The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 1 · Chapter 47
CHAP. 47. That our Adverſaries condemn the Fathers, and by conſequent cannot have them for Judges.
THe Gloſſary of the Decree upon the 9. diſtinction, endeavouring to elude ſome teſtimonies of St Auſtin, who ſaith, that the holy Scriptures have alone the perfection of infallibility, but that all other writings of perſons never ſo holy are ſubject to err, and ought to be read with circumſpection, hath put this Gloſs in the margent,(a)Hodie jubentur teneri uſque ad ultimum iota, ut infra. diſt. 15. cap. ult. Theſe words muſt be underſtood according to that time when the writings of Auſtin and other holy Fathers were not authentical, but now it is commanded to keep them to the laſt tittle. Againſt that Gloſſarie Alphonſus de Caſtro takes a quarrel in the 1. Book of hereſies, chap. 7. and calls him a fool and lyar, ſeeing that the writings of the Fathers are often diſſenting among themſelves: And Melchior Canus in the 7. Book of the Theological places, in the 3. chap. to the ſame purpoſe alledgeth many errors of the Fathers; of Cyprian among others, who believed that thoſe that were baptized by hereticks muſt be rebaptized; and of Hilary, who denieth that the body of Jeſus Chriſt hath felt any pain, aſcribing to him an impaſſible body; of Irenaeus, who was a Chiliaſt; and he goes ſo far as to ſay, that the Fathers ſometimes bring forth monſters againſt the order of nature. Cardinal Baronius, whoſe writings are ſo highly eſteemed by our Adverſaries, cenſureth the Fathers with great liberty. On the year 34. §. 113. he acknowledgeth freely, that(b)Sanctiſſimos Patres in interpretatione Scrptura non ſemp…r in omnibus Catholica ſequitur Eccleſia. the Catholick Church doth not alwayes follow the moſt holy Fathers in the interpretation of Scripture. Himſelf on the year 31. §. 24. rebuketh St. Auſtin, becauſe he did not well underſtand theſe words of our Lord, Thou art Peter, &c. for want of underſtanding the Syrian tongue. And on the year 34. §. 185. Hierom hath erred for want of memory. And on the year 60. §. 20. he quarrelleth with Theodoret for rejecting the invocation of Angels. grounded upon a text of St. Paul; (c)Ex his videas Theodoretum hand felicite… (eius pace dictum ſit) affecutum eſſe Pauli verborum ſenſum.Hereby (ſaith he) one may ſee that Theodoret, by his have, hath not well comprehended the ſenſe of the words of Paul. And on the year 369. §. 24. Hilary had alſo his errors.
Bellarmine every where beareth himſelf as judge and cenſor of the Fathers. In the firſt Book of the felicity of the Saints;(d)§. Sunt tamen; & §. S. Antonius. Juſtini, Irenaei, Epiphanii, Oecumenii ſententiam non video quo pacto ab errore poſſimus defendere. I ſee not how we may defend from error the opinion of Juſtinus, Irenaeus, Epiphanius and Oecumenius. In the ſame place he heaps up the errors of many Fathers. Of whom alſo he ſaith in the ſecond book of the Councils, chap. 13.(e)Lib. 6. de Conciliis c. 13. Scripta Patrum non ſunt regula, nec habent authoritatem obligandi. The writings of Fathers are not the rule, and have no authority to oblige us.
Himſelf in the 1. Book de Pontifice Romano, chap. 8. ſpeaking of the opinion of Hierom, that Prieſts are inferior to Biſhops by Eccleſiaſtical right only, not of divine right: That opinion (ſaith he) is falſe, and muſt be confuted in the proper place. And chap. 10. §. Addo. Auſtin (ſaith he) hath been deceived by the only ignorance of the Hebrew tongue. And in the Book de monachis, chap. 13. he goeth about to prove, that the opinion of Auſtin, of Thomas, and of Bernard, ſeems not to be conformable unto the holy Scripture.
Sixtus Senenſis, in his Preface upon the 5. Book of his Bibliotheca, ſaith, that(f)In libris ſanctorum Doctorum quos authenticè legit Eccleſia, nonnunquam inveniuntur quaedam prava vel haeretica. in the holy Doctors which are read in the Church with authority, ſometimes things evil and heretical are found.
Andradius in the 2. Book of the defence of the Tridentine faith,(g)Ʋt Auguſtinum, Baſilium, &c. taceam, quorum non ſumus ſemper opinionibus addicti. I will ſay nothing (ſaith he) of Auſtin, Baſil, Athanaſius, and the other Cyrillus, Chryſoſtomus, and Epiphanius, to whoſe opinions we are not alwayes tyed. And in the ſame place he ſaith, that the Fathers are contradicting one another, and then addeth, So many things there be wherein it is lawful for us to depart from the opinion of the Fathers.
Cardinal Cajetan in the beginning of his Comments on Geneſis, (h)Nullus deteſtetur novum Scripturae ſenſum ex hoc quod diſſonat à priſcis doctoribus, &c. Non enim alligavit Deus expoſitionem Scripturarum priſcorum Doctorum ſenſibus, &c.If (ſaith he) ſometimes a new interpretation occurs agreeing with the text, and not contrary to Scripture or to the doctrine of the Church, let the Reader ſhew himſelf an equitable cenſor, although that interpretation be divers from the ſtream of the holy Doctors. And in the ſame place, Let none deteſt a new ſenſe of Scripture, becauſe it is diſſonant from the antient Doctors, &c. For God hath not tyed the expoſition of Scripture to the ſenſe of the antient Doctors, but to the whole Scripture it ſelf, under the cenſure of the Catholick Church; ſubjecting Scripture unto the cenſures of the Roman Church.
The Jeſuit Pererius in the 8. Book upon Geneſis, in the firſt diſputation,(i)Pudet dicere quae de optimis ſcriptoribus hoc loco dicturus ſum, adeo ſunt non modo falſa ſed pudenda & abſurda — Me tamen cogit dicere veritas. I am aſhamed (ſaith he) to ſay the things which I muſt ſay againſt very good writers, which ſay things not only falſe, but alſo ſhamefull and abſurd. Now the Fathers which he hath a quarrel with, are Juſtin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Ambroſe, Tertullian, Lactantius, Euſebius, Sulpitius Severus.
Salmeron in the ſecond prolegomen acknowledgeth that the Fathers have often diſſented among themſelves,(k)Multa disputavit Cyprianus cum Cornelio Papa, Origines cum Africano, &c. Cyprian (ſaith he) had many diſputes with Pope Cornelius (he would ſay Steven) Origen with African, Chryſoſtom with Theophilus Alexandrinus, Epiphanius with John of Jeruſalem, Ruffinus with Hierom, Hierom with Auſtin, Auſtin with Simplicician, Proſper with Hilary, Gregory with (l)He would ſay John.Eutyches of Conſtantinople, and each of them made good his party.
And not only he ſaith, that the Fathers diſſent among themſelves about the expoſition of Scripture, but alſo every one with himſelf.(*)Salmeron Prolig. 2. §. Quinta. Nam dum quiſque eorum diverſi ab alio unum locum exponit imo etiam unus & idem vario modo. Every one of them (ſaith he) expounds a text otherwiſe then another doth, yea the ſame Doctor expoundeth a text diverſly.
In the 51. diſpute upon the Epiſtle to the Romams, treating of the conception of the Virgin without ſin, he alledgeth againſt himſelf a multitude of Fathers, that hold that ſhe was conceived in ſin. To which he anſwereth, that(m)Respondemus locum ab authoritate eſſe infirmum, &c. Ibid. Deni que contra hanc quam objiciunt multitudinem reſpondemus in verbo Dei, Exod. 23. In judicio plurimorum non acquieſces ſententiae ut à vero declines. Miſſam facio Auguſtini & Innocentii I. ſententiam quae ſexcentos circiter annos viguit in Eccleſia, Euchariſtiam etiam infantibus neceſſariam. the proof by authority is weak, and that reaſon muſt go before authority. And in the ſame place, Againſt that multitude [of Fathers] which is objected to us, we anſwer by the Word of God, Exod. 23. Thou ſhalt not speak in a cauſe to decline after many to wreſt Judgement.
The Jeſuit Maldonat in his Comment upon the Goſpel, diſputeth everywhere againſt the expoſition of Fathers. As upon Matth. 6. treating of the ſuperſubſtantiall bread, he confutes the opinion of Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambroſe, Victorinus, Athanaſius, Juvencus, Hierom. And upon the 6. of John. (m)Respondemus locum ab authoritate eſſe infirmum, &c. Ibid. Deni que contra hanc quam objiciunt multitudinem reſpondemus in verbo Dei, Exod. 23. In judicio plurimorum non acquieſces ſententiae ut à vero declines. Miſſam facio Auguſtini & Innocentii I. ſententiam quae ſexcentos circiter annos viguit in Eccleſia, Euchariſtiam etiam infantibus neceſſariam.I leave the opinion of Auſtin and Innocent the I. which reigned for 600. years, that the Lords Supper is neceſſary to children.
The famous Biſhop of Bitonto ſpeaks very ingenuouſly to that purpoſe, upon Rom. 14. p. 606. where ſetting the Pope in the place of God, and comparing his authority with that of the Fathers, he ſpeaks thus, Whatſoever is spoken by him whom we account for God in the things of God, we must hearken to it as to God himſelf. As for me (that I may confeſs it ingenuouſly in the things that concern the myſteries of God) (n)Cornelius Mus. Epiſc. Bitontinus in Epiſt. ad Rom. c. 14. Quem pro Deo habemus in his quae Dei ſunt quicquid ipſe dixerit tanquam Deum audire debemus: Ego ut ingenuè fatear) plus uni ſummo Pontifici crederem in his quae myſteria fidei tangunt quam mille Auguſtinis, Hieronimis, Gregoriis, ne dicam Ricardis, Scotis, Gulielmis. Credo enim & ſcio quod ſummus Pontifex in his quae fidei ſunt errare non poteſt quoniam authoritas determinandi quae ad fidem ſpectam in Pontifice reſidet.I would give more faith to the only ſoveraign Biſhop, then to a thouſand Auſtins, Hieroms, Gregories, that I speak not of the Richards, Scotuſes, and Gulielmuſes; for I believe and know that the Soveraign Biſhop only cannot err in the things that are of the faith, becauſe the authority of determining matters of faith reſides in the Pope.
Petavius in his Notes upon Epiphanius, freely acknowledgeth the errors of the Fathers, ſaying, pag. 205, & 244. We do not ſo much ſeek the errors of theſe divine men, as ſet them forth when they preſent themſelves. Yea he ſaith, that if one would examine many things in the Homilies of Chryſoſtom upon the rule of truth, he ſhould find neither ſenſe nor reaſon in it.
The Jeſuite(o)De praeſentia Chriſti in Euchariſtia, Diſp. 6. q. 3. Puncto 11. §. quod ſi. Gregorius de Valentia, in the Book of Tranſubſtantiation, ch. 8. to rid himſelf of Theodoret, who in his Dialogues confutes Tranſubſtantiation, Theodoret (ſaith he) hath been noted of other Errors in the Council of Epheſus. The like will be found in the Preface upon the Dialogues of Theodoret printed in Greek at Rome. And the ſame Gregorius de Valentia, ſaith in the ſame place, that(p)Minime mirum eſt ſi unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui ex vtteribus minus conſiderate & rectè hac de re ſenſerint & ſcripſerint. We muſt not wonder, if ſome of the Antients have believed and written inconſiderately of this matter.
Wherefore our Adverſaries in their Comments, and in their Books of Controverſies uſe to alledge divers opinions of the Fathers, and to choſe that which pleaſeth them beſt, and ſometimes they reject them all. Bellarmine in the Book De Monachis, chap. 9.(q)§. Praeterea & ſeq. Five Expoſitions preſent themſelves, which we muſt confute. The firſt is of Hierome and Beda, &c. and ſoon after, Hieroms memory failed him.
The Jeſuite Maldonat upon Matth. 20. after a long enumeration of the opinions of Fathers, freely declareth that he doth not acquieſce to any of them. And upon Joh. 6. rebuking Auſtin, as one that had not apprehended in what ſenſe Jeſus Chriſt ſaith himſelf to be the Bread, ſaith, I am perſwaded that if Auſtin had lived in our time, he would have been of another of opinion. And upon the ſame chapter upon theſe words, They ſhall be all taught of God; (r)Chryſoſtomi interpretationem multo magis probo quam illum Auguſtini.I do approve (ſaith he) the interpretation of Chryſoſtom much more then that of Auſtin. And upon Matth. 11. after he hath alledged divers opinions of the Fathers, he addeth, To ſpeak freely, none of theſe contents me.
Pope Gelaſius by Papal authority in the Canon, Sancta Romana, Diſt. 15. beareth himſelf as Judge of the writings of the Fathers, and makes an enumeration of thoſe that muſt be ſuſpected, and names them Apocryphal. Among others he rejecteth Caſſianus, the Hiſtory of Euſebius, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Cyprians Opuſcules, who are nevertheleſs authors of good note, and have their ranck among the Fathers.
Alphonſus de Caſtro, c. 9. of the 1. Book againſt Hereſies, ſhews that the Fathers will often contradict one another. That Hierom ſaith, that Paul rebuked Peter fainedly only, not in truth: Auſtin on the contrary maintains, that he was truly and juſtly reproved. — That Hierom holds, that he that had two wives before Baptiſm, may be promoted to the Prieſthood after he is baptized; which affirmation Ambroſe, and Auſtin, and all the other Fathers do reſiſt. That Auſtin holds that the whole world was built in a moment of time, and interprets that circuit of days to be alternations of Angelical knowledge, but that all the others contradict that interpretation.
But Salmeron alone may ſerve for all. That Jeſuitie in his thirteenth Tome in the ſixth Diſpute about St. Pauls Epiſtles, makes himſelf Judge of the Fathers with great authority, and makes a Collection of the Errors of the Fathers in theſe words. Such is that which Irenaeus ſaith concerning the age of Chriſt, that he attained unto forty years; and that the Name of Jeſus is compounded of two letters and a half. And the Monogamy of Tertullian; and what he ſaith, that the death of Chriſt hapned about the thirtieth year of his age. The opinion of Papias, of the Reſurrection at the end of a thouſand years, which Nepos, Cantor, and Lactantius have followed. Auſtin and Origene, and the Platonicians have ſaid, that the Angels are made of airy and ſubtil bodies. And our Gregory in the Homily of the Epiphany of the Lord, calls an Angel a reaſonable animal. The Doctrine of Cyprian, of the rebaptization of thoſe that have been baptized by Hereticks, which hath been determined by three Councils of Carthage, and confuted by the Church. The opinion of Euſebius Ceſarienſis, that the Son of God, who is the Word of the Father, is inferiour to the Father, hath been rejected as moſt falſe. The opinion of Baſil, that the roof of the Firmament is flat, that it may hold water, as he ſaith upon Geneſis. Himſelf upon the 14. Pſalm, maintains that under the New Teſtament, it is not at all permitted to ſwear, no more then it is permitted to circumciſe. Which nevertheleſs Euthymius and Theophylactus upon Matth. 5. have followed. Yet this hath not been followed by them that are come ſince. Alſo it is a hard opinion of Nazianzenus, that he holds ſecond marriages to be unlawful, and the third to be a prevarication, us he teſtifieth in the thirtieth Oration. This alſo is hard in Gregorius Nyſſenus, to hold that in the ſtate of Innocency, there ſhould have been no generation by copulation of ſexes, no more then in the Reſurrection, as he teſtifieth upon Gen. 17. Euthymius teacheth the ſame upon Pſal. 50. And Damaſcenus in the Book of Orthodox Faith, although the command of increaſing and multiplying, and filling the earth had preceded. And ſo this in the ſame Book of Nyſſenus, c. 30. that the reaſonable ſoul is made by traduction, is abſurdly ſaid; although he contradicts himſelf in the ſecond Book of the ſoul, c. 4. This alſo is hard in Athanaſius, that our ſoul is drawn from the power of the matter; and that the ſouls of the Saints do not ſee God till the day of Judgement, in the 16. and 20. queſtions to Antiochus, if yet thoſe queſtions be not falſely aſcribed to him. It is a hard and unworthy ſaying of Chryſoſtomus upon theſe words of Joh. 2. They have no Wine, and upon theſe words of Matth. 12. Behold thy Mother and thy Brothers are without: and upon this ſentence of the Pſalm, There is none that doth good, no not one: That he ſaith, that the Bleſſed Virgin was ambitious and deſirous of vain-glory. Which Theophylactus hath followed, and Euthymius upon Matth. 12. & Mark. 3. & Luk. 2. Tertullian ſaith worſe things yet of the Virgin Mary, in the Book of the fleſh of Chriſt, which have not been believed by poſterity, but have been reproved. It is likewiſe a hard ſaying of Arnobius, that the ſouls are deſcended into the bodies by neceſſity of nature, and that pains come not by the Providence of God, but by the neceſſity of the matter, as he teacheth in the 2. Book againſt the Gentiles; and that the ſouls differ not in reaſon: and that the ſouls of the damned are reduced to nothing by their ſuffering. Lactantius teacheth, that the ſin of the Devil is the envy of the firſt Angel that was made, or rather of the Holy Ghoſt, whom he ſeems to make a Creature, Book 1. chap. 9. It is a hard opinion in Hilary, that Chriſt did not fear death, and felt no pain in his paſſion, as he teacheth in the 10. Book of the Trinity. The opinion of Ambroſe is ſingular, whereby he prayeth that the Emperours, Gratian, and Valentinian, may riſe from the dead more early. And in another place he ſaith, that whenſoever we celebrate the Feaſt of the Reſurrection of the Lord, alwayes ſome riſe again, &c. Hierom in a certain Epiſtle, ſaith, That Chriſt is come out bloudy out of the Virgins womb. Auſtin did retract himſelf in many things. And in the Book of the City of God he denyeth Antipodes. In Bernard we could deſire more perſpicuity in that Doctrine, That the ſouls do not receive the glory of bleſſedneſs until the day of Judgement. In Damaſcenus we obſerve a Doctrine, which the Church admitteth not, That the Holy Ghoſt proceeds not alike from the Son, and from the Father; wherein he is followed by Theophylactus upon Joh. 3. and by Michal Syngelus in the Book of the praiſes of Denis. It would be indeed a very long thing, if I would run over all the Doctors, and all the particular opinions of every one, whoſe belief the Church hath not approved. So ſpeaks that Jeſuite.
Villavincentius an Auguſtinian Monk, in the fourth Book of of the manner of well ordering the ſtudy of Divinity, cap. 5. makes the like enumeration of the Errors of the Fathers, and adds to thoſe that Salmeron hath obſerved, that Epiphanius in Anchoratis hath interpreted theſe words, My Father is greater then I, as true even of the Divine Nature. That Jeſus Chriſt praying that this Cup ſhould paſs from him, ſpake not in good earneſt, but to abuſe the Devil. That Ambroſe is exceſſive in Allegories, going far from the ſenſe of Scripture. That he excuſeth Peters denyal of his Maſter, ſaying, that he denyed only Jeſus Chriſt Man, not Jeſus Chriſt God. That Hierome contending for Virginity, uſeth Mariage unworthily, and puts the ſecond and third marriages almoſt in the ſame rank as fornication. That the Learned agree not with this Doctrine of Auſtin, that children dying without Baptiſm are eternally damned. And that the Church hath aboliſht the cuſtom approved by St. Auſtin, to give the Lords Supper to little children. Above all he is angry with Hilary, for attributing and impaſſible body unto Chriſt, which hath ſuffered not pain in his Death.
Thus our Adverſaries are become Judges of the Fathers, and confute them with much liberty: and by conſequent receive not the Fathers for Judges, ſince they make themſelves Judges of the Fathers, and hold them to be erroneous and impure in the Faith.