The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Compendium of passages refuted – Text
A Pattern of Falſifications and depravations of paſſages alledged by the L. Cardinal Du Perron, in his Book againſt the King of Great Britain.
The Reader ſhall find more of theſe obſerved in the Table in the end of this Book.
THE L. Cardinal Du Perron in the ſixth Chap. of his fifth Book, where he is gathering the abſurdities which he finds in the holy Scripture, in the 1099. Page of the firſt Edition, ſaith that in the ſecond ch. of Geneſis it is affirmed, that within the Garden of Eden there was among other Rivers that of Nilus, and that of Euphrates, which are above a thouſand leagues aſunder. But there is no mention of Nilus in all that Chapter. It is eaſie for one to make Scripture to ſay abſurd things, when he falſifieth it.
In the ſame Chapter, pag, 1101. he impoſeth on St. John that he ſaith in the fifteenth ch. he that cometh after me, was made before me; of which there is not one word in the whole Chapter. There is indeed in the firſt chapter foreign, he was before me, or he was preferred before me, not he was made before me.
St. Paul, Gal. 2.6. ſaith, comparing himſelf with the moſt eminent among the Apoſtles, They that are eminent have brought nothing to me, otherwiſe,foreign. Thoſe that ſeemed to be ſomewhat added nothing unto me. The Cardinal in his 56. ch. p. 526. to perſwad that St. Paul compareth himſelf with the moſt excellent Apoſtles, not in authority, but only in learning, tranſlateth, They that ſeemed to be ſomething have taught me nothing. The vulgar verſion hath contulerunt, not docuerunt.
Deut. 18. v. 18. God ſaith, I will raiſe them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee; which words are expounded by St. Steven, Acts 7.37. as ſaid of Jeſus Chriſt. But the Cardinal in the ſecond chap. of his third book, to authorize by that text the Paſtors of the Church, that the people may have recourſe unto them rather then to the Law of God, hath tranſlated, the Lord will raiſe you Prophets, you ſhall hear them; putting the plural, Prophets, inſtead of the ſingular, a Prophet, that he may tranſport to the Paſtors of the Roman Church that which is ſaid of Jeſus Chriſt alone.
M. Du Perron in his fifth book, chap. 18. of the fourth Inſtance pag. 990. to prove that the Saints departed know our hearts, alledgeth, 1 Cor. 14.25. where he makes St. Paul to ſay, that by the gift of propheſie the ſecrets of the hearts are manifeſted. Which is a text falſified both in the words and the ſenſe; for theſe words, by the gift of prophecy, are of the Cardinals addition. And as for the ſenſe, St. Paul ſpeaks not of knowing the hearts by prophecy, but he ſpeaks of the manifeſtation of the heart made by a confeſſion, which giveth glory to God before the Congregation, as it appeareth by the following words, Thus are the ſecrets of his heart made manifeſt, and ſo falling down on his face he will worſhip God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
And that which is more intolerable, is that a little after, pag. 992. he alledgeth the ſame text quite otherwiſe, and falſifies it another way, in theſe words, When a man prophecieth, they that come in are confounded, becauſe the ſecrets of their hearts are manifeſted. There is no ſuch thing in the text of St. Paul. And obſerve that he ſets down the text in a different letter, as an allegation of the very words of the Apoſtle.
In the Page before, which is 991. to prove that the Saints departed hear our Prayers, he brings in a text of 1 Cor. 13. in theſe words, Now I know in part, but when that which is perfect is come, I ſhall know as I am known. Where St. Paul ſpeaks not of the knowledg which he ſhould have of our Prayers after this life, or of things that are done here in Earth, as M. Du Perron underſtands it, but of the full knowledge which he ſhould have of God in the life to come. Now leaſt that the Reader ſhould perceive that this is the ſenſe of St. Paul's words, he hath beheaded the text, having ſuppreſt the precedent words, then we ſhall ſee face to face; now I know in part, &c. Where it is clear that he ſpeaks of the ſight of the face of God, not of the knowledg which the Saints have of them that are in the World, as M. Du Perron will have it.
In the ſame place to prove that the Angels offer our Prayers unto God, and by conſequence know them, he alledgeth, Rev. 8.3. as if it were ſaid there, that the Angels offer the prayers of the faithful unto God: But there it is ſpoken of one Angel only, offering incenſe with the prayers of the Saints. The Cardinal hath put Angels inſtead of an Angel, leſt we ſhould come to think that this Angel is our Lord Jeſus Chriſt.
Page 992. to prove that after this life the thoughts of the heart ſhall be manifeſted of the one to the other, that is, that the thoughts of the living ſhall be manifeſted to the Saints departed, he alledgeth, 1 Cor. 4.5. in theſe words, Judge of nothing before the time, until that the Lord hath inlightned the hiding places of darkneſs, and manifeſted the thoughts of the hearts; That text is falſified; for this is the right one, Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkneſs, and will make manifeſt the counſels of the hearts, and then ſhall every man have praiſe of God. M. Du Perron hath cut off theſe words, untill the Lord come; and theſe alſo, and then ſhall every man have praiſe of God, becauſe theſe words ſhew, that there St. Paul ſpeaks of the day of Judgement, in which the Lord Jeſus Chriſt ſhall come, and things hidden ſhall be brought to light, and praiſe ſhall be given to every one according to his works. And by conſequent it is not ſpoken there of the knowledge which the Saints of Paradiſe have of the thoughts of men living upon Earth.
In his fifth book chap. 2. of the fourth inſtance pag. 964. to prove that we muſt adreſs our Prayers to the Saints departed he alledgeth, Gen. 20.7. in theſe words, Addreſs thy ſelf unto Abraham and he ſhall pray for thee. Theſe words Addreſs thy ſelf unto Abraham are of the Cardinals addition. Note alſo that Abraham was then living,See in the laſt chapter of the ſixth book of this Work four Texts of Scripture falſely alledged by M. Du Perron, in his Oration pronounced before the States at Paris. wherefore though this text were not falſified, it were of no force for the invocation of the Saints departed.
It is written, Joſhuah 7.6. that Joſhuah rent his clothes and fell to the earth upon his face before the Ark of the Lord. M. Du Perron in the third book of the Euchariſt againſt Mr. Du Pleſsis in the eleventh chapter, to prove the adoration of the Sacrament, alledgeth that text, but corrupts it, ſaying, that Joſhuah and all the people worſhipped the Ark.
In the 56. chap. of the third book, pag. 526. to prove the primacy of Peter he alledgeth a paſſage of St. Ambroſe, of the fourth ch. of the book of the Incarnation, in theſe words, This (meaning Peter) when he had heard, But you, who do you ſay that I am? preſently not forgetting his place, he made the Primacy. It is an excellent paſſage of St. Ambroſe, which M. Du Perron hath clipt to turn it to a contrary ſenſe. Theſe are the true words of Ambroſe, Petrus non immemor ſui, primatum egit. Primatum utique confeſsionis non honoris, primatum fidei non ordinis; that is, Peter not forgetting his place made the primacy; the primacy indeed in the confeſsion, not in honour; the primacy in the faith, not in order. Ambroſe acknowledgeth in St. Peter a prioity or primacy in making his confeſſion of Faith, not in honour or order. Wherefore M Du Perron cuts theſe words away, Primatum confeſsionis non honoris, primatum fidei non ordinis.
In the ſame chapter, page 527. to prove that Peter anſwered Jeſus Chriſt, Thou art the Chriſt the ſon of the living God, becauſe that paſt the capacicy of the other Apoſtles, he alledged Cyrillus of Jeruſalem in the eleventh Catecheſis, in theſe words, All the other Apoſtles being ſilent (for that doctrine was above their ſtrength) Peter, &c. But there is in the Greek, foreign, for that doctrine was above humane reach, not that doctrine was above their ſtrength.
In the ſame 56. chapter in the laſt line of the 531. page he ſaith, that Chryſoſtome in his Comment upon the Epiſtle to the Galatians, reads, Cephas, James and John. Let the Reader ſee the place, he ſhall find that Chryſoſtome reads James, Cephas and John, putting James before Peter.
In the ſame chapter, page 533. he alledgeth for St. Peters Primacy a paſſage of St. Auſtin, in the ſecond book of Baptiſm againſt the Donatiſts, where Auſtin alledgeth Cyprian in theſe words, as M. Du Perron relates them. You ſee what St. Cyprian ſaith, that the holy Apoſtle Peter, in whom ſo great a grace of the primacie did ſhine, being rebuked by St. Paul, anſwered not that he had the primacy, and would not be corrected by new men and poſteriour unto himſelf. So does this Cardinal alledge that paſſage. But the Latin of Cyprian is much different from it. Theſe be the words, Cyprian in his Epiſtle to Quintus, speaks thus of Peter,Nam nec Petrus (inquit) quem primum Dominus elegit, ſuper quem aedificavit Eccleſiam ſuam, cum ſecum Paulus de circumciſione diſceptaret, poſtmodum vindicavit ſibi aliquid inſolenter, aut arroganter aſſumpſit, ut diceret ſe primatum tenere & obtemperari à novellis & poſteris ſibi potius debere. for ſaith he, neither Peter whom the Lord choſe firſt, and upon whom he founded his Church, when Paul diſputed with him about the Circumciſion, aſſumed any thing to himſelf inſolently after that, or did appropriate any thing to himſelf arrogantly, to ſay, that he had the primacy, and that new men come after him were to obey him. In that paſſage St. Cyprian clearly ſaith, tha if St. Peter had aſſumed unto himſelf the primacy, or pretended that St. Paul ought to obey him, he ſhould have ſpoken arrogantly and inſolently. But M. Du Perron hath pared away theſe words that diſpleaſe him, Peter aſſumed nothing inſolently, neither did he appropriate any thing to himſelf to ſay that he had the primacy. We will ſhew hereafter that St. Cyprian makes St. Peters primacy to laſt but two years, that is, until our Saviours Reſurrection, and ſaith, that after the Lords Reſurrection all the Apoſtles were equal in honour and power. Neither is this all the falſification of this paſſage; for M. du Perron interprets the word poſteris poſteriours, inſtead of, come ſince, as Cyprian meaneth, as it appeareth by the word novellis, which goeth before poſteris. But the Cardinal would give it ſuch an expoſition as would bear an inference, that St. Paul was poſteriour both in order and power unto St. Peter.
In the laſt line of the 54. chapter, page 520. he alledgeth Pope Leo the I. in the 62. Epiſtle to the Emperour Martianus, and makes that Pope ſpeak thus, None of the Patriarchal Sees, but that of Rome, ſhall remain ſtable and unmoved. That paſſage is altogether falſified. There is in the Latin, Nec praeter illam petram quam Dominus in fundamento poſuit, ſtabilis erit ulla conſtructio, that is, Beſides that ſtone which the Lord hath laid for a foundation, no other ſtructure ſhall be ſtable.
Irenaeus in the third book chap. 3. ſpeaking of the Church of the City of Rome, ſaith, Ad hanc Eccleſiam propter potentiorem principalitatem neceſſe eſt omnem convenire Eccleſiam; This the Cardinal tranſlateth (44. ch. of the firſt book, page 354. and in many other places) To the Roman Church by reaſon of a more powerful principality, it is neceſſary that every Church †Du Perron's French word is convienne.conſent, interpreting convenire ad Eccleſiam, conſent to the Church, inſtead of flocking to the Church, and reſorting to it from ſeveral places. The ſenſe of that paſſage is, that all the Churches of the Roman Empire reſorted to the Church of the City of Rome, becauſe the Soveraign power of the Emperour and of the Senate reſided there. As it is ſaid in the ninth Canon of the Council of Antioch, foreign, becauſe that thoſe that had buſineſs reſorted to the Metropolitan Church. Ireneus ſpeaks not of the primacy of the Church, but of the Soveraign power of the Empire. And whoſoever underſtands Latin, knoweth that convenire ad Eccleſiam ſignifieth not to concur or conſent with the Church in doctrine, but to reſort to the Church, and come to it from ſeveral places.
In the 30. chap. of the firſt book, towards the end of the 175. page, and in the begininng of the 176. M. Du Perron ſaith, that when Auguſtus and the following Emperours eſtabliſhed or reſtored the Office of Praefectus Urbicus of Rome, they gave him power to judge of the appeals from all the Provinces of the Roman World, as the Interpreter of Notitia Imperii Romani doth acknowledge it: And in the margin he cites the fourth chapter of the Comment of Pancirolus upon Notitia Imperii. The paſſage of Pancirolus which the Cardinal citeth is in theſe words, Cui [paerfecto Ʋrbico] omnem imperii poteſtatem Auguſtus conceſſerat, non tantum in urbe, ſed et extra. That is, To whom the Emperour Auguſtus had granted the whole power of the Empire, not only in the Town but alſo without. I cannot wonder enough at the ill Faith of this Prelat, in corrupting the paſſages of Authors; how he hath ſuppreſt the following words, which limit the power of that Praefectus to a hundred miles about the City of Rome. This is the whole paſſage. Auguſtus had given to the Prefect of the City the whole power of the Empire, not only within the City, but alſo without, †Intra cent…ſimum ab urbe lapidem.a hundreth miles about the City of Rome. This Cardinal being overpreſt with a multitude of authorities of the Ancients, which limit the power of the Biſhop of Rome within the ſame limits as thoſe of the Praefectura, or civil Juriſdiction of the Prefect of the City of Rome, will have that prefect of the City to have been the Judge of all the cauſes of the Empire. As if one would have the Lieutenant Civil of Paris to receive the Appeals of all the cauſes of France.
Thus in the ſame chapter, page 177. Gregory Nazianzen calls Rome, foreign, that which preſideth over all, that is, over all the Empire; but the Cardinal tranſlateth that which preſideth over all the Word.
In the 32. chap. pag. 199. he alledgeth the ſixth Canon of the Council of Nice, which gives order that the cuſtoms obſerved of old in Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, be maintained; namely that the Church of Alexandria have the power of all things, becauſe this alſo is ordinary to the Biſhop of Rome. To the end of that Canon the Cardinal ſoweth a taile of his own, and will have the Reader to ſupply theſe words, over all the Church; as if that Canon ſaid, that the cuſtom of the Biſhop of Rome was to have power over all the World, which is an intolerable licence. That was a fit place to bring ſome example of the power of the Biſhop of Rome out of the Roman Empire; But it is more then he could do, either there, or any where elſe.
In the ſame chap. pag. 198. he alledgeth the ſecond book of Evagrius, ch. 4. making him ſay, that the Pope was the head of all the Churches: Of which not one word is found in the whole chapter. As for the Greek Acts of the Councils which he alledgeth there in the margin, we will ſhew in the right place that all theſe are full of falſifications.
In the ſame page he alledgeth the firſt Action of the Council of Chalcedon in theſe words, Hereby it appeareth that all primacy and principal honour was alwaies deferred unto the Biſhop of Rome. That verſion of the Cardinal is falſe. It is thus according to the Greek †foreign.By the things done, and by the diſpoſition of every one, we perceive that before all things the preheminences and excellency of honour is kept according to the Canons, to the Archbiſhop moſt beloved of God of the antient Rome. The Cardinal hath omitted theſe words, according to the Canons, which ſhew that the honour then deferred unto the Biſhop of Rome, was founded upon the Canons and Eccleſiaſtical conſtitutions, not upon the Word of God; and hath turned the word preheminences or prerogatives into all primacy. The falſification is very bold in adding the word all; for every Patriarch had his preheminence and primacy, but not, all primacy.
In the 25. ch. of the firſt book, page 109. the Cardinal imployes the teſtimony of St. Baſil to defend the Popes authority. Baſil in the tenth Epiſtle complains of the pride of the Weſtern men, of whom Damaſus Biſhop of Rome and Ambroſe Biſhop of Milan were the chief. If the wrath of God (ſaith he) continueth upon us, what help can we receive from the pride of the Weſtern men, who knew not the truth, and have not the patience to learn it? foreign, &c.and being foreſtalled with falſe opinions, do now the things which they have done in the buſineſs of Marcellus, contending againſt thoſe that announce the truth, and ſtrengthning hereſie by themſelves? The Cardinal in the 109. page alledgeth that text, and to darken the perſpicuity of it, he tranſlateth the brow of the Weſtern men, inſtead of the pride and arrogancy of the Weſtern men. And to ſweeten the hardneſs of that paſſage, he alledgeth the 77. Epiſtle of the ſame Baſil, which he affirmeth to be written to the Weſtern men, that is, to Damaſus Biſhop of Rome and to his fellow Biſhops, to whom Baſil ſpeaketh thus, We are ready to ſtand to your judgment, if thoſe that falſly accuſe us can abide to ſtand face to face with us in the preſence of your veneration. If M. Du Perron muſt be credited, theſe are words of ſubmiſſion, whereby Baſil ſubjecteth himſelf to the judgment of the Weſtern men, that is, of Damaſus Biſhop of Rome and his colleagues. This is a notorious impoſture; for that Epiſtle is not written to Damaſus, nor to his colleagues, but to the Biſhops of the Iſles of the Mediterranean Sea, whom he calls foreign and foreign, maritime men and Iſlanders, and ſaith that they are ſevered from the Continent, which cannot be applied to Italy, which is a Continent. And the more ſubmiſſion Baſil uſeth ſpeaking with thoſe Iſlanders, the more is that paſſage againſt M. Du Perron, ſince that honour is deferred to others then the Biſhop of Rome.
Hence another falſification is diſcovered, ch. 33. pag. 233. where he alledgeth theſe words out of the ſame Epiſtle, as ſpoken to the Weſtern men, that is, to the Biſhop of Rome; Whether you hold your ſelves heads of the Ʋniverſal Church, the head cannot ſay to the feet. You are not neceſſary to me. For theſe words are ſpoken to the Maritime Biſhops or Iſlanders. But Monſieur Du Perron hath writ in his margin Baſil. ad tranſmarinos Epiſt. 77. thinking that foreign ſignifieth tranſmarinos, whereas it ſignifieth maritimos, as alſo in the ſame Epiſtle they are called foreign, Iſlanders, and ſevered from the Continent. The words of the ſame Epiſtle are expreſs to this purpoſe, foreign. The Lord hath ſeparated the Iſlands from the continent with the Sea, but hath tyed the Iſlanders with thoſe of the Continent by charity. This paſſage then is ſo far from helping towards the primacy of the Prelate of Rome, that it rather deſtroys it, ſince that title of Head is deferred to others then the Roman Biſhop, according to the cuſtom of the Antients to be liberal in titles of deference even to thoſe to whom they did not owe any ſubjection.
In the 42. ch. of the 3. book he corrupts a Text of Theodoret two ways, taking the Council of Conſtantinople for that of Rome, and the Emperour Theodoſius for the Emperor Gratian, as I ſhew in my fifth book in the tenth chapter.
In the 25. chapter of the firſt book, pag. 119. & 120. he ſaith againſt truth that Prosper Aquitanicus, and Marcellinus Comes put the death of the Empereſs Eudoxia many years after the death of Chryſoſtom.
In the 52. ch. towards the end of the page 458. he ſaith, that the Fathers of the Milevitan Council referred the final judgment of Celeſtius unto the Pope. Which I prove to be falſe in my ſixth book, in the third chapter.
In the ſame chapter, pag. 461. to prove that the Pope had power to ſummon to appear before him all that are accuſed, he alledgeth the words of Innocent the I. Biſhop of Rome, in his Epiſtle, which is the 96. among the Epiſtles of St. Auſtin, where Innocent ſpeaking of Pelagius (as M. Du Perron relates it) ſpeaks thus, He muſt not expect to be ſummoned by us, but he muſt come to us that he may be abſolved. Theſe words But he muſt come to us, are of the Cardinals addition. There is in the Latin, Non à nobis accerſi ſed ipſe potius debet feſtinare ut poſſit abſolvi.
In the ſame chapter, page 478. to prove that in Auſtins time the Biſhop of Rome had the power to ſend Bands of Souldiers into Africk to get his commandments executed,In the ſixth Book, cap. 6. he alledgeth an Epiſtle of Auſtin which is newly coined, as I will ſhew in the right place.
The Biſhops aſſembled in the ſixth Council of Carthage, writ long Letters to Celeſtin Biſhop of Rome, warning him that he ſhould ſend no more Legats into Africa, nor receive Appeals from Africa, nor judge cauſes already judged in Africa, nor bring the fumous pride of this world into the Church of Chriſt, which makes profeſsion of humility. There is in the Latin, Executores Clericos veſtros quibuſque petentibus nolite mittere, nolite concedere, ne fumoſum typhum ſaeculi in Eccleſiam Chriſti quae lucem ſimplicitatis, & humilitatis diem, Deum videre cupientibus praefert, videamur inducere. That is, Send not your Clerks to be your Agents at the requeſt of any that will deſire you: Do not grant it to them, that it may not ſeem that we will introduce the fumous pride of this world into the Church of Chriſt, which bears the light of ſimplicity, and the Sunſhine of humility, before thoſe that deſire to ſee God. But the Cardinal to elude that illuſtrious Text, tranſlateth fumoſum typhum ſaeculi, the fumous whirlwind of this world, taking foreign for foreign; for foreign ſignifieth pride and tumour; but foreign is a whirlewind; herein ſhewing himſelf little skilled in the Greek tongue: That typhus in that place ſignifieth pride, not a whirlwind, it appeareth hence, that in the ſame line it is oppoſed unto humility.
Liberatus, Deacon, in the fifth chapter of his Breviary, ſaith, that the Emperour Theodoſius by his Letters Patent written to the Biſhops, called the Council of Epheſus. And he relates after, how the Council aſſembled. Which being met, the ſame Liberatus a little after, relates how Cyrillus and his friends called the Biſhops of the Council. His words were, Cyrillus cum ſuishabens vices ſedis Apoſtolicae, Concilio evocato ducentorum Epiſcoporum, Neſtorium vocaverunt. That is, Cyrillus with his [friends or Clergy] holding the place of the Apoſtolical See, having called (or cauſed to come to him) a Council of two hundred Biſhops, called Neſtorius. But Cardinal du Perron to make the world believe that this Council had been called by the Pope, hath tranſlated Concilio evocato having convocated a Council inſtead of having called to him the Council. That it ſhould be ſo underſtood, Liberatus ſhews it, ſaying, that he called the Biſhops of the Council, the Council being already aſſembled by the convocation made by the Emperors command.
In the ninth chapter of the fourth obſervation, pag. 741. he alledgeth for St. Peters primacy theſe words of Cyprian in the 71. Epiſtle, Peter anſwered not Paul that rebuked him that he had the primacy. This paſſage is falſified; theſe be the true words, Nec Petrus vindicavit ſibi aliquid inſolenter, aut arroganter aſſumpſit, ut diceret ſe primatum tenere: that is, Peter attributed nothing to himſelf inſolently, nor aſſumed any thing arrogantly, to ſay that he had the primacy. That paſſage ſaith, that if Peter had attributed unto himſelf the primacy, he ſhould have ſpoken arrogantly and inſolently: Wherefore the Cardinal hath erlipſed theſe words, arrogantly and inſolently.
In the ſecond Obſervation, 2. chap. pag. 640. he falſifieth Socrates, making him ſay, that the Council of Nice denounced excommunication unto the Quarta decimani of Aſia. But Socrates ſaith, that it was Victor Biſhop of Rome, that denounced that excommunication, not the Council of Nice. See Socrates in the fifth book, chap. 21.
In the 35. chap. of the firſt book, pag. 283. to prove that Hoſius Biſhop of Cordova did preſide in the Council of Nice in quality of Legat of Pope Sylveſter, Monſieur du Perron alledgeth Photius in the Book of the Councils addreſt unto Michael King of the Bulgars, and brings theſe words; With Vito and Vincentius was joyned Oſius Biſhop of Cordova. An horrible Licence of falſifying; for in that book of Photius the clean contrary is found: Of which book we have an extract, treating of the ſeven Oecumenical Councils from the beginning of the firſt Tome of the Councils. Theſe are the very words of Photius; The firſt Oecumenical and holy Council hath been celebrated at Nice in Bithynia, where three hundred and eighteen holy Biſhops undertook the judgement of the truth. (a)Tomus 1. Concil. Edit. Colon. An. 1567. apud Ge…vinum Cale…ium. Prae erat & Alexander qui ſedem Conſtantinopolitanam obtinebat, vir cum ſenectute, tum prudentia gravis, &c. & Sylveſter & Julius illuſtres, ac celebres Eccleſiae Romanae Pontifices, quorum tamen neuter interfuit, ſed Bitonem & Vincentium nomine ſ…o adeſſe voluerunt. Phocius Epiſtola ad Michaelem Bulgariae Principem de ſeptem Conciliis Oecumenicis.Alexander did preſide in it, who held the See of Conſtantinople, and Sylveſter and Julius illuſtrious and famous Biſhops of the Roman Church. Nevertheleſs neither of theſe were there in perſon, but they would that Bito and Vincentius ſhould be there in their names. Of Hoſius he ſpeaks not at all, and puts Alexander Biſhop of Conſtantinople before that of Rome.
In the fifth book, in the Treatiſe of the Invocation of Saints, 20. ch. page 1057. the Cardinal alledgeth a text of Theodoret againſt himſelf, thus, That vice [of ſerving Angels] hath continued long in Phrygia and Piſidia,(b)foreign. and therefore the Synod aſſembled at Laodicea, the Metropolitan City of Phrygia, prohibited by a Canon praying to Angels: and to this day Oratories to St. Michael are ſeen among them. But the Cardinal hath taken away that word of St. Michael, for fear of wrapping the Roman Church in that condemnation; for that Church hath Oratories of St. Michael as well as thoſe Hereticks. He hath then put Oratories only, without ſpeaking of St. Michael.
In the 19. chap. of the ſame Treatiſe, pag. 1009. he makes Euſebius to ſay in the 13. book of the Evangelical preparation, that Plato hath ſaid, that vertuous dead men muſt be honoured, and their Monuments venerated and adored. That is falſe, and Euſebius in the alledged place doth not ſpeak of it at all.
In the Controverſie of the Prayer for the dead, ch. 10. pag. 948. he alledgeth Joſephus in the third Book of the war of the Jews, ch. 25. in theſe words, Joſephus deſcribing the extremity of the ſiege of Jotapata, and the reſolution which they would take, rather to cauſe themſelves to be killed then to fall into the hand of the Romans, teſtifyeth that he diſſwaded them from it by this remonſtrance, that the Law of their Nation did not permit that the ſouls of thoſe that had killed themſelvs ſhould be prayed for. No ſuch thing ſhal be found in Joſephus, but only foreign, that is, there is an order among us, that they that have killed themſelves be hid without burial until ſun-ſet.
One of the boldeſt falſifications in Cardinal du Perrons book, is in the third chap. of the ſame Treatiſe, pag. 984. in a paſſage of the 8. Book of Origens againſt Celſus. To defend the invocation of Saints and Angels, he goeth about to prove, by Origen, that the Angels and bleſſed Spirits pray for us: A thing which we deny not. In vain doth he labour to prove that which is not controverted. But the queſtion is, whether Angels and Saints muſt be invocated, and whether they muſt be prayed to that they would pray for us. Origen then ſpeaking of perſons that fear God and pray to him,foreign. ſaith that an infinity of ſacred powers (ſo he calls Angels) joyn themſelves to their prayers, not being called upon or invocated. Which is an excellent paſſage; but M. du Perron corrupts it, and tranſlates foreign voluntarily, whereas it ſignifieth, not being called upon by Prayer or Invocation.
The Author of the Comment upon the Epiſtle to the Romans, attributed to Ambroſe, upon the firſt ch. ſaith. For this cauſe we go to the King by Colonels and Governours, becauſe the King is a man, and knows not to whom he ſhould commit the adminiſtration of the Common-wealth. But to get Gods favour (for he knows what all men deſerve) ſuffragatore non opus eſt, ſed mente devota, there is no need of any that help us with his ſuffrage, but of a devout ſoul. Monſieur du Perron tranſlates this word Suffragator, a giver of advice or atteſtation againſt the nature of the word, and the authors intention. For they that employ Colonels or Governours to ſpeak to the King, do it that they may intercede for them, not that they may give advice or atteſtation to the King. And Ambroſe ſpeaks of interceſſors to God, not of perſons that give advice or atteſtation to God; for God to know us needs not the atteſtation of any.
In the 73. chap. of the firſt book, page 588. M. du Perron alledgeth a paſſage of Chryſoſtom, out of the third Homily upon the Epiſtle to the Philippians, where he makes Chryſoſtom to ſay, It is not in vain that the Apoſtles have left a tradition, that ſacrifice ſhould be offered for the dead. That paſſage is falſe; for Chryſoſtom ſaith thus, foreign, It is not in vain that the Apoſtles have made that Law that in the formidable myſteries a commemoration be made of them that are departed. This word Sacrifice, and the word Tradition are added by M. du Perron.
In the third Obſervation, chapter 20. page 703. & 704. he falſifieth the tenth Canon of the Council of Ancyra, tranſlating foreign have been received, whereas it ſignifieth having undertaken, or having obliged themſelves. The Latins would ſay, qui in ſe receperunt.
Page 1084. Where he ſpeaketh of unknown Language, he alledgeth a paſſage of Hierome in the preface of the ſecond book upon the Epiſtle to the Galatians, whereby he would prove that the Divine Service was celebrated among the Galatians in a Language not underſtood, becauſe their Service was in Greek, and their vulgar tongue was like unto that of the Gaules of Triers. The Cardinal makes Hierome ſpeak thus, The tongue of the Galatians was like that of the Gaules of Triers. But he fraudulently clips the words of Hierome, which ſay that the Galatians had alſo the uſe of the Greek tongue, vulgar in all the Eaſt. This is the true paſſage, Galatas excepto Sermone Graeco quo omnis Oriens loquitur, propriam eandem habere linguam quam Treviros. That the Galatians, beſides the Greek tongue which all the Eaſt speaks, have a proper tongue, the ſame as that of the Gauls of Triers.
In the ſecond Obſervation, chapter 5. pag. 651. he proveth ſecret confeſſion by Saint Cyprian, whoſe words he thus alledgeth, They that do pennance, cannot come to the Communion, unleſs the hand be laid upon them by the Prieſt or by the Clergy. There is in the Latine, ab Epiſcopo & Clero, by the Biſhop and the Clergy. But M. du Perron hath put the Prieſt for the Biſhop, and or for and, becauſe the laying on of hands by the Prieſt and by the Clergy cannot be applied to the ſecret Confeſſion, but to the publique pennance.
foreign.In the ſame page he falſifyeth two paſſages of Baſil, who in the ſhort Rules, in the 229. Rule ſaith, Confeſſion of ſins muſt be made before them that can heal it. But Monſieur du Perron, to exclude all other confeſſion, but that which is made unto the Prieſt, addeth this word, only, and thus ſets down that paſſage, Confeſſion of ſins can be made only before them that can heal it.
To the ſame purpoſe in the ſame place is alledged another place of S. Baſil out of the 288. queſtion in theſe words, Sins muſt be revealed only to thoſe to whom the diſpenſation of myſteries is committed. But the word only, is of the Cardinals addition.
To the ſame purpoſe again he corrupts a paſſage of Leo in the Epiſtle to the Biſhops of Campania, foreign.which is the 80. He makes Leo to ſay, It is enough that the ſins of Conſciences be ſhewed unto the Prieſt by a ſecret confeſſion. He hath put Prieſt for Prieſts; ſacerdoti pro ſacerdotibus: becauſe the confeſſion made to many Prieſts availeth nothing to prove Auricular Confeſſion.
In the third ch. of the ſecond Obſervation in the end of the 648. page where he diſputes of Auricular Confeſſion, he alledgeth a place of Chryſoſtome, in the 30. Homily to the people of Antioch, in theſe words, It is enough for thee to confeſs thy ſin to God alone, not to thy ſervant that upbraideth thee with it. Item, Do not conſtrain thy ſelf to come to a Stage before a great multitude of witneſſes. foreign.But he ſuppreſſeth the following words, Againſt me the ſin is committed, To me alone tell it in private, which are expreſs words againſt the confeſſion made unto the Prieſt.
In the fifth chapter of the ſame Obſervation, page 650. he alledgeth theſe words of Ambroſe, for the ſecret confeſſion, out of the ſixteenth chapter of the firſt Book of penitence; If any having ſecret crimes, makes nevertheleſs a ſerious penance, how ſhall he receive there [a hundreth fold] if the communion be not reſtored to him again? Here Monſieur du Perron ſtayeth and ſuppreſſeth the following words which ſhew that Ambroſe is ſpeaking of a publike confeſſion.Volo veniam reus ſperet. Petat eam lachrymis. Petat gemitibus. Petat populi fletibus. I will (ſaith Ambroſe) that the guilty hope for pardon; Let him ask for it with weeping. Let him ask it with groaning. Let him ask it with the tears of the people, &c. Such dealing indeed is abuſing the Reader, and unworthily clipping the ſenſe of the Fathers.
Ambroſe in the nineth chapter concerning thoſe that are initiated in the myſteries, ſaith, The Lord Jeſus himſelf crieth, This is my body. Before the heavenly bleſſing, another kind is named; After the conſecration, the body of Chriſt is ſignified or repreſented. There is in the Latin, Ante benedictionem verborum coeleſtium alia species nominatur, poſt conſecrationem corpus Chriſti ſignificatur. Monſiur du Perron in the eight hundred ſeventy ninth page corrupts this place, tranſlating it thus, Before the bleſſing of the heavenly words it is named another kind; After the conſecration it is called the body of Chriſt. See the third chapter of the eleventh Controverſie of the ſeventh book of this preſent Work, where I ſpeak of this more at large.
In the fifth chapter of the Treatiſe of the Sacrifice, page 925. the Cardinal alledgeth the twenty ninth Canon of the Council of Carthage in theſe words, If in the afternoon ſome recommendations muſt be made of the dead, whether they be Biſhops or Clarks or others, Let them be made by prayers only, if it be found that thoſe that make it be no more faſting, reſerving to the morning only the recommendations made by oblation. Theſe laſt words, reſerving to the morning only the recommendations made by oblation, are added by M. du Perron, and are not found in that twenty ninth Canon.
See in this work, chap. 4. of the eleventh Controverſie of the ſeventh book, a notorious corruption of an excellent place of Theodoret.
And in the ſeventh chapter the corruption of the Canon Hoc eſt, by omiſſion of the word as.
St. Auſtin chap. 12. of the book againſt Adimantus hath theſe words, Non enim dubitavit Dominus dicere, Hoc eſt corpus meum, cum ſignum daret corporis ſui. The Lord made no difficulty to ſay, This is my body, when he was giving the ſign of his body. Cardinal du Perron in the fourth book, and the fourth chapter pag. 871. will have theſe words ſupplied, according to you, as though Auſtin had ſaid, The Lord made no difficulty to ſay, This is my body, when (according to you (O Manicheans) he gave the ſign of his body. Of which enormous licenſe in corrupting paſſages of the true ſenſe of this place, ſee the eleventh Controverſie of the ſeventh book, chap. 8. of this work.
In the ſixteenth chapter of the ſame book, page 907. he alledgeth a place of Cyrillus of Alexandria, but with three corruptions of his own. That place of Cyrillus is found in the defence of the eleventh Anathematiſmus, inſerted in the firſt Tome of the Councils, and is ſet down in theſe words;†Num hominis comeſtionem noſtrum hoc Sacramentum pronuncias? & irreligioſe ad craſſas cogitationes urges eorum qui credid… runt mentem, & attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare ea quae ſola pura & irrequiſita fide accipiuntur? And in the Greek, foreign, &, foreign. Doſt thou pronounce that in our Sacrament we eat a man? And doſt thou in an ungodly manner urge the underſtanding of thoſe that have believed into groſs thoughts? Doſt thou attempt to handle with humane thoughts, thoſe things which are not received but only with a pure and not far-fetcht faith? The Lord Cardinal altogether corrupteth this text, tranſlating it thus; Do not pronounce that our myſtery is an anthropophagy, or eating of mans fleſh, irreligiouſly engaging the ſpirits of the believers into fallacious reaſonings, and ſubmitting to humane argumentations thoſe things which are admitted by the only and not inquiſitive faith. He tranſlateth foreign fallacious reaſonings: But foreign is not a reaſoning, but a thought. And foreign ſignifieth not fallacious, but vain and eaſily wearing away. He had heard of foreign and he hath miſtaken the one one for the other. And he tranſlates foreign a faith not inquiſitive, whereas it ſignifieth a faith not far-fetcht. And he omitteth the word of only faith, in which lyeth all the ſtrength of that place.
In the precedent page he tranſlateth foreign are preſuppoſed, whereas it ſignifieth are taken or received, as the Latin copies tranſlate. As alſo Acts 27.23. foreign having taken, that is, eaten nothing, and in v. 36. foreign they took meat.
The number of the places which the Cardinal depraveth, for want of ſufficient skill in the Greek tongue, is numberleſs. Some of many we ſhall bring here.
Pag 279. going about to correct Sozomenus, he tranſlateth foreign venerable, which ſignifieth hoary or gray-haired.
Pag. 126. he tranſlateth foreign reverencing, whereas it ſignifies cogitantem, thinking and imagining.
In the ſame page he tranſlates foreign diſcretion, whereas it ſignifieth trial or examination.
Pag. 961. In the ſecond inſtance he interprets foreign a bathing tub, or a ciſtern, taking foreign for foreign, whereof the firſt ſignifieth the waſhing liquor, the ſecond a ciſtern or bathing tub.
Pag. 137. he tranſlates foreign repreſenting, whereas it ſignifies troubling or importuning.
foreign.Pag. 317. foreign he expounds convocating, whereas it ſignifies ſummoning, or deſiring to come. And foreign he takes for foreign which he doth fraudulently to perſwade that Damaſus did convocate the Council; whereas Theodoret, whom he alledgeth, ſaith only that Damaſus invited and deſired the Eaſtern Biſhops to come to Rome to the Council; but that the ſaid Biſhops would not come. It was an invitation without convocation.
In the firſt chapter of the Treatiſe of the Sacrifice, pag. 910 foreign, which ſignifies non amplius polluent, they ſhall defile no more, he tranſlates, they ſhall ſmoak no more, which is a great ignorance in the Greek tongue.
In chap. 49. of the firſt book p. 428. foreign he tranſlates ſtudious, taking foreign for foreign, for foreign ſignifies expetitus, & quod ſtudioſe expetitur, that which is deſired or ſought for with care. Whence is derived foreign deſired by every one, and foreign worthy to be deſired and ſought for.
In chap. 34. book 1. pag. 247. foreign he tranſlates ſhould decree; whereas foreign ſignifies to ſuggeſt, counſel, or repreſent. Beſides, the place which he alledged is clipt, to perſwade that Anthimus Patriarch of Conſtantinople was ſubject to the Biſhop of Rome. It is taken out of the fifth Council of Conſtantinople, held under Menas, in the fourth Action; The words are, that(a)foreign. Anthimus uſing fraudulent words, promiſed to do whatſoever the High Prieſt of the great Apoſtolical See would ſuggeſt unto him. M. du Perron hath cut off the head of that place ſuppreſſing theſe words, uſing fraudulent words, leaſt it ſhould be ſeen that Anthimus did not hold himſelf ſubject to the Biſhop of Rome. And inſtead of ſuggeſting, he hath put decreeing, to make the world believe that Anthimus was ſubject to the Decrees and Ordinances of the Roman Biſhop.
The third Canon of the Council of Nice is this,(b)foreign. The great Synod hath altogether forbidden [or declared] that it be not permitted, neither to a Biſhop, nor to a Prieſt, nor to a Deacon, nor to any other of the Clergy to have an aſſociated woman, but only his Mother, or his Siſter, or his Aunt, or only the perſons that are paſt ſuſpicion. That Council by aſſociate women underſtands certain women which Prieſts kept at their home, under colour, of friendſhip, or ſervice: Which was ſubject to ſiniſter interpretation. As now to be a Prieſts maid, is an ill name. The Grecians called thoſe ſhe aſſociates, foreign; And the women ſo aſſociated were alſo called Agapets and ſtrange women. This we ſhew in this book by ſeveral teſtimonies in the ſeventh chapter of the Controverſie of the Celibat. Cardinal du Perron in the twentieth chapter of the third obſervation, pag. 706. underſtanding not the meaning of that word foreign, or feigning that he underſtands it not, will have that word to ſignifie a married woman, ſaying that the Council of Nice reckoning the women which are allowed to lodge in Biſhops houſes, as the Mother, the Siſter, and the Aunt, excludes the Wife out of that number, pretending that the Council forbids Biſhops and Prieſts to marry. I prove in the ſeventh chapter forealledged, that M. du Perron did not underſtand the ſignificaiion of the word foreign, and that he corrupts the Canon of the Council of Nice, putting a doctrine upon the Council contrary to their ſenſe.
In the ſame chapter page 708. of the Cardinals book, a Canon of the Council of Gangra is falſified. The Canon is ſuch,foreign. If any make a difference about a married Prieſt, as if one ought not to be partaker of the oblation when he doth the ſervice, let him be anathema or accurſed. There is in the Greek foreign of a married Prieſt, not of a Prieſt that hath been married, as M. du Perron will have it tranſlated. I ſhew in the ſeventh chapter of the Treatiſe of the Celibat, that foreign ſignifieth one that is married, not one that hath been.
The like ignorance of his in the word foreign, I ſhew in XI. Controverſie of the VII. Book, chap. 4. And another ignorance of the word foreign in his nineteenth chapter; M. du Perron makes foreign to ſignifie then, whereas it ſignifies altogether. Many the like falſifications and depravations we repreſent in this Work. They ſhall be found marked in the Table at the end, in the word falſication, and in the word Ignorance.
I deſire alſo the Reader to take notice that I abſtained from examining the places alledged to no purpoſe, and nothing to our Controverſies, which make two parts of three at the leaſt of thoſe places which M. du Perron alledgeth in his Book.
The Confeſsion of three POPES.
ONuphrius Panuinius an Auguſtinian Monk in the life of Marcellus the II. hath theſe words, (a)Poſt longum in prandio ſilentium recordatus aliquando eſt Hadriani Quarti verba, Romano Pontifice nemo eſt miſerabilior, conditione ejus nulla miſerior. Et paulo poſt, Non video quomodo qui locum hunc altiſſimum tenent ſalvari poſſint.Marcellus after a long ſilence in dinner time, remembred the words which Pope Adrian the fourth had ſometimes ſpoken, There is no man more to be pittied then the Biſhop of Rome, and no condition more unfortunate then his. And a little after, the ſame Marcel continuing his diſcourſe, ſtruck the Table with his hand, ſaying, I ſee not how they that hold this moſt high place, can be ſaved.
Aeneas Sylvius, otherwiſe called Pope Pius the ſecond, in his ſixty ſixth Epiſtle to John Peregral, ſaith (b)Nihil eſt quod abſque argento Romana Curia dedat; ipſa manuum impoſitio & Spiritus S. dona venduntur, nec peccatorum venia niſi nummatis impenditur.The Roman Court gives nothing without money, yea the impoſition of hands, and the gifts of the Holy Ghoſt are ſold, and the remiſſion of ſins is beſtowed upon none but ſuch as have money. The ſame in his Epiſtle to Martin Mayer which is the one hundred eighty eighth, ſpeaking of the ſtate of the Chriſtian Church of the firſt ages, ſaith, (c)Sibi quiſque vivebat, & ad Eccleſiam Romanam parvus habebatur reſpectus.Every one at that time lived for himſelf, and little reſpect was given to the Roman Church.