The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 1 · Chapter 49

The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity · Book 1 · Chapter 49

p. 133CHAP. 49. Doctrines in which the Roman Church rejecteth every Father in particular.

BEſides theſe Doctrines about which a great number of Fathers is conſenting, which nevertheleſs the Roman Church rejecteth and condemneth: there are but few Fathers but have ſome particular opinion, which the Roman Church diſalloweth as well as we, or which is diſpleaſing to our Adverſaries for ſpeaking the truth too plainly.

Juſtin and Clement.

(a)(a)Juſtin Martyr Dialogo de Tryphone. foreign. Vide eundem Dialogum, p. 213.Juſtin Martyr and(b)(b)Clemens Stromaton, lib. 6. foreign. Clement Alexandrin did believe, that God had given to the Gentiles the Sun, and the Moon, and the Stars to worſhip, leaſt they ſhould be altogether deſtitute of religion; and that by the adoration of the Stars they might go to God. The Roman Church approveth not that Doctrine.

Juſtin Martyr believed(c)(c)Juſtin Dialogo in Tryph. p. 260. & 33. foreign. that the ſouls of the Fathers under the Old Teſtament p. 134were in the Devils power: And that(d)(d)Idem ibid. p. 279. foreign. the glory of the Father is greater then that of the Son; And that it was the Son, who in old time came down and appeared to Abraham and to Moſes, becauſe the Father doth not come down, and is inviſible, as though the Son as God, was not of the ſame nature, and inviſible alike. Himſelf in the Dialogue againſt Tryphon, p. 307. ſaith, that the Chriſtians ſhall live a thouſand years at Jeruſalem before the reſurrection. He believed alſo that the Angels fell by the love of women. And in the ſecond Apology, p. 83 he thinks that Socrates and Heraclitus were Chriſtians. That Divinity is rejected by the Roman Church.

Clement Alexandrin

Clement Alexandrin repeateth often, that(e)(e)Clem. l. 2. Stromaton. foreign. before the Lords coming the Grecians were juſtified by Philoſophy.(f)(f)Pag. 171. foreign. The ſame puts four hypoſtaſes in God.(g)(g)Strom. l. 4. p. 217. foreign. He ſaith that the afflictions of the faithful happen, and that the death of Chriſt hapned, not but by the will of God, but by his permiſſion. And that(h)(h)Strom. l. 5. p. 252. foreign. God hath a body, and that Jeſus Chriſt deſcended into hell to preach to the Jews, and that the(i)(i)Strom. l. 6. Apoſtles deſcended to the ſame place to preach to the Gentiles, and bring them to ſalvation, even thoſe who among them have lived righteouſly according to the rules of Philoſophy. The ſame holds, that(k)(k)Lib. 5. p. 227. foreign. the Angels are fallen from their purity, by falling in love with women, to whom they did undiſcreetly diſcover many ſecrets which were not to be divulged. All theſe Doctrines are rejected by the Roman Church, and this Father is condemned for them.

Clemens I. Romanus.

Our Adverſaries have publiſhed ſome Epiſtles of Clement the I. Biſhop of Rome, in one of which he teacheth that thoſe words of mine and thine ought to be baniſht, and that goods ought to be common. Then he addeth, Therefore a certain man who was the wiſeſt among the Grecians, knowing theſe things to be thus common, ſaith, that All things are to be common among friends: (l)(l)In omnibus autē ſunt ſine dubio & conjuges.Now under theſe terms, all things, no doubt but Wives alſo are comprehended. That is found in the firſt Tome of the Councils, and in the Canon Dilectiſſimis, in the firſt queſtion of the twelfth Cauſe: The Roman Church hath rejected that Doctrine. For although the Popes eſtabliſh Brothelhouſes, yet they would not have all Women to be common.

Ignatius.

Ignatius in the Epiſtle to the Philippians, ſaith,(m)(m)foreign. that to faſt upon Saturday or the Lords day, is to be a murtherer of Chriſt. Wherefore alſo the Church of Milan in Ambroſe's time, did not faſt upon Saturday, but only upon Saturday before Eaſter, and upon Saturday before Pentecoſt or Whitſunday. The Churches of the Eaſt, and that of Egypt, kept the ſame cuſtom. And Caſſian book 3. chap. 10. reproveth the Roman Church for faſting upon Saturdays. And the VI. Univerſal Council aſſembled in the Palace of Trulla, Can. 55. condemneth the Church of Rome by name for that ſame reaſon: Yet the Roman Church for all their order, hath continued the obſervation of Saturday to faſt.

p. 135Tertullian.

Tertullian had many errors: He was a Montaniſt: In his Writings he calleth Montanus the Paracletus or the Comforter: He adhered to the Prophecies of Priſcilla and Maximilla: In the book of the ſoul, he maintains that the ſoul is corporal, and groweth with the body, and hath a bodily figure; Yea that(m)(m)Lib. 2. contra Marcionem, c. 16. Quis negabit Deum corpus eſſe, etſi Deus Spiritus eſt? God himſelf is a body: Many others errours he hath, too long to be related. He believed alſo the Fall of Angels by the love of Women: Wherefore in his book, where he teacheth, that the faces of Virgins ought to be vailed, chap. 7. he ſaith, that ſuch dangerous faces ought to be covered, which have darted up ſcandals even to heaven. Himſelf as well as Irenaeus ſhuts(n)(n)Lib. de anima, c. 55, 56, 57, 58. up the Souls of the Saints in an underground dungeon until the day of Judgement: He was alſo a Chiliaſt,(o)(o)Lib. 3. in Mark c. 24. giving to the Church a flouriſhing reign in Jeruſalem for the ſpace of a thouſand years: And he believed, that ſome would riſe ſooner then others: modicum quodque delictum mora reſurrectionis luendo; that is, that thoſe that have ſinned more, ſhall pay even for the leaſt ſin, by the retarding of their reſurrection; as he ſaith in chap. 58. of the book of the ſoul. Cyprian who called him his Maſter, hath followed him(p)(p)Lib. de Baptiſmo, c. 15. & 18. in the rebaptizing of Hereticks; Auſtin in the book of hereſies, ad Quod vult Deum, puts him among the Hereticks. For the ſame cauſes the Roman Church condemneth him: But I find not, that ever any of the Ancients condemned Tertullian for expounding theſe words,(q)(q)Acceptum panem & diſtributum diſcipulis corpus ſuum fecit, dicendo Hoc eſt corpus meum, hoc eſt figura corporis mei. This is my body, by This is the figure of my body; ſpeaking thus in his fourth book againſt Marcion, chap. 40. Chriſt having taken bread, and diſtributed it to his Diſciples, made it to be his body, ſaying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body; And in the third book, chap. 19.(r)(r)Panem corpus ſuum appellans, ut & hinc jam eum intelligas corporis ſui figuram pani dediſſe. God hath called bread his body, that thereby thou mayſt underſtand that he hath given to bread to be the figure of his body: of which paſſages we ſhall ſpeak more fully hereafter.

Origen.

Origen is accuſed by Cardinal du Perron (ſ)(ſ)In the book without either head or tail, entituled, Examination of the book of M. du Pleſſis, fol. 951. and in the book of the Euchariſt, againſt the ſame, book 2. chap. 7.to have denied the Almighty power of God, and the Godhead of the Son, and of the holy Ghoſt, the reſurrection of the fleſh, and the eternity of Paradiſe and Hell. Alſo to have forged many ſucceſſive wordls, and affirmed, that the Devils ſhall become Angels, &c. For theſe errors and many more he is placed among the Hereticks by Epiphanius and by Auſtin. But M. du Perron is not content to blame him for the ſame cauſes that he was blamed for by Ancients; for he blames him alſo and multiplyeth ill words againſt him, becauſe he did not believe the Tranſubſtantiation of the bread into the body of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, as the words of Origen teſtifie it upon Mat. 15. This food which is ſanctified by the Word of God, and by prayer, as for the matter thereof goes down into the belly, and is ſent down into the draught, and ſanctifieth not of its nature. In the ſame place, he cals that which is received in the Euchariſt, a Symbolical and ſignificative body. Upon theſe words of Origen, (t)(t)The whole paſſage is alledged by Sixtus Senenſis, book 6. annotation, 66.that this food ſanctified, is ſent down into the draught, and ſanctifieth not of its nature, M. du Perron crieth out,(u)(u)Fol. 959. Shut up your ears, Chriſtians; and ſaith, that(x)(x)Fol. 956. Origen doth purpoſely diſpute againſt the Catholick Church, and that it is a particular whimſie of the heretical Spirit of Origen. It is true, that(y)(y)Perron againſt King James, fol. 961. Theophilus of Alexandria blames Origen, for ſaying that the Spirit of God doth not work upon inanimate things: Which he confuteth by the example of Baptiſm, whoſe water is conſecrated by the coming of the holy Ghoſt; and of the bread, whereby the body of the Saviour is ſhewed or repreſented: Which things (ſaith he) are inanimate, and yet are ſanctified by the invocation and coming of the holy Ghoſt. But in that Text, Theophilus condemneth not Origen for denying the turning of the bread into the body of Chriſt; ſince he puts the water of Baptiſm in the ſame rank as the bread of the Euchariſt. He ſaith, that both the water of Baptiſm and the bread of the Lords Supper are inanimate things, and are p. 136ſanctified by prayer and by the Holy Ghoſt. According to the Cardinals interpretation we ſhould ſay, that Theophilus condemneth Origen for not believing the tranſubſtantiation of the water of Baptiſm into the blood of Chriſt.

Irenaeus.

Upon that Irenaeus ſaith, Book 2. chap. 39. that Jeſus Chriſt hath taught till the age of 40. or 50. years, Doctor Fevardent, who hath commented upon the Book, hath written in the margent Naevus de aetate Chriſti, It is a fault of Irenaeus about the age of Chriſt. The ſame Father teacheth(z)(z)Lib. 2. c. 62. Characterem corporis in quo etiam adaptantur cuſtodire eundem; & c. 65. Per hoc manifeſtiſſimè declaratum eſt & perſeverare animas, & non de corpore in corpus tranſire, & habere hominis figuram. that the ſouls ſeparated from the bodies have a bodily ſhape, and keep the character or form of the body to which they were joyned. Such was the opinion of many Antients, as of Theodotus, who is added to Clement Alexandrin, and of Auſtin in the 4. book of the ſoul and her origine, ch. 19.(a)(a)Ergone non dicam vera conſtantius? & habet anima oculum, & habet linguam, & habet digitum, & habet caetera ſimilia corporis membra, & haec tota est corporis ſimilitudo & non corpus. The ſoul (ſaith he) hath an eye, and a tongue, and a finger, and ſuch other members of the body, and all that is a likneſs of a body, and not a body. Like things to this he ſaith in the 12. Book de Geneſi ad litteram, chap. 32. & 33. The ſame Irenaeus in the 30. chap. of the 4. Book ſaith, that the Law was not given to the Fathers that lived before the Law, becauſe they were righteous, and there was no need that they ſhould be warned by reprehenſions; But that this righteouſneſs being worn out in Egypt, God then had given his Law. The ſame Father in the 5. Book, chap. 33. and the following, brings after reſurrection bodily feaſts, becauſe Chriſt ſaid, that he ſhould drink of the new fruit of the Vine in the Kingdom of his Father. And he eſteems that it is the promiſed retribution to them that ſhall invite the blind and the lame to their table. That Fathers holineſs did not make the Roman Church to follow his opinion. See Hierom upon Matth. 19. where he confuteth the doctrine of Irenaeus, not naming the Author. M. du Perron makes bold to ſay, that Irenaeus hath ſaid ſuch things as would make one go for an Arian in theſe dayes. The ſame Father oppoſeth them as Hereticks, that hold that the ſouls of the faithful departed enjoy the heavenly glory. His opinion is,(b)(b)Manifeſtum eſt quia & Diſcipulorum Chriſti propter quos & operatus eſt Dominus, animae abibunt in inviſibilem locum definitum eis à Deo, & ibi uſque ad reſurrectionem commorabuntur. that at their coming out of the body they go down into an inviſible place where they expect the reſurrection.

Cyprian.

Cyprian believed and maintained againſt the Biſhops of Rome, that thoſe that were converted from Hereſies to the true Faith, were to be rebaptized. Auſtin in the 1. Book of Baptiſm againſt the Donatiſts, chap. 8. and(c)(c)Si plenario Concilio aut alia ratione fuiſſet edoctus, mutaſſet ſententiam; & fortaſſe factum eſt, ſed neſcimus. Et Epiſt. 48. Correxiſſe cum iſtam ſententiam non invenitur, &c. Book 2. chap. 4. ſaith, that it is not known, that ever Cyprian went from his opinion. Agrippin Biſhop of Carthage, predeceſſor of Cyprian, and the Council which he aſſembled, had already eſtabliſht that doctrine in Africa. And(d)(d)Dionyſius in Cypriani & Africanae Synodi dogma conſentiens de haereticis rebaptizandis, ad diverſos plurimas miſit Epiſtolas. Hierom in his Catalogue ſaith, that Dionyſius Alexandrinus was of the ſame opinion as Cyprian, as alſo Firmilianus Biſhop of Cappadocia, and many with him. And the firſt Council of Nice, decreed that the Paulianiſts or Samoſatenians be rebaptized. And Baſil in the Epiſtle to Amphilochius would have the Saccofori, Encratites and Apotackticks to be rebaptized. And Athanaſius in the 3. Oration againſt the Arians, holds the Baptiſm of the Arians to be void and unlawful, and ſaith, that one is rather defiled then waſht in it. The Roman Church hath alwayes reſiſted that doctrine; ſo far that Steven Biſhop of Rome hath for that cauſe called Cyprian falſe Chriſt, falſe Prophet, and deceitful workman, as Firmilian witneſſeth in his Epiſtle inſerted among the Epiſtles of Cyprian. And Euſebius in the 4. chap. of the 7. Book of his Hiſtory ſaith, that Steven for that reaſon ſeparated himſelf from the Communion of the Churches of Cilicia, Cappadocia and Galatia, and other Churches neer them. This Cyprian in a Council aſſembled by him againſt the Church of Rome, and in the Epiſtle to Pompius, calling Steven Biſhop of Rome p. 137a defender of Hereticks, did not believe that the Roman Church could not err. Alſo one may ſee in that Father, that in his time the Lords Supper was given to new-born infants. In the 59. and 63. Epiſtles.

Athanaſius.

Athanaſius in the Book of the paſſion of our Lord, ſaith, that Jeſus Chriſt having overcome the Devil on earth, would alſo overcome him in the air, and for that cauſe would be crucified, that he might have a combat in the air with the Devil. And that theſe words, My God My God, why haſt thou forſaken me? were fained words, whereby Jeſus Chriſt made a ſhew that he was afrayd, that he might draw the Devil to the combat. In that no more then in his affirming (in the firſt Apoloy of his flight) that St. Peter (e)(e)Athan. p. 178. foreign.had his thoat cut, he is not approved by the Roman Church. Nor in that he exhorteth the people to read Scripture. Nor in that he puts the Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, &c. out of the number of the Canonical Books.

Gregorius Nazianzenus.

The Roman Church approveth not this Father(f)(f)Greg. Naz. Homilia. foreign. in that he condemneth ſecond mariages. Nor in that (in the 40. Oration, which is about Baptiſm) he would have infants baptized when they are in danger of death. But if there be no apparent danger, he would have the Baptiſm put off till they come to age to anſwer for their own faith. Nor in that(g)(g)Greg. Naz. Ep. ad Procupium. quae in Pariſ. codice eſt §. in Baſilienſi. 42. foreign. he rejecteth all Councils without exception, ſaying, that he never ſaw any good end of them, and that the evils and diſcords of the Church are alwayes rather increaſed then diminiſhed by their means. Nor in that he ſaith in the Oration upon his return from the Country, that he wiſheth that there were(h)(h)foreign. no difference of degrees among the Paſtors of the Church, nor any precedence, but that they ſhould be diſtinguiſht only by their vertue.

Baſilius.

Neither doth the Roman Church approve Baſil in many things, whom yet Gregory Nazianzen holds to be inferiour in doctrine to(i)(i)Greg. Epitaphio Baſilii. foreign. none but Jeſus Chriſt only, and compares him with the antient Prophets and Patriarcks. That Father in his Aſceticks in the ſecond interrogation of the rules expounded at large, teacheth, that the love of God is not got by teaching, but that we have it by nature, as to love light. Himſelf in the Treatiſe of the Judgement of God,(k)(k)Vide & regularum breviorum interrogat. 233. c. 302. makes the puniſhment of all ſins equal; Wherein the Roman Church approveth not of him. No more then in that he would not have(l)(l)Regularum breviorum interrog. 302. alms given to the poor that are without [the Church] becauſe it is written, Give not the bread of the Children unto dogs, And I am not ſent but to the lost ſheep of the houſe of Iſrael. Nor in his opinion that thoſe that have been baptized by Hereticks, ſhould be re-baptized. Nor in his exacting a twelve months pennance of them that marry the ſecond time, in the ſame Epiſtle, Canon 4. Nor in permitting to them that commit Fornication, to continue in the ſame for fear of worſe, in the ſame Epiſtle, Canon 26.

p. 138Hilarius.

The Roman Church approveth no bettet of Hilary; who in the 10. Book of the Trinity, and upon the 138. Pſal, and upon the 53. maintains that(m)(m)Hilar. de Trinit. lib. 10. Opinionem nobis naturalis ſibi in paſſione doloris invenit. Ibid In quem quamvis aut ictus incideret, aut vulnus diſcenderet, aut nodi concurrerent, aut ſuſpenſio elevaret, afferrent quidem haec impetum paſſionis, non tamen dolorem paſſionis inferrent; Ʋt telum aliquod aut aquam perforans, aut ign…m compungens, aut aera vulnerans. Jeſus Chriſt in his death ſuffered no pain, but that only he would make us believe that he ſuffered, and that the blows did not give him any pain, no more then if an arrow pierced the water, or prickt the fire, or hurt the air; and that(n)(n)Ibid. Virtus corporis ſine ſenſu poenae vim poenae in ſo deſaevientis excepit. the vertue of the body of Chriſt received the violence of pains without feelings(o)(o)Ibid. Chriſtus cum cibum & potum accepit, non neceſſitati ſed conſuetudini tribuit. Vide Sixtum Senenſem lib. 5. Annot. 186. & ipſum Hilarium in Pſ. 68.Ps 68 The ſame Father ſaith, that Chriſt ate and drunk, not out of any neceſſity, but to complie with cuſtom; for which doctrine he is reproved by Claudius Biſhop of Vienna, in the Book of the ſtate of the ſoul. That error ſo groſs and ruining the whole work of our Redemption, hath brought him to another, that in theſe words of the Lord,(p)(p)Hilar. in Matth. Can. 3. Tranſeat calix à me, id eſt quo modo à me bibitur, ita ab iis bibatur ſine ſpei diffidentia, ſine ſenſu doloris, ſine metu mortis. Father, let this cup paſs from me, Jeſus Chriſt deſired his Father that his Diſciples alſo might ſuffer in the like manner. So that by his account St. Peter felt no pain in ſuffering martyrdom. The ſame Hilary is not approved by the Roman Church, in that he ſaith, upon the Pſalm 119. in the Letter Gimel, that the Virgin Mary (q)(q)Si in judicii ſeveritatem capaxilla Dei Virgo ventura eſt, deſiderare quis audebit à Deo judicari?muſt undergo the judgement of the fire of the laſt day, by which ſins ſhall be purged.(r)(r)Hillar. in Matth. Can. 5. Animarum ſpecies ſive obtinentium corpora, ſive exulantium, corpoream tamen naturae ſubſtantiam ſortiuntur. It is alſo one of his opinions that ſouls are corporal.

Euſebius.

This Father is not approved by the Roman Church, becauſe ſpeaking of an image erected unto Chriſt, he ſaith, that(ſ)(ſ)Euſeb. lib. 7. Hiſtoriae cap. 7. it was done by a Pagan cuſtome. Nor in that having made the univerſal Eccleſiaſtical hiſtory until the death of Conſtantine hapned in the year of Chriſt 337. in all that time he ſpeaks never a word of the Popes primacy, and no trace of that in all his works. And yet he is the only hiſtorian we have of the 3. firſt ages; wherefore our Cardinal is angry with him, and accuſeth him to have been an Arian, although his writings and actions witneſs the contrary, as we ſhall ſhew in the proper place. Neither is he approved for ſaying(t)(t)Lib. 7. praepat. Evang. c. 6. that the Fathers before the Law had foreign, as though they were not ſubject to any evil affection. Nor in that he adviſeth to uſe ſometimes lying, in the 12. Book, chap. 29.

Ambroſius.

The Roman Church approveth not that Ambroſe with moſt part of the Antients believeth(u)(u)Ambroſ. in Pſ. 118. Serm. 3. & 20. Omnes oportet per ignem probari quicunque ad Paradiſum redire deſiderant, &c. Omnes oportet tranſire per flammas, ſive Johannes Evangeliſta ſit, ſive ille ſit Petrus.Ps 118 that all, yea and the Prophets and Apoſtles muſt paſs through the fire of the laſt Judgement to be purged from their ſins. This the Fathers call the ſecond Baptiſm, and the flaming ſword placed at the gate of Paradiſe. That was the Purgatory of the antient Church, where Indulgences have no place; for the Fathers put off that purgation to the day of Judgement. This Father hath followed the errors of Tertullian, (x)(x)Ambroſ. in Pſ. 8. Qui non veniunt ad primam reſurrectionem, ſed ad ſecundam reſervantur, iſti urentur donec impleant tempus inter primam & ſecundam reſurrectionem.Ps 8that all ſhall not riſe at the ſame time, and that they that have ſinned moſt ſhall riſe later, carrying into a fire the ſlowneſs of their reſurrection; for which error he is blamed by the Jeſuit Salmeron, in the 13. Tome. 6. Diſput. upon St. Pauls Epiſtles. Alſo for ſaying that at Eaſter alwayes ſome riſe again.

In one thing eſpecially this Father dipleaſeth the Roman Church, that he did excommunicate the Emperor Theodoſius without the advice of the Biſhop of Rome his neighbour; for it is now a maxime in the Roman Church, that none but the p. 139Pope can excomunicate the Emperor. That rule is found in the Aphoriſms of Emanuel Sa in the word(y)(y)Reges à ſolo Papa excommunicantur & cenſuris ligantur. Excommunicatus.

Alſo he is not approved for ſaying(z)(z)Ambroſ. lib. 2. de Patriarcha Abraham, c 4. Conſideremus primum, quia Abraham ante Legem Moiſi & ante Evangeliū ſuit; nondum interdictum adulterium videbatur. Poena criminis ex tempore Legis eſt, quae crimen inhibuit, nec ante Legem ullius rei damnatio eſt, ſed ex Lege. Non ergo in Legem commiſit Abraham, ſed Legem praevenit. Deus in Paradiſo licet conjugium laudaverit, non adulterium damnaverat. that Abraham lying with Agar ſinned not, becauſe the Law was not yet, and adultery was not yet forbidden.

Auguſtinus.

Auſtin is not approved by the Roman Church,(a)(a)Auguſt. Ep. 107. & lib 28. de civitate Dei, & ſaepe alibi. for condemning Infants dead without Baptiſm to the torment of eternal fire. Which was alſo the opinion of Fulgentius his Diſciple. For Auſtin did not believe the Limbus of Infants. He is no more approved for holding the participation of the Lords Supper neceſſary for Infants to be ſaved. Nor for making the ſouls in ſome manner corporal, as we have ſhewed. Nor for holding(b)(b)Idem. lib. 4. de Geneſi ad literam. that the world was created not in ſix days, as Moſes relateth, but in a moment: Nor for being one of the Biſhops, who in the Milevitan Council prohibited the appeals from Africa to Rome, upon pain of excommunication.(c)(c)Idem lib. 1. de moribus Eccleſiae orthodoxae, c. 34. Novi multos eſſe ſepulchrorum & picturarum adoratores. Nor for condemning the worſhippers of images and relicks. Sixtus Senenſis in his Preface upon the fifth book of his Library, ſaith, Auſtin ſeemeth ſometimes to attribute too little to the free Will of man. Baronius and Bellarmine (d)(d)Bellar. de Pontifice, lib. 1. cap. 10.reprove him for underſtanding theſe words, Super hanc petram, &c. not of the perſon of Peter, but of his faith and confeſſion. It was his opinion, that(e)(e)Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 109. the ſouls are ſhut up in hidden places until the day of reſurrection. How contrary he was to the Tranſubſtantiation, we ſhall examine hereafter.

Johannes Chryſoſtomus.

Sixtus Senenſis in the 107. annotat. of the fifth book, obſerveth, that Chryſoſtom towards the end of his book of Prieſthood approveth frauds, lyes, & impoſtures, and holds them ſometimes neceſſary, when they are done without an intention to do harm to any. Our Adverſaries hold, that to do works of piety acceptable unto God, we have need of the preventing Grace of God to move our Wils; Chryſoſtom holds the contrary. Hom. 42. upon Geneſis. That very thing (ſaith he) that this Patriarch Abraham, who lived before the time of grace, and before the Law, hath by himſelf, and by the knowledge that comes by nature, attained to ſuch a meaſure of vertue, will be ſufficient to take away all excuſe. But perhaps ſome will ſay, that God took great care of that man, and that the Soveraign God ſhewed a great providence towards him. (f)(f)foreign.Indeed I confeſs it; but if he alone had not done that which was in him, he ſhould not have received the Graces of the Lord. And Hom. 16. upon S. John, according to the Greek Text,(g)(g)foreign. Hence we learn, that God preventeth not our Wils by his gifts; but when we have begun, and we have brought our Wils, then he doth furniſh us with many means of ſalvation. Like things he ſaith, Hom. 12. upon the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, and in many other places.

The ſame Father in his Homily ad Neophytos; (h)(h)foreign.We baptize children (ſaith he) though they be without ſins: Then he addeth to which end children are baptized; Not for the remiſſion of original ſins; But (ſaith he) to add unto them holineſs, righteouſneſs, adoption, and inheritance.

Himſelf in the tenth Homily upon the Epiſtle to the Romans, expounding theſe words of the fifth chapter, that by the diſobedience of one man, many were made ſinners: By this word ſinners, he underſtands not that by the ſin of Adam we are ſtained with original ſin, and made prone to ſin, but only that we are ſubject to p. 140puniſhment. Theſe are his words: What means this word ſinners?(i)(i)foreign. I think it ſignifieth as much as ſubject unto puniſhment, and adjudged unto death: For he hath ſhewed prolixly, that Adam dying, we were all made mortal. With theſe Texts the Pelagians armed themſelves againſt the Orthodox, to deny original ſin. I believe not that any of the Roman Church will approve of him for often blaming the Virgin Mary, accuſing her of importunity, vain oſtentation, preſumption and unbelief. Thus Hom. 45. upon Matthew, (k)(k)foreign.That which ſhe undertook was out of an exceſſive ambition: for ſhe would ſhew that ſhe had authority and power over her Son, imagining yet no great thing concerning him. Wherefore ſhe came unſeaſonably: See then her raſhneſs, &c. Hom. 21. upon John, according to the Greek, he gives a reaſon why Jeſus Chriſt anſwered his Mother thus: What is there between me and thee, Woman? ſaying,(l)(l)foreign. that when our Parents come to make unſeaſonable queſtions, and to hinder ſome ſpiritual action, there is danger in obeying them: Wherefore Jeſus Chriſt in this place did ſo anſwer her: And thereupon he ſaith, that Mary thought ſhe could command Jeſus Chriſt in all things, as other Mothers, whereas ſhe ought to have ſerved and reverenced him as her Lord. And reproveth her for coming in the preſence of the people to hinder the utility of the Aſſiſtants. In the 28. Homily, upon the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, (m)(m)foreign.and in the 39.(n)(n)foreign. upon the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, he teacheth, that the ſouls of the Saints have not yet received the reward, and ſhall not enjoy Glory till after the reſurrection.

Theodoretus.

The Roman Church approveth not of Theodoret, for teaching (in the book of divina dogmata, in the chap. of the Antichriſt) that the(o)(o)foreign. Antichriſt, ſhall be a Devil clad with humane fleſh: Nor for ſaying (in the ſame book, in the chapter that proveth that he that is good is righteous alſo) that the Law forbids not evil thoughts, nor evil deſires: Nor for denying, that(p)(p)foreign. Woman was created after the image of God in the twentieth queſtion upon Geneſis: Nor for affirming, (in the book of Hereſies, in the chapter of Neſtorius) that to Neſtorius Patriarch of Conſtantinople, (q)(q)foreign.the government of the Univerſal Church was committed; for the Biſhop of Rome will not allow that. Nor for ſaying, (in the ſecond and third Dialogue) that God hath honoured the bread with the name of his body, without altering the nature of bread, and that the bread after the conſecration, remains in its firſt ſubſtance, which is overthrowing tranſubſtantiation.

Gregorius Nyſſenus.

The Roman Church likes not the opinion of Gregorius Nyſſenus, (r)(r)Oratione 3. de reſurrectione Chriſti.that the ſouls cannot be tormented without the bodies, and feel no pain before the reſurrection: For that opinion is repugnant to Purgatory; Nor his Doctrine, that(ſ)(ſ)Lib. 2. Philoſophiae ſeu de anima, c. 6. God creates no more ſouls, for he holds them to have been created all at once in the beginning of the world. It is he (that to find the three days in which Scripture ſaith, that Chriſt was in the womb of the earth) begins the three days at the hour of the inſtitution of the Lords Supper, as if(t)(t)Orat. 1. de reſurrectione Domini. the body of the Lord had been from that time without a ſoul.

Epiphanius.

Nicephorus lib. 13. chap. 12. obſerveth that he was an Anthropomorphite: Sozomenus ſaith the ſame in the fourteenth chapter of the eighth book, ſaying, that Theophilus had reproved Epiphanius, that he believed that God had a humane ſhape. That which confirmeth that opinion, is, that Epiphanius having made an p. 141enumeration very exact of all the hereſies, hath not put that of the Anthropomorphites among them. He is not approved by the Roman Church, becauſe in the herefie of the Collyridians, he condemns certain ſuperſtitious women that worſhipped the Virgin Mary, and called her the Queen of Heaven. And whereas the Roman Church deferreth the cult of dulia to Angels, and to the Virgin Mary the cult of hyperdulia, which is an higher kind of adoration; Epiphanius makes her inferior to Angels, ſaying, If the Apoſtle prohibits to worſhip Angels, how much more the woman born of Anna? ſo he cals the Mother of the Virgin Mary. Neither is he approved by the Roman Church, for tearing a vail or peice of hanging in a Church in the borough of Anablata, becauſe there was an image of Chriſt in it, or of ſome Saint; ſaying, that ſuch images ought not to be ſuffered in the Church of Chriſt; As himſelf ſaith in an Epiſtle tranſlated by Saint Hierom. (u)(u)Lib. 4. de ſtudio. Theologiae, c. 5.Villavincentius an Auguſtinian Monk reproveth him for many things, eſpecially becauſe in the Ancorat he was ſo bold as to expound theſe words, My Father is greater then I, as true even of the divine nature of Chriſt; And for ſaying that Jeſus Chriſt praying, Let this cup paſs from me, did not ſpeak in earneſt, but fainedly, to mock the Devil. The ſame Father puts off the day of Chriſts Nativity(x)(x)Epiph. haereſi Alogorum, quae eſt 51. p…g. 446 Tom. 1. to the ſixth of January: which was the obſervation of the Churches of Egypt; as one may ſee in Caſſian in the tenth Collation, chap. 2.

Caſſianus.

He is not approved by the Roman Church, for(y)(y)Caſſian. lib. 10. c. 3. blaming the Roman Church about faſting upon Saturday: Nor for relating a diſcourſe of the Abbot Joſeph, (z)(z)Idem Collatione 17. cap. 19.whereby lying and hypocriſie are commended, when they are beneficial to our neighbours, and not condemning that Doctrine: Nor for teaching after Abbot John, (a)(a)Idem Collat. 21. c 5.that the Law of God promiſeth only temporal goods to the obſervers thereof.

Hieronymus.

In many things the Roman Church diſliketh Hierom; As for ſaying,(b)(b)Hieron. Praefat. in Danielem. that the Hiſtories of Suſanna, and of Bel and the Dragon are fables. For ſaying,(c)(c)Praefa. in Proverb. Salom. & prologo Galeato. that the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, &c. are not Canonical, and that the Church acknowledgeth them not for true: for maintaining ſtifly,(d)(d)In c. 1. Habak. Abſurdum eſt ad hoc Dei deducere Majeſtatem, ut ſciat per momenta ſingula quot naſcantur culices quotve moriantur. that God knoweth not how many Gnats and Flies are upon the earth, or how many Fiſhes in the Sea; and he denieth that Gods ptovidence extends as much upon unreaſonable as reaſonable things, and cals fatuos adulatores, fooliſh flatterers, thoſe that hold the contrary. For calling marriage an ignominy, in his books againſt(e)(e)Apologia pro libris in Jovinianum. Jovinian, and married perſons vaſa in contumeliam, veſſels to diſhonour; ſaying, that the end of marriage is death; and placing the Virgins with Abraham, and the married perſons with the rich Glutton: Alledging to that purpoſe theſe Texts, They that are in the fleſh cannot pleaſe God; and that fleſh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; as if married perſons could not be ſaved. In the Epiſtle to Salvina, he cals Widows that marry again, dogs that return to their vomit. Going ſo far as to ſay, that Saint Paul permitting wanton Widows to marry again, had given them praecepta non bona & juſtificationes peſſimas; precepts that are not good, and rules of juſtice moſt evil. Wherefore alſo in his Epiſtle to Gerontia, he excludeth ſuch women from the alms of the Church. And in the Epitaph of Fabiola, he praiſeth her, becauſe ſhe did penance in publick in the Church for marrying the ſecond time. Wherefore Bovius in his Notes upon the fifth book of Clements Conſtitutions, ſpeaks thus;(f)(f)Tom 1. Concil. Hieronymus durior fuit bigamis, ita ut niſi lenius cum co agatur, vix poſſimus illu à reprehenſorum criminationibus liberare. Hierom was too hard againſt thoſe that marry twice: So that unleſs he be gently dealt with, hardly can we exempt him from the accuſations of thoſe that blame him.

The ſame Hierom is reproved by Cardinal Bellarmine, (g)(g)Bellar. l. 2. de Pontifice, c. 8.for maintaining, that Prieſts are inferior to Biſhops, not by divine right, or by Gods Ordinance, but by an Eccleſiaſtical order.

p. 142The ſame Cardinal reproveth(h)(h)Idem l. 1. de Clericis, c. 4. §. Contra. Hierom, becauſe he believed that a man who hath married a Wife before Baptiſm, and another after, ought not to be held a by-game, that is, twice married.

In the firſt book againſt Jovinian, Hierom condemneth the uſe of fleſh as polluted, ſaying, that the uſe of fleſh was for wreſtlers, and for Plow-men, not for Chriſtians.

Himſelf holds that all oaths are forbidden to Chriſtians, ſaying upon Mat. 5. Evangelica veritas non recipit juramentum, Goſpel truth receiveth no oath.

He hath written againſt Auſtin Letters full of Invectives. The ſubject of their quarrel was, that Hierom maintains, that in Scripture there are ſometimes officious lyes; that is, that the Holy Ghoſt lieth ſometimes for the good of thoſe whom he ſpeaks to; and that Saint Paul rehearſing how he had reproved Saint Peter, uſed lying and diſſembling.

Epiſt. ad Evagrium.But that wherein he is moſt diſpleaſing to our Adverſaries, is his making all Biſhops equal, and equalling the Biſhops of Tanis and Rhegium, which are ſmall Towns, unto the Biſhop of Rome; adding that pride came from the Church of the City of Rome. And in his Preface upon the book of Didymus, he cals Rome Babylon and the whore clad in purple, and the Clergy of Rome, the Senate of the Phariſees. The like things he ſaith in the Epiſtle to Marcella, under the name of Paula and Euſtochius.

Gelaſius.

Pope Gelaſius in the book againſt Neſtorius and Eutyches, ſpeaks things diſpleaſing to the Roman Church of this time, affirming, that in the Euchariſt the ſubſtance of bread and wine remains, and the image and likeneſs of the body and blood of Chriſt is celebrated in the action of myſteries. It is he who in the Canon Comperimus, in the ſecond Diſtinction of the conſecration, condemneth thoſe that take the bread in the Euchariſt, and abſtain from the cup; and ſaith, that(i)(i)Aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur: quia diviſio unius ejuſdem que myſterii ſine grandi ſacrilegio non poteſt provenire. the diviſion of this Sacrament cannot be done without a great ſacriledge. Wherefore he commandeth that one kind be not given without the other. The ſame Pope in his Commonitory to Fauſtus his Legat, condemns all the indulgences granted to the dead, becauſe it is written, All that thou ſhalt bind on earth, and not under earth. And denieth that a Biſhop can give any abſolution to the dead, for they are no more of his flock. That Pope ſpeaking thus, hath condemned his ſucceſſors who give indulgences to the dead, and draw ſouls out of Purgatory.

Lactantius.

Lactantius ſaith,(k)(k)Inſtitution. divin. lib. 4. c. 14. that Jeſus Chriſt is not God. He was a Chiliaſt. He ſaith,(l)(l)Idem. lib. 3. that God hath divided the world into two parts, the Eaſt and the Weſt, and hath reſerved the Eaſt to himſelf, and left the Weſt to the Devil;(m)(m)lib. 7. c. 20. He holds, that the wicked ſhall not riſe in the day of Judgement:(n)(n)Lib. 2. cap. 9. He teacheth, that God before he created the world, created two Spirits, the one good, who is his Son; the other wicked, who is the Devil, to whom he hath given craft and dexterity to invent evil. He holds alſo, that(o)(o)Lib. 2. divin. inſtitut. c. 5. Angels polluted themſelves with women, and that out of that copulation came the Demons. Hierom obſerves this error of his,(p)(p)Hier. Epiſt. 65. ad Pam. that he denied the holy Ghoſt to be a perſon ſubſiſting in the Godhead. We ſhall ſee upon another diſcourſe, that he ſhuts up the ſouls of the Saints in underground places, and by conſequent denieth the invocation of Saints.

Arnobius.

Arnobius holds,(q)(q)Lib. 2. that the ſouls of the wicked are mortal, and are brought to nothing: and in the firſt book he ſaith, that men were made ſubject to diſeaſes, by a certain importunate cruelty that would have it ſo: and often he ſets up many Gods.

p. 143In all theſe things and many more, the Roman Church rejects the opinion of the Fathers, and holds not her ſelf bound to ſtand to all they ſay. For we have made this Collection, not to lay open the errors of the Ancient Doctors of the Church, whoſe holineſs of life we praiſe, and admire their zeal, and make profit of their writings, but to ſhew how little our Adverſaries deferr unto them; and that in many things wherein they have well ſpoken, as well as in others where they have erred, the Roman Church hath made no difficulty to depart from their opinion. Alſo that the Readers may acknowledge, how the Writings of thoſe that are called Fathers, are under the perfection of the holy Scripture; and that the faith of the Chriſtian ſhall never have any ſtedfaſtneſs, till it be ſtayed altogether upon the Word of God. Yea I ſay, that a Son that ſhould ſee men honouring his Fathers memory with exceſs, and making an idol of him, ſhould be bound to lay open, though with grief, the imperfections of his Father, that the honour of God might be maintained. Or if a man could be of ſuch a perverſe diſpoſition, as to delight, as Cham did, to ſhew to the world his Fathers nakedneſs, and lay the errors of the ancient Doctors in open view, for no other end but to caſt a reproach upon their memory; yet that crime ſhould be light, compared to the raſh licentiouſneſs of Cardinal du Perron, who hath made a chapter on purpoſe of the Texts of Scripture which ſeem abſurd unto humane reaſon; which he ſets forth in ſuch a manner, that he makes his end evident, which is to find fault with the Word of God, and expoſe it to deriſion, and plant unbelief in the Readers mind. To the confutation of which collection, we reſerve alſo a chapter on purpoſe.