe that whatſoever is ſpoken againſt the Son of Man, may be forgiven.bbId. ibid. Tranſeat Calix à me, id eſt, quomodo à me bibitur, ita ab iis bibatur, ſine ſpei diffidentia, ſine ſenſu doloris, ſine metu mortis, &c. And ſo likewiſe in theſe words of our Saviour, O my Father, if it be Poſſible, let this Cup paſs from me: His Opinion is, that our Saviour did not here deſire that He himſelf might be delivered from his Paſſion, but rather, that after He had ſuffered, His Diſciples might alſo ſuffer in like manner: that this Cup might not reſt at Him, but that it might paſs on to His Diſciples alſo; that is to ſay, that it might be drunk by Them in the ſame manner, as He himſelf was now going to taſte of it; to wit, without any touch of Deſpair or Diſtruſt, and without any ſenſe of Pain, or fear of Death. What could have been written more Coldly, or more diſagreeing with the Truth and Simplicity of the Goſpel? But yet I cannot ſufficiently wonder at him, that having thus ratified the Fleſh of our Saviour Chriſt into a Spirit, he ſhould in another place condenſe Our Spirits into Bodies. ccSer. in Matth. Can. 5. Nihil eſt quod non in ſubſtantia ſua, & creatione corporeum ſit, &c. Nam & animarum ſpecies ſive obtinenrium corpora, ſive corporibus exulantium, corpoream tamen naturae ſuae ſubſtantiam ſortiuntur.There is nothing (ſaith he) which is not Corporeal in its Subſtance and Creation, &c. For, the Species of our Souls themſelves, whether they be united to the Body, p. 82or are ſeparated from them, are ſtill a Nature whoſe Subſtance is Corporeal. He believeth alſo, thatddId. in Pſ. 118. tit. Gimel. Eſt …rgo, quantum licet exiſtimare, perfectae illius emundatio puritatis, etiam poſt Baptiſmi aquas repoſita, &c.Ps 118 Baptiſm doth not cleanſe us from all our Sins; and therefore he holds, That all Men muſt at the laſt Day paſs through the Fire.eeId. ibid. In quo (die Judicii) nobis eſt ille indefeſſus ignis obeundus, in quo ſubeunda ſunt gravia illa Expiandae à peccatis Animae ſupplicia. Beatae Mariae animam gladius petranſibit, ut revelentur multorum cordium cogitationes. Si in judicii ſeveritatem capax illa Dei Virgo ventura eſt, deſiderare quis audebit à Deo judicari? We are Then (ſaith he) to endure an, Indefatigable Fire: Then is the time that we are to undergo thoſe grievous Torments, for the Expiation of our Sins, and Purging our Souls. A Sword ſhall pierce through the Soul of the Bleſſed Virgin Mary, to the end that the Thoughts of many Hearts may be revealed. Seeing therefore, that That Virgin, who was capable of receiving God, ſhall taſte of ſo-ſevere a Judgment, where is he that dares deſire to be judged of God? I know not whether he might heretofore have perſwaded any ſtore of People to embrace this Doctrine of his, or not: but ſure I am, that were he alive at this day, he would take but a vain piece of Labour in hand, if he ſhould go about to win the Franciſcan Friers over to this Belief.

S. Ambroſe, one of the moſt Firm Pillars of the Church in his Time, is not yet free from the like Failings, no more than the reſt.

For, firſt of all, he agrees with S. Hilary in this laſt Point, and maintains, That All in General ſhall be proved by Fire at the Laſt Day; and, that the Juſt ſhall paſs through it, but that the Ʋnbelievers ſhall continue in it. ffAmbr. in Pſ. 118. Ser. 5. Si quidem poſt conſummationem ſaeculi miſſis Angelis qui ſegregent bonos & malos, hoc futurum eſt Baptiſma, quando per caminum ignis iniquitas exuretur, ut in Regno Dei ſulgeant Juſti, ſicut ſol, in Regno Patris ſui. Et ſi aliquis, ut Petrus ſit, ut Johannes, baptizatur hoc igne. Veniet ergo Baptiſta Mignut, (ſic enim eum nomino) quo modo Gabriel, &c.Ps 118After the end of the World (ſaith he) the Angels being ſent forth to ſever the Good from the Bad, ſhall that Baptiſm be performed; when all Iniquity ſhall be conſumed in a Furnace of Fire, that ſo the Juſt may ſhine like the Sun in the Kingdom of God their Father. And although p. 83though a Man be ſuch a one as Peter, or as John, yet nevertheleſs ſhall he be Baptized with this Fire. For the Great Baptizer ſhall come, (for ſo I call Him, as the Angel Gabriel did, ſaying, He ſhall be Great) and ſhall ſee a multitude of People, ſtanding before the Gate of Paradiſe, and ſhall brandiſh the fiery Sword, and ſhall ſay unto thoſe who are on his Right Hand, who are not guilty of any grievous Sins, Enter ye in, &c.

He ſays the ſame in another place alſo, where he exempteth none from this Fiery Trial, ſave onelyonly our Saviour Chriſt alone. ggId. in Pſeund Ser 20. Omnes oportet per ignem probari quicunque ad Paradiſum redire deſiderant. Non enim otioſè ſcriptum eſt, quòd ejectis Adam & Eva, poſuit Deus in exitu Paradiſi gladium igneum verſatilem. Omnes oportet tranſire per flammas, ſive Joannes Evangeliſta ſit, quem ita dilexit Dominus ut de eo diceret ad Petrum, &c. Sive ille ſit Petrus qui Claves accepit Regni coelorum, qui ſupra mare ambulavit, oportet dicat Tranſivimus per ignem, &c. Sed Joanni citò verſabitur igneus gladius, quia non invenitur in eo iniquitas, quem dilexit aequitas, &c. Sed ille (Petrus) examinabitur ut argentum; Ego examinabor ut plumbum, donec plumbum tabeſcat ardebo, ſi nihil argenti in me inventum fuerit, (heu me!) in ultima inferni detrudar.It is Neceſſary (ſaith he) that All that deſire to return into Paradiſe, ſhould be proved by this Fire. For it is not without ſome Myſtery that it is written, That God having driven Adam and Eve out of Paradiſe, He is ſaid to place at the Entrance of Paradiſe a Flaming Sword, which turned every way. All muſt paſs through the Flames, whether it be John the Evangeliſt, whom our Saviour loved ſo much, that He ſaid concerning him, to Peter, &c. Or whether it be Peter himſelf, who had the Keys of Heaven committed unto him, and who walked upon the Sea; He muſt be able to ſay, We have paſſed through the Fire, &c. But as for S. John, this Brandiſhing of the Flaming Sword will ſoon be diſpatched for him, becauſe there is no Iniquity found in him, who was ſo beloved of the Truth, &c. But the other (that is, Peter) ſhall be tried as Silver is; and I ſhall be tried like Lead, I ſhall burn till all the Lead is quite melted down: and if there be no Silver at all found in me, (wretched Man that I am!) I ſhall be coſt into the loweſt Pit of Hell.

As for the Reſurrection of the Dead, his Opinion is, p. 84ThathhId. l. de Fid. Reſurrectionis. Licet in momento reſuſcitentur omnes, omnes tamen meritotum ordine ſuſcitantur. All ſhall not be raiſed at once, but by degrees, one after another, by a Long, yet Certain Order; thoſe who were Believers riſing firſt, according to the degrees of their Merits: Whereto we are to refer that which he hath elſewhere delivered, ſaying, ThatiiId. in Pſ. 1. Beati qui habent partem in prima reſurrectione: iſti enim ſine judicio veniunt ad gratiam. Qui autem non veniunt ad primam reſurrectionem, ſed ad ſecundam reſervantur, iſti urentur donec impleant tempora inter primam & ſecundam reſurrectionem: aut ſi non impleverint, diuitiùs in ſupplicio permanebunt.Ps 1 Thoſe who are raiſed up in the Firſt Reſurrection, ſhall come to Grace, without Judgment; but as for the reſt, who are reſerved for the Second Reſurrection they ſhall burn with Fire, till they have fulfilled the full ſpace of time betwixt the Firſt and the Second Reſurrection: or, if they do not finiſh this time, they ſhall continue very long in their Torments. I ſhall leave to the Reader to take the pains in examining, whether or no that Paſſage of his can be reconciled to any good ſenſe, where he ſays, That before the Publication of the Law of Moſes, Adultery was not an unlawful thing.kkAmbroſ l. 1. de Abr. Patr. c. 4. Sed conſideremus primum, quia Abraham ante Legem Moyſis & ante Evangelium fuit, nondum interdictum adulterium videbatur. Poena criminis & tempore Legis eſt, nec ante Legem ulla rei damnatio eſt, ſed ex Lege. We are to take notice in the firſt place (ſaith he) that Abraham living before the giving of the Law by Moſes, and before the Goſpel, in all Probability, Adultery was not as yet forbidden: the Crime is puniſhed after the time of the Law made, which forbiddeth it; for things are not condemned before the Law, but by the Law: and whether thoſe Diſcourſes of his, which you meet with in his Books, De Inſtit. Virg. & ad Virg. & de Virg. and in other places, do not much diſgrace, and caſt Slurs upon the Honour of Marriage.

I ſhall alſo leave to the Conſideration of the Judicious Reader, whether there be more of Solidity, or of Subtilty, in that Expoſition which he gives us of the Promiſe made by God to Noah after the Flood; telling him, That he had ſet his Bow in the Clouds, to be a Token of a Covenant betwixt him and the whole Earth: upon which words, S. Ambroſe utterly and fiercely p. 85denies, that by this Bow is meant the Rain-bow; but will have it to be I know not what ſtrange Allegorical Bow. llId. lib. de Noe, & Arca, c. 27. Abſit ut hunc arcum Dei dicamus; hic enim arcus, qui Iris dicitur, per diem videri ſolet, per noctem non apparet, &c. Eſt ergo virtus inviſibilis Dei, &c.Far be it from us (ſaith he) that we ſhould call This God's Bow; for This Bow, which is called Iris, (the Rain bow) is ſeen indeed in the Day time, but never appears at all in the Night. And therefore he underſtands by this Bow, the Inviſible Power of God, by which He keepeth all things in one certain Meaſure, enlarging and abating it as he ſees cauſe. Neither do I know whether that Opinion of his, which you have in his Firſt Book De Spiritu Sancto, is any whit more juſtifiable, where he affirms, ThatmmId. lib. 1. de Spir. Sanct. cap. 3. Baptiſm is avialable and Legitimate, although a Man ſhould Baptize in the Name either of the Son, or of the Holy Ghoſt onelyonly, without mentioning the other two Perſons of the Trinity.

Epiphanius, as he was a Man of a very good, honeſt, and plain Nature, and (if I may have leave to ſpeak my own Opinion) a little too Credulous, and withal very eager and fierce in maintaining whatſoever he thought was Right and True; ſo hath he the more eaſily been induced both to deliver and to receive things for Solid, which yet were not ſo; and to ſtand ſtifly in the defending of them, after he had once embraced the ſame. It would take up both too much time and Paper, if I ſhould go about to give you a Liſt of all thoſe things wherein he hath failed: if you pleaſe, you may have an Account of a good number of them in the Notes of the Jeſuite Petavius, his Interpreter; who makes bold to correct him many times, and ſometimes alſo very uncivilly too.

As, firſt of all, he accuſeth him of Obſcurity, and of Falſhood alſo, in the Opinion he held touching the Year, and Day of our Saviour's Nativity; Petav. in Epiphan. p. 127. 132.ſaying, that ſome of his Expreſſions, touching this Point, are more Obſcure and Dark than the Riddles of Sphinx. And truly he p. 86hath reaſon enough to ſay ſo, of what he hath delivered touching the Year of our Saviours Nativity; but, as for the Day of that Year, whether it were the Sixth of January, asnnEpiphan. Haer. 51. quae eſt Alog. Epiphanius held, with the Church of Egypt, or elſe, whether it were the Twenty fifth of December, which is the General Opinion at this day; I think it very great raſhneſs for any Man to affirm either the one or the other, neither of theſe Opinions having any better Ground the one than the other.

He likewiſe in plain terms gives him the Lie, Petav. ibid. ad Haer. 70. num. 10.upon that place where he ſays, That in the beginning of the Church the Apoſtles had ordained, That the Chriſtians ſhould celebrate the Paſſeover at the ſame time, and in the ſame manner that thoſe of the Circumciſion did: and that thoſe who were then made Biſhops at Jeruſalem being of the Circumciſion, it was neceſſary that all the World ſhould follow them, and ſhould likewiſe keep the Paſſeover as they did.

Neither do I ſee whereupon he could ground that Fancy of his, which he propoſeth to us as a Certain Truth; namely, ooEpiphan. in Pan. cap. 1. Haer 39. foreign, &c.That the Devil, before the coming of Chriſt, was in hopes of Grace and Pardon; and that, out of this Perſwaſion of his, he never all that while ſhewed himſelf Refractory toward God: but that having underſtood by the Manifeſtation of our Saviour, that there was left him no hopes of Salvation, he front thenceforth had grown exceedingly enraged, doing as much miſchief as poſſibly he could againſt Chriſt and his Church.

S. Hierome, the Boldeſt and moſt Judicious Cenſurer of the Ancients, hath alſo left to Poſterity ſomething whereon they may exerciſe the ſame Critical Faculty that he hath ſo happily employed upon others. For, how ſhould a Man be able to make good that which he hath affirmed ſo poſitively, touching God's Providence, where he ſays, That it takes care of All Men indeed in p. 87General, and alſo of each Particular Man; but not of other things, whether they be Inanimate, or Irrational.

ppHier. Com. 1. in Abac. Caeterùm abſurdum eſt ad hoc Dei deducere Majeſtatem, ut ſciat per ſingula momenta quot naſcantur culices, quotve moriantur, quot cimicum, & pulicum, & muſcarum ſit in terra multitudo, quanti piſces in aqua natent, & qui de minoribus majorum praedae cedere debeant. Non ſimus tam fatui adulatores Dei, ut dum potentiam ejus ad ima detrahimus, in nos ipſos injurioſi ſimus, eandem rationabilium quam irrationabilium providentiam eſſe dicentes.It is an abſurd thing (ſaith he) ſo to abaſe the Majeſty of God, as to make him take particular notice how many Gnats are bred, or die every hour; and how many Puneſes, Fleas, and Flies there are through the whole Earth; and, how many Fiſhes ſwim in the Water; and, which among the ſmaller Fiſhes are to be a Prey to the greater. Let us not be ſuch fooliſh Flatterers of God, as by making His Power deſcend even to the Loweſt things, to diſparage our ſelves, while we ſay, that His Providence in like manner extendeth both to Rational and Irrational Creatures. I ſhall not examine here, whether this Opinion be juſtifiable, or not: but this I am ſure of, that you will hardly be able to make it good, out of theſe Words of our Saviour Chriſt, Are not two Sparrows ſold for a Farthing? and yet one of them ſhall not fall on the ground without your Father. But yet ſuppoſing that this Opinion might be defended, it is however evident, that this Father hath laſhed out a little too much, when he derides all thoſe, as Fools, and abſurd People, who chuſe rather to adore the Knowledge of God, as Infinite, than to bound it, and make it Finite: and for my part, I ſhould rather fear, that there would be much more Raſhneſs in the one, than Fooliſhneſs in the other.

This ſame Man, who here limiteth the Knowledge and Providence of God, in another place extendeth to an Infiniteneſs the Preſence of the Souls of Departed Saints; by no means enduring them to be confined, and ſhut up in any certain place. And the Reaſon which he gives us of this his Opinion, is indeed very wonderful: For, qqHier. contr. Vigil. Tom. 2. p. 161. Sequuntur Agnum quocunque vadit: ſi Agnus ubique, &c. & ſic qui cum Agno ſunt ubique eſſe credendi ſunt.They always follow the Lamb (ſaith he) p. 88whitherſoever He goeth; foraſmuch therefore as the Lamb is preſent everywhere, we ought to believe that They alſo, who are with the Lamb, are preſent every where.

Where are thoſe Logick-Schools, how looſe and remiſs ſoever they be, that would not give a Scholar the Ferula, if he ſhould but offer to argue thus, confounding the Divinity and Humanity of our Saviour together; and from that which is ſpoken in reſpect of the one, concluding that which is proper to the other? So in another place, for to bring all the ſeveral pieces of an Allegory together, and to make them meet in their proper Point,rrId. Ep 164. ad Pamm. T. 3. p. 210. Nulli periculoſum, nulli videatur eſſe blaſphemum, quod & in Apoſtolos invidiae venenum diximus poruiſſe ſubrepere, cùm etiam de Angelis hoc dictum putamus, &c. he makes the Souls of the Bleſſed Saints, and of the Angels themſelves, ſubject to Sin.

I ſhall paſs by what he hath ſpoken ſo reproachfully, both againſt Marriage in General, and againſt Second Marriages in Particular; where he uſeth ſuch unſavoury Expreſſions, as that though we ſhould in the explaining of them, follow thoſe very Rules which he himſelf hath laid down to us, in an Epiſtle of his, written to Pammachius, upon this very ſubject; it ſeems notwithſtanding an impoſſible thing to acquit him from holding the ſame Opinion touching Marriage, that Tertullian did, which was condemned by the Church, as being contrary to the Honour of Marriage, and the Authority of the Scripture. As for example, What Honey, or how much Sugar would be ſufficient to ſweeten that which he ſays,ffId. ep. 10. ad Fur. T 1. p. 89 & 101. Ut non tam laudanda, ſi vidua perſeveres, quàm execranda, ſi id Chriſtiana non ſerves, quod per tanta ſaecula Gentiles foeminae cuſtodierunt. Mox p. 90. Canis revertens ad vomitum, & ſus lota ad volutabrum luti. writing to a certain Widow, named Furia, where he tells her, That ſhe was not ſo worthy to be Commended, if ſhe continued a Widow, as ſhe would be to be curſed, if ſhe married again; ſeeing ſhe was not able, being a Chriſtian, to preſerve that, which many Women of her Family bad done, being but Pagans. Which Expreſſions of his he repeateth again in the following Epiſtle, where he diſſwadeth one Ageruchia p. 89from marrying again;Id. 1. Ep. 11. ad Ageruch. T. 1. p. 101. Haec brevi Sermone perſtrinxi, ut oſtendam adoleſcentulam meam non praeſtare monogamiam generi ſuo, ſed reddere; nec tam laudandam eſſe ſi tribit, quàm omnibus execrandam ſi negare tentaverit. and for this purpoſe makes uſe of very unbeſeeming Compariſons; applying to ſuch Women as marry again, that Proverb which St. Peter made uſe of in another ſenſe; The Dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the Sow that was waſhed, to her wallowing in the mire. Is not this all one, as if he in plam terms ranked ſecond Marriages among unclean and polluted things? Not unlike to this is that which he ſaith in another place, in theſe words.††Id lib. 1. adv. Jovin. p. 4 Non damno digamos, imò nec trigamos, & ſi dici poteſt octogamos: Plus aliquid inferam, etiam ſcortantem recipio poenitentem. I do not at all condemn thoſe, who marry the ſecond, third, or (if any ſuch thing may be) the eighth time: nay, more than ſo, I receive alſo even a Penitent Whore: placing thoſe Women that marry the ſecond time, in the ſame rank with thoſe that keep in the ſtews. And he is ſo full of ſuch expreſſions as theſe, as that the whole Canary Iſlands themſelves would hardly be ſufficient to ſweeten them.

Certainly if he had not believed, that there was ſome Uncleanneſs in Marriage, he would never have been ſo unwilling,**Id. lib. 1. adv. Jovin. p. 51. Quod ſi objeceris, antequam peccarent, ſexum viri & foeminae ſuiſſe diviſum, & abſ que peccato eos potuiſſe conjungi, quid futurum ſuerit incertum eſt, &c. as he was, to ſpeak out, and confeſs in plain terms, that Adam ſhould nevertheleſs have had carnal knowledge of Eve his Wife, though they had both of them contiued in their ſtate of Innocence: which thing is evident enough to any one that ſhall but conſider the ſecond Chapter of Geneſis, from verſ. 18. to the end of the Chapter.

Nevertheleſs this Father durſt not poſitively affirm any ſuch thing, fearing leſt he might ſo impoſe ſome unclean thing upon the ſtate of Innocence, in caſe he ſhould have allowed them the Uſe of Marriage. Neither is his Opinion more ſound, touching the Eating of Fleſh, which being unknown to the World before the Flood, was afterwards permitted unto Mankind; but (as he believes) in the very ſame manner, as Divorce was heretofore permitted p. 90to the Jews, only for the hardneſs of their heart.

Whence it followeth, (as he alſo ſays in expreſs Terms) that it alſo was aboliſhed by our Saviour Chriſt, in like manner as Divorce and Circumciſion were. ††Hieron. lib. 1. adv. Jovin. Quod autem nobis objicit in ſecunda Dei benedictione comedendarum carnium licentiam datam, quae in prima conceſſa non ſuerat; ſciat, quomodo repudium juxta eloquium ſalvatoris ab intitio non dabatur, ſed propter duritiem cordis noſtri per Moyſem humano generi conceſſum eſt, ſic & eſum carnium uſque ad diluvium ignotum ſuiſſe; poſt diluvium verò quaſi in eremo murmuranti populo coturnices, ita dentibus noſtris nervos, & virulentias carnis ingeſtas.And whereas it is objected againſt us by Jovinian, (ſaith he) that God in the Second Benediction permitted the Eating of Fleſh, which he did not in the Firſt: he is to take notice, that in like manner as the liberty to put away a mans wife, according to the words of our Saviour, was not granted from the beginning, but was afterwards permitted to mankind, for the hardneſs of their heart: in like manner was the Eating of Fleſh unknown, until the Flood; but after the Flood, the Sinews and Virulency of Fleſh were thruſt into our Mouths, as the Quails were given to the People of Iſrael murmuring in the Wilderneſs. Certainly Divorce is a thing which is evil in it ſelf, and is contrary to the Creation of the Man and of the Woman, and to Marriage alſo, which was inſtituted by God in Paradiſe: as is divinely proved by our Saviour, diſputing with the Jews touching this Point.

If therefore the Eating of Fleſh be like it, this alſo is evil and unlawful in it ſelf. Marcion, and the Manichees could hardly have ſaid more than this.

In another place he ſeems to be of Opinion, **Hieron. Com. in Matth. T. 6. p. 15. Hoc quaſi parvulis Judaeis fuerat lege conceſſum, ut quo modo victimas immolabant Deo, ne eas Idolis immolarent, ſic & ju…are permitterentur in Deum; non quòd rectè hoc ſacerent, ſed quòd melius eſſet hoc Deo id exhibere, quàm Daemonibus. Evangelica autem veritas non recipit juramentum, &c.that our Saviour hath utterly forbidden the uſe of an Oath to Chriſtians: which piece of Doctrine is evidently contrary both to the Scriptures, and to Reaſon.

It will be a hard matter alſo to clear him from the ſuſpicion of that Errour, ſome Traces whereof are apparently to be ſeen in St. Cyprian, touching the Efficacy of the Sacraments; p. 91as we have obſerved before. For, do but hear what he ſays. ††Id. Com. in Soph. Tom. 5. p. 489. Sacerdotes quoque qui Euchariſtiae ſerviunt, & ſanguinem Domini populis ejus dividunt, impie agunt in legem Chriſti, putantes Euchariſtiam imprecantis facere verba, non vitam; & neceſſariam eſſe tantùm ſolennem Orationem, & non Sacerdotum merita.The Prieſts alſo, (ſaith he) who ſerve at the Euchariſt, and diſtribute the Blood of our Saviour to his People, commit a great impiety againſt the Law of Chriſt, in thinking that the Euchariſt is made by the Words, and not by the Life of the Perſon that Conſecrates it; and that the Solemn Prayers only of the Prieſts are neceſſary, and not their Merits alſo.

Touching the ſtate of the Bleſſed after the Reſurrection, he ſays neither but very faintly, that they ſhall live without eating.**Idem Epiſt. 61. ad Pammach. Tom. 2 pag. 252. Ergò, inquies, & nos poſt Reſurrectionem comeſuri ſumus? Neſcio; non enim ſcriptum eſt: & tamen ſi quaeritur, non puto comeſuros. What then will you ſay, (theſe be his own words,) ſhall we then eat after the Reſurrection? I know not that, I confeſs; for we find no ſuch thing written: Yet if I were to ſpeak my Opinion, I do not think we ſhall eat.

And to give our Judgment in general of this Author, I do not know whether or no we may allow for good, and perfectly conformable to the Diſcipline of our Saviour-Chriſt, the courſe which he ordinarily obſerves in his Diſputations, wreſting the words of his Adverſaries, quite beſides the Authors intention; and framing to himſelf ſuch a ſenſe, as is not at all to be found in them; and then fiercely encountring this Giant of his own making, mixing withal ſtrange abuſive language, and biting Girds, and the like tart expreſſions borrowed from profane Authors; in which kind of Learning he was indeed very excellent. St. Auguſtine in the Conteſtation that he had with him, ſaid, that the††Aug. Ep. ad Hier. quae eſt 87. inter Ep. Hier. Tom. 2. pag. 518. Holy Ceremonies of the Jews, though they were aboliſhed by Jeſus Chriſt, might yet notwithſtanding in the beginning of Chriſtianity be obſerved by thoſe, who had been brought up in them from their Infancy, even after they had believed in Jeſus Chriſt, provided only, that they did not put their truſt in them: becauſe that that Salvation, which was p. 92ſignified by theſe Holy Ceremonies, was imparted unto us by Jeſus Chriſt: which Doctrine of his is both godly and conſonant alſo to what is urged by St. Paul, in the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, and elſewhere, touching Chriſtian Liberty, by which we both may, and ought to uſe, or abſtain from ſuch things, as are in themſelves indifferent, according as ſhall be requiſite for the Edification of our Neighbour. Now**Hier. ep 89 ad Aug. Tom. 2. pag. 525. Hoc ſi placer, imò quia placet, ut quicunque credunt ex Judaeis debitores ſint legis faciendae; tu, ut Epiſcopus in toto orbe notiſſimus, debes hanc promulgare ſententiam, & in aſſenſum tuum omnes coepiſcopos trahere. St. Hierome here will needs make him believe, that his meaning is, that all thoſe who believed among the Jews, were ſubject to the Law, and that the Gentiles were the only People, whom the Faith in Chriſt had exempted from this Yoak. And then preſently doth he hereupon take occaſion to paſs as tart, and as biting a Jear upon him, as he could; ſaying, that ſince it was ſo, that all the Believers among the Jews were bound to obſerve the Law, St. Auguſtine himſelf, who was the moſt Eminent Biſhop in the whole World, ſhould do well to publiſh this his Opinion, and to endeavour to bring over all his fellow Biſhops to be of his mind. But he had then to deal with an able Adverſary, and one that knew well enough how to make good his words, and to clear them from that Interpretation that the other had put upon them, and to overthrow whatſoever he had impertinently urged againſt him; as any may ſee, in that††Aug. Epiſt. Hier. quae eſt 97. inter Epiſt. Hier. Tom. 2. pag. 550. Excellent and Divine Anſwer of his to St. Hierome, touching this Point, and the whole ſubſtance of his Letter. The Caſe was otherwiſe betwixt him and Ruffinus: for there he grappled with one much below his Match, and dealt his blows upon an arrant Wooden Statue; one that had ſcarcely any Reaſon in what he ſaid, and yet much leſs dexterity in defending himſelf.

But the ſport of it is, to ſee that after he hath handſomly belaboured, and pricked this pitiful thing, from head to foot, and ſometimes till the blood followed, p. 93he at length proteſteth,**Hier. lib. 1. contr. Ruff. T. 2. pag. 311. Sentiſne quid taceam, quod aeſtu…nti pectori verba non commodem? & cum Pſalmiſta loquar, pone Domine cuſto…iam ori m…o, &c. at the end of his firſt Book, that He had ſpared him for the Love of God, and that he had not afforded words to his troubled breaſt, and had ſet a watch before his mouth; according to the Example of the Pſalmiſt.

And in another place he reads him a long Lecture,††Id in Apol adv. Ruff. Tom. 2. pag 373. Quis omiſſa cauſa in ſuperſlua criminum objectione verſ…tus eſt? quae non Chartae Eccleſiatticae, ſed libelli debent Judicum continere. telling him that they were not to uſe railing Language in their Diſputations, nor to leave the Queſtion in hand; and to labour to bring in what Accuſations they could againſt each other, which are more proper at a Bar, than in the Church, and fitter to ſtuff a Lawyers Bill, than a Church-mans Papers.

'Tis true indeed, that thoſe who have been galled by him, are themſelves to blame: for as much as**Id. Apol. 1. contr. Ruff T. 2. pap. 311. Hoc unum denuncio, & repetens iterum iterumque monebo, cornutam beſtiam petis. He, out of his own candid diſpoſition, courteouſly gave them warning himſelf; telling them before-hand, that Thoſe that meddle with him, had to do with a Horned Beaſt. And yet ſome perhaps may ſtill very much wonder, how it ſhould come to paſs, that all thoſe Watchings, and ſtrict Diſcipline which he endured in Bethlehem, and the Deſart of Arabia ſhould not have mortified theſe Horns: to which I have no more to ſay, but this; that God by a certain ſecret and wiſe Judgment, hath ſuffered theſe Holy men, notwithſtanding all thoſe excellent Gifts of Charity, Patience, and Meekneſs wherewith they were abundantly endued, ſometimes to let fall ſuch ſlips as theſe upon ſeveral particular occaſions; to let us underſtand, that there is nothing abſolutely perfect, but God alone; all men, how accompliſhed ſoever they can poſſibly be, carrying always about them ſome Reliques of Humane Infirmity.

But however it be, this Courſe of St. Hierome's makes me doubt, that he hath dealt no better with others than he hath with St. Auguſtine, wreſting their words much further than he ought to have done. But ſometimes he goes further yet, and ſpeaks even of the Pen-men of the p. 94Old and New Teſtament in ſo diſreſpectful a manner, as that I am very much unſatisfied with theſe his doings. As, for example, where he ſays in plain Terms without any Circumlocution, that the††Hier. Com. in Epiſt. ad Tit. Tem 6. Inſcriptio autem a…ae non ita erat, ut Paulus aſſeruit, Ignoto Deo, ſed ita: Deis Europae, Aſiae, & Africae, Deis ignotis & peregrinis. Inſcription of the Altar at Athens was not expreſſed in thoſe very words which are delivered by St. Paul, in the Acts, Chap. 17. TO THE UNKNOWN GOD, but in other Terms, thus: To the Gods of Europe, Aſia, and of Africk; to the Ʋnknown and Foreign Gods. So likewiſe where he tells us, and repeats the ſame too in many ſeveral places, that**Hier. Com. 3. in Epiſt ad Gal 348 Tom. 6. Hebraeus ex Hebraeis profundos ſenſus aliena lingua exprimere non valebat. Et Comm. 2. in Epiſt. ad Epheſ. Tom 6. pag. 384. Iſle qui Soloeciſmos in verbis facit, qui non poteſt hyperbaton reddere, ſententiamque concludere, audacter ſibi vindicat ſapientiam, &c. Com. in Epiſt. ad Tit. Tom 6. pag 440. Qui non juxta humilitatem, ut plerique aeſtimant, ſed verè dixerit, Imperitus Sermone, non tamen ſcientia, Hebraeus ex Hebraeis, &c. proſundos ſenſus Graeco ſermone non explicat, & quid cogitat, in verba vix promit. Epiſt. 15. ad Algaſ. Q 10. Tom. 3. pag. 167. Illud, &c etſi imperitus Sermone, &c. nequaquam Paulum de humilitate dixiſſe: profundos enim, & reconditos ſenſus lingua non explicat, & cum ipſe ſentiat, quid loquatur, in alienas aures puro non poteſt transferre Sermone. St. Paul knew not how to ſpeak, nor to make a Diſcourſe hang together: and, that he makes Soloeciſms ſometimes; and that he knew not how to render an Hyperbaton, nor to conclude a Sentence: and that he was not able to expreſs his own deep Conceptions in the Greek Tongue: and that he had no good utterance, but had much ado to deliver his mind. And again in another place he tells us, that It was not out of modeſty, but it was the plain, naked truth that he told us, when the Apoſtle ſaid of himſelf; that he was Imperitus Sermone, Rude in Speech; becauſe that the truth is, He could not deliver his mind to others, in clear and intelligible Language. And he ſays moreover, which is yet much worſe than all the reſt, that**Id. Com. 1. Epiſt. ad Gal. Tom 6 pag. 305. Unde manifeſtum eſt id feciſſe Apoſtolum quod promiſit, nec reconditis ad Gal. uſum eſſe ſenſibus, ſed quo idianis, & vilibus, & quae poſſent, niſi praemiſiſſet, Secundum hominem dico, prudentibus diſplicere. Et paulo antè pag. 304. Apoſtolus Galatis quoque, quos paulò ante ſtultos dixerat, factus eſt ſtultus: non enim ad eos his uſus eſt argumentis, quibus ad Romanos, ſed ſimpl cioribus, & quae ſtulti poſſent intelligere, & penè de trivio. the Apoſtle diſputing with the Galatians p. 95counterfeited ignorance, as knowing them to be a dull, heavy People, and that he had let f…ll ſome ſuch Expreſſions, as might poſſibly have offended the more intelligent ſort of people, had he not before hand told them, that he ſpake after the manner of men. Whoſoever ſhall have had but the leaſt taſte of the force and vigour, and of the Candor of the Spirit, and Diſcourſe of this Holy Apoſtle, can never ſee him thus uſed, without being extremely aſtoniſhed at it: eſpecially if he but conſider, that theſe kinds of ſpeeches, although they had perhaps ſome Ground, (which yet they have not,) muſt needs ſcandalize, and give offence to the weaker ſort of People, and therefore ought not to have been uttered, without very much Qualification, and ſweetning of the buſineſs.

St. Auguſtine, I confeſs, is much more diſcreet in this particular, every where teſtifying (as there is very great Reaſon he ſhould) the great Reſpect he bare to the Authors of the Books of the Holy Scriptures; and never ſpeaking of any of them, whether it be of their Style, or of their Senſe, but with a ſingular admiration.

But as for his own private Opinions, and thoſe of other men which he embraceth, he is not without his Errours alſo. Such is that harſh Sentence of his, which he hath pronounced upon all Infants that dye before Baptiſm; whom he will have not only to be deprived of the Viſion of God, which is the puniſhment that the ordinary Opinion of the Church condemns them to; but he will further have them to be††Aug. T 10. Serm. 14. de verb. Ap. Tormented in Hell fire: wherein he is alſo followed by Gregorius Armininenſis, **Greg. Arim. in …. ſent. d 33. 9. 3.a Famous Doctor in the Schools, where he is called, by reaſon of this Rigour of his, Tormentum Infantium. He maintaineth alſo, that the Euchariſt is neceſſary for little Infants, as we have formerly noted, to another purpoſe. To which we muſt alſo add that other Opinion, to which he evidently inclines; namely,**Aug. T. 2. Ep. 28 tot Mox F. 21 M T 3 de Gen. ad lit. lib. 10 c. 1. T. 7. c. 2. de An. & ejus Orig. c. 14. that the Soul is derived from the Father to the Son, and is engendred of his p. 96Subſtance, as well as the Body, and is not immediately Created by God, which is the Common Opinion at this day.

There is no man but knows, that††Idem Tom. 1. lib. 1. contr. Acad. cap. 7. See alſo toward the latter end of this Chapter. He every where attributes to the Angels a Corporeal Nature: and alſo that he conceives, againſt all ſenſe and reaſon,**Idem Tom. 3. lib. imperf. de Gen. ad lit. cap. 7. & lib. 4. de Gen. ad lit. cap. 31, 33, 34. & lib. cap. 5. 11. that the whole World was created all in an inſtant of time; and refers, the ſix days ſpace of time, wherein the Creation is ſaid to have been perfected, to the different degrees of the knowledge of the Angels. He believed alſo, with the moſt of the Ancient Fathers,††Idem Tom. 5. Euch ad Laur. cap. 109. Tempus quod inter hominis mortem & ultimam reſurrectionem interpoſitum eſt animas abditis recepraculis continet, &c. Vide & Tom. 4. c. de cur. pro mortuis, cap. 2. & lib. 1. de Civitate Dei, cap. 12. Tom. 9. Tract. 49. in Joh. fol. 74. that the Souls of Men departed, are ſhut up into I know not what ſecret, dark Receptacles, where they are to remain from the hour of their departure, till the Reſurrection.

But we need not trouble our ſelves any further, in proving that he alſo might erre in matters of Religion, ſeeing that himſelf hath made ſo clear and ſo Authentick a Confeſſion hereof, in his Books of his Retractations, where he correcteth many things which he had formerly written, either beſides, or againſt the Truth.

I muſt here confeſs alſo, that in my Opinion, it would have added very much to the great and high Eſteem, which we generally have of his Parts and Worth; if he had been more poſitive, and more reſolved, in the Deciſion of things, which he hath handled, for the moſt part, after the manner of the Academicks, doubtingly and waveringly all the way; inſomuch that he leaveth undecided not only**Id. T. 3. Euchar ad Laur. c. 58. de Gen. ad lit. l. 2. c. 18. whether the Sun and the other Stars be endued with Reaſon, but alſo,**Id. lib 1. Retract. cap 11. whether the World it ſelf be a Living Creature, or not.

He that will but exactly and carefully read the reſt of the Fathers, may very eaſily obſerve in their Writings divers Errours of the like nature; and a man ſhall ſcarcely p. 97meet with any one Father, of any Note or Repute, from whom ſome ſuch thing or other hath not eſcaped.

As for my own part, who have taken upon me this troubleſom Buſineſs very unwillingly, I ſhall content my ſelf with theſe few Inſtances already ſet down, ſeeing they do, in my Judgment, make this Buſineſs very clear; the diſcovery whereof, I have been neceſſitated to undertake, though I wiſh rather they might have been concealed. For, ſeeing that theſe ſo eminent Perſons, who were of the greateſt Repute amongſt all the Ancients, have through Humane Infirmity fallen into ſuch Errors, in Point of Faith; what ought we to expect from others, who come very much behind theſe, both in reſpect of their Antiquity, Learning, and Holineſs of Life? Since Juſtin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, Hilary, Ambroſe, Hierome, Auguſtine, and Epiphanius, that is to ſay, the moſt Eminent, and moſt Approved Perſons that ever were, have yet ſtumbled in many places, and have quite fallen in ſome other; what hath Cyril, Leo, Gregorius Romanus, and Damaſcene done, who have come after them, and in whom hath appeared both much leſs Gallantry of Spirit, and Sanctity, than in the Former? Beſides, if theſe Men have been miſtaken in matters of ſo great Importance; ſome of them, for Inſtance, in the Point touching the Nature of God; ſome, touching the Humanity of our Saviour Chriſt; others, touching the Quality of our Soul; and ſome, touching the State and Condition thereof after Death, and touching the Reſurrection; why, for Gods ſake, muſt they needs be Infallible, when they ſpeak of the Points now debated amongſt us? Why may not the ſame thing have hapned to them in the one, that hath ſo manifeſtly befallen them in the other? It is not very probable (as we have ſaid before) that they ſo much as ever thought of our Differences: and it is much more improbable, that ever they had any intention of being our Judges in the Deciſion of them, as we have before proved.

p. 98But now put the Caſe that they were acquainted with the Buſineſs, and that they did intend to clear our Doubts, and to give us their Poſitive Determination touching the ſame in their Books; who ſhall aſſure us, that they have had better ſucceſs here, than they had in ſo many other things, wherein we have before heard them, give their Verdict, ſo utterly againſt all Juſtice and Reaſon? He that hath erred touching the Point of the Reſurrection, is it not poſſible that he ſhould be in an Errour touching the State of the Soul after this Life? He that could be ignorant what the Nature of Chriſt's Body was, muſt he Neceſſarily have a Right Judgment touching the Euchariſt? I do not ſee what ſolid Reaſon of this Difference can poſſibly be given. It cannot proceed, but from one of theſe two Cauſes, neither of which have yet any place here. For it happens ſometimes, that he who is deceived in one Particular, hath yet better fortune in another; by reaſon perhaps of his taking more heed to, and uſing more Attention in the Conſideration of the Later, than he did in the Former, or elſe, by reaſon that one of the Points is eaſier to be underſtood, than the other. For, in this Caſe, though his Attention be as great in the one, as in the other; yet notwithſtanding he may perhaps be able to underſtand the eaſie one, but ſhall not be able to maſter the hard one. But now, neither of theſe Reaſons can be alledged here: For, why ſhould the Ancients have uſed leſs Care and Attention in the Examination of thoſe Points wherein they have erred? Or, why ſhould they have uſed more in thoſe Points which are at this day controverted amongſt us? Are not thoſe Ancient Points of Religion of as great Importance, as theſe Latter? Is there leſs danger in being ignorant touching the Nature of God, than touching the Authority of the Pope? or touching the State of the Faithful in the Reſurrection, than touching the Puniſhment of Souls in Purgatory? the Real Qualities of the Body of Chriſt, than the Nature of the Euchariſt? the Cup of His Paſſion, p. 99than the Cup of His Communion? Is it more Neceſſary to Salvation, to know Him Sacrificed upon the Altar, than Really Suffering upon the Croſs? Who ſees not, that theſe Matters are of equal Importance? or, if there be any Difference betwixt them, that thoſe Points wherein the Fathers have erred, are in ſome ſort more Important than thoſe which we now diſpute about?

We ſhall therefore conclude, That if they had had both the one and the other before their eyes, they would queſtionleſs have uſed as much Diligence at leaſt, and Attention, in the Study of the one, as of the other; and conſequently, in all probability, would have been either as ſucceſſful, or elſe have erred as much in the one, as in the other.

Neither may it be here objected, That thoſe Points wherein they have failed, are of more difficulty than thoſe other wherein theſe Men will needs have them to have been Certainly in the Right: for whoſoever ſhall but conſider them more narrowly, he will find that they are equally both eaſie and difficult: or, if there be any difference betwixt them in this Particular, thoſe which they have erred in, were the eaſier of the two to have been known.

For, I would fain have any Man tell me what he thinks in his Conſcience, whether it be not as eaſie to judge by Reaſon, and by the Scripture, whether or no the Saints ſhall dwell upon the Earth after the Reſurrection; as it is to determine, whether, after they are departed this Life, they ſhall go into Purgatory, or not? Is it a harder matter to know, whether the Angels are capable of Carnal Love; than it is to judge, whether the Pope, as he is Pope, be Infallible, or not? And if it be anſwered here, That the Church, having already determined theſe Latter Points, and having not declared it ſelf at all touching the other, hath taken away all the Difficulty of the one, but hath left the other in their former Doubtful State: this is to preſuppoſe that which is the main Queſtion; p. 100or rather, it is manifeſtly Falſe: the Church in the Firſt Ages having not, that we know of, paſſed any Publick and Authentick Judgment, touching the Points now in controverſie, as we have before already proved.

Foraſmuch therefore as theſe Holy Men (if at leaſt they had any thought at all of theſe our Quarrels) had an equally Clear Inſight in theſe things; both according to all Reaſon, and all Probability, they would have alſo come unto them with an equal both Attention and Affection. And I believe that there is no Man but ſees, that if they might erre in the Deciſion of the one, it is altogether as Poſſible that they might be miſtaken alſo in their Judgment upon the other.

Now thoſe Books of theirs, which are left us, proclaim aloud, and openly enough, (as we have ſeen by thoſe few Teſtimonies which we have but juſt now produced out of them) that they have erred, and ſometimes alſo very grievouſly, touching thoſe Firſt Queſtions: it remaineth therefore that we ſay, That their Judgment is not any whit more Infallible in our preſent Controverſies. I could be content that you had demonſtrated to any Proteſtant, by clear and undeniable Reaſons, that S. Hilary, in thoſe Paſſages which are produced out of him for the ſame purpoſe, hath Poſitively taught the Real Preſence of Chriſt in the Euchariſt: and I could be well contented that he ſhould grant you the ſame, which yet perhaps he will never do. However, after all, he hath this ſtill to put you in mind of, namely, that this is the ſelf-ſame S. Hilary, who in the ſame Book maintains, That the Body of Chriſt felt no Pain at all upon the Croſs. And if he were in an Error in this Particular, why muſt he Neceſſarily be in the Right in the other? The Queſtion touching the Body of Chriſt, is of as great Importance as that of the Euchariſt: and it is beſides much more Clearly decided in the Scriptures, where there is nothing in the Earth that obligeth in the leaſt degree to fancy any p. 101ſuch thing of the Body of Chriſt, as S. Hilary hath done: but where, on the contrary, there ſeems to be ſome kind of Ground for the Opinion which he is pretended to have had, touching the Euchariſt. Foraſmuch therefore (will the Proteſtant ſay) as that in a thing which is of equal Importance, and of much leſs Difficulty, he hath manifeſtly erred, who can aſſure me, that in this Point here, which is both leſs Neceſſary, and more Difficult he may not alſo be miſtaken? The ſame hath he to reply upon you, touching thoſe other Allegations which you produce out of the reſt of the Fathers; every one of whom hath either Really erred, o… elſe Poſſibly might have erred in Matters of Religion. Neither can you hope, that any Solid Anſwer ſhould be given to theſe things; eſpecially if you but conſider, that the Practice both of the Fathers, and alſo of our Adverſaiies themſelves, hath clearly confirmed this our Poſition. For, **Aug. Ep. ad Hier: inter Ep. Hier. 47. T. 2. p. 551. & inter Epiſt. Aug. 19. T. 2.S. Auguſtine, in that Diſpute of his which he maintained againſt S. Hierome, ſeeing him produce the Teſtimonies of Seven Authors, he (taking no notice at all of the words of the firſt four of them) anſwers no more but this, That ſome of them were guilty of Hereſie, and the reſt of Error: Which Anſwer is very Inſufficient, unleſs you allow, that the Teſtimony of a Man who hath erred in any one particular Point of Faith, is Null and Invalid.

The Fathers of the II Council of Nice took the very ſame Courſe in anſwering an Objection brought againſt them by the Iconoclaſts, who alledged a certain Paſſage for themſelves out of Euſebius Biſhop of Caeſarea, Conc. VII. Act. 6. Tom 3. Conc. Gen. p. 627.Acts 6anſwering them no more but this, That the Author they cited was an Arian. We need not examine whether this Anſwer of theirs be true, or no; and if ſo, whether it be to the purpoſe, or not: It is ſufficient for us, that it appears hence, by their making uſe of this kind of Anſwer, that they took it for granted, that he that had failed in one Point, was not to be truſted in any other. Cardinal Perron, and the p. 102reſt of the Learned of that Party, oftentimes makes uſe of the ſame Shift, rejecting the Teſtimonies that are brought againſt them out of Socrates, or Sozomen, two Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorians, becauſe they ſay they were Novatians. Thoſe who put forth the General Councils at Rome diſauthorize Gelaſius Cyzicenus, In Praefat praefixa Act. Conc. Niceni Gelaſ. Cyzic. in Edit. Rom Conc. Gen. Tom. 1.who was the Compiler of the Acts of the Council of Nice, by producing many groſs Overſights committed by him in that Piece of his.

Foraſmuch therefore, as we are not to build upon the Authority of any Author that may juſtly be accuſed of Error; it is moſt evident, that the Authority of the greateſt part, and indeed in a manner of all the Fathers, may very well be called in Queſtion: ſeeing that you will hardly find any one of them that is not liable to this Exception.

But it will here be objected perhaps, by ſome eſpecially, that although it be confeſſed, that the Opinion of one Single Father poſſibly may be, and many times is really Falſe; yet however it is a very hard, or indeed an impoſſible thing, that what hath been delivered unanimouſly by many of them together, ſhould be otherwiſe than True.

But we have anſwered ſomething already to this Objection, where we took occaſion to examine that Maxime of Vincentius Lirinenſis, touching this Particular.

And in ſhort, this is all one, as if having confeſſed that every particular Perſon of ſuch a Company is ſick of ſome Diſeaſe, we ſhould notwithſtanding ſtill deny, that the whole Company, taken all together, can poſſibly fall into any Common Diſtemper of Body. It is not indeed altogether ſo probable, that Many ſhould be ſick of any Diſeaſe, as that One ſingle Perſon ſhould: yet neither is the thing altogether impoſſible, eſpecially when the Diſeaſe is Contagious, and beſides, not ſo well Known; as for the moſt part the Errors of Great Perſons are, whoſe very Name bears them out, and makes them eaſily p. 103received by the Ordinary ſort, who run after them, and ſuck them in without the leaſt ſuſpicion at all.

But yet if Reaſon will not do the turn, let Experience however perſwade us to receive this Truth. For it is moſt evident, that ſome of thoſe Errors before-ſpecified, have been maintained, not by One, nor by Two, nor by Three of the Fathers onelyonly; but by Many, by the Major part, and ſometimes alſo by All the Fathers of the ſame Age, at leaſt of all thoſe whoſe Names and Writings have come to our hands. We have heard how that Juſtin Martyr maintained the Opinion of the Millenaries, which is both manifeſtly falſe in it ſelf, and alſo very dangerous in its Conſequences. Now this Opinion he did not maintain alone, the reſt of the Learned of his time were in a manner all of the ſame Perſwaſion, as it appeareth by his own words.

For, writing againſt Tryphon, and the Jews that held with him, he ſaith, aaJuſt. contr. Tryph… p. 306. foreign, &c.That if they had by chan…e met with ſome who bare the Name of Chriſtians, but did not believe this Article of Faith, blaſpheming the God of Abraham, of Iſaac, and of Jacob, and ſaying, That there ſhall be no Reſurrection of the Dead, but that the Souls, immediately after Death, are tranſported up to Heaven; they muſt not take theſe Perſons for Chriſtians, no more than, in ſpeaking truly and preciſely, the Samaritans, or any other Sect of Judaiſm, ought to be called Jews. The Falſe Chriſtians which he here ſpeaks of, were the Valentinians, and others of the Gnoſtick…. He goes on by and by, and ſays, bbId. ibid p 307 foreign, &c.But as for me, and the reſt of us, who are Right and Orthodox in our Opinions, and who are perfectly Chriſtians, we know, that there ſhall be both a Reſurrection of the Fleſh, and that the Saints ſhall afterwards alſo ſpend a thouſand years in Jeruſalem, p. 104which ſhall be rebuilt, beautified, and enlarged. By which words of his he ſeems to teſtifie, That all the Catholicks in his time maintained this Erroneous Opinion, and that the Hereticks onelyonly rejected it. I know very well, that he confeſſeth before, ccId. ibid. p. 306. foreign.That there were divers who were Perfect and Religious Chriſtians, who yet did not embrace the ſaid Opinion: But let any Man that can, reconcile theſe two contrary Sayings; That all Orthodox Chriſtians held this Opinion; and, That there were ſome of the Orthodox Party, that did not receive the ſame.

Let any Man that will, ſearch alſo into Juſtin's Works, and ſee whether this Contradiction hath not been foiſted in by the Zeal of the following Ages, who haply might take offence at the Buſineſs, in ſeeing ſuch an Opinion fathered upon all the True Chriſtians, by ſo great a Martyr. It is ſufficient for us, that however it appears clearly by this Paſſage, that a very great part of the Doctors, and of the Faithful People of thoſe times, maintained this Errour. We ſee that Irenaeus, who lived in the ſame time, and alſo Tertullian, who followed not long after him, were both of the ſame Perſwaſion; no one Man all this while, that we hear of, offering to contradict them. ddEuſeb. Hiſt. Eccl. l. 3. c. 39.Sir 50:3Euſebius, and**Hieron. l. de Scrip. Eccleſ in. Papia. S. Hierome, and divers other Authors inform us, That Papias Biſhop of Hierapolis, who flouriſhed about the Year of our Lord CX, was the Author of this Opinion.

It followeth then from hence, That the Conſent of all the Fathers that are now extant, who lived in the ſame Age, and maintained all the ſame Opinion, is no infallible Argument of the Truth.

And if you go down …ower, you will find that the very ſame Error was defended by ſeveral Doctors of very great Repute in the Church.

S. Hierome, who in divers places of his Commentaries hath excellently and ſolidly refuted this fooliſh Fancy, ſays,eeId. Comm. …. in Ezech. T. 4. …. 984. That many among the Learned Chriſtians had maintained the ſame, and to thoſe, whom we have p. 105already mentioned††Id. Com. 18. in Iſa. in Praefat. Quem (Apollinarium) noſtrorum in hac parte duntaxat plurima ſequitur multitudo, ut praeſaga mente jam cernam, quantorum in me rabies concitanda ſit. He addeth Lactantius, Victorinus, Severus, and Apollinaris, who is followed in this Point, (ſaith he in another place) by great multitudes of Chriſtians about us, inſomuch that I already foreſee and preſage to my ſelf, how many folks anger I ſhall incur hereby: namely, becauſe he every where ſpoke againſt this Opinion.

Whence it plainly appears, that in his time, that is to ſay, about the beginning of the Fifth Century, it was ſtill in great requeſt in the Church. And indeed how fierce ſoever he ſeem to be in his Onſet, yet he dares not condemn this Opinion abſolutely.**Hier. Com. 4. in Hierem. T 4. p. 598. Quae licet non ſequamur, tamen damnare non poſſumus, quia multi Eccleſiaſticorum virorum, & Martyres iſta dixerunt: & unuſquiſ que in ſuo ſenſu abundet, & Domini cuncta judicio reſerventur. Although we embrace not this Opinion, (ſaith he) yet can we not condemn it; for as much as there have been divers Eminent Perſonages, and Martyrs in the Church, who have maintained the ſame. Let every man abound in his own ſenſe, and let us leave the judgment of all things to God.

Whence you ſee, (as we may obſerve by the way) that the Fathers have not always held an Opinion in the ſame degree that we do. For, St. Hierome conceived this to be a Pardonable Errour, which yet we at this day will not endure to hear of.

If it be here anſwered, that the Church in the Ages following condemned this Opinion, as erroneous; this is no more, than to ſay, that the Churches in the Ages following acknowledged, that the joynt Conſent of many Fathers together, touching one and the ſame Opinion, is no ſolid Proof of the Truth of the ſame. If Dionyſius Alexandrinus had been of any other judgment, he would never have written againſt Irenaeus as he did; as ††Id. Com. 18. in Eſ. in Praefat.St. Hierome alſo teſtifieth, in one of his Books of Commentaries before cited. And if we are to have regard to Authority only, the Judgment of the ſucceeding Church cannot then ſerve us, as a certain Guide in this p. 106Queſtion, to inform us on which ſide the Truth is: For, to alledge it in this Caſe, were rather to oppoſe one Authority againſt another, than to decide the Controverſie. As Dionyſius Alexandrinus, St. Hierome, Gregory Nazianzene, and others, conceived not themſelves bound to ſubmit to the Authority of Juſtin Martyr, Irenaeus, Lactantius, Victorinus, Severus, and others; ſo neither are we any more bound to ſubmit to theirs: For, their Poſterity oweth them no more Reſpect, than they themſelves owed to their Anceſtors. It ſeemeth rather, that in Reaſon they ſhould owe them leſs, becauſe that look how far diſtant in time they are from the Apoſtles, who are as it were the Spring and Original of all Eccleſiaſtical Authority; ſo much doth the Credit and Authority of the Doctors of the Church loſe and grow leſs.

If Antiquity (as we would have it) be the Mark of Truth, then certainly that which is the moſt Ancient, is alſo the moſt Venerable, and the moſt Conſiderable. And if there were no other Argument but this, againſt the Authority of many Fathers, unanimouſly conſenting in any Opinion; yet would it clearly ſerve to leſſen the ſame: but there are yet behind many others; ſome whereof we ſhall here produce. We have heard before, Juſtin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and St. Auguſtine, affirming all of them, that Heaven ſhall not be opened, till the Day of Judgment; and that during this ſpace of time the Souls of all the Faithful are ſhut up in ſome ſubterraneous place, except ſome ſmall number of thoſe who had the Priviledge of going immediately to Heaven. The Author of thoſe Queſtions and Anſwers, that go under the name of Juſtin Martyr, maintains the ſame Opinion, as you may ſee in the Anſwers to the LX, and LXXIV Queſtions.

And that I may not unprofitably ſpend both Time and Paper, in bringing in all the particular Paſſages, I ſay in General, that both the Major Part, and alſo the moſt Eminent Perſons among the Ancient Fathers held this p. 107Opinion, either abſolutely, or at leaſt in part. For, beſides Juſtin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and St. Auguſtine, and the Author of thoſe Queſtions and Anſwers we before mentioned, which is a very Ancient Piece indeed, though falſly fathered upon Juſtin Martyr, it is clear, that Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, St. Ambroſe, St. Chryſoſtome, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Aretas, Prudentius, Theophylact, St. Bernard, and, among the Popes, Clemens Romanus, and John XXII. were all of this Opinion, as is confeſſed by all; neither was this ſo admirable and general Conſent of theirs contradicted by any Declaration of the Church, for the ſpace of Fourteen Hundred years; neither yet did any one of the Fathers ſo far as we can diſcover, take upon him to refute this Errour, as Dionyſius Alexandrinus, and St. Hierome did to refute the Millenaries; all the reſt of the Fathers being either utterly ſilent, as to this Particular, and ſo by this their ſilence going over in a manner into the Opinion of the Major Part; or elſe contenting themſelves with declaring ſometimes here and there in their Books, that they believed that the Souls of the Saints ſhould enjoy the ſight of God, till the Reſurrection, never formally denying the other Opinion.

But that which doth further ſhew, that this Opinion is both very Ancient, and hath been alſo very Common among the Chriſtians, is, becauſe that even at this day it is believed, and defended by the whole Greek Church: neither is there any of all thoſe, who make Profeſſion of ſtanding to the Writings of the Fathers, as the Rule of their Faiths, who have rejected it, ſave only the Latines, Conc. Flor. in defin. Diffinimus inſuper, &c. illorum animas qui poſt ſuſceptum Baptiſma nullam omnino maculam incurrerunt illas etiam quae poſt contractam peccati maculam vel in ſuis corporibus, vel eiſdem exutae corporibus, pro ut ſuperiùs dictum eſt, ſunt purgatae, in coelum mox recipi, & intueri clarè ipſum Deum, trinum & unum, Tom. 4. Conc. pag. 584.who have expreſly alſo eſtabliſhed the contrary, at the Council of Florence, held in the year of our Lord 1439. which is not above Two Hundred and Twelve years ago. Do but fancy now to p. 108your ſelves a Vicentius Lirinenſis, ſtanding in the midſt of this Council, and laying before them his own Oracle, before mentioned; which is, That we ought to hold for moſt certainly, and undoubtedly true, whatſoever hath been delivered by the Ancients unanimouſly and by a Common Conſent: and do but think, whether or no he ſhould not have been hiſſed out by theſe Reverend Fathers, as one that made the Truth, which is holy and immutable, to depend upon the Authority of Men? For, theſe men regarded not at all neither the Multitude, nor the Antiquity, nor the Learning, nor the Sanctity of the Authors of this fooliſh Opinion; but, finding it to be falſe, without any more ado rejected it, as they thought they had good Reaſon to do, and withal ordained the contrary.

Now I am verily perſwaded, that there are very few Points of Faith, among all thoſe which the Church of Rome would have the Proteſtants receive, for which there can be alledged either more, or more clear and evident Teſtimonies out of the Fathers, than for this.

For as much therefore as that after all this it hath not only be called in Queſtion, but hath been even utterly condemned alſo; who ſeeth not, that the Conſent of many Fathers together, although any ſuch thing were to be had, upon all the Points now in Debate, would yet be no ſufficient Argument of the Truth of the ſame? But I ſhall paſs on to the reſt.

We have before heard, how that Tertullian, St. Cyprian, who was both a Biſhop and a Martyr, Firmilianus Metropolitan of Cappadocia, Dionyſius Patriarch of Alexandria, together with the Synods of Biſhops both of Africk, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Baſil. Epiſt. ad Amph…loch. T. 2. p. …58, 759.and Bithynia, held all, that the Baptiſm of Hereticks was invalid and null. St. Baſil who was one of the moſt Eminent Biſhops of the whole Eaſtern Church, held alſo in a manner the very ſame Opinion; and that a long time too after the Determination of the Council of Nice; as appeareth by the Epiſtle which he p. 109wrote to Amphilochius; which is alſo put in among the Publick Decrees of the Church, by the Greek Canoniſts. And yet this Opinion is now confeſſed by all to be Erroneous.

Many in like manner of the Fathers, as namely††Tertul. lib. contr. Jud. cap. 8.Judg 8 Tertullian, **Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 6.Clemens Alexandrinus, ††Lactant Firmian lib. 4. cap. 10.Lactantius, and**African. apud Hieron Com. in Dan. cap. 10. Tom. 4. cap. 1147Dan 10 Africanus, believed, that our Saviour Chriſt kept the Feaſt of the Paſſeover but once only, after his Baptiſm. And yet notwithſtanding this Conſent of theirs, the Opinion is known to be very falſe, as††Petav. Not. in Epiph. pag. 203. Petavius alſo teſtifieth; and beſides is expreſly contrary to the Text of the Goſpel. I ſhall not here ſay any thing of the Opinion ofaaChryſoſt…m. Hom. in ſtatuas, & paſſim. St. Chryſoſtom, bbSt Hieron. Com. 1. in Matth. T…m. 6. pag. 15.St. Hierome, ccBaſil. Hom. in Pſ. 14. T. 1. pag. 154, & 155.Ps 14St. Baſil, and the Fathers of the Council held at ddAct. Conc. Conſt. act. 1. Tom. 2. pag. 129. foreign, &c.Conſtantinople under the Patriarch Flavianus; who ſeem all to have held, that an Oath was utterly unlawful for Chriſtians, under the New Teſtament. Neither ſhall I take any notice in this place of that Conceit of Athanaſius, St. Baſil, and Methodius, as he is cited byeeTom. 3. Conc. pag. 547. in act. Conc. VII. act. 5. John Biſhop of Theſſalonica, who all believed that the Angels had Bodies: to whom we may alſo add, (as we have ſhewed before,) St. Hilary, Juſtin Martyr, Tertullian, and very many more of the Fathers, who would all of them have the Nature of Angels to be ſuch, as was capable of the Paſſions of Carnal love; of which number is evenffAuguſt Tom. 1. lib. 1. contr. Acad. cap. 7. Tom. 2. Epiſt. 111. & Epiſt. 115. & Tom. 3. Enchir. ad Laur. cap. 59. de Trin. lib. 2. cap. 7. & lib. 3. cap. 1. & lib. 8. cap. 2. & de Gen. ad lit. lib. 3. cap. 10. & lib. 11. cap 22. & de divin. Daem. cap. 3, 4, 5. & Tom. 4. lib. 93. quaeſt. 9 47 Tom. 5 lib. 11. de Civ. Dei. cap. 25. & lib. 15. cap. 23. & ibi Vives, & lib. 21. cap. 23. & cap. 10. St. Auguſtine alſo. Whoſoever ſhould now conclude from hence, that this Fancy of theirs (which yet is of no ſmall importance) is a Truth; would he not be as ſharply reproved for it by the Romaniſts, as by thoſe of Geneva? But I muſt not forget, that beſides St. Cyprian, St. Auguſtine, p. 110and Pope Innocent I. whoſe Teſtimonies we have given in ggSupr. lib. 1. cap. 8.before, all the reſt of the Doctors, in a manner, of the firſt Ages maintained, that the Euchariſt was neceſſary for young Infants; if at leaſt you dare take Maldonat's word, hhMaldon. in Joh. 6. 53.John 6:53who affirms, that this Opinion was in great Requeſt in the Church, during the firſt Six Hundred years after our Saviour Chriſt.

iiCaſſand. Conſult. ad Fer. & Max. p. 936 & lib. de Bapt. Inf. p. 747.Caſſander alſo teſtifieth, that he hath often obſerved this Practice in the Ancients; as indeed is alſo witneſſed by Carolus Magnus, and by Ludovicus Pius, who lived a long time after the Sixth Century; both of which aſſure us, that this Cuſtom continued in the Weſt, even in their time, as they are cited by CardinalkkDu Perr. traict. de St. Auguſt. pag. 1001. Perron: and the Traces of this Cuſtom do yet remain to this day, amongſt thoſe Chriſtians who are not of the Communion of the Latine Church. ForllNicol. de Lyra in Joh. Notandum quod ex hoc quod dicitur hic, Niſi manducaveritis, &c. dicunt Graeci, quod hoc Sacramentum eſt tantae neceſſitatis, quod pueris dehet dari, ſicut Baptiſmus. Nicolaus Lyranus, who lived ſomewhat above three hundred years ſince, obſerved, That the Greeks accounted the Holy Euchariſt ſo neceſſary, as that they adminiſtred it to little Children alſo, as well as Baptiſm. And even in our Fathers time, the PatriarchmmHierem. Patr. Conſt. Doctr. Exh. ad Germ. Jeremias, ſpeaking in the name of the whole Creek Church, ſaid, We do not only Baptize little Children, but we alſo make them partakers of the Lords Supper. And a little after: we account (ſaith he) both Sacraments to be neceſſary to Salvation for all perſons; namely, Baptiſm and the Holy Communion. ThennAlvarez. in his Voyage to Ethiopia. Abyſſines alſo make their Children in like manner Communicate of the Holy Euchariſt, as ſoon as ever they are Baptized.

Which are moſt evident Arguments, that this falſe Opinion, touching the Neceſſity of the Euchariſt, hath been of old maintained, not by three or four of the Fathers only, but by the Major part, and in a manner by all of them.

For we do not hear of ſo much as one, among all the Ancient Fathers, who rejected it in expreſs Terms; as the p. 111Council of Trent hath done, in theſe later Times.

To conclude, the JeſuitooPeter. in Rom c. 8. disp. 22. Epiſt. 23.Rom 8 Pererius hath informed us, (and indeed the obſervation is obvious enough to any man, that is never ſo little converſant in the Writings of thoſe Authors, who lived before St. Auguſtines time) that all the Greek Fathers, and a conſiderable part alſo of the Latines, were of Opinion, that the Cauſe of Predeſtination was, the Fore ſight which God had, either of Mens Good Works, or elſe of their Faith: either of which Opinions, he aſſures us, is manifeſtly contrary both to the Authority of the Scriptures, and alſo to the Doctrine of St. Paul. So that I conceive we may, without troubling our ſelves any further in making this envious Inquiry into the Errours of the Fathers, conclude from what hath been already produced, that ſeeing the Fathers have Erred in ſo many Particulars, not on ſingly, but alſo many of them together; Neither the private Opinion of each particular Father, nor yet the unanimous Conſent of the Major part of them, is a ſufficient Argument certainly to prove the Truth of thoſe Points, which are at this day controverted amongſt Us.