The History of Heresies and Their Refuta
The History of Heresies and Their Refuta
The History of Heresies and Their Refuta
https://books.google.com
M
4531.Xg.5.
THE
HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
AND
THEIR REFUTATION ,
&c . , &c .
SH
TI
RI
5 SE 57
WH Lizars sc
HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
AND
THEIR REFUTATION ;
OR,
Bishop of Newfoundland.
SECOND EDITION .
REDEMPTI
EVM
O
JS
DUBLIN :
also, have been in such request : but, while he wrote for the
people, we are not to imagine that he did not also please
the learned . His mind was richly stored with various
knowledge ; he was one of the first Jurists of his day ; his
Theological science elicited the express approbation of the
greatest Theologian of his age - Benedict XIV.; he was
not only a perfect master of his own beautiful language,
but profoundly read in both Greek and Latin literature
but for whom we ardently pray, that they may hear the
voice of the " one Shepherd," may see, by its attentive
perusal, that they inhabit a house " built upon the sand,"
and not the house " on the rock." They will behold the
mighty tree of Faith, sprung from the grain of mustard-
seed planted by our Redeemer, always flourishing, always
extending, neither uprooted by the storms of persecution ,
nor withered by the sun of worldly prosperity. Nay more,
the very persecution the Church of God has suffered, and
and perish- nations die away, and are only known to the
historian-languages spoken by millions disappear - every-
thing that is man's work dies like man ; heresies, like the
rest, have their rise, their progress, their decay, but Faith
alone is eternal and unchangeable, " yesterday, to-day, and
the same for ever."
CONTENTS .
PAOF.
CHAPTER I.
CHAPTER V.
CHAPTER VI.
ARTICLE I. Of the Acephali, and the different Sects they split into.
1. Regulation made by the new Emperor Anastasius, to the great
Detriment of the Church. 2. Anastasius persecutes the Catholics ; his awful
Death 3. The Acephali, and their Chief, Severus. 4. The Sect of the
12 CONTENTS .
PAGE.
Jacobites. 5. The Agnoites. 6. The Tritheists. 7. The Corruptibilists .
8. The Incorruptibilists. 9. Justinian falls into this Error. 10. Good and bad
Actions of the Emperor. 11 , 12. The Acemetic Monks; their Obstinacy.
ARTICLE II. -The Three Chapters, . 174
13. The Condemnation of the Three Chapters of Theodore, Ibas, and
Theodoret. 14, 15. Defended by Vigilius. 16. Answer to the Objection of a
Heretic who asserts that one Council contradicts another.
CHAPTER VII. .
CHAPTER VIII.
CHAPTER IX.
Heresies of the Ninth Century, . . 201
ARTICLE I.-The Greek Schism commenced by Photius.
1. St. Ignatius, by means of Bardas, Uncle to the Emperor Michael, is expelled
from the See of Constantinople. 2. He is replaced by Photius. 3. Photius
CONTENTS . 13
PAGE.
is consecrated. 4. Wrongs inflicted on St. Ignatius and on the Bishops who
defended him. 5. The Pope sends Legates to investigate the Affair. 6. St.
Ignatius appeals from the Judgment of the Legates to the Pope himself.
7. He is deposed in a False Council. 8. The Pope defends St. Ignatius. 9. The
Pope deposes the Legates and Photius, and confirms St. Ignatius in his See.
10. Bardas is put to Death by the Emperor and he associates Basil in the
Empire. 11. Photius condemns and deposes Pope Nicholas II., and after-
wards promulgates his Error concerning the Holy Ghost. 12. The Emperor
Michael killed, and Basil is elected and banishes Photius.
ARTICLE II.- The Errors of the Greeks condemned in Three
General Councils, 210
13, 14, 15. The Eighth General Council against Photius, under Pope Adrian
and the Emperor Basil. 16. Photius gains over Basil, and in the mean time
St. Ignatius dies. 17. Photius again gets Possession of the See. 18. The
Council held by Photius rejected by the Pope ; unhappy Death of Photius.
19. The Patriarch, Cerularius, revives and adds to the Errors of Photius.
20. Unhappy Death of Cerularius. 21 , 22. Gregory X. convokes the Council of
Lyons at the instance of the Emperor Michael ; it is assembled. 23. Profession
of Faith written by Michael, and approved of by the Council. 24. The Greeks
confess and swear to the Decisions of the Council. 25. They separate again.
26. Council of Florence under Eugenius IV.; the Errors are again discussed
and rejected ; Definition of the Procession of the Holy Ghost. 27. Of the
Consecration in Leavened Bread. 28. Of the Pains of Purgatory. 29. Of
the Glory of the Blessed. 30. Of the Primacy of the Pope. 31. Instructions
given to the Armenians, Jacobites, and Ethiopians ; the Greeks relapse into
Schism.
CHAPTER X.
19. The Albigenses and their Errors. 20. The Corruption of their Morals.
21. Conferences held with them, and their Obstinacy. 22. They create an
Anti-Pope. 23. Glorious Labours of St. Dominick, and his stupendous Miracles.
24. Crusade under the Command of Count Montfort, in which he is victorious.
25. Glorious Death of the Count, and Destruction of the Albigenses. 26. Sen-
tence of the Fourth Council of Lateran, in which the Dogma is defined in
14 CONTENTS .
PAGE.
Opposition to their Tenets. 27. Amalric and his Heresy ; the Errors added by
his Disciples ; they are condemned. 28. William de St. Amour and his Errors.
29. The Flagellants and their Errors. 30. The Fratricelli and their Errors,
condemned by John XXII.
ARTICLE IV.- Heresies of the Fourteenth Century, 243
31. The Beghards and Beguines ; their Errors condemned by Clement V.
32. Marsilius of Padua, and John Jandunus ; their Writings condemned as here-
tical by John XXII. 83. John Wickliffe, and the Beginning of his Heresy.
34. Is assisted by John Ball ; Death of the Archbishop of Canterbury. 35. The
Council of Constance condemns forty-five Articles of Wickliffe. 36, 37. Mira-
culous Confirmation of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
38. Death of Wickliffe.
ARTICLE V. - Heresies of the Fifteenth Century-The Heresy of
John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, . 250
39. John Huss's Character, and the Commencement of his Heresy. 40. His
Errors. 41. He is condemned in a Synod. 42. Council of Constance he is
obliged to appear at it. 43. He comes to Constance, and endeavours to escape.
44, 45. He presents himself before the Council, and continues obstinate. 46. He
is condemned to death, and burned. 47. Jerome of Prague is also burned alive
for his Obstinacy. 48. Wars of the Hussites-they are conquered and converted.
CHAPTER XI.
PAGE.
§ III.-Errors of Luther, . 273
PAGE.
§ II.-Theodore Beza, the Huguenots, and other Calvinists, who
disturbed France, Scotland, and England, · . 306
72. Theodore Beza ; his Character and Vices. 73. His Learning, Employ-
ments, and Death. 74. Conference of St. Francis de Sales with Beza.
75. Continuation of the same Subject. 76, 77. Disorders of the Huguenots in
France. 78. Horrors committed by them ; they are proscribed in France.
79. Their Disorders in Flanders. 80. And in Scotland. 81. Mary Stuart is
married to Francis II. 82. She returns to Scotland and marries Darnley, next
Bothwell ; is driven by Violence to make a fatal Renunciation of her Crown in
favour of her Son. 83. She takes Refuge in England, and is imprisoned by
Elizabeth, and afterwards condemned to Death by her. 84. Edifying Death of
Mary Stuart. 85. James I., the Son of Mary, succeeds Elizabeth ; he is suc-
ceeded by his Son, Charles I. , who was beheaded. 86. He is succeeded by his
Son, Charles II. , who is succeeded by his Brother, James II., a Catholic, who
died in France.
CHAPTER XII.
Heresies ofthe Sixteenth Century (continued),. .327
§ I.-Michael Servetus.
32. Character of Servetus ; his Studies, Travels, and False Doctrine.
32. He goes to Geneva ; disputes with Calvin, who has him burned to Death.
§ II.-Valentine Gentilis, George Blandrata, and Bernard Ochino, 351
34. Valentine Gentilis ; his impious Doctrine. 35. He is punished in
Geneva, and retracts. 36. Relapses, and is beheaded. 37. George Blandrata
perverts the Prince of Transylvania ; disputes with the Reformers ; is mur-
dered. 38. Bernard Ochino ; his Life while a Friar ; his Perversion, and
Flight to Geneva. 39. He goes to Strasbourg, and afterwards to England,
with Bucer : his unfortunate Death in Poland.
CHAPTER XIII.
SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER.
1
REFUTATION OF HERESIES.
REFUTATION I.
PAGE.
The Heresy of Sabellius, who denied the Distinction of Persons in the
Trinity, 391
REFUTATION II.
The Heresy of Arius, who denied the Divinity ofthe Word, • . 400
REFUTATION III.
REFUTATION IV.
The Heresy of the Greeks, who assert that the Holy Ghost proceeds
from the Father alone, and not from the Father and the Son, · 433
REFUTATION V.
REFUTATION VI.
REFUTATION VII.
§ I.-In Jesus Christ there is but the one Person of the Word
alone, which terminates the two Natures, Divine and Human,
which both subsist in the same Person of the Word, and,
therefore, this one Person is, at the same time, true God and
true Man, · 458
REFUTATION VIII.
REFUTATION IX.
Ofthe Monothelite Heresy, that there is but one Nature and one
Operation only in Christ, • · 481
REFUTATION XI.
§ III.- That Good Works are necessary for Salvation, and that
Faith alone is not sufficient, · 520
REFUTATION XII.
REFUTATION XIII.
REFUTATION XV.
injured the Church more than idolatry, and this good mother has
suffered more from her own children than from her enemies.
Still she has never perished in any of the tempests which the
heretics raised against her ; she appeared about to perish at one
time through the heresy of Arius, when the faith of the Council
of Nice, through the intrigues of the wicked Bishops , Valens and
Ursacius, was condemned , and, as St. Jerome says, the world
groaned at finding itself Arian (1 ) ; and the Eastern Church
appeared in the same danger during the time of the heresies of
Nestorius and Eutyches. But it is wonderful, and at the same time
consoling, to read the end of all those heresies, and behold the
bark of the Church, which appeared completely wrecked and sunk
through the force of those persecutions, in a little while floating
more gloriously and triumphantly than before.
5. St. Paul says : " There must be heresies, that they also who
are reproved may be made manifest among you" (1 Cor. ii. 19).
St. Augustin, explaining this text, says that as fire is necessary to
purify silver, and separate it from the dross, so heresies are neces-
sary to prove the good Christians among the bad, and to separate
the true from the false doctrine. The pride of the heretics makes
them presume that they know the true faith , and that the Catholic
Church is in error, but here is the mistake : our reason is not
sufficient to tell us the true faith, since the truths of Divine Faith
are above reason ; we should, therefore , hold by that faith which
God has revealed to his Church, and which the Church teaches,
which is, as the Apostle says, " the pillar and the ground of truth "
(1 Tim. iii. 15) . Hence, as St. Iræneus says, " It is necessary
that all should depend on the Roman Church as their head and
fountain ; all Churches should agree with this Church on account
and by the tradition derived from the Apostles, which the Church
founded at Rome preserves, and the Faith preserved by the suc-
cession of the Bishops, we confound those who through blindness
or an evil conscience draw false conclusions (Ibid .) “ Do you
wish to know," says St. Augustin, " which is the Church of
Christ? Count those priests who , in a regular succession , have
succeeded St. Peter, who is the Rock, against which the gates of
hell will not prevail" (St. Aug. in Ps. contra part. Donat.) : and
the holy Doctor alleges as one of the reasons which detain him in
the Catholic Church, the succession of Bishops to the present time
might profess the one faith, but the devil, St. Cyprian says (2),
invented heresies to destroy faith, and divide unity . The enemy
has caused mankind to establish many different churches, so that
each, following the faith of his own particular one, in opposition
to that of others, the true faith might be confused, and as many
false faiths formed as there are different churches, or rather dif
which is always firmly rooted . This is the One Holy, True, and
Catholic Church, opposing all heresies ; it may be opposed, but
cannot be conquered . All heresies come forth from it, like use-
less shoots cut off from the vine, but it still remains firmly rooted
in charity, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" ( St.
Aug. lib. 1 , de Symbol. ad Cath. c. 6) . St. Jerome says that the
very fact of the heretics forming a church apart from the Roman
Church is a proof, of itself, that they are followers of error, and
disciples of the devil, described by the Apostle as " giving heed
to spirits of error and doctrines of devils" ( 1 Tim. iv. 1).
that the Roman Catholic Church was the Church first founded by
Christ, it could never fail, for our Saviour himself promised that
the gates of hell never should prevail against it : " I say unto you
that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. xviii . 18 ). It
being certain, then, that the Roman Catholic Church was the
true one, as Gerard, one of the first ministers of Luther, admits
(Gerard de Eccles. cap. 11 , sec . 6) it to have been for the first
five hundred years, and to have preserved the Apostolic doctrine
during that period, it follows that it must always have remained
so, for the spouse of Christ, as St. Cyprian says, could never
become an adulteress .
28 AUTHOR'S PREFACE .
most learned men have fallen into the most grievous errors, by
not subjecting themselves to the Church's teaching.
11. I will now state my reasons for writing this Work ; some
may think this labour of mine superfluous, especially as so many
learned authors have written expressly and extensively the his-
tory of various heresies, as Tertullian, St. Iræneus, St. Epiphanius,
St. Augustin, St. Vincent of Lerins , Socrates, Sozymen , St Phil-
astrius, Theodoret, Nicephorus, and many others, both in ancient
and modern times. This, however, is the very reason which
prompted me to write this Work ; for as so many authors have
written, and so extensively, and as it is impossible for many per-
sons either to procure so many and such expensive works, or to
find time to read them, if they had them, I , therefore, judged it
better to collect in a small compass the commencement and the
progress of all heresies, so that in a little time, and at little
expense, any one may have a sufficient knowledge of the heresies
and schisms which infected the Church. I have said in a small
compass, but still, not with such brevity as some others have
done, who barely give an outline of the facts, and leave the reader
dissatisfied, and ignorant of many of the most important circum-
stances. I, therefore, have studied brevity ; but I wish , at the
same time, that my readers may be fully informed of every nota-
ble fact connected with the rise and progress of, at all events, the
principal heresies that disturbed the Church.
12. Another reason I had for publishing this Work was, that
as modern authors , who have paid most attention to historical
facts, have spoken of heresies only as a component part of Eccle-
siastical History, as Baronius, Fleury, Noel Alexander, Tillemont,
Orsi, Spondanus, Raynaldus, Graveson, and others, and so have
spoken of each heresy chronologically, either in its beginning,
progress, or decay, and, therefore, the reader must turn over to
different parts of the works to find out the rise, progress, and dis-
30 AUTHOR'S PREFACE .
" O good God ! many and great are the benefits thou hast heaped
on me, and I thank thee for them ; but how shall I be ever able
to thank thee for enlightening me with thy holy Faith ?" And
writing to one of his friends, he says : " O God! the beauty ofthy
holy Faith appears to me so enchanting, that I am dying with
love of it, and I imagine I ought to enshrine this precious gift in
a heart all perfumed with devotion." St. Teresa never ceased to
thank God for having made her a daughter of the Holy Church :
her consolation at the hour of death was to cry out : " I die a
child of the Holy Church-I die a child of the Holy Church."
We, likewise, should never cease praising Jesus Christ for
this grace bestowed on us- one of the greatest conferred on
us-one distinguishing us from so many millions of mankind,
who are born and die among infidels and heretics : " He has not
done in like manner to every nation" (Psalm , cxlvii . 9 ) . With
our minds filled with gratitude for so great a favour , we shall
now see the triumph the Church has obtained through so many
ages, over so many heresies opposed to her. I wish to remark,
however, before I begin, that I have written this Work amidst
AUTHOR'S PREface. 31
HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
AND
THEIR REFUTATION .
CHAPTER I.
were that the world was created by angels ; that when the soul
leaves the body it enters into another body, which, if true, says
St. Irenæus (3), it would recollect all that happened when it inha-
bited the former body, for memory, being a spiritual quality, it
could not be separated from the soul . Another of his errors was
one which has been brought to light by the heretics of our own
days, that man had no free will, and, consequently, that good
works are not necessary for salvation . Baronius and Fleury
relate (4) , that, by force of magic spells, he one day caused the
devil to elevate him in the air ; but St. Peter and St. Paul being
present, and invoking the name of Jesus Christ, he fell down and
broke both his legs. He was carried away by his friends ; but his
corporeal and mental sufferings preyed so much on him, that, in
despair, he cast himself out of a high window ; and thus perished
the first heretic who ever disturbed the Church of Christ (5) .
Basnage, who endeavours to prove that St. Peter never was in
Rome, and never filled the pontifical chair of that city, says that
this is all a fabrication ; but we have the testimony of St. Ambrose ,
St. Isidore of Pelusium, St. Augustin , St. Maximus, St. Philastrius ,
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Severus Sulpicius, Theodoret, and many
others, in our favour. We have, besides, a passage in Suetonius ,
which corroborates their testimony, for he says (lib . VI., cap . xii.) ,
that, while Nero assisted at the public sports, a man endeavoured
to fly, but, after elevating himself for a while, he fell down , and
the Emperor's pavilion was sprinkled with his blood.
2. Menander was a Samaritan likewise , and a disciple of Simon
Magus ; he made his appearance in the year of our Lord 73. He
announced himself a messenger from the " Unknown Power," for
the salvation of mankind. No one, according to him, could be
saved, unless he was baptized in his name, and his baptism, he
said, was the true resurrection , so that his disciples would enjoy
immortality even in this life (6). Cardinal Orsi adds, that Menan-
der was the first who invented the doctrine of " Eons," and that he
taught that Jesus Christ exercised human functions in appearance
alone.
3. Cerinthus was the next after Menander, but he began to
broach his doctrine in the same year (7) . His errors can be reduced
to four heads : he denied that God was the creator ofthe world ;
he asserted that the law of Moses was necessary for salvation ; he
also taught that after the resurrection Jesus Christ would establish
a terrestrial kingdom in Jerusalem, where the just would spend a
thousand years in the enjoyment of every sensual pleasure ; and ,
(3) St. Irenæus, de Heresi. l. 2, c. 58. (4) Baron. Ann. 35, n. 14, ad 17 ; Fleury,
His. Eccl. t. 1, l. 2, n. 23 ; St. Augus.; St. Joan. Chris. (5) Baron. n. 17 ; Nat.
Alex. t. 5, c. 11 ; Orsi, Istor. Eccl . l. 1 , n. 20 , and l. 2, n. 19 ; Berti. Brev. Histor. t. 1,
c. 3. (6) Fleury, loc. cit. n. 42 ; N. Alex. loc. cit. art. 2. (7) N. Alex. t. 5, c. 11,
ar. 5 ; Fleury, t. 1, l. 2 , n. 42 ; Berti, loc. cit.; Orsi, t. 1, l. 2, n. 43.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 35
that is, the Sovereign Father- having created the angels, seven of
them rebelled against him, created man, and for this reason :-
Seeing a celestial light, they wished to retain it, but it vanished
from them ; and they then created man to resemble it, saying,
" Let us make man to the image and likeness." Man being thus
created , was like a mere worm, incapable of doing anything, till
the Sovereign Virtue, pitying his image, placed in him a spark
of himself, and gave him life. This is the spark which, at the dis-
solution of the body, flies to heaven. Those of his sect alone, he
said , had this spark ; all the others were deprived of it, and, conse-
quently, were reprobate.
6. Basilides, according to Fleury, was a native of Alexandria,
and even exceeded Saturninus in fanaticism . He said that the
Father, whom he called Abrasax, produced Nous, that is, In-
telligence ; who produced Logos, or the Word ; the Word pro-
duced Phronesis, that is, Prudence ; and Prudence, Sophia and
Dunamis, that is, Wisdom and Power. These created the angels,
who formed the first heaven and other angels ; and these, in their
turn, produced a second heaven, and so on , till there were three
hundred and sixty-five heavens produced, according to the number
of days in the year. The God of the Jews, he said, was the head
of the second order of angels , and because he wished to rule all
nations, the other princes rose up against him, and, on that account,
God sent his first-born , Nous, to free mankind from the dominion
of the angels who created the world. This Nous, who , according
to him, was Jesus Christ, was an incorporeal virtue, who put on
whatever form pleased him. Hence, when the Jews wished to
crucify him, he took the form of Simon the Cyrenean , and gave
his form to Simon , so that it was Simon, and not Jesus, was
crucified. Jesus, at the same time, was laughing at the folly of the
Jews, and afterwards ascended invisibly to heaven. Ön that
account, he said, we should not venerate the crucifix , otherwise
we would incur the danger of being subject to the angels who
created the world . He broached many other errors ; but these are
sufficient to show his fanaticism and impiety. Both Saturninus
and Basilides fled from martyrdom, and always cloaked their faith
with this maxim-" Know others, but let no one know you."
Cardinal Orsi says( 11 ) they practised magic , and were addicted to
every species of incontinence, but that they were careful in avoiding
observation. They promulgated their doctrines before Menander,
in the year 125 ; but, because they were disciples of his , we have
mentioned them after him.
7. The Nicholites admitted promiscuous intercourse with mar-
ried and single, and, also, the use of meats offered to idols. They
also said that the Father of Jesus Christ was not the creator ofthe
world. Among the other foolish doctrines they held, was one,
that darkness, uniting with the Holy Ghost, produced a matrix
or womb, which brought forth four Eons ; that from these four
Eons sprung the evil Eon, who created the Gods, the angels ,
men, and seven demoniacal spirits . This heresy was of short dura-
tion ; but some new Nicholites sprung up afterwards in the Milanese
territory, who were condemned by Pope Nicholas II . The
Nicholites called themselves disciples of Nicholas the Deacon ,
who, according to Noel Alexander, was esteemed a heresiarch by
St. Eusebius, St. Hilarion , and St. Jerome. However, Clement
of Alexandria, Eusebius, Theodoret, Baronius, St. Ignatius the
Martyr, Orsi, St. Augustin , Fleury, and Berti, acquit him of this
charge (12) .
CHAPTER II.
(16) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 5, c. 15. (17) Baron. An. 173, n. 20 ; N. Alex. t. 6, sec.
2. c. 3, ar. 8 ; Fleury, t. 1 , . 4, n. 5 ; Bernin. t. 1, c. 8 ; Orsi, t. 2, l. 4, n. 18.
( 18 ) Nat. Alex. cit. ar. 8, n. 11 ; St. Augus. & St. Cyril. [ St. Epiphanius says it is the
Peputians. ] (19) Van Ranst, His. Heres. p. 24 ; Vedia anche Nat. Alex. loc. cit.
42 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
CHAPTER III
(20) Nat. Alex. t. 6, c. 3, ar. 9 ; Van Ranst, p. 24. (21 ) N. Alex. loc. cit. ar. 10 ;
Fleury, t. 1 , l. 4, n. 33, 34. (22) Fleury, loc. cit. n. 21 ; Alex. loc. cit. ar. 15.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 43
(1) Nat. Alex. t. 7, s. 3, c. 3, ar. 1 , ex Euseb.; Van Ranst, p. 65. (2) Nat. Alex.
ibid. c. 3, ar. 7 ; Van Ranst, p. 48. (3) Nat. Alex. t. 7, c. 3, ar. 7 ; Orsi, t. 2, l. 5,
n. 14 ; Hermant, l. 1 , c. 60 ; Fleury, l. 7, n. 35.
44 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
nying, as Orsi thinks, personal existence to the Son and the Holy
Ghost, yet he did not recognize either one or the other as persons
of the Trinity, attributing to the Father alone the incarnation and
passion (4). His disciples inserted those errors in their profession
offaith, and in the formula of Baptism , but Noel Alexander says that
it is uncertain whether Paul was the author of this heresy.
4. Manes was the founder of the Manicheans, and he adopted
this name on account of taking to himself the title of the Paraclete ,
and to conceal the lowliness of his condition , since he was at first
only a slave in Persia, but was liberated and adopted by an old
lady of that country. She sent him to the public academy to be
educated, but he made little progress in learning. Whatever he
wanted in learning, he made up in impudence, and on that account
he endeavoured to institute a new sect ; and, to enlist the peasantry
under the banner of his heresy, he studied magic with particular
attention. To acquire a name for himself he undertook to cure
the King of Persia's son , who was despaired of by the physicians.
Unfortunately for him, however, the child died, notwithstanding
all his endeavours to save him, and he was thrown into prison , and
would have been put to death only he bribed the guards to let
him escape. Misfortune, however, pursued him ; after travelling
through various countries, he fell again into the King's hands, who
ordered him to be flayed alive with a sharp-pointed reed ; his body
was thrown to the beasts, and his skin hung up in the city gate ,
many
and thus the impious Manes closed his career. He left
followers after him, among whom was St. Augustin , in his youth ,
but, enlightened by the Almighty, he abandoned his errors, and
became one of his most strenuous opponents (5) .
The errors of Manes can be classed under the following heads :
1st. He admitted the plurality of Gods , alleging that there were
two principles, one of good and the other of evil. Another of his
errors was, that man had two souls—one bad , which the evil prin-
ciple created together with the body ; and another, good, created
by the good principle, which was co-eternal , and of the same nature
with God . All the good actions which man performs he attributes
to the good soul, and all the evil ones he commits to the bad soul.
He deprived man of free will , saying that he was always carried
irresistibly forward by a force which his will could not resist. He
denied the necessity of baptism , and entirely abolished that sacra-
ment. Among many other errors, the Manicheans detested the
flesh, as being created by the evil principle, and, therefore , denied
that Jesus Christ ever took a body like ours, and they were ad-
dicted to every sort of impurity (6) . They spread almost over the
(14) Nat. Alex. t. 7, ar. 12. (15) Origen, Stromata, 7. 10. (16) Orsi, l. 6,
n. 61. (17) Nat. Alex. ibid.; Orsi, n. 30.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 47
(28) Cabassut. Notit. Hist. Conc. Constan. II. an. 553 , n. 14, in fin. (22) Her-
mant, t. 1 , c. 132.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 49
going on, and that he, on that account, cut off Rufinus from the
Church. In the reign of the Emperor Justinian, some Origenist
monks who lived in a laura founded by St. Saba, under the abbot
Nonnus, began to disseminate their errors among this brethren , and
in a short time infected the principal laura, but were expelled by
the abbot Gelasius. Favoured, however, by Theodore of Cesarea,
they got possession of the great laura again, and expelled the
greater part of the monks who disagreed with them . Inthe mean-
time, Nonnus died, and his successor George being deposed for im-
morality by his own party, the Catholic monks again got possession
of the laura, and elected Conon , one of this party, abbot (30) .
Finally, in the twelfth canon of the second council of Constantino-
ple, both Origen and all those who would persist in defending his
doctrine were condemned (31 ) .
7. Novatus and Novatian. Novatus was a priest of the Church
of Carthage. St. Cyprian relates that he was a man of a turbulent
disposition , seditious and avaricious, and that his faith was suspected
by the bishops. He was accused of robbing the orphans and
widows, and appropriating to his own use the money given him for
the use of the Church. It is said he allowed his father to die of
starvation, and afterwards refused to bury him ; and that he caused
the death of his wife by giving her a kick, and causing premature
labour. He was also one of the principal agents in getting the
deacon Felicissimus ordained priest without the leave or knowledge
of St. Cyprian, his bishop , and was one of the principal leaders of
the schism ofNovatian, exciting as many as he could to oppose the
lawful Pope, Cornelius ( 32) .
We now come to speak ofthe character and errors of Novatian .
Being possessed by an evil spirit he was baptized in bed during a
dangerous fit of sickness , and when he recovered he neglected get-
ting the ceremonies of baptism supplied, and never received confir-
mation, which, according to the discipline of the Church in those
days, he ought to have received after baptism, and his followers, for
that reason, afterwards rejected this sacrament. He was afterwards
ordained priest, the bishop dispensing in the irregularity he incurred
by being baptized in bed. Hence his ordination gave great umbrage
both to the clergy and people. While the persecution was raging,
the deacons begged of him to leave his place of concealment, and
assist the faithful, who were dragged to the place of punishment ;
but he answered , that he did not henceforward intend to discharge
the duties of a priest ; that he had his mind made up for other
objects. This was nothing less than the Popedom, which he had the
ambition to pretend to, puffed up by the applause he received for
his oratorical powers. At this time, Cornelius was elected Pope,
and he, by intrigue, got himself consecrated privately by three
(30) Orsi, t. 18, 7. 41 , n. 1 & 5, ad 7. (31) Orsi, al luogo, cit. n. 70. (32) Baron.
An. 254, n. 50 ; Nat. t. 7, c. 3, ar. 3, 4 ; Fleury, t. 1, l. 6, n. 51 .
D
50 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
CHAPTER IV.
ARTICLE I.
(33) Nat. loc. cit.; Baron. n. 61, &c. ´(34) Nat. Alex. ibid.; Van Ranst, p. 45, 46 ;
Fleury, cit. n. 51 ; Hermant, t. 1, c. 48, 51. (35) Nat. Alex. t. 7, c. 3, ar. 6, 9 ; Van
Ranst, p. 47 & 64 ; Berti, t. 1, s. 3, c. 3.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 51
(1) Baron. Ann. 303, n. 29, & Ann. 306, n. 74 & 75 ; vide Fleury, Nat. Alex. Orsi,
Van Ranst, & Hermant.
52 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
St. Silvester, who succeeded St. Melchiades in the year 314, sent
his legate to preside in his name ; and in that and the follow-
ing year, Felix and Cecilianus were again acquitted by the
council (2 ) .
3. Nothing, however, could satisfy the Donatists ; they even, ac-
cording to Fleury ( 3 ), extended themselves as far as Rome . Heresy
now was added to schism . The second Donatus, called by them
Donatus the Great, put himself at their head ; and although tinc-
tured with the Arian heresy, as St. Augustin says (4) , intruded
himself into the See of Carthage, as successor to Majorinus. He
was the first who began to disseminate the errors of the Donatists
in Africa (5 ) . Those consisted in the adoption of one false prin-
ciple, which was the source of many others. This was, that the
Church was composed of the just alone, and that all the wicked
were excluded from it ; founding this belief on that text of St.
Paul, where he says that the Church of Christ is free from all
stain : " Christ loved his Church , and delivered himself up for it,
that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having
spot or wrinkle" ( Ephesians, v . 27). They also professed to find
this doctrine in the twenty-seventh verse of the twenty-first chapter
of the Apocalypse : " There shall not enter into it anything de-
filed." The adoption of this erroneous principle led them into many
heretical consequences :-First, believing that the Church was com-
posed ofthe good alone, they inferred that the Church of Rome
was lost, because the Pope and bishops having admitted to their
communion traitors, or those who delivered up the holy books into
the hands of the Pagans, as they alleged Felix and Cecilianus to
have done, and as the sour leaven corrupteth the entire mass, then
the Church, being corrupted and stained by the admission of those,
was lost, -it only remained pure in that part of Africa where the
Donatists dwelt ; and to such a pitch did their infatuation arrive ,
that they quoted Scripture for this also, interpreting that expres-
sion of the Canticles : " Shew me, O thou whom my soul loveth ,
where thou feedest, where thou liest in the mid-day" (the south) ,
as relating to Africa, which lies in the southern part of the world.
Another heretical inference of theirs was, that the sacrament of
baptism was null and void if administered out of their Church ,
because a Church that was lost had not the power of administering
the sacrament, and on that account they re-baptized all proselytes.
4. These two heretical opinions fall to the ground at once, by
proving the falsity of the first proposition , that the Church consists
of the good alone. St. Augustin proves clearly that these texts of
St. Paul and St. John refer to the triumphant, and not to the
militant Church, for our Redeemer, speaking of the militant
(2) Hermant, c. 78, &c. (3) Fleury, t. 2, l. 10, n. 26. (4) St. Augus. 1. de
Heres. c. 69. (5) Orsi, t. 4, l. 11 , n. 51 & 52.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 53
(6) Nat. Alex. t. 9, diss. 31. (7) St. Opt. l. 2, de Donatis. (8) Baron. An. 857,
n. 15 ; V. Ranst ; Fleury, t. 2, l. 11 , n. 46 ; Hermant, c. 81 .
54 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(9) Orsi, t. 11 , Z. 25 , n . 1, 24 ; Baron. Ann. 411 , n. 24. (10) Baron. An. 412 , n. 1 ,
&c.; Orsi, n. 28, 29.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 55
ARTICLE II.
(11) Hermant, c. 99. (12) Baron. An. 591 , &c. ( 1) Baron. An. 319 ; Van
Ranst, p. 70 ; Nat. Alex. t. 8, c. 3, ar. 3 ; Fleury, l. 10 ; Hermant, t. 1, c. 85 ; Orsi,
1. 12, n. 2.
56 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(2) Nat. Alex. ibid. ar. 2 ; St. Athan. cum. Socrat. & Theodoret ; Orsi, l. 12, n. 41 ;
Fleury, l. 11, n. 15. (3) Baron. An. 310, n . 4 & 5. (4) N. Alex. t. 8, diss. 9.
(5) St.Epip. Her. 69, Theod. &c. (6) Nat. Alex. ar. 3, sec. 2 ; Fleury, cit. n. 28 ;
Baron. An. 315, n. 19 & 20 ; Hermant, c. 84.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 57
(12) Euseb. in Vit. Constant. c. 63. (13) Baron. An. 518, n. 88 ; Fleury, n. 42 ;
Van Ranst, p. 71. (14) N. Alex. ar. 4, sec. 1 ; Fleury, l. 10, n. 43 ; Orsi, l. 12, n.
21 ; Hermant, l. 1, c. 86. ( 15) Orsi, l. 12, n. 24. ( 16) Fleury, l. 11 , n. 1 ; Orsi, l. 12,
n. 25. (17) Baron. Ann. 325 ; Nat. Alex. , Fleury, Ruf. Soc. St. Athanasius, & Soz.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 59
and we are properly judged by you, for you are given to us by God
as Gods on this earth, and it is not meet that man should judge
Gods ." He refused to sit down on the low seat he had prepared
for himself in the council until the bishops desired him ; he then
sat down, and all the bishops with his permission also took their
seats (27) . One of the fathers of the council- it is generally sup-
posed Eustachius, Bishop of Antioch ( 28) -then arose and de-
livered an oration, in which he praised the Emperor's zeal, and
gave God thanks for his victories. Constantine then spoke (29) :
It afforded him, he said, the greatest consolation to see so many
fathers thus united in the same sentiments ; he recommended peace
to them, and gave every one liberty to speak his mind ; he praised
the defenders of the faith, and reproved the temerity of the Arians.
The fathers then framed the decree in the following form, as Cabas-
sutius gives it (30) : -" We believe in one God , the Father Almighty,
Creator of all things visible and invisible ; and in One Lord, Jesus
Christ, the Son of God , the only begotten Son of the Father ; God
of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, born , not made,
consubstantial to the Father by whom all things were made in
heaven and in earth ; who for us died, for our salvation descended,
became incarnate and was made man ; he suffered and rose again
the third day, and ascended into heaven, and again shall come to
judge the quick and the dead ; and in the Holy Ghost." This
symbol, St. Athanasius says (31 ), was composed by Osius, and was
recited in the synod . The council then fulminated an anathema
against any one who should say there was a time when the Son of
God did not exist, or that he did not exist before he was born, or
that he was made of those things that exist not ; or should assert
that he was of any other substance or essence , or created , or mutable ,
or convertible. All who speak thus of the Son of God, the Catholic
and Apostolic Church anathematizes.
Baronius says ( 32 ), that the council then added to the hymn ,
"Glory be to the Father, &c.," the words, " As it was in the be-
ginning, is now, and ever shall be, for ever, and ever. Amen."
17. The bishops of the opposite side were, as we have already
seen, twenty-two at first, but they were reduced , as Sozymen ( 33)
says, to seventeen ; and even these, terrified by the threats of Con-
stantine, and fearing to lose their sees, and be banished , all gave in
with the exception of five ( 34) ; these were Eusebius of Nicomedia ;
Theognis of Nice ; Maris of Chalcedon ; Theonas of Marmorica ; and
Secundus of Ptolemais ; and of these, three finally yielded , and
the two first alone remained obstinate, and were deposed and
(27) Fleury l. 11, n. 10. (28) Theod. l. 1, c. 7. (29) Euseb. in vita Const.
c. 12. (30) Cabass. Not. Concil. p. 88, ex St. Athan. Socrat. Rufin. & Theod.
(31) St. Athan. Hist. Arian. n. 42. (32) Baron. Ann. 325, n. 173. (33) Sozy-
men, l. 1, c. 28. (34) Socrat. l. 1, c. 8.
62 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
letius, Bishop of Lycopolis, from all his episcopal functions, and espe-
cially from ordaining any one ; but ordered, at the same time, that
all his followers should be admitted to the communion ofthe Church
on condition of renouncing his schism and doctrine (40) .
20. The council likewise arranged the question of the celebration
of Easter, which then made a great noise in Asia, by ordering that
in future it should be celebrated not in the Jewish style, on the
fourteenth day of the moon, but according to the Roman style, on
the Sunday after the fourteenth day of the moon, which falls after
the vernal equinox. This the council declared was not a matter of
faith, but discipline (41 ) ; for whenever it speaks of articles offaith as
opposed to the errors ofArius, the words, " This the Church believes,"
are used, but in making this order, the words arc, " We have de-
creed," & c. This decree met with no opposition, but as we learn from
the circular of Constantine, was embraced by all the Churches (42 ) ,
and it is thought that the council then adopted the cycle of nineteen
years invented by Meto, an Athenian astronomer, for fixing the
lunations of each year, as every nineteenth year the new moon falls
on the same day of the solar year as it did nineteen years before (43).
21. The council next decreed twenty canons of discipline ; we
shall mention some ofthe principal ones. 1st. The council ex-
cludes from the clergy, and deposes, all those who have voluntarily
made themselves eunuchs, in opposition to the heresy ofthe Vale.
rians, who were all eunuchs ; but more especially to condemn those
who justified and followed the example of Origen, through love
of chastity (44). By the third canon, the clergy are prohibited from
keeping in their houses any woman unless a mother, a sister, an
aunt, or some person from whom no suspicion can arise. It was the
wish of the council to establish the celibacy of bishops, priests, and
deacons, and sub-deacons even, according to Sozymen , but they
were turned from this by St. Paphnutius, who forcibly contended
that it was quite enough to decree that those already in holy orders
should not be allowed to marry, but that it would be laying too
heavy an obligation on those who were married before they were
admitted to ordination , to oblige them to separate themselves from
their wives. Cardinal Orsi , however, says (45) , that the authority
of Socrates is not sufficient to establish this fact, since both St.
Epiphanius, who lived in the time of the council , and St. Jerome
(46) , who was born a few years after, attest that no one was admitted
to orders unless unmarried , or if married , who separated himself
from his wife. It was ordained in the fourth canon that bishops
should be ordained by all the co- provincial bishops, or at least by
three with consent of the rest, and that the right of confirmation
appertaining to the Metropolitan , should be strictly preserved . The
(40) N. Alex, ar. 4, sec. 2. (41) St. Athan. de Synod, n. 5 ; Nat. Alex. ar. 4,
sec. 2. (42) Euseb. His. l. 3, c. 18, & Socrat. 1, c. 9. (43) Orsi, t. 5, l. 12, n. 42.
(44 ) Ibid.; N. Alex. ibid. (45) Orsi, ibid.; Soc. l. 1. (46) Epiphan. Her. 59, &
St. Hier. adv. Vigilan.
64 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
sixth canon says that the rights of the Patriarchal Sees shall be
preserved, especially those of the See of Alexandria, over the
Churches of Egypt, of Lybia, and of Pentopolis, after the example
of the Bishop of Rome, who enjoys a similar authority over the
Churches subject to his Patriarchate. Noel Alexander (47 ) has
written a special dissertation to prove that the primacy ofthe Roman
See is not weakened by this cañon, and among other proofs adduces
the sixth canon of the great council of Chalcedon : " The Roman
Church always had the primacy ;" and it is proved, he says, that
after this canon was passed, the Bishop of Rome judged the persons
of the other patriarchs, and took cognizance ofthe sentences passed
by them, and no one ever complained that he usurped an authority
which did not belong to him, or violated the sixth canon of the
council of Nice.
22. Finally, the fathers wrote a circular letter addressed to all
churches, giving them notice of the condemnation of Arius, and
the regulation concerning the celebration of Easter. The Council
was then dissolved, but before the bishops separated, Constantine
had them all to dine with him , and had those who suffered for the
faith placed near himself, and frequently kissed the scars of their
wounds ; he then made presents to each of them, and again recom-
mending them to live in peace, he affectionately took leave of
them (48) . The sentence of exile against Eusebius and Theognis
was then carried into execution ; they were banished to Gaul, and
Amphion succeeded Eusebius in the Bishopric of Nicomedia, and
Chrestus, Theognis, in the See of Nice . It was not long, however,
till the bishops of their party shewed that they accepted the decrees
of the council through fear alone (49).
(47) N. Alex. t. 8 ; Diss. 20. (48) Orsi, t. 5, l. 12. (49) Ibid. (1) Fleury,
Z. 11 , n. 29. (2) Orsi, n. 80.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 65
(8) Orsi, l. 12 , n. 92. (9) Ibid. (10) Socrat. l. 1 , n. 28. (11) Orsi, l. 12,
n. 96. (12) Epiph. Her. 69. (13) Orsi, l. 12, n. 97.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 67
(14) Ibid., n. 93. (15) Orsi, l. 12 , n. 24, ex St. Athan. Apol. contra Ar. n. 65.
(16) Nat. Alex. t. 8, c. 3 ; Hermant, t. 1 , c. 92, & Fleury. (17) Orsi, cit.
68 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(18) Orsi, cit. (19) Fleury, Orsi, Socr. Sozymen, St. Epiphan. loc. cit.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 69
swore that he neither then nor at any other time believed differently ;
some say that he had another profession of faith under his arm , and
that it was to that one he intended to swear. However, the affair
was arranged ; it is certain that the Emperor, trusting to his oath,
told St. Alexander that it was a matter of duty to assist a man who
wished for nothing but his salvation . St. Alexander endeavoured
to undeceive him, but finding he only irritated him more and more,
held his tongue, and retired ; he soon after met Eusebius of Nico-
media, who said to him, If you don't wish to receive Arius to-mor-
row, I will myself bring him along with me to the church . St.
Alexander, grieved to the heart, went to the church accompanied
by only two persons, and prostrating himself on the floor , with
tears in his eyes, prayed to the Lord : O my God, either take me
out of the world, or take Arius, that he may not ruin your Church.
Thus St. Alexander prayed , and on the same day, Saturday , at
three o'clock, the Eusebians were triumphantly conducting Arius
through the city, and he went along, boasting of his re- establish-
ment, but when he came to the great square the vengeance of God
overtook him ; he got a terrible spasin in the bowels, and was
obliged to seek a place of retirement ; a private place near the square
was pointed out to him ; he went in and left a servant at the door ;
he immediately burst open like Judas , his intestines , his spleen , and
his liver all fell out, and thus his guilty soul took her flight to her
Creator, deprived of the communion of the Church. When he
delayed too long, his friends came to the door , and on opening it,
they found him stretched on the floor in a pool of blood in that
horrible state . This event took place in the year 336 (20) .
28. In the following year, 337, Constantine died . He was then
64 years of age. He fell sick, and took baths in Constantinople at
first, but receiving no benefit from them, he tried the baths of He-
lenopolis . He daily got worse, so went to Nicomedia , and finding
himself near death, he was baptized in the Church of St. Lucian.
Authors vary regarding the time and place of Constantine's baptism .
Eusebius says that he was baptized in Nicomedia, a few hours before
his death, but other writers assert that he was baptized in Rome by
St. Sylvester, thirteen years before, in the year 324. Cardinal
Baronius holds this opinion, and quotes many authorities in favour
of it, and Schelestratus brings forward many Greek and Latin
authorities to prove the same . The generality of authors, however ,
follow Eusebius , Socrates, Sozymen, Theodoret, and St. Jerome ,
Fleury, and Orsi , and especially Noel Alexander, who answers the
arguments of Baronius, and cites for his own opinion St. Ambrose,
St. Isidore, Papebrock, and the fathers of St. Maur. These last say
that Constantine, being near his end, in Nicomedia, wished to
receive from the bishops, in the church of St. Lucian , the imposi
(20) Baron. Soc. Sozymen, Libellus, Marcel. & Fausti, p. 19 ; St. Epiphan. loc. cit.
70 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(21) Socrates ; Baron. An. 336 ; Auctores, cit.; Euseb. Vita Constant.; Schelestr. in
Antiquit. &c. (22) Auctores, cit. ibid.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 71
(2) Orsi, Fleury, St. Ath. Apol. loc. cit. (3) Orsi, cit. St. Hilar. Fragm. 5.
Severus, Sulpici. His. 7. 2 & seq.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 73
Athanasius, and to establish their heresy ; so, in the year 355 , there
were assembled over three hundred bishops in Milan . St. Eusebius
of Vercelli was also summoned, but endeavoured to absent himself,
knowing the plans of the Eusebians ; he was, however, constrained
to attend, and the Pope's legates themselves, Lucifer, Pancratius,
and the Deacon Hilary, solicited him to come to Milan . On his
arrival, the Arians endeavoured to induce him to sign the condem-
nation of St. Athanasius, having again renewed the fable of the
broken chalice, &c . But St. Eusebius said, the first thing to be
done was, that all should subscribe the formula of the Council of
Nice, and then that other matters could be taken into consideration.
St. Dionisius , Bishop of Milan , immediately prepared to subscribe
to it, but Valens of Murcia snatched the pen and paper out of his
hands, and said , that nothing ever would be concluded if that
course was followed . When this came to the knowledge of the
people, they murmured loudly, and complained that the bishops
themselves were betraying the faith ; so the Emperor, dreading a
popular tumult, transferred the council to the church of his own
palace, and told the assembled bishops that they should obey his
edict in the affair, and sign a profession filled with all the errors of
Arianism. He called especially on the Legate Lucifer, St. Eusebius,
and St. Dionisius, and ordered them to subscribe the condemnation
of St. Athanasius, and when they determinedly refused to do so, as
being against the laws of the Church, he answered : " Whatever is
my will is law, obey me or you shall be banished." The bishops
then told him that he would have to answer to the Almighty if he
used any violence towards them ; but he became so indignant at
being remonstrated with in this manner, that he actually drew his
sword on them , and gave orders that they should be put to death,
but when his passion cooled a little , he was satisfied with sending
them into banishment, and they were sent off from the council,
loaded with chains, under a guard of soldiers , to the place of their
exile, where they had to endure a great deal of harsh treatment
from the heretics. At the same time, Hilary , one of the legates,
was stripped naked and cruelly flogged on the back, the Arians
all the while crying out to him: " Why did you not oppose
Liberius ?" Constantius then appointed Ausentius in the place of
St. Dionisius, and obliged Liberius to come to Milan. The
Emperor, on Liberius's arrival, ordered him to condemn St. Atha-
nasius, and, on his refusal to do so, gave him three days for con-
sideration , and told him that if he refused he would also be sent
into exile. Liberius persevered in his refusal , and was accordingly
banished to Berea, in Thrace, of which Demophilus, a perfidious
Arian, was bishop (4) .
34. The great Osius was , next to Liberius, the great prop of the
Faith in the West, both on account of the holiness of his life, and
his learning ; he was at this time sixty years Bishop of Cordova, in
Spain, and he showed his constancy in the persecution of Maximilian,
by publicly confessing the faith . Constantius had him brought
before him, and advised him to communicate with the Arians, and
condemn St. Athanasius, but he resolutely refused to do either one
or the other. Constantius allowed him to go away for that time ;
but soon after wrote to him , and threatened to punish him if he
refused any longer to obey his will. Osius answered him with even
greater firmness : If you are resolved to persecute me , said he, I
am prepared to shed my blood sooner than betray the truth ; you
may then save yourself the trouble of writing to me on the subject
again. Tremble at the last judgment, and do not intermeddle with
the affairs of the Church ; God has given you the Empire, the
government ofthe Church he has committed to us. Constantius
sent for him once more, to induce him to yield, but, finding him
inflexible, he banished him to Sirmium ; he was then nearly in the
hundredth year of his age.
35. We now have to treat of, first, the fall of Osius, and next of
Liberius. The principal author of Osius's fall was Potamius, Bishop
of Lisbon ; he was at first a defender of the Faith, but Constantius
gained him over by giving him possession of an estate of the
Chancery ; he, therefore, joined the Eusebians, and Osius, burning
with zeal, denounced his impiety through all Spain. Potamius,
thirsting for revenge, first got him banished to Sirmium, and then
finding the Emperor there, he induced him to use such violent
measures with him , that he broke down his resolution, and caused
him to fall. The poor old man was weakened with torments ; he
was beaten so violently that his flesh was all torn, and he endured
a long and violent torture ; his strength failed him, he could suffer
no more, and he unfortunately signed the second formula of Sir-
mium , condemning St. Athanasius, and holding communion with
the Arians. Sozymen particularly mentions that Eudosius saw the
letter ofOsius, in which he disapproves of both the word consubstan-
tial, and the words like in substance. He now was permitted to return
again to Spain, but Gregory, Bishop of Alvira, refused to com-
municate with him on account of his prevarication . Two authors,
followers of Lucifer, Faustus and Marcellinus, write that Osius
died an unhappy death ; but St. Athanasius, who , as Cardinal Orsi
justly remarks, deserves more credit, says that at his death he de-
clared he was subdued by violence, and thus fell into error, and
that he anathematized the heresy of the Arians, and besought all
who heard him to hold it in horror (5) .
36. We now come to speak of the fall of Liberius. It is said
(5) Socrates, Sozymen, St. Hilary, Fragm. 2 ; St. Athanasius, His. Arian.; St. Augus,
I. con.; Parmen. Nat. Alex. Fleury, loc. cit.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 75
(6) Socrates, Orsi, Sozymen ; Nat. Alex. St. Athan . His. Arian.
76 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(7) Auctores citati ; Nat. Alex. 1. cit. (8) Nat. Alex.; Fleury, l. 13.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 77
9
as to whether the name of Felix II . should be expunged or not
from the Martyrology, in which he was enumerated among the
saints, and he was himself, he confesses, of the opinion that it should
be done, on account of his illegal intrusion into the Popedom ; but
soon after he says, a marble sarcophagus was casually discovered
buried in the earth, with some relics of saints on one side , and the
body of St. Felix on the other, with this inscription , " The body of
St. Felix, Pope and Martyr, who condemned Constantius ;" and
this discovery was made on the 19th of July, 1582 , the day pre-
ceding the festival of St. Felix, and, on that account, his name was
left undisturbed in the Martyrology . Baronius is opposed by
N. Alexander, who denies that Felix II . ever was a true Pope ; but
Roncaglia, in his notes, and both the Pagi, contend for the contrary,
and the Pagi prove, in opposition to Noel Alexander, that the
Pope Felix commemorated in the Martyrology must necessarily be
Felix II., not Felix I. (11 ) .
44. We now come back once more to the Arians. When Osius
and Liberius fell, they were already split up into a great many
sects : some who followed the party of Acasius, Eudoxius, Eunomius ,
and Acsius, were called Anomeans-those were pure Arians, and
they not alone rejected consubstantiality, but even the likeness of
the Son to the Father ; but the followers of Ursacius and Valens,
though called Arians, did not follow the opinions of Arius in
everything. Finally, those who followed the opinions of Basil of
Ancyra, and Eustatius of Sebaste, were called Semi-Arians ; these
condemned the blasphemies of Arius , but did not admit the con-
substantiality of the divine persons (12).
45. We have now to relate the events ofthe Council of Rimini ,
ofsorrowful celebrity, in which , as St. Jerome says, the Nicene faith
was condemned, and the whole world groaned , finding itself Arian .
When the whole Church was in confusion about the articles of the
faith , it was considered that the best way of arranging everything
quietly, would be to hold two councils, one in Rimini in Italy, the
other at Seleucia in the East. The Council of Rimini was held in
359, and was attended by more than four hundred bishops from
Illyria, Italy, Africa , Spain,Gaul, and Britain , and among those there
were eighty Arians, but the rest were Catholic . When they came to
treat of matters of faith , Ursacius, Valens, and other heads of the
Arian party produced a writing, and proposed that all should be
satisfied with signing that, in which was laid down the last formula
of Sirmium of the same year, in which, it is true, the word sub-
stance was rejected , but it was allowed that the Son was like unto
the Father in all things. But the Catholic bishops unanimously
(11) Nat. Alex., Diss. 32 ; Sozymen, loc. cit.; Theolog. l. 2, c. 2 ; Baron. An. 359 ;
Orsi, t. 6, l. 14 ; Baron. An. 357 , & seq.; Sozymen, Bened. XIV., de Canon. S.S. t. 4.
(12) N. Alex. t. 9 ; Hermant. t. 1, c. 102.
80 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
answered that there was no necessity for any other formula , but
that of the Council of Nice , and decreed that there should be no
addition to or subtraction from that formula ; that the word substance
should be retained, and they again condemned the doctrine of Arius,
and published ten anathemas against the errors of Arius, Sabellius,
and Photinus. All the Catholics subscribed to this, but Ursacius.
Valens and the Arians refused , so they themselves were judged
heretics, and Ursacius, Valens, Caius, and Germinius were con-
demned and deposed by a formal act (13).
46. Ten bishops were now sent as legates from the council tothe
Emperor, bearers of the letters of the council, giving him notice
that the fathers had decided that there should be nothing added to
or taken from the Council of Nice, and that they regretted to find
that Ursacius and Valens wished to establish another formula of
faith , according to the document they presented to the council. The
ten legates accordingly went, but the Arians sent ten likewise, along
with Ursacius and Valens, and these arrived first and prejudiced the
Emperor against the council, and presented him with the formula
of Sirmium, which was rejected by the Council of Rimini . When
the legates sent by the council arrived , they could not obtain an
audience from the Emperor, and it was only after a long delay,
that he sent an answer to the council, that he was about to proceed
against the barbarians, and that he had given orders to the legates
to wait for him in Adrianople, where he would see them on his
return, and give them his final answer . The fathers of the council
wrote again to Constantius, telling him that nothing would ever
change them, and begging therefore that he would give an audience
to the legates and let them depart. When the Emperor came to
Adrianople, the legates followed him, and were taken to the small
town of Nice, in the neighbourhood ; and there they began to treat
with the Arians against the express orders of the council, which
particularly restricted them on this point. Partly by deception ,
and partly by threats, they were induced to sign a formula, worse
even than the third formula of Sirmium ; for not only was the
word substance omitted, but the Son was said to be like unto the
Father, but leaving out in all things, which was admitted in the
Sirmium formula. They were, likewise, induced to revoke the
deposition of Ursacius, and his companions, condemned by the
council ; and they signed the formula with their own hands (14) .
47. The legates having put things in this state returned to Rimini ,
and Constantius then gave orders to his Prefect Taurus , not to permit
the council to be dissolved, till the bishops had signed the last
formula of Nice, and to send into banishment any bishops refusing
their signature, if their number did not exceed fifteen . He likewise
wrote a letter to the fathers of the council, prohibiting them from
(13) S. Hieron. , Dialog., ad Lucifer. Fleury, t. 2. Orsi, cit. S. Athan. de Synod.
Sozymen, l. 2. (14) Theod. l. 2, c. 19 ; Soz. l. 4 ; Soc. l. 2.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 81
(16) S. Hieron. ad. Lucif. n. 17 ; Nat., Fleury, & Orsi, loc. con.; N. Alex. Dis. 33, t. 9.
(17) Baron. An . 359 ; St. Athan. de Synod.; Fleury, l. 14, n. 33 ; St. Greg. Naz. Orat.
21 ; Soc. l. 2, c. 47.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 83
51. Julian is made Emperor, and dies. 52. Jovian Emperor ; his Death. 53. Valen-
tinian and Valens Emperors. 54. Death of Liberius. 55, 56. Valens puts eighty
Ecclesiastics to Death-his other Cruelties. 57. Lucius persecutes the Solitaries.
58. Dreadful Death of Valens. 59-61. Persecution of Genseric. 62-64. Per-
secution of Hunneric. 65. Persecution of Theodoric. 67, 68. Persecution of
Leovigild.
tenance, and said to them, The wild boar which wasted the vine-
yard of the Lord is dead ! and when the news of Julian's death
afterwards reached them they found that he died at the very hour
the holy sage announced the fact to them. Cardinal Orsi quotes
the authority of the Chronicle of Alexander, which says that the
horseman who executed the Divine vengeance on Julian was the
martyr St. Mercurius, who, a hundred years previously, suffered in
the persecution of Decius, and that this was revealed in a heavenly
vision to St. Basil ( 1) .
52. On the very day of Julian's death, the soldiers assembled
and elected Jovian, the first among the Imperial guards, though he
was not general ofthe army ; he was much beloved for his fine
appearance and for his great valour, of which he gave frequent
proofs during the war. When Jovian was elected Emperor, he
said, As I am a Christian I cannot command idolaters, for the army
cannot conquer without the assistance of God. Then all the
soldiers cried out, Fear not, Emperor, you command Christians.
Jovian was delighted with this answer. He accepted the truce for
thirty years offered by the Persians, and was most zealous in favour-
ing the Catholics, opposing both the Arians and Semi-Arians. He
restored peace to the Church, but it was of but short duration, for
he died eight months after his elevation to the Empire, in the 33rd
year of his age. The generality of authors, following St. Jerome,
attribute his death to want of caution in sleeping in a room in which
a large quantity of charcoal was burned , to dry the walls which
were newly plastered, and thus died one of the greatest champions
of the Church (2) .
53. On the death of Jovian, Valentinian was elected by the
army in 364. He was the son of Gratian, Prefect of the Pretorium ,
and he was banished by Julian , because, being a Christian, he had
struck the minister of the idols, who sprinkled him with lustral
water. He was solicited by the army to elect a colleague, as the
Empire was attacked in various points by the barbarians, so he
chose his brother Valens, declared him Emperor, and divided the
Empire with him. Valentinian governed the West, when the
Church enjoyed a profound peace, and Valens governed the East,
where he kept up and even increased the dissensions already too
rife there, and treated the Catholics with the greatest cruelty, as we
shall shortly see.
54. Pope Liberius died in the year 366 , and before his death
had the consolation of receiving a deputation in Rome of several
Oriental bishops , who were anxious to return to the unity of the
Church. Liberius sat for fourteen years, and notwithstanding the
error he fell into by signing the formula of Sirmium , he is called
(1) Fleury, t. 2, l. 14 & 15 ; Theod. l. 3 ; Philost. c. 2. (2) Orsi, cit. Theod. Fleury,
loc. cit.; St. Hieron. Ep. 60.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 85
(3) Sulpicius, l. 5 ; Fleury & Orsi, cit.; Sandinus, Vit. Pon. t. 1. (4) Fleury, ibid. ;
Theod. . 4, c. 24 ; Soz. l. 6, c. 14 ; Soc. l. 4, c. 15.
86 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(5) Auctor. cit. (6) St. Hieron. Chron.; St. Paulin. Ep. 29 ; Auctor. antea cit.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 87
the while but enjoying himself in his capital. The people began
to murmur loudly at this state of inaction, and he, at last, roused
himself, and marched against the enemy. Theodoret relates, that,
as he was leaving the city, a holy monk , called Isaac, who lived in
the neighbourhood , thus addressed him:- " Where are you going
to, Emperor, after having made war against God ? Cease to war
with the Almighty, and he will put an end to the war raging
against you ; but should you not do so, mark my words, you will
go to battle, but the vengeance of God will pursue you-you will
lose your army, and never return here again." " I will return ,"
said Valens, in a rage, " and your life shall pay for your audacity ;"
and he immediately ordered that he should be sent to prison. The
hermit's prophecy turned out too true. When Valens arrived in
presence of the Goths, their king, Fritigern, sent him an embassy,
asking for peace, and leave to establish himself and his people in
Thrace. The Emperor rejected his offer ; and, on the 9th of
August, 378, both armies were drawn up in front of each other,
and Fritigern again made proposals of peace. But while the Romans
were deliberating on their answer, the division of Bacurius, Prince
of the Iberians, was attacked, and the battle became general ; and
never, since the slaughter at Canne, did the Romans suffer such
losses as on that day. When the night closed, Valens mixed
himself up with some of his soldiers and fled , thinking thus to
conceal himself; but he was wounded with an arrow, and fell from
his horse, and was brought by his soldiers into the hut of a peasant
by the way-side. He was scarcely there when a troop of Goths,
looking for plunder , arrived, and , without knowing who was inside,
endeavoured to break open the door ; but when they could not
succeed at once in doing so, they set fire to the hut, and went
away, and the unhappy Valens was burned alive in the fifteenth
year of his reign and the fiftieth of his age. This was, as Orosius
writes , a just judgment of God : The Goths asked Valens for some
bishops, to instruct them in the Christian religion, and he sent them
Arians, to infect the poor people with their impious heresy ; and
so they were justly appointed afterwards, as ministers of the Divine
justice, to punish him. On the death of Valens, Gratian became
master of the whole empire, and this good prince gave liberty to
the Catholics of the East, and peace to the Church (7).
59. We now have to treat of the persecution of the Catholics
of Africa by Genseric , the Arian King of the Vandals. He com-
menced persecuting the Catholics in the year 437 , with the inten-
tion of making Arianism the religion of all Africa, as St. Prosper
writes. Immediately after conquering Carthage, he commenced a
most cruel war against the Catholics, plundered the churches, and
gave them as habitations to his vassals, after banishing the priests ,
and even stripped the cloths off the altars, and made shirts of them,
but the Divine vengeance soon overtook Proculus, for he died raving
mad, after eating away his own tongue. The Arians even fre-
quently trampled the Holy Sacrament under their feet in the
Catholic church. When the Catholics were deprived of their
church they secretly opened another in a retired place, but the
Arians soon heard of it, and collecting a body of armed men under
the leadership of one of their priests, they attacked the faithful in
their church ; some rushed in at the door, sword in hand , others
mounted to the roof with arrows , and killed a great many before
the altar ; a great many took to flight, but they were afterwards
put to death in various ways by order of Genseric.
61. Genseric next issued a decree, that no one should be ad-
mitted into his palace or that of his son , unless he was an Arian,
and then, as Victor Vitensis informs us, a person called Armogastes,
who was in the court of Theodoric, one of the sons of Genseric ,
signalized himself for his constancy in the faith. Theodoric tried
every means to make him apostatize, but in vain ; he first made
him promises of preferment ; he next threatened him , and he then
subjected him to the most cruel torments. He had his head and
legs bound with cords twisted with the greatest possible force ; he
then was hung up in the air by one leg, with his head down , and
when all this could not shake his constancy, he ordered him to be
beheaded . He knew, however, that Armogastes would be venerated
as a martyr by the Catholics, if this sentence were carried into exe-
cution, so he changed the sentence, and compelled him to dig the
earth, and tend a herd of cows. While Armogastes was one day
engaged in this humble employment under a tree, he begged a
friend, a Christian of the name of Felix , to bury him after his death
at the foot of that tree ; he died in a few days after ; and when his
friend, in compliance with his request, set about digging his grave,
he found in the spot a marble tomb, beautifully finished , and there
he buried him. The name of St. Armogastes is marked in the Ro-
man Martyrology on the 29th of March, and Archiminus and
Saturus, who suffered likewise, are commemorated with him. Gen-
seric used every artifice with Archiminus to cause him to apostatize,
but when he could not shake his faith , he gave orders that he
should be beheaded ; but there was a private condition annexed ;
that was, that if he showed any symptoms of fear, the sentence
should be executed ; but if no terror could be remarked on him at
the moment, that his life should be spared , lest he should be vene-
rated as a martyr by the Catholics. He awaited death with the
greatest intrepidity, and he was, consequently, spared. Saturus
was in the service of Hunneric, the king's eldest son, and he was
threatened with confiscation of his entire property, if he did hot
become an Arian ; he yielded neither to the threats of the tyrant,
nor to the tears of his wife, who came to see him one day with his
90 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
four children ; and threw herself weeping at his feet, and embracing
his knees, besought him to have pity on her and her poor children ;
but Saturus, unmoved, said : My dear wife, if you loved me you
would not tempt me to send myself to hell ; they may do with me
as they please, but I will never forget the words of my Divine
Master, that no one can be his disciple, unless he leaves all things
to follow him. He thus remained firm , and he was despoiled of
everything. Genseric died at length , in the year 477 , the fiftieth
of his reign over the Vandals, and forty-nine years after his landing
in Africa. He made Hunneric heir to his kingdom, and settled
the succession so that the oldest descendant of his, in the male line ,
should always be king.
62. Hunneric, in the beginning of his reign, reigned with cle-
mency , but he soon showed the innate cruelty of his disposition,
and he commenced with his own relatives. He put to death his
brother Theodoric, and his young child , and he would likewise
have put his other brother, Genton , out of the way, only he had
the good fortune to be forewarned , and saved himself. He now
began to persecute the Catholics ; he commanded the holy bishop
Eugenius, that he should not preach any more, and that he should
allow no one, either man or woman , into the church. The saint
answered that the church was open for all, and that he had no
power to prohibit any one from entering. Hunneric then placed
executioners at the door of the church, with clubs stuck over with
spikes , and these tore off not only the hair but even the scalp of
the persons who went in, and such violence was used that some lost
their sight, and even some lost their lives. He sent away noblemen
into the fields to reap the corn ; one of these had a withered hand,
so that he could not work, but he was still obliged to go, and by
the prayers of his companions, the Almighty restored him the use
of it. He published a decree that no one should be allowed to
serve in the palace, or hold any public employment, if he were
not an Arian; and those who refused obedience to this iniquitous
order were despoiled of their properties, and banished into Italy
and Sardinia ; he likewise ordered that all the property of the
Catholic bishops should go to the Crown after their death , and that
no successor could be consecrated to any deceased bishop , until he
paid five hundred golden crowns. He had all the nuns collected
together, and caused them to be tormented with burning plates of
iron, and to be hung up with great weights to their feet , to force
them to accuse the bishops and priests of having had criminal inter-
course with them ; many of them died in these torments, and those
who survived , having their skin burned up , were crooked all their
lives after (9).
63. He banished to the desert, between bishops, priests, deacons ,
and lay people, altogether four thousand nine hundred and seventy-
six Catholics, and many among them were afflicted with gout, and
many blind with age ; Felix, of Abbitirus, a bishop, was for forty-
four years paralyzed , and deprived of all power of moving, and even
speechless. The Catholic bishops, not knowing how to bring him
along with them, begged of the King to allow him to wear out the
few days he had to live, in Carthage ; but the barbarian answered :
If he cannot go on horseback let him be tied with a rope, and
dragged on by oxen ; and they were obliged to carry him, thrown
across a mule, like a log of wood . In the commencement of their
journey they had some little liberty, but in a little while they were
treated with the greatest cruelty ; they were shut up together in a
very narrow prison , no one allowed to visit them, crowded together
one almost over the other, and no egress allowed for a moment, so
that the state of the prison soon became horribly infectious ; and, as
Victor the historian relates, no torment could equal what they
suffered-up to their knees in the most horrible filth, and there
alone could they sit down, sleep, and eat the little quantity of
barley given to them for food, without any preparation , as if they
were horses. At length they were taken out of that prison, or
rather sink, and conveyed to their destination ; the aged, and those
who were too weak to walk, were driven on with blows of stones,
and prodded with lances, and when nature failed them, and they
could not move on any longer, the Moors tied them by the feet,
and dragged them on through stones and briars, as if they were
carcases of beasts, and thus an immense number of them died,
leaving the road covered with their blood.
64. In the year 483, according to Fleury and N. Alexander,
Hunneric, wishing to destroy Catholicity altogether in Africa, com-
manded that there should be a conference held in Carthage between
the Catholics and the Arians. The bishops, not alone of Africa,
but of the Islands subject to the Vandals, assembled there , but as
Cyril, the Arian Patriarch, dreaded that his sect would be ruined
by the conference, it did not take place. The King was now
highly incensed against the Catholics, and he privately sent an edict
to all the provinces, while he had the bishops in Carthage, and on
one and the same day all the churches of Africa were closed, and
all the property belonging both to the churches and the Catholic bi-
shops was given over to the Arians, following in that the decree laid
down for the punishment of heretics in the laws of the Emperors.
This barbarous decree was put into execution , and the bishops ,
despoiled of all they possessed, were driven out of Carthage, and all
persons were ordered to give them neither food nor shelter, under
pain of being burned themselves, and their houses along with them.
Hunneric, at last, in the year 484, after committing so many acts
of tyranny, and killing so many Catholics, closed his reign and his
life by a most horrible death- he died rotten , and eaten up alive
92 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
by a swarm of worms ; all his entrails fell out, and he tore his own
flesh in a rage with his teeth , so that he was even buried in pieces.
He was not altogether eight years on the throne when he died,
and he had not even the satisfaction to leave the throne to his son
Hilderic, for whom he had committed such slaughter in his family,
because, according to the will of his father, Genseric, the crown
descended to Guntamond, the son of his brother Genton ; and he
was succeeded, in 496 , by Trasamond, who endeavoured to extir-
pate Catholicity totally in Africa, about the year 504. Among his
other acts, he banished two hundred and twenty-four bishops, and
among them was the glorious St. Fulgentius. On the death of
Trasamond, in 523, he was succeeded by Hilderic, a prince , as
Procopius writes, affable to his subjects, and of a mild disposition .
This good King, Graveson tells us, was favourable to the Catholic
religion, and he recalled St. Fulgentius and the other exiled
bishops, and granted the free exercise of their religion to all the
Catholics of his kingdom ; but in the year 530, he was driven out
of his kingdom by Glimere, an Arian, and then it was that the
Emperor Justinian, to revenge his intimate friend, Hilderic , declared
war against Glimere ; and his general, Belisarius, having conquered
Carthage and the principal cities, and subjected all Africa once
more to the Roman Emperor, the Arians were banished , and the
churches restored to the Catholics ( 10) .
65. There were other persecutions by the Arians, after the death
of Hunneric. Theodoric, King of Italy, and son of Theodomire,
King of the Ostrogoths, was also an Arian, and persecuted the
Catholics till his death, in the year 526. He ought, however, to
be lauded for always keeping in his employment honest and learned
ministers. One of them was the great Boetius, a man of profound
learning, and a true Christian ; but through the envy of his calum-
niators, he was cast into prison by his sovereign, and after being
kept there a long time, was, at last, without being giving an oppor-
tunity of defending himself, put to death in horrible torments, his
head being tied round with a cord , and that twisted till his eyes
leaped out of their sockets. Thus died Boetius, the great prop of
the faith in that age, in the year 524 , and the fifty-fifth of his age .
Theodoric likewise put to death Symmachus, a man of the highest
character, in a most barbarous manner ; and his crime was, that he
was son-in-law to Boetius, and the tyrant dreaded that he would
conspire against his kingdom. He also caused the death of the
holy Pope John, in prison, by privations and starvation , and this
holy man is venerated since in the Church as a martyr. Some
inculpate this pontiff, for having induced the pious Emperor,
Justin, to restore the churches to the Arians, but others deny his
having done so. Cardinal Orsi says, that a great deal of obscurity
(10) Fleury, Orsi, Nal. I. con.; Graveson, His. Eccles . t. 3, Procopius, l. 1, de Bellow.
Vand.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 93
hangs over the transactions of this age ; but, taking the anonymous
commentator on Valesius as a guide, he does not think that the
Pope obtained the restitution to the Arians of all their churches,
but only of such as they were already in possession of, or such as
were deserted , and not consecrated ; and that he did this only that
Theodoric might rest satisfied with this arrangement, and leave the
Catholics in possession of their churches, and not turn them out,
and give them up to the Arians, as it was feared he would. But
Noel Alexander, Baronius, and Orsi himself—and with these Berti
agrees- say, with more likelihood, that St. John refused to solicit
the Emperor, at all, for the restitution of the churches to the Arians,
and that this is proved from his second epistle to the Italian bishops,
in which he tells them, that he consecrated , and caused to be
restored to the Catholics in the East, all the churches in possession
of the Arians ; and it was on that account that he was put into
prison by Theodoric, on his return to Italy, and died there on the
27th of May, 526 , worn out with sufferings.
66. Theodoric, not satisfied with those acts of tyranny, as the
above-mentioned anonymous writer informs us, published an edict
on the 26th of August, giving to the Arians all the Catholic
churches ; but God, at length, had pity on the faithful, and he
removed him by a sudden death. A dreadful flux brought him
to death's door in three days ; and on the very Sunday in which
his decree was to be put into execution, he lost his power and his
life. A cotemporaneous historian gives a curious account of the
beginning of his sickness. He was going to supper, and the head
of a big fish was placed before him ; he immediately imagined that
he saw the head of Symmachus, whom he had a little before put
to death, and that it threatened him with eyes of fury. He was
dreadfully alarmed ; and, seized with sudden terror, he took to his
bed, and told his physician, Elpidius, what he imagined ; he then
regretted sincerely his cruelty to Boetius and Symmachus, and
between agitation of mind, and the racking of his bowels, he was
soon dead. St. Gregory writes, that a certain hermit, in the island
of Lipari, saw him in a vision after his death, barefooted , and
stripped of all his ornaments, between St. John and Symmachus ,
and that they brought him to the neighbouring volcano, and cast
him into the burning crater.
67. Leovigild , King of the Visigoths, in Spain , was likewise an
Arian ; he had two sons by his first wife, Hermengild and Recca-
rede, and he married a second time, Goswind , the widow of another
King of the Visigoths . He married his son Hermengild to In-
gonda, who was a Catholic, and refused to allow herself to be
baptized by the Arians, as her mother-in-law Goswind , herself an
Arian, wished. Not being able to induce her, by fair means, to
consent, Goswind seized her one day by the hair, threw her on the
ground, kicked her, and covered her over with blood , and then
94 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
ARTICLE III.
" This was a Council of the Oriental Church alone, and was only,
ex post facto, Ecumenical, inasmuch as the Western Church, con-
gregated in the Synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus, held the
same doctrine, and condemned the same heresy, as the Oriental
Church." And Graveson says : " This Council of Constantinople
was afterwards reckoned a general one, for Pope Damasus, and the
whole Church of the West, gave it this dignity and authority."
An anonymous author says the same thing (Auctor Lib. Apparat.
brev. ad Theol. & Jus Canon.) This Council is considered a
General one, because it followed in everything what was previously
defined in the Roman Council, to which the Eastern bishops were
convoked, by letters of St. Damasus, presented to the bishops
assembled in Constantinople, and what was decreed in that Coun-
cil was confirmed in the other Synod , held in Rome, in 382. The
Fathers of the Council wrote to St. Damasus, that he had, by his
fraternal charity, invited them, by letters of the Emperor, to assist
as members of the Council, to be held in Rome. The reader will
find in the third volume the refutation of the heresy of Macedonius.
74. In this Council of Constantinople , besides the condemnation
ofthe heresy of Macedonius, the heresies of Apollinaris and Euno-
mius were also condemned ; and Maximus Cinicus, who seized on
the See of Constantinople, was deposed , and St. Gregory of Nazian-
zen was confirmed in possession of it, but he, through love of peace,
afterwards resigned it, and Neptarius was chosen in his place by
the Council. Several canons, regarding the discipline of the
Church, were passed , and the Nicene Creed was confirmed by the
Council, and some few words were added to it concerning the mys
tery of the Incarnation , on account of the Apollinarists and other
heretics, and a more ample explanation of the article regarding the
Holy Ghost was added, on account of the heresies of the Mace-
donians, who denied his Divinity. The Nicene Creed says, ofthe
incarnation of Jesus Christ, these words alone : " Qui propter nos
homines, et propter nostram salutem descendit, et incarnatus est, et
homo factus. Passus est, et resurrexit tertia die ; et ascendit in
cælos ; et iterum venturus est judicare vivos, et mortuos ; et in
Spiritum Sanctum , &c." But the Symbol of Constantinople goes
on thus: " Descendit de cœlis , et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex
Maria Virgine, et homo factus est. Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub
Pontio Pilato, passus, et sepultus est; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis
secundum Scripturas, &c. Et in Spiritum Sanctum Dominum et
vivificantem, ex Patre procedentem, et cum Patre et Filio adoran-
dum et conglorificandum qui locutus est per Prophetas, &c." (3).
Nicephorus (4) relates, that St. Gregory of Nyssa laid down the
declaration of the Council in these words : " Et in Spiritum Sanctum
(3) Cabassutius, Not. Concil. p. 136 ; Orsi, t. 8, l. 18, n. 71, & seq.; Fleury, l. 18, n.
1, & seq.; Nat. Alex. t. 1 , diss. 37, ar. 2. (4) Niceph. l. 12, c. 2.
G
98 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(5) Bernini, t. 1, p. 316. (6) Nat. t. 8, ar. 3, ex St. Ephiph. Her. 77 ; St. Leo,
Ser. de Nat. Dom.; St. Aug. de Her. c. 55 ; Socrat. l. 2, c. 36. (7) Nat. ibid.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 99
(8) Nat. ibid. (9) Fleury, t. 3, l. 17, n. 2-25 ; Orsi, t. 7, l. 16, n. 115.
(10) Bernin. t. 2, s. 4, c. 8. (11 ) St. Greg. Niss. Serm. de St. Ephrem. ( 12) N.
Alex. t. 8, c. 3, a. 1481. (13) St. Epip. Her. 77 , n. 26 & 78.
100 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(19) St. Epiph. n. 3. (20) Theod. t. 4, c. 11. (21) Theod. Her. Fab. l. 4, c. 2 ;
Nat. Alex. t. 8, c. 3, act 16 ; Fleury, t. 3, l. 19, n. 35. (22) St. Aug. Her. l. 5, c. 7.
(23) St. Epip. Her. n. 3.
102 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
over the neck, the twins over the back, and so on with the re-
mainder of the Twelve Signs. They made merely a verbal pro-
fession of the doctrine of the Trinity, but they believed , with
Sabellius, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, were
one and the same thing, and that there was no real distinction of
persons. They did not reject the Old Testament, like the Mani-
cheans, but they explained everything in it allegorically, and they
added many apocryphal books to the canonical ones. They abstained
from meat, as an unclean thing, and separated married people, not-
withstanding the repugnance manifested by those who were not
followers of their sect, and this they did through hatred of pro-
creation ; for the flesh , they said, was not the work of God, but of
the devil ; but they used to assemble by night for prayer, and the
lights being extinguished , indulged in revolting and promiscuous
licentiousness ; however, they denied all this when caught, and
they taught their followers to practise the doctrine contained in
the Latin distich : " Jura perjura, secretum prodere noli ” —“ Swear
away, but never tell the secret." They used to fast on every Sun-
day, and even on Easter Sunday and Christmas-day, and on these
days they used to hide themselves, and not appear at church ; their
reason for this conduct was their hatred of the flesh, as they believed
that Christ was not really born or arose in the flesh, but only in
appearance. They used to receive the Eucharist in the church,
like other Christians, but they did not consume the species. They
were condemned in the Council of Saragossa, by St. Damasus, and
in several particular synods. Finally, Priscillian was condemned
to death, at the instance of Ithacius, Bishop of Ossobona, in the
year 383, by Evodius, appointed Prefect of the Pretorium by the
tyrant Maximus (26) .
83. St. Augustin (27) speaks of some heretics who lived about
this time, and always went barefooted , and taught that all Chris-
tians were bound to do likewise ( 28 ) .
84. Audæus, chief of the Audæans, was born in Mesopotamia,
and was at first a man of exemplary life , and a strict observer of
ecclesiastical discipline, but afterwards separated from the Church,
and became founder of a sect. He celebrated Easter after the
Jewish rite, and said that man was like to God corporeally ; inter-
preting, in the plainest literal sense, that passage of Genesis, where
the Lord says : " Let us make man in our own image and likeness ;"
and he and his followers were Antropomorphites. Noel Alexander
says that the only error of the Audæans was in separating them-
selves from the Church, but as for the rest, they never deviated .
from the faith ; but Petavius (29 ) , and others, attribute to them the
CHAPTER V.
ARTICLE I.
the world ? St. Paul says of Christ, " For he must reign until he
hath put all his enemies under his feet" (Cor. xv. 25) ; so, when
our Lord has conquered his enemies, he will reign no longer. In
the book of Genesis it is said of the crow that left the ark,
" That it did not return till the waters were dried up" (Gen. viii. 7) ;
does it then follow that it returned to the ark when the waters were
dried up ? Away, then, with arguments of this sort, says St.
Jerome (1 ) ; the Scripture here tells, not what was done, but what
was not done- not what took place, but what did not. The second
proof Elvidius adduces is taken from the text already mentioned
( Matt. i. 25) : " She brought forth her first-born son ;" therefore,
if he was her first-born , she must have had others after. St. Jerome
answers this : The Lord commanded, that for every first-born a
certain ransom should be paid a month after the birth (Numbers,
xviii. 15 , 16 ). Here, then, says St. Jerome, according to Elvidius,
one might say : " How can I be obliged to pay a price for my first-
born after a month ; how can I tell whether I shall ever have a
second ? I must wait till a second is born to me, and then I can
pay for the first-born." But the Scripture says itself, that the first-
born is that which first " openeth the womb." The same is declared
in Exodus, where it says : " The Lord slew every first-born in the
land of Egypt" (Exod . xii. 29 ) . Here there is no doubt, but that
the text speaks of only-born as well as first-born. His third argu-
ment is from the text of St. Luke ( viii, 19) : " His mother and
brethren came to him." Therefore, he had brothers ; but St. Jerome
proves, from a great many passages in the Scriptures, that first-
cousins are also called brothers, and the brothers referred to in that
text are St. James and St. John, the children of the other Mary,
the sister of the Mother of God.
2. Jovinian shall now occupy our attention. He was a monk in
Milan ; and after spending the early years of his life in the austere
practices of monastic life -fasting on bread and water, going bare-
footed, and labouring with his hands-he forsook his monastery ,
and went to Rome, where , as St. Ambrose (2) informs us, he began
to disseminate his errors. After falling into this impiety he aban-
doned his mortified manner of living-went shod, and clothed in
silk and linen garments- nourished and dressed his hair-frequented
taverns, and indulged in play, banquets, delicate dishes, and ex-
quisite wines- and still professed all along to be a monk, and led a
life of celibacy, to avoid the responsibility of marriage. Preach-
ing a doctrine pleasing to the senses, he soon had many followers
of both sexes in Rome, who, having previously led chaste and mor-
tified lives, now abandoned themselves to luxury, and got married.
Jovinian was first condemned by Pope Siricus, in a Council, held
in Rome, in the year 390 , and soon after, in another Council, held
(1) St. Hieron. l. 1 , Comment. in cap. ii, Matt. (2) St. Ambrose, Ep. 41 , n. 9.
106 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES,
ceived as a virgin ; but he does not say that she brought forth her
son as a virgin. But what sort of argument is this ? Because the
text does not say that she was a virgin in the birth ofher son, there-
fore, it is a proof that she did not bring him forth a virgin ; whereas,
the universal tradition of the Church, as we have seen, explains the
text in its true sense, that she conceived a virgin, and brought forth
our Lord a virgin. Basnage brings forth another argument, which
he deems unanswerable. We read in St. Luke , he says : " After
the days of her purification , according to the law of Moses , were
accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the
Lord : as it is written in the law of the Lord, every male opening
the womb shall be called holy to the Lord" (Luke, ii . 22 ) . Now,
says Basnage (and it is worthy of remark, with what temerity he
threw overboard the doctrine of the Fathers, as opposed to Scrip-
ture, and the opinion of the learned), the opinion of the perpetual
virginity of the Mother of God is generally held , and still it is op-
posed, both to Scripture and the opinions of the ancients. The
narrative of St. Luke is quite plain : " When the days of her puri-
fication, &c." Mary was then subjected to the usual law of women
after birth , not alone to avoid scandal, but as a matter of duty ; and
she was compelled, by the general discipline of the law, to offer a
sacrifice for her purification. The days of her purification could
not be accomplished if she had no necessity of purification. All
his argument, then , is reduced to this, that Mary ought not to fulfil
the days of her purification, ifthere was no necessity of purification ;
and, for all that, she was obliged (coacta sit) to fulfil the rite. This
argument he took from Origen (9 ) ; but, as the Fathers of St. Maur
say, truly, this was a blasphemy uttered by that Father ( 10 ) ; and
justly, for all the Fathers have said with St. Basil ( 11 ), this virgin
never was obliged to the law of purification ; and this is clear, says
the Saint, from the Scriptures ; for in Leviticus, xii . 2 , it is clearly
proved that this law applies to ordinary mothers, but not to one
who conceived by the Holy Ghost. " Scriptum est enim ," says
the holy Father, " mulier quæ conceperit semen, et peperit mas-
culum, immunda erit septem diebus ; hæc autem cum facta sit
Emmanuelis Mater sine semine, pura, et intemerata est ; imo post-
quam effecta est Mater, adhuc virgo permansit." Even Melancthon,
Agricola, and the other Lutherans, as we read in Canisius ( 12 ), all
say Mary had no necessity of purification . St. Cyril of Alexandria,
the same author states, teaches that to assert the contrary is rank
heresy. With all that, Basnage is not convinced , and he quotes a
passage of St. Fulgentius, where he says : " Vulvam Matris Omni-
potentia Filii nascentis aperuit. " But we have another passage, in
St. Fulgentius himself, in which he declares that the Mother of
(9) Origen, Hom. 14, in Luc. (10) Patres. S. Maur. apud S. Hieron. t. 7, p. 285.
(11 ) St. Basil, in cap. 7 ; Isa. n. 201. (12) Canis. l. 4, c. 10 , de Virg. Deip.
108 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
Christ was the only one who remained immaculate after giving birth
to a son ( 13 ) . But how are we then to understand " he opened
the womb ?"-this is to be understood, as St. Gregory of Nyssa ex-
plains it ( 14 ) : " Solus ille haud ante patefactam virginalem aperuit
vulvam ;" that he preserved the virginity of his holy Mother. This
is what St. Ambrose likewise says : " Hic ( Christus ) solus aperuit
sibi vulvam” ( 15 ) . And treating ofthe Mysteries against Jovinian,
he says: " Why do you seek the order of nature in the body of
Christ, when setting aside the order of nature, he was born of a
virgin ?" Basnage lauds St. Jerome as being of his opinion ; but
the passage he adduces is not to be found in St. Jerome's writings ;
besides, St. Jerome ( 16) says, in his Dialogues : " Christ alone
opened the closed doors of the virginal womb, which , nevertheless ,
remained ever and always closed ; " so that the very Fathers Basnage
quotes in his favour, most expressly condemn the impious error he
attempts to defend.
4. Vigilantius was a native of Comminges, near the foot of the
Pyrenees, and of very low origin, having been a tavern-keeper for
some time ; somehow or other, he found leisure to study, and lead
a pious life at the same time, so that he acquired the friendship of
St. Paulinus, of Nola, who gave him a letter of recommendation to
St. Jerome, and he undertook a journey to the Holy Land . This
letter was so far useful to him, that St. Jerome , who knew him to
be a man of relaxed morals, did not treat him as his hypocrisy
deserved (17) . He had the audacity to treat St. Jerome as a here-
tic, of the sect of Origen , because he saw him reading Origen's
work ; but the Saint, in the year 397 , wrote to him ( 18), that he
read these works, not to follow all their doctrine, but to take what-
ever was good out of them, and he exhorts him either to learn or
be silent. Some years after, about the year 404, Riparius, a priest,
wrote to St. Jerome, that Vigilantius began to dogmatize, speaking
against the Relics of Martyrs and Vigils in churches . St. Jerome
gave a summary answer, and promised to return again to the sub-
ject, and treat it more amply, when he would have read Vigilantius'
work (19) ; and having soon after seen the production, be gave it
a short but strong answer, because the monk Sisinius , who brought
it to him, was in a hurry to return to Egypt ( 20) . The following
are the errors of Vigilantius, refuted by St. Jerome. First.- Like
Jovinian, he condemned the practice of celibacy. Second. - He
condemned the veneration of the relics of the martyrs ; and called
those who honoured them Cinerists and idolaters. Third.- He said
it was a pagan superstition to light candles by day in their honor.
Fourth. He maintained that the faithful after death could no lon-
(13) St. Fulgent. l. 1 , de vere Protest. n. 5. (14) St. Greg. Nys. Orat. de Occursu.
(15) St. Ambrose, l. 2, in Luc. n. 57. (16) St. Jerome, l. 2, Dial. contra Pelag. n. 4.
(17) St. Hier. Epis. 61. (18) St. Hier. Epis. 75. (19) Idem. Epis. ad Ripar. 55.
(20, St. Hier. l. con. Vigilan. c. 2.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 109
ger pray for one another, and he founded this opinion on the
apocryphal book of Esdras. Fifth .- He condemned public Vigils
in the churches. Sixth.- He reprobated the custom of sending
alms to Jerusalem . Seventh .- He totally condemned monastic life,
and said that it was only making ourselves useless to our neighbours,
if we embraced it. This sect was not condemned by any council,
it had but few followers, and soon became extinct (21 ) .
ARTICLE II.
(5) Fleury, ibid. n. 1 , ex Mereat. (6) St. Aug. de Gestis Pelagian. c. 34 & 35.
(7) Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 3. art. 3 ; St. Fleury, . e. n. 48 ; Tournelly, Comp. Theolog.
t. 5, pt. 1, Disp. 1, a. 3. (8) St. August. Serm. 26, al. 11, de Verb. Apost. (9) Idem.
1. de Spir. & littas. c. 2. (10) Apud St. Augus. 7. de Gratia Christi, c. 2.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 111
remission of sins. They say, says St. Augustin (11 ) , that the Grace
of God is only valuable for the remission of sins, and not for avoid-
ing future ones : and they say, therefore, the coming of Jesus
Christ is not without its utility, since the grace of pardon is of
value for the remission of past sins, and the example of Christ for
avoiding future ones. The fifth subterfuge of the Pelagians was
this : They admitted , as St. Augustin ( 12) tells us, the internal
grace of illustration ; but we should admit, with the holy doctor,
that they admitted this illustration , solely ex parte objecti, that is,
the internal grace to know the value of good and the deformity of
bad works, but not ex parte intellectus, so that this grace would
give a man strength to embrace the good and avoid the evil. We
now come to the sixth and last shift : He finally admitted internal
grace, not only on the part of the object, but on the part of human
ability, strengthened by grace to do well ; but he did not admit it
as necessary according to our belief, but only as useful to accom-
plish more easily what is good, as St. Augustin explains it (13) .
Pelagius asserts, that Grace is given to us, that what is commanded
to us by God should be more easily accomplished ; but Faith
teaches us that Grace is not only useful, but absolutely necessary to
do good and avoid evil.
7. The Pelagian heresy was very widely extended in a little
time. His chief disciple was Celestius, a man of noble family, and
a eunuch from his birth. He practised as a lawyer for a time, and
then went into a monastery ; he then became a disciple of Pelagius,
and began to deny Original Sin . Pelagius was reserved, but
Celestius was free-spoken and ardent. They both left Rome a
little before it was taken by the Goths, in 409. They went
together, it is believed , first to Sicily, and afterwards to Africa,
where Celestius thought to get himself ordained priest, in Car-
thage ; but when the heresy he was teaching was discovered, he
was condemned, and excommunicated by the Bishop Aurelius, and
a Council summoned by him, in Carthage ; he appealed from the
Council to the Apostolic See, but, instead of going to Rome to
prosecute his appeal, he went to Ephesus, where he was raised to
the priesthood without sufficient caution ; but when his heresy
became manifest, he was banished from the city with all his follow-
ers ( 14). Notwithstanding all this, after the lapse of five years, he
went to Rome to prosecute the appeal, but he was then condemned
again, as we shall now see.
8. Pelagius, instead of repenting after the condemnation of Ce-
lestius, only became more obstinate in his errors, and began to teach
them more openly. About this time the noble virgin , Demetriades,
of the ancient Roman family of the Anicii , put into execution a
(11) St. Augns. de Gratia Christi. s. lib. arb. c. 13. (12) Idem. lib. de Gratia, cap.
7 & 10. (13) St. Augus. de Gratia Christi, c. 26. (14) Orsi, t. 11 , l. 25, n. 44 ;
Fleury, 1. 3, n. 3.
112 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
glorious resolution she had made. She had taken refuge in Africa
when the Goths desolated Rome, and when her parents were about
to marry her to a nobleman, she forsook the world, and, clothing
herself in mean garments, as St. Jerome ( 15 ) tells us, consecrated
her virginity to Christ. St. Jerome, St. Augustin, and even the
Pope St. Innocent, congratulated this devout lady on the good
choice she made . Pelagius also wrote a letter to her, in which ,
while he praises her, he endeavours to insinuate his poison. He
used these words : In hic merito cæteris præferenda es, quæ nisi ex
te, et in te esse non possunt ( 16 ) . St. Augustin at once recognized
the poison disseminated in this letter, and, explaining the words,
Nisi ex te et in te, he says, as far as the second expression , Nisi in
te ( 17) , it is very well said ; but all the poison is in the first part,
he says, Nisi ex te, for the error of Pelagius is, that all that man
does of good he does altogether of himself, without the assistance
of grace. At the same time, when St. Jerome got notice of this
letter of Pelagius , he also wrote to the lady ( 18), cautioning her
against his doctrine, and from that out began to combat his heresy
in several books, and especially in that of " The Dialogue of Atticus
and Critobulus." St. Augustin likewise never ceased for ten years
to combat the errors of Pelagius ; and his books, " De Natura et
Gratia," " De Gratia Christi," " De Peccato Originali ," &c. , prove
how successfully he refuted them.
9. When Pelagius saw that he was not cordially received in
Africa, he went to Palestine, where John , Bishop of Jerusalem, re-
ceived him ; and in a Council held with his clergy, instead of con-
demning him, as he ought, he only imposed silence on both par-
ties (19) . In the year 415 , a council of fourteen bishops was held in
Diospolis, a city of Palestine ; and here Pelagius , as Cardinal Ba-
ronius (20) tells us, induced the bishops to agree to the following
propositions, all Catholic, indeed, and opposed to the errors pro-
mulgated by him and Celestius : First.-Adam would not have
died had he not sinned . Second .- The sin of Adam is transfused
into the whole human race. Third. - Infants are not such as Adam
was previous to his fault. Fourth.-As in Adam all die, according
to the Apostle, so in Christ all will be vivified . Fifth .-Unbaptized
infants cannot obtain eternal life. Sixth. - God gives us assistance
to do good, according to St. Paul ( 1 Tim. vi. 17) . Seventh.- It is
God that gives us grace to do every good work, and this grace is
not given to us according to our merits. Eighth.- Grace comes to
us, given gratuitously by God, according to his mercy. Ninth.—
The children of God are those who daily say, " forgive us our sins,"
which we could not say if we were entirely without sin. Tenth.—
Free-will exists, but it must be assisted by Divine help . Eleventh .
(15) St. Hier. Ep. 8, ad Demetr. ( 16) Apud St. Augus. Ep. 143. (17) St. Aug.
ibid. (18) St. Hier. Ep. 8, ad Demetr. (19) Orsi, t. 25, n. 111 ; Fleury, l. 23,
n. 18, & seq. (20) Baron. Ann. a. 415, n. 23.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 113
-The victory over temptations does not come from our own will ,
but from the grace of God. Twelfth. The pardon of sins is not
given according to the merits of those who ask it, but according to
the Divine Mercy. Pelagius confessed all these truths, and the
council of bishops, deceived by his hypocrisy, admitted him to the
communion of the Church (21) ; but in this they acted imprudently,
for, although his errors were condemned , he was personally justi-
fied, which gave him a far greater facility of disseminating his
errors afterwards, and, on this account, St. Jerome , speaking of this
Synod, calls it a miserable one (22) , and St. Innocent the Pope
refused to admit him to his communion , although he was informed
of the retraction of his errors in that Synod, for he truly suspected
that his confession was only feigned . The subsequent conduct of
Pelagius proved the penetration of the holy Pontiff, for, as soon as
he was freed from the obedience of those bishops, he returned to
his vomit, and rejected the truths he had then professed , and
especially on the point of grace, as St. Augustin remarks ( 23 ) , he
said , that Divine grace was necessary to do what was right more
easily , but the good depended directly on our own free will , and this
grace he called the grace of possibility. St. Augustin ( 24 ) , writing
against this false novelty, indites this great sentence : " God, by co-
operating in us, perfects that which he began by operating : for we
are worth nothing for any pious work without him operating, that we
may wish it, or co-operating when we do wish it." Pelagius , hoping
that the proceedings of the Council of Diospolis would be buried in
darkness , wrote four books afterwards against the " Dialogue" of St.
Jerome, and entitled his work " De Libero Arbitrio" ( 25).
10. The affairs of Pelagius did not take such a favourable turn
in Africa as they did in Palestine , for in the following year, 416 ,
the Bishop Aurelius summoned another Council in Carthage, in
which both he and Celestius were again condemned ; and it was
decided to send a Synodal letter to the Pope St. Innocent, that
he might confirm the decree of the Council by Pontifical autho-
rity (26) ; and, about the same time, another Council of sixty-one
Numidian Bishops was held in Milevis, and a letter was likewise
written to the Pope, calling on him to condemn the heresy (27) .
Pope Innocent answered both Synodal letters in 417 ; confirmed
the Christian doctrine held by the councils concerning grace (28 ) ;
and condemned Pelagius and Celestius, with all their adherents ,
and declared them separated from the communion of the Church .
He answered, at the same time, and in the same strain, the letters
of five other bishops, who had written to him on the same subject ;
(21 ) Fleury, 1. 23, n. 20. (22) St. Hier. Ep. 79. (23) St. Aug. de Her. c. 88 .
(24) St. Aug. de Grat. & lib. arb. c. 17. (25) Orsi, l. 25, n. 117, ex St. Aug 1. de
Gest. Pel. c. 33. (26) Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 3, ar. 4, s. 4 ; Fleury, ibid. n. 20 ; Orsi,
t. 11, l. 25, n. 121. (27) Nat. Alex. ibid. s. 5 ; Fleury, loc. cit.; Orsi, n. 122.
(28 ) St. Innoc. Ep. 181 , n. 8 & 9, & Ep. 182, n. 6.
H
114 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
But how can St. Prosper say that St. Innocent was the first to con-
demn this heresy, when it was already condemned in 412 by the
first Council of Carthage, and by the second in 416 , and by the
Council of Milevis ? Graveson ( 32) answers, that these Councils
considered it their duty to refer the condemnation of Celestius and
Pelagius to the Apostolic See, and, on that account , St. Prosper
writes , that the first condemnation proceeded from the Pope. Gar-
ner (33) says that the Pelagian heresy was condemned by twenty-
four Councils, and, finally, by the General Council of Ephesus, in
431 (34), for up to that time the Pelagians had not ceased to dis-
turb the Church.
12. When Pelagius and Celestius heard of the sentence pro-
nounced against them by St. Innocent, they wrote him a letter
filled with lies and equivocations, appealing to his supreme tribunal
from the sentence passed on them by the bishops of Africa ; and,
as St. Innocent had died, and St. Zozymus was elected in his place,
Celestius went to Rome himself to endeavour to gain his favour.
St. Zozymus was, at first, doubtful how he ought to act in the
matter ; but the African bishops suggested to him that he ought
not to interfere with a sentence passed by his predecessor, and when
the holy Pontiff was better informed of the deceits of Pelagius and
Celestius , and especially of the flight ofthe latter from Rome, when
he heard that the Pope was about to examine the cause more nar-
rowly, he was convinced of their bad faith, and condemned their
doctrine (35) .
13. The author of the Portable Dictionary (36) writes, that Pe-
lagius , after his condemnation by Pope Zozymus, and the procla-
mation subsequent, issued against him by the Emperor Honorius
from Rome, went to his beloved Palestine, where he was before so
well received ; but as his impiety and hypocrisy were now well
(29) Fleury, t. 4, l. 23, n. 34 ; Orsi, t. 11 , l. 25, n. 129. (30) St. Aug. Serm. 181 ,
n. 10. (31) St. Prosp. In Carm. de Ingratis. (32) Graveson, t. 3, col. 2.
(33) Garner. ap. Danes Temp. not. p. 240. (84) Act. 5 & 7, can. 1 & 4, ap. Danes,
ibid. p 241 ; & vide Fleury , l. 25, n. 53. (35) Hermant, t. 1 , c. 124 ; Orsi, l. 26,
n. 16 & 17. (36) Diz. Port. verb. Pelagio .
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 115
(39) Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 3, a. 7 & 8 ; Orsi, loc. cit. n. 60 & 61 ; Fleury, t. 4, l. 24 , n. 56
& seq. (40) Nat. l. cit. ar. 7, s. 4. (41 ) Nat. Al. l. cit. ar. 10 , in fin. (42) Nat.
Al. t. 10, c. 3, ar. 5. (43) Sigisbert in Cron. an. 415. (44 ) Nat. loco cit.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 117
says that whoever sins, dies in Adam , after lawfully receiving bap-
tism. Sixth. - Or who says that some are deputed to death eternal,
and others predestined to life . This heresy, or these errors, were
condemned in the Council of Lyons, in the year 475. It is a
question among the learned, whether the Predestinarians ever
existed as a heretical body. Cardinal Orsi and Berti ( 45 ) , with
Contenson, Cabassutius and Jansenius deny it ; but Tournelly (46) ,
with Baronius, Spondanus, and Sirmond, held the contrary opinion,
and Graveson quotes Cardinal Norris (47 ) in their favour, and Noel
Alexander thinks his opinion probable (48 ) .
17. In the ninth century , Godeschalcus, a German Benedictine
monk, lived, who is generally considered a real Predestinarian. He
was a man of a turbulent and troublesome disposition . He went to
Rome through a motive of piety, without leave of his superiors,
and usurping the office of a preacher without lawful mission, dis-
seminated his maxims in several places, on which account he was
condemned in a Synod, held on his account, in Mayence, in 848 ,
by the Archbishop Rabanus, and sent to Hincmar, Archbishop of
Rheims, his superior. Hincmar, in another, held in Quercy, again
condemned him , deprived him of the sacerdotal dignity, and after
obliging him to throw his writings into the fire with his own hand ,
shut him up in close confinement in the monastery of Haut Villiers,
in the diocese of Rheims. Two Councils were held in Quercy on
this affair ; one in 849, in which Godeschalcus was condemned, and
the other in the year 853, in which four canons were established
against his doctrine, and which we shall hereafter quote . Finally,
Hincmar being at Haut Villiers, the monks of the monastery told
him that Godeschalcus was near his end , and anxious for his eter-
nal welfare, he sent him a formula of Faith to sign , that he might
receive Absolution and the Viaticum, but he rejected it with dis-
dain. Hincmar could then do no more, but after his departure, he
wrote to the monks, telling them that in case of the conversion of
Godeschalcus, they should treat him as he had given them verbal
directions to do ; but if he persevered in his errors, that they should
not give him the sacraments, or ecclesiastical burial. He died
unchanged , and without sacraments, and he was deprived of Chris-
tian burial (49) .
18. His errors, Van Ranst informs us, were these following:
First.-As God has predestined some to eternal life, so he predestines
others to everlasting death, and forces man to perish. Second.-
God does not wish the salvation of all men , but only of those who
are saved. Third . - Christ died for the salvation of the elect alone,
and not for the redemption of all men . These three propositions of
(50) Tournelly, Theol. Comp. t. 5, p. 1, Disp. 4, ar. 3. (51) Tourn. loc. cit.
(52) Gotti. t. 2, Vict. adv. Her. c. 84, s. 2. (53) Lupus Not. ad conc. 1 Rom.; Berti,
Theol. l. 6, c. 14, prop. 3, & Hist. s. 9, c. 4 ; Contens. Theol. 7. 8 ; De Prædest. app. 1, s.
3; Roncaglia, Animad. ap. N. Alex. t. 13, diss. 5. (54) Sirmond. Tract. de Præd.
Har. Card. de Noris, l. 2 ; Hist. Pelag. c. 15 ; Mabillon, ad sec. iv. Bened. Tournelly,
Theol. t. 5, loc. cit. p. 142 ; Gotti, loc. supra cit. c. 84, s. 2 ; Nat. Alex. loc. cit. t. 13,
diss. 5.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 119
ARTICLE III.
20. Errors of Nestorius, and his Elevation to the Episcopacy. 21. He approves of the
Errors preached by his Priest, Anastasius ; his Cruelty. 22. He is contradicted , and
other Acts of Cruelty. 23. St. Cyril's Letter to him, and his Answer. 24. 'The
Catholics separate from him. 25. Letters to St. Celestine, and his Answer. 26. He is
admonished ; Anathemas of St. Cyril. 27. The Sentence of the Pope is intimated to
him. 28. He is cited to the Council. 29. He is condemned. 30. The Sentence of
the Council is intimated to him. 31. Cabal of John of Antioch. 32. Confirmation
of the Council by the Legates, in the Name of the Pope. 33. The Pelagians are
condemned. 34. Disagreeable Affair with the Emperor Theodosius. 35. Theodosius
approves of the Condemnation of Nestorius, and sends him into Banishment, where he
dies. 36. Laws against the Nestorians. 37. Efforts of the Nestorians. 38. The
same Subject continued. 39. It is condemned as heretical to assert that Jesus
Christ is the adopted Son of God. 40-43. Answer to Basnage, who has unjustly
undertaken the Defence of Nestorius.
(1) Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 3, a. 12, s. 1 ; Baron. Ann. 428, n. 1 , & seq.; Orsi, t. 12, l. 28 ,
ex n. 1, & Fleury, t. 4 , l. 24, n. 54. (2) Evagr. Hist. l. 1, c. 5.
120 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(3 ) Orsi, t. 12, l. 28, n . 1. (4) Fleury, t. 4, l. 24, n. 54 ; Nat. loc. cit. (5) Apud.
Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 3, art. 12 . (6) Orsi, loc. cit. n. 8 ; Serm. 1 , ap. More.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 121
22. It has always been the plan with heretics to sustain this
error by accusing the Catholics of heresy . Arius called the Ca-
tholics Sabellians, because they professed that the Son was God , like
unto the Father. Pelagius called them Manicheans, because they
insisted on the necessity of Grace . Eutyches called them Nestorians,
because they believed that there were two distinct natures in
Christ-the Divine and the human nature ; and so , in like manner,
Nestorius called them Arians and Apollinarists, because they con-
fessed in Christ one Person , true God and true man. When Nes-
torius thus continued to preach, not alone once , but frequently,
and when the whole burden of his sermons was nothing but a blas-
phemous attack on the doctrine of the Church, the people of Con-
stantinople became so excited , that, beholding their shepherd
turned into a wolf, they threatened to tear him in pieces , and throw
him into the sea. He was not, however, without partisans, and
although these were but very few, they had, for all that , the support
of the Court and the Magistracy, and the contests even in the
church became so violent, that there was frequently danger of blood
being spilled there ( 7). Withal, there was one person who, while
Nestorius was publicly preaching in the church( 8 ) , and denying the
two generations of the Word , the Eternal and the Temporal, boldly
stood forward, and said to his face : " It is so, nevertheless ; it is the
same Word, who, before all ages, was born of the Father, and was
afterwards born anew of a virgin, according to the flesh." Nestorius
was irritated at the interruption, and called the speaker a miserable ,
ribald wretch ; but as he could not take vengeance as he wished on
him,-for, though but then a layman (he was afterwards made Bishop
of Dorileum, and was a most strenuous opponent of Eutyches, as
we shall see in the next chapter), he was an advocate of great
learning , and one of the agents for the affairs of his Sovereign ,-he
discharged all the venom of his rage on some good Archimandrites
of monks, who came to inquire of him whether what was said of
his teaching was true- that he preached that Mary brought forth
only a man that nothing could be born of the flesh but flesh alone
-and suggested to him that such doctrine was opposed to Faith.
Nestorius, without giving them any reply, had them confined in
the ecclesiastical prison, and his myrmidons, after stripping them
of their habits, and kicking and beating them, tied them to a post,
and lacerated their backs with the greatest cruelty, and then,
stretching them on the ground, beat them on the belly.
23. The sermons of Nestorius were scattered through all the
provinces of the East and West, and through the monasteries of
Egypt, likewise, where they excited great disputes . St. Cyril,
Bishop of Alexandria, hearing of this, and fearing lest the heresy
(9) St. Cyril, Ep. ad Mon. n. 3, apud.; Fleury, t. 4, l. 25, n. 3 ; Orsi, l. 28, n. 14.
(10) Epis. ad Nestor. c. 6, ap.; Fleury, ibid. (11) Fleury, ibid. (12) St. Cyril,
Ep. ad Nest. c. 10, ap.; Fleury, l. 25. (13) St. Cyril, ad Acac. c. 22. (14) Libell
Basil. c. 30, n. 2.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 123
forsook his communion ; but he prohibited not only those, but all
who previously had preached against his opinion, from preaching ;
so that the people , deprived of their usual instructions, said : " We
have an Emperor, but we have not a Bishop." A monk, burning
with zeal, stepped forward while Nestorius was going into the
church, and thought to prevent him, calling him a heretic, but
the poor man was immediately knocked down, and given into the
hands of the Prefect, who first caused him publicly to be flogged,
and then sent him into exile (15).
25. St. Cyril wrote again to Nestorius, but seeing his obstinacy,
and that the heresy was spreading in Constantinople, through favour
of the Court, he wrote several letters, or, rather, treatises, to the
Emperor Theodosius, and to the Princesses, his sisters, concerning
the true Faith ( 16). He wrote likewise to Pope Celestine, giving
him an account of all that took place , and explaining to him the
necessity there was that he should oppose the errors of Nesto-
rius (17) . Nestorius himself, at the same time, had the boldness
to write a letter to St. Celestine, likewise, in which he exaggerates
his great labours against the heretics, and requires also to know
why some bishops of the Pelagian party were deprived of their
Sees ; he thus wrote, because he had kindly received those bishops
in Constantinople, and the Pelagians were not included in an edict
he procured from Theodosius against the heretics ; for, as Cardinal
Orsi remarks, he adhered to the Pelagian opinion, that Grace is
given to us by God, according to our own merits. He also wrote
that some called the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God, when she
should only be called the Mother of Christ, and on that account he
sent him some of his books ; this letter is quoted by Baronius (18).
St. Celestine having read both letters, summoned a Council in
Rome, in the month of August, 430, for the examination of the
writings of Nestorius, and not only were his blasphemies condemned,
but he was even deposed from his bishopric , if, ten days after the
publication of his sentence, he did not retract his errors, and the
Pope charged St. Cyril with the execution of the sentence (19) .
26. St. Cyril, in discharge of the commission to which he was
appointed by the Pope, convoked a Council, in Alexandria, of all
the bishops in Egypt, and then in the name of the Council wrote
a Synodical letter to Nestorius, as the third and last admonition ;
telling him that if, in the term of ten days after the receipt of that
letter, he did not retract what he had preached, those Fathers would
have no more communication with him, that they would no longer
consider him as a bishop , and that they would hold communion with
all clergymen and laymen deposed or excommunicated by him (20) .
(15) Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 3, a. 12, s. 2 ; Fleury, l. 25, n. 3 ; Orsi, t. 12, l. 28, n. 37,
& seq. (16) Con. Ephes. p. 1 , c. 3, n. 6. (17) Conc. Ephes. p. 1 , c. 14.
(18) Baron. An. 430, n. 7. (19) Fleury, t. 4, l. 25, n. 10, & seq ; Nat. Alex. cit. ar.
12 & 3. (20) Conc. Ephes. p. 1, c. 26.
124 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
The Synodical letter also contained the profession of Faith and the
anathemas decreed against the Nestorian errors ( 21 ) . These , in
substance , are an anathema against those who deny that the
Holy Virgin is Mother of the Incarnate Word, or deny that Jesus
Christ is the only Son of God, true God and true Man , not alone
according to his dignity, but through the hypostatic union of the
Person of the Word with his most Holy Humanity. These ana-
themas are fully and distinctly expressed in the letter.
27. St. Cyril appointed four Egyptian bishops to certify to
Nestorius the authenticity of this letter, and two others— one to the
people of Constantinople, and another to the abbots of the mo-
nasteries, to give them notice likewise of the letter having been
expedited . These prelates arrived in Constantinople on the 7th
of the following month of December, 430 ( 22 ), and intimated to
Nestorius the sentence of deposition passed by the Pope , if he did
not retract in ten days ; but the Emperor Theodosius , previous to their
arrival, had given orders for the convocation of a General Council, at
the solicitation- both of the Catholics, induced to ask for it by the
monks, so cruelly treated by Nestorius, and of Nestorius himself, who
hoped to carry his point by means of the bishops of his party, and
through the favour of the Court. St. Cyril, therefore, wrote anew
to St. Celestine, asking him (23) , whether, in case of the retractation
of Nestorius, the Council should receive him, as bishop, into com-
munion, and pardon his past faults, or put into execution the sen-
tence of deposition already published against him. St. Celestine
answered, that, notwithstanding the prescribed time had passed, he
was satisfied that the sentence of deposition should be kept in
abeyance, to give time to Nestorius to change his conduct. Nesto-
rius thus remained in possession of his See till the decision of the
Council. This condescension of St. Celestine was praised in the
Council afterwards, by the Legates, and was contrasted with the
irreligious obstinacy of Nestorius ( 24).
28. As St. Celestine could not personally attend the Council, he
sent Arcadius and Projectus, Bishops, and Philip, a priest, to pre-
side in his place, with St. Cyril appointed President in chief. He
gave them positive orders that they should not allow his sentence
against Nestorius to be debated in the Council (25) , but to endea-
vour to have it put into execution . He wrote to the Council to
the same effect, and notified the directions he had given to his Le-
gates, and that he had no doubt but that the Fathers would adhere
to the decision he had given, and not canvass what he already had
decided , and , as we shall see , everything turned out most happily ,
according to his wishes. When the celebration of Easter was con-
cluded , the bishops all hastened to Ephesus, where the Council
(21 ) Apud Bernini, t. 1 , sec. 5, c. 4, p. 452, & Orsi, t. 12, l. 28, n. 48. (22) Orsi,
t. 13, l. 29, n. 1, ar. 2. (23) Celest. Ep. 161. (24) Orsi, loc. cit. n. 1 , in fin.
(25) Celest. Epis. 17, apud ; Orsi, ibid. n. 2 .
AND THEIR REFUTATION 125
(26) Graveson, t. 3. sec. 5, col. 4. (27) Orsi, l. 29, n. 12. (28) Orsi, loc. cit.
n. 12. (29) In actis Con. Ephes. ap. Bernin. sec. 4, c. 4 , p. 458.
126 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(30) Orsi, t. 13, l. 29, n. 18. (31) Orsi, n. 21 ; Fleury, t. 4, l. 25, n. 42.
(32) Epis. Cyr. t. 3, Conc. (33) Fleury & Orsi, loc. cit. (34) Apud Bernin.
ser. 5, c. 4; Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 3, ar. 12, s. 6. (35) Orsi, L. 29, n. 23, & seq.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 127
"
· 31. Several bishops of the Nestorian party, who had signed the
protest, were even shocked at his impiety, and convinced of the
justice of the sentence passed against him, joined the Council (36) .
But when everything appeared to be about to settle down peace-
ably, John, Bishop of Antioch, raised another storm ( 37) , in con-
junction with other schismatical bishops, to the number of forty ;
and, either to please Chrisaphius, Prime Minister of the Emperor,
and a great friend of Nestorius, or because it went to his heart to
see his friend and fellow-citizen (Nestorius was a citizen of Antioch)
condemned, he had the hardihood to summon a Cabal in the very
city of Ephesus, and then to depose St. Cyril, and St. Mennon ,
Bishop of Ephesus, and to excommunicate all the other bishops of
the Synod, because, as they said, they trampled on and despised
the orders of the Emperor. St. Cyril and the other bishops took
no notice of such rash attempts, but, on the contrary, the Council
put forth its authority, and deputed three bishops to cite John,
as chief of the Cabal , to account for his insolence, and after being
twice more cited, and not appearing , the Council, in the fifth Session,
declared John and his colleagues suspended from ecclesiastical
communion, till such time as they would repent of their fault ,
and that, if they obstinately persevered, they would be proceeded
against, according to the Canons, to the last extremity ( 38). Finally,
in the year 433, John, and the other bishops of his party, subscribed
the condemnation of Nestorius, and St. Cyril received him to his
communion, and thus peace was re-established between the Metro-
politans of Alexandria and Antioch (39).
32. We will, however, return to the Council , and see what was
decided on in the subsequent Sessions, and , which we have post-
poned, the end of the Cabal of John of Antioch. Shortly after the
first Session, the three Legates of St. Celestine arrived at Ephesus
-Philip, Arcadius, and Projectus- and they came not alone in the
Pope's name, but also of all the bishops of the West. The second
Session was then held in the palace of St. Mennon , Bishop of the
See, and the Legates took the first place (40) . First of all, they
wished that the letter of St. Celestine, sent by them to the Council,
should be read. And when the Fathers heard it, they all agreed
to the sentiments expressed in it by the Pope. Philip then thanked
the Council, and said : " You, by these acclamations, have united
yourselves as holy members with your head, and have manifested
that you well know that the Blessed Apostle, Peter, is the head of
all the faithful, and chief of the Apostles ." Projectus then moved
that the Council would put into execution what was mentioned in
the letter of the Pope. Fermus, Bishop of Cesarea, in Cappadocia,
answered, that the holy Synod, guided by the antecedent letters of
the Pope, to St. Cyril, and to the Churches of Constantinople and
(36) Orsi, n. 25. (37) Cabassu. not. Con. sec. 5, n. 17, & Orsi, n. 33. (38) Orsi,
1. cit. n. 49. (39) Orsi, t. 13, l. 30, n. 28. (40) Orsi, n. 42.
128 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(46) Baron. n. 101 ; Orsi, n. 61. (47) Baron. Ann. 451, n. 104. (48) Baron.
n. 105 & 107. (49) Baron. Ann. 451 , n. 108 ; Cabass. sec. v. 17 ; Fleury, t. 4, l. 26,
76. 6. (50) Orsi, t. 13, l. 30, n. 28. (51) Baron. Ann. 431, n. 113.
I
130 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(56) Baron. n. 177 & 181. (57) Dan. temp. not. p. 241 . (58) Liberat. Brev.
c. 10. (59) Coll. Sup. c. 199. (60) Fleury, t. 4, l. 26, n. 36. (61) Berti, t. 1,
sec. vi. c. 2.
132 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
Pope, and thus sustain their own errors. The history of Nestorian-
ism would be incomplete without a knowledge of the modern de-
fenders of the heresy, and the arguments made use of by them.
Calvin was the first to raise the standard , and he was followed by
his disciples, Albertin, Giles Gaillard, John Croye, and David de
Roden. This band was joined by another Calvinistic writer, in
1645 , who printed a work, but did not put his name to it, in which
he endeavours to show that Nestorius should not be ranked with
the heretics, but with the doctors of the Church, and venerated as
a martyr, and that the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus ought to
be considered Eutychians, as well as St. Cyril, St. Gregory Thau-
maturgus, St. Dionisius of Alexandria , St. John Chrysostom, and
St. Hilary, who give it such praise. This book was refuted by the
learned Petavius, in the year 1646 , in the sixth book of his work
on Theological Dogmas. Finally, Samuel Basnage , in his An-
nals (67) , has joined with Calvin and the other authors above-
named, and has taken up the defence of Nestorius ; he has even
the hardihood to declare, that the Council of Ephesus had filled
the world with tears.
41. We shall let Basnage speak for himself. He says, first, the
Council of Ephesus was not a General one, but only a particular
Synod, as the bishops refused to wait either for the Pope's Legates,
or for the other bishops of the East. As far as the Legates are
concerned, we see (No. 28. ) that St. Cyril assisted at the Council
from the beginning, and that he had been already nominated by
the Pope as President ; that a few days after, the other Legates
arrived, and that they confirmed the Council. It is true all the
bishops of the East did not attend it, for eighty-nine bishops
seceded, and formed a cabal apart, in the very city of Ephesus, in
which they deposed St. Cyril ; but a few days after, the eighty-nine
were reduced to thirty-seven, among whom were the Pelagian
bishops, and several others already deposed ; and the rest, when
their eyes were opened to the truth , united themselves to the Fathers
of the Council , so that Theodoret, who at first adhered to the party
of John of Antioch, wrote to Andrew of Samosata : " Pars maxima
Israelis consentit inimicis, pauci vero valde sunt salvi, ac sustinent
pro pietate certamen :" but John himself, afterwards, together with
Theodoret and the rest who repented , subscribed to the Council,
which then was recognized as Ecumenical by the whole Church.
With what face, then , can Basnage say that it was a particular , and
not a General Council?
42. Basnage says next ( 68), that it is a false supposition of Noel
Alexander, that Nestorius taught that there were two persons in
Christ, or denied that Mary was the true Mother of God, and he
was condemned , he says, only because he was not well understood ;
(67) Basnage, ad an. 441, n. 13. (68) Basnage, l. cit. ad an. 430.
134 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(69) Habetur in Sess. 4 ; Con . Col. 1103. (70) Sess. 4 ; Con. Col. 1021. (71 ) Tom.
4; Con. Col. 1023. (72) Tom. 5 ; Con. Col. 1004.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 135
ARTICLE IV .
SEC. I. THE SYNOD OF ST. FLAVIAN. THE COUNCIL OR CABAL OF EPHESUS, CALLED
THE 66 LATROCINIUM," OR COUNCIL OF ROBBERS.
44. Beginning of Eutyches ; he is accused by Eusebius of Dorileum. 45. St. Flavian
receives the Charge. 46. Synod of St. Flavian. 47. Confession of Eutyches in the
Synod. 48. Sentence of the Synod against Eutyches. 49. Complaints of Eutyches.
50. Eutyches writes to St. Peter Chrysologus, and to St. Leo. 51. Character of
Dioscorus. 52 & 53. Cabal at Ephesus. 54. St. Flavian is deposed, and Eusebius
of Dorileum. 55. The Errors of Theodore of Mopsuestia. 56. Death of St. Flavian.
57. Character of Theodoret. 58 & 59. Writings of Theodoret against St. Cyril.
Defence of Theodoret. 60. Dioscorus excommunicates St. Leo. 61. Theodosius
approved the Council or Cabal, and dies. 62. Reign of St. Pulcheria and Marcian.
(1) Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 3, ar. 13, s. 1 ; Baron. An. 448, ex. n. 19 ; Hermant, t. 1,
c. 155 ; Fleury, t. 4, l. 27 , n. 23. (2 ) Liberat. Brev. c. 11. (3) St. Leo, Ep. 19 , l. 6.
(4) Fleury, t. 4, l. 27, n. 23. (5) Sulp. l. 25 , n. 2, ap. Fleury, cit. n. 23. (6) Orsi,
ibid. n. 16 ; Fleury, cit. n. 23 ; Nat. Alex. t. 10, ar. 13, s. 2.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 137
with him, to bring him round ; but, when he saw it was all in vain,
he gave up his friendship and became his accuser. Even before
that the Orientals ( 7) had already denounced the errors of Euty-
ches to the Emperor Theodosius ; but he so adroitly turned aside
the charge, that, instead of being arraigned , he became the accuser.
The bishops of the East exclaimed , that Eutyches was infected
with the errors of Apollinares, but as it was an old trick to charge
with the profession of this false doctrine the adversaries of Nesto-
rius, and especially all who defended the anathemas of St. Cyril ;
and as those same bishops had before defended Nestorius , and even
still upheld the doctrine of Theodore of Mopsuestia , no one took
any notice of their accusation of Eutyches on the present occasion.
The unfortunate man had then nothing to fear from the charges of
those bishops, but when Eusebius of Dorileum took up the matter
it wore a more serious aspect. Eusebius then, having frequently
admonished him privately, and seeing that this had no effect on
him, considered himself now bound by the Gospel to denounce him
to the Church, and , accordingly, laid the matter before St. Flavian ,
Archbishop of Constantinople (8).
45. St. Flavian foresaw, that a judicial process and condemnation
of Eutyches would occasion a great deal of tumult , for he was
venerated by the people, and respected by the Court, as a man
who, having dedicated himself to God from his infancy, had now
grown grey in monastic solitude, and never went outside of his
cloister for a day, only when he joined with St. Dalmatius, to
defend the Council of Ephesus ; the Archbishop, therefore, advised
Eusebius to act with the greatest caution . Eutyches was also
protected by the Eunuch Chrisaphius, whose godfather he was,
and joined with Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, in opposing the
Oriental bishops, who were the first to accuse him of heresy ; it
would appear, then, in intermeddling at all with the matter, that
St. Flavian and Eusebius were joining the enemy, and opposing
both the Court and Dioscorus, and thus occasioning a great dis-
turbance in the Church ; but neither this, nor any other considera-
tion, could restrain the zeal of Eusebius, so St. Flavian was obliged
to receive the charge, and let justice take its course.
46. While this was going on , St. Flavian held a Synod for the
adjustment of some disputes between Florens of Sardis, the Me-
tropolitan of Lydia, and two bishops of the same province. When
this case was concluded ( 9 ) , the Bishop of Dorileum arose, and
presented a document to the Council, requiring that it should be
read and inserted in the Acts. The document was read, and in it
Eusebius charged Eutyches with blaspheming Jesus Christ, with
speaking with disrespect of the Holy Fathers, and with accusing
(7) Orsi, t. 14, l. 32, n. 9. (8) Orsi, ibid. n. 16 ; Fleury, l. c. (9) Orsi, loc. cit.
n. 17 ; Fleury, l. 27, n. 24.
138 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES,
himself, whose whole study it was to make war with heresy, with
being a heretic ; he demanded , therefore, that Eutyches should be
cited to appear before the Council, to give an account of his ex-
pressions, and he promised that he would be prepared to convict
him of heresy, and thus, those whom he had perverted could see
the evil of their ways and repent. When the paper was read
through, St. Flavian besought Eusebius to see Eutyches once more
in private, and try to bring him to a better sense. Eusebius an-
swered, that he had done so over and over already, and could bring
many witnesses to prove it, but all in vain , and he, therefore, again
begged of the Council, at any cost, to summon Eutyches, that he
might not lead others astray, as he had already perverted a great
number. Still, however, St. Flavian wished that Eusebius should
try once more the effect of a private remonstrance, but he refused ,
as he had so often made the attempt already and could not succeed.
The Synod, at length, received the charge against Eutyches, and
deputed a priest and deacon to wait on him, and summon him to
appear at the ensuing Session of the Council to clear himself. The
second Session was then held , and in that, the two principal letters
of St. Cyril, on the Incarnation of the Word, were read, that is,
his second letter to Nestorius, approved by the Council of Ephesus,
and the other to the Council of John of Antioch, after the conclu-
sion of the peace. When these letters were read, St. Flavian said ,
that his Faith was, that Jesus Christ is perfect God and perfect
man, composed of body and soul, consubstantial to his Father,
according to his Divinity, and consubstantial to his Mother, accord-
ing to his humanity, and that from the union of the two natures-
Divine and human, in one sole hypostasis or person , there results
but one Jesus Christ, after the Incarnation of the Word ; and all
the other bishops made the same profession . Other Sessions were
held, and other citations were sent to Eutyches, calling on him to
appear and justify himself, but he refused, and alleged as an excuse,
that he never left his convent, and, besides, that he was then
sick (10).
47. Towards the close of the seventh Session , Eutyches presented
himselfbefore the Council, for he could no longer refuse the repeated
citations he received , but the Fathers were surprised to see him enter,
accompanied by a great troop of soldiers (11 ) , of monks, and of officers
of the Prefect of the Pretorium, who would not allow him to enter
the Council, till the Fathers promised to send him back safe again.
He came into the Council hall, and he was followed by the " Great
Silenciary" (an officer so called among the Romans, whose duty it
was to preserve the peace of the Imperial Palace), who presented,
and read an order from the Emperor, commanding that the Patrician
(10) Orsi, n. 18. (11) Fleury, 7. 27 , n. 28 ; Orsi, t. 14, l. 32, n. 23 ; Baron. Ann.
448, n. 48 ; Hermant, t. 1 , c 155.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 139
will not submit ; what do you exhort him for ?" St. Flavian then ,
with consent of the bishops, pronounced the sentence in these
terms : " Eutyches, Priest, and Archimandrite, is fully convicted,
both by his past acts, and his present confessions, to hold the errors
of Valentine and Apollinares, and more so, as he has had no regard
to our admonitions : therefore, weeping and sighing for his total
loss, we declare, on the part of Jesus Christ, whom he blasphemes,
that he is deprived of every priestly grade, of our communion, and
of the government of his monastery ; and we make known this,
that all those who hold any conversation or communication with
him shall be excommunicated" ( 12) . Here are the words of the
decree, as quoted by Noel Alexander (13) : " Per omnia Eutiches,
quondam Presbyter et Archimandrita, Valentini et Apollinaris
perversitatibus compertus est ægrotare, et eorum blasphemias in-
commutabiliter sequi ; qui nec nostram reveritus persuasionem , atque
doctrinam, rectis noluit consentire dogmatibus. Unde illacrymati ,
et gementes perfectam ejus perditionem , decrevimus per Dominum
N. Jesum Christum , quem blasphematus est, extraneum eum esse
ab omni officio sacerdotali, et a nostra communione, et primatu
monasterii ; scientibus hoc omnibus, qui cum eo exinde collo-
quentur, aut eum convenerint, quoniam rei erunt et ipsi pœne
excommunicationis." This sentence was subscribed by thirty-two
bishops, and twenty-three abbots, of whom eighteen were priests,
one a deacon, and four laymen. When the Council was termi-
nated, Eutyches said to the Patrician Florentius, in a low voice,
that he appealed to the Council of the Most Holy Bishop of Rome,
and of the Bishops of Alexandria , of Jerusalem, and of Thessa-
lonica, and Florentius immediately communicated it to St. Flavian,
as he was leaving the hall to go to his own apartment. This ex-
pression , thus privately dropped (14) , gave a handle to Eutyches
afterwards to boast that he had appealed to the Pope, to whom he
wrote , as we shall soon see.
49. This pretended appeal did not prevent St. Flavian from
publishing the sentence of excommunication, but Eutyches made
use of it, to publish a great many false charges against the Synod,
which he accused of trampling on all the rules of justice in his
regard. The sentence of the Council was published, by order of
St. Flavian, in all the monasteries, and subscribed by their Archi-
mandrites ; but the monks of the monastery Eutyches governed,
instead of separating themselves from his communion, preferred to
remain without sacraments, and some of them even died without
the viaticum, sooner than forsake their impious master. Eutyches
complained very much of St. Flavian , for calling on the heads of
the other monasteries to subscribe his sentence, as a novelty never
(12) Fleury, t. 4, 1. 27, n. 28 ; Orsi, † 14, l. 52 , n . 23. ( 13) Nat. Alex. f. 10, c. 8,
art. 13, sec. 4. (14) St. Leo, Epis. 20, al. 8.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 141
before used in the Church, not even against heretics ; but, on the
other hand, it was a new thing to find an Abbot chief of a heretical
sect, and disseminating his pestilent errors in the monasteries.
He also complained that St. Flavian had removed his protests,
posted up in Constantinople, against the Council, and which were
a tissue of abuse and calumny , as if he had any right to stir up the
people against a Council now closed, or to defend his pretended
innocence by calumnious libels ( 15 ) .
50. He next wrote to St. Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna ,
complaining of the judgment of St. Flavian, with the intention of
gaining the favour of this holy bishop, who had great influence
with the Emperor Valentinian and his mother Placida, who in
general resided at Ravenna. St. Peter answered him, that, as he
had not received any letter from Flavian, nor heard what that
bishop had to say in the matter, he could give no opinion on
the controversy, and he exhorts him to read and obey whatever
the Pontiff, St. Leo, would write to him: " Above all things we
advise you , honourable brother, obediently to attend to whatever is
written by his Holiness the Pope, since St. Peter, who lives and
presides in his See, affords to those who seek it the truth of Faith ."
This letter is found in Bernini and Peter Annatus ( 16) . Both
Eutyches and St. Flavian wrote afterwards to St. Leo ; Eutyches,
to complain of the grievances he asserted were inflicted on him by
the Council of Constantinople, and St. Flavian , to explain the just
cause he had to depose and excommunicate Eutyches . St. Leo
having received the letter of Eutyches before that of St. Flavian,
wrote to him (17), wondering that he had not already written to
him what he thought of the matter, for he could not make out from
the letter of Eutyches the reason of his excommunication. He ,
therefore, ordered him to inform him immediately of the whole
transaction, and especially of the erroneous doctrine for which he
was condemned, that, as the Emperor wished, an end might be put
to this discord and peace restored, especially as Eutyches professed
his willingness to be corrected , if it was proved he had erred. St.
Flavian answered the Pope, giving him a full account of everything,
and, among the rest, that Eutyches, in place of repenting, was only
endeavouring to disturb the Church of Constantinople, by wicked
libels and petitions to the Emperor, for a revision of the Acts of
the Synod at which he was condemned , and making charges to the
effect that the Acts were falsified . In fact, on the 8th of April,
449 , another assembly was held in Constantinople, by order of the
Emperor, and St. Flavian ( 18 ) was obliged to present his profession
of Faith, in which he declares, that he recognizes in Jesus Christ
two natures after the Incarnation , in one Person, and that he did
(15) Orsi, cit. n. 33. (16) Bernin. t. 1, sec. 5, c. 6, p. 510 ; Petr. Anat. Ap. par
ad Theol. 7. 4, de Script. Eccl. art. 30. (17) St. Leo, Epis. 20, ap. Orsi, ibid. n. 24, 25 ;
Fleury, n. 31 , 32. (18) Liberat. Brevia. c. 11.
142 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
not also refuse to say one nature of the Divine Word , if the words
incarnate and humanized were also used, and he excommunicated
Nestorius and all who divided Jesus Christ into two persons ( 19).
No other matter of importance was decided in that meeting.
51. In the meantime, Dioscorus , Patriarch of Alexandria , at the
instigation of Eutyches, and urged on by Chrysaphius, his pro-
tector, wrote to the Emperor, that it was necessary to convoke a
General Council, and he obtained an order for it through the
influence of Chrysaphius. Before we proceed , however, it will be
necessary to give an insight into the character of Dioscorus, as we
shall have to speak frequently of his wickedness hereafter . He
concealed his vices under an exterior of virtue, to obtain the
bishopric of Alexandria ( 20), in which, for his own misfortune, he
was successful ; he was avaricious, immoral, and furiously violent.
When placed on the Episcopal throne of Alexandria, he threw
aside all restraint ; treated most cruelly those ecclesiastics who
were honoured by St. Cyril ; some he reduced to beggary, and even
burned their houses, and tortured them in prison ; others he sent
into banishment. He kept improper women in his palace, and
publicly bathed with them, to the insufferable scandal of the people .
He so persecuted the nephews of St. Cyril, deprived them of all
their property, that he drove them as wanderers through the world ,
while he made a show with their property, distributing it among
the bakers and tavern-keepers of the city, that they might sell
better bread and wine (21 ). He was charged with many homicides ,
and with causing a famine in Egypt by his insatiable avarice. It is
even told of him, that a lady having left her property to the hospi-
tals and the monasteries, he ordered it to be distributed among the
actors and prostitutes of Alexandria. Hermant asserts ( 22) that he
followed the errors of the Origenists and the Arians : such was the
protector of Eutyches. Now to the subject.
52. Theodosius convoked the Council , in Ephesus , for the 1st
of August, 449 (it was not held , however, till the 8th) , and sent
his diploma to Dioscorus , appointing him President, with power
to assemble whatever bishops he pleased to try the case of Eutyches.
Never, perhaps, before was the world disgraced by such acts of in-
justice as were committed by Dioscorus in that Synod , which has
been justly called , by ecclesiastical writers , the Latrocinium Ephe-
sinium, or meeting of robbers at Ephesus ; for he, abandoning him-
self to his innate ferocity, used horrible violence towards the Catho-
lic bishops, and even towards the two Legates, Hilary, Deacon of
the Roman Church, and Julius, Bishop of Pozzuoli , sent by St. Leo
to represent him at the Council. When these saw the Holy See
excluded from the presidency of the Council, in their persons, for
Dioscorus, who usurped the first place, they judged it better to take
the last place, and to appear no longer as Legates of the Pope,
when they saw his authority slighted. Lucretius, the Pope's Le-
gate in the Council of Chalcedon , charged Dioscorus with this after ,
and called him to answer for his audacity, in holding a Synod in
Ephesus , without the authority of the Apostolic See, which never,
he said, has been lawful, nor has ever been done ; and he could not
have made this charge, if Hilary and Julius had been received in
the Council as Legates of the Pope (23) . Nevertheless, they seve-
ral times requested that the letter of l'ope Leo should be read ( 24) ;
but Dioscorus would never allow it, calling for other documents
to be read, according to his own pleasure ; neither would he allow
any examination of Articles of Faith, fulminating anathemas against
any one who would allude to it. It was quite enough, he said , to
hold by what was decided in the Councils of Nice and Ephesus,
and, since they had decided that, no novelty should now be intro-
duced to interfere with their decisions (25) .
53. Dioscorus now called on Eutyches to read his profession of
Faith, and the impious heresiarch anathematized Apollinares and
Nestorius, or any one that would assert that the flesh of Jesus Christ
came down from heaven. When he came to this passage, Basil of
Seleucia interrupted him, and asked him to explain the manner in
which he believed the Word had taken human flesh ? but he gave
him no answer, nor did the heads of the Synod, as they ought to
have done, oblige him to explain himself, for this was the principal
point of the whole question ; for , if the Divine nature destroyed the
human nature in the Incarnation , or the human nature was con-
founded with the Divine nature, as the Eutychians asserted, how
could it be said that the Word of God took human flesh ? How-
ever, without waiting for the answer to the question of Basil, the
notary was ordered to proceed with the reading of the document
of Eutyches, in which he complained of the sentence passed on
him, and concluded by requiring that his persecutors should be
punished (26) . When this statement of Eutyches was read, St.
Flavian said that it was but just that his accuser, Eusebius of Dori-
leum, should be heard likewise , but not only this was refused , but
St. Flavian himself was told that he was not allowed to speak, as
the Emperor had given positive orders that none of those who had
passed judgment on Eutyches before should be allowed to say a
word without leave of the Synod (27) .
54. The Acts of the Synod, held by St. Flavian, were then
read , and also the two letters of St. Cyril to Nestorius and John of
Antioch, in which St. Cyril approved of the expression of the two
natures. Eustatius of Beyroot, a partisan of Eutyches, then re-
(23 ) Liberat. Brevia. c. 12. (24) Orsi, n. 41. (25 ) Orsi, n. 52. (26) Orsi,
n. 53. (27) Orsi, n. 14, l. 32, n. 54.
144 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
marked to the Council that St. Cyril, in two other letters written
to Acacius of Melitis and Valerian of Iconium, did not use the
words, two natures, but the one nature of the Divine Word Incar-
nate, and thus this Eutychian bishop wished to make it appear that
St. Cyril held the same faith as Eutyches ; but this was all a
calumny against St. Cyril, for the saint, in a thousand passages of
his writings, had expressly spoken of the two natures of Christ, and
besides the expression, the one nature of the Incarnate Word only
meant the union in Christ of two distinct natures, the Divine and
human . And this was most clearly expressed soon after, in the
Council of Chalcedon , in which it was laid down that these words,
used first by St. Cyril, and afterwards by St. Flavian , were only
used in that sense, and an anathema was pronounced against any
one using the expression , " the one nature," with the intention of
denying that the flesh of Christ was consubstantial with ours. The
votes given in the Council held by St. Flavian were next read, and
when the vote of Basil of Seleucia, that_two natures should be re-
quired in Christ, was read out, all the Egyptians and the monks ,
followers of Barsuma, cried out : " Let him be cut in two who
speaks of two natures in Christ ; he is a Nestorian heretic ." It was
then read out that Eusebius of Dorileum had pressed Eutyches to
confess two natures in Christ, and when the same party heard this,
they cried out with all their force ; " To the pile with Eusebius,
let him be burned alive ; as he has divided Jesus Christ, let him be
cut in two halves himself" (28). Dioscorus being now assured of
the suffrages ofthe bishops, for some adhered to him through liking,
and more through terror, called on every one to give his sentence ;
and thus the faith of Eutyches was approved of, and he was re-
established in his dignity, and the monks, his adherents, who were
excommunicated , by St. Flavian, were again received into com-
munion (29).
55. The great object which Dioscorus had in view, however,
was the deposition of St. Flavian and of Eusebius of Dorileum , and
he therefore ordered the decree of the Synod antecedent to that of
Ephesus to be read , prohibiting, under pain of anathema and deposi-
tion, any other Symbol but that of Nice to be used . The intention of
the Council, in passing this law, was to reject the malignant Sym-
bol of Theodore of Mopsuestia, in which, as Rabbula, Bishop of
Edessa (30) , relates , the Nestorian blasphemy was introduced , and
it was professed : First. That the Holy Virgin was not the real
Mother of God. Second. That man was not united to the Word
according to the substance, but through good will. Third .- That
Jesus Christ ought to be adored but only as the image of God.
Fourth. That the flesh of Jesus Christ availeth nothing. Theodore ,
besides, denied original sin, and on that account, when Julian and
his fellow-Pelagians were banished out of Italy by the Pope St.
Celestine, they went to Theodore, who, as Marius Mercator in-
forms us, received them kindly. Cassianus (31 ) also tells us that
the Pelagians taught the same errors as Nestorius and Theodore,
that is, that Christ was but a mere man, and they meant to prove
by that proposition that it was possible for a man to be without
original sin , as he was so ; and hence they deduced as an inference,
that other men might be without sin, likewise, if they wished to be
So. But to the point ; the intention of the Council then was to re-
ject the Symbol of the impious Theodore, as it was afterwards de-
clared in the fifth Ecumenical Council, in which, as we shall see
in the following chapter, the Three Chapters were condemned, as
was also Theodore and his writings ; but it was not the intention of
the Council of Ephesus, nor did it ever prohibit the use of other
words, besides those used in the Council of Nice, when these ex-
pressions are only used to express more clearly the sense of any
Catholic dogma, impugned by some new heresy not taken into
consideration by the Council of Nice. Still, Dioscorus, intent on
the condemnation of St. Flavian and Eusebius, ordered that the
Decree of the Council of Ephesus should be read, and then imme-
diately called on the notaries , and without any form of trial, or
giving St. Flavian any time to defend himself, ordered one of the
notaries to read the sentence of deposition against these two bishops,
on the false charge that they had introduced novelties in Faith, and
had not adhered to the words of the Symbol of Nice ( 32 ). St.
Flavian instantly put into the hands of the Legates of the Pope an
appeal against the sentence ( 33). Several bishops, horrified at such
a glaring act of injustice, endeavoured to soothe Dioscorus ; some of
them even throwing themselves at his feet, and embracing his knees,
besought him to revoke the sentence, but all to no avail, for he
told them he would sooner cut out his own tongue than revoke it ;
and when they still, in the most pressing manner, continued to im-
plore him to change his mind, he stood up on the steps of the
throne and cried out : " Are you then determined to create a sedi-
tion ; where then are the Counts ?" The Counts at once came into
the church with a strong body of soldiers, and were joined by the
partisans of Dioscorus and the monks of Barsumas, so that the
church became a scene of tumult and confusion. The bishops all
fled, some to one part of the edifice, some to another, but the doors
were all bolted , and guarded, so that no one could escape. Dios-
corus then, to give a finishing stroke to this villany, presented a
blank paper to the bishops, that they might subscribe the sentence,
and those who showed any disposition to refuse, were threatened
(34) Orsi, n. 59 & 60. (35) Orsi, t. 14, l. 32, n. 62 ; Fleury, t. 4, l. 27, n. 41 ;
Hermant, t. 1, c. 157. (36) Orsi, t. 14, l. 33, n. 62 ; vide Fleury, t. 4, l. 67, n. 41, t. 1 ;
Ber. p. 552. (37) Orsi, n. 68.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 147
(38) Orsi, t. 12, l. 28, n. 49. (39) Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 4, n. 28 ; Orsi, loc. cit. n. 50.
(40) Orsi, l. 28, n. 62. (41 ) St. Cyril, Apol. cap. (42) Orsi, t. 13, l. 30, n. 66
& seq.
148 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
St. Cyril, and the Cabal of Ephesus, and in his defence of Theo-
dore and Nestorius, and those productions were condemned in the
second Council of Constantinople ; but we should not forget, that
he erred, not in holding the doctrines of Nestorius, but in believing
that St. Cyril was an upholder of the doctrines of Apollinares ; so
that when he read (43) St. Cyril's letter to Acacius of Berea, in
which the saint clears himself from the imputation of being a
favourer of the doctrines of Apollinares, and professes, that he
firmly believes that the body of Christ was animated by a reason-
ing soul, and expresses his detestation of the confusion of the two
natures, and declares that he holds the nature of the Word to be
impassable, but that Christ suffered according to the flesh ; he at
once, thinking that St. Cyril had now forsaken the doctrine of
Apollinares (44 ), and no longer believed in the confusion of the
two natures, felt quite happy, and said, that St. Cyril now followed
the pure doctrine of the Fathers, and wrote him a loving letter,
because, as he said, he now recognized in the Incarnation of the
Word, one Son alone, and one Christ alone, with the distinction
of the two natures ; St. Cyril cordially answered him, and this was
the commencement of a friendly correspondence between them (45) .
59. Theodoret next wrote his work Eranistes (the Beggar),
against the Eutychians (46) , and, on that account, through the
calumnies of Eutyches, he was first confined by the Emperor to
his Diocese of Cyrus, and was afterwards deposed by Dioscorus,
in the Cabal of Ephesus, but he appealed from this sentence to
St. Leo, and subsequently retired to his old monastery, near
Apamea (47). He was afterwards recalled from exile , by Mar-
cian (48), and St. Leo declared him innocent, and reinstated him
in the See of Cyrus (49) . Finally, in the Council of Chalcedon ,
after publicly anathematizing Nestorius, and all who did not call
the Virgin Mary the Mother of God, and divided Jesus Christ into
two Sons, he was received by all the Fathers, and declared worthy
of being restored to his See (50). It is supposed that he lived to
the year 458 , and that, towards the end of his life, he composed
the treatise on Heretical Fables (51) .
60. We now come back to the impious Synod of Ephesus. The
majority of the bishops having now subscribed the condemnation
of St. Flavian, the few, who refused to lend themselves to this
iniquity, were sent into banishment by Dioscorus. These few
confessors alone, and Hilary, the Pope's Legate, were the only
members who had the courage to protest, and declared that a cabal
like that would never be approved of by the Pope, or be received,
as it undermined the Apostles' Creed, and that they never would,
(43) Orsi, t. 13, l. 30, n. 12. (44) Orsi, n. 13. (45) Orsi, t. 13 , l. 30, n. 67.
(46) Orsi, t. 14, l. 32, n. 10 & 11. (47) Orsi, t. 14, l. 32, n. 68 & seq. ad 85.
(48) Orsi, t. 14, l. 33, n. 3. (49) Orsi, ibid. n. 20. (50) Orsi, ibid. n. 70.
(51) Orsi, ibid. n. 20.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 149
(52) Orsi, t. 14, l. 13, n. 61 . (53, Hermant, t. 1, c. 157 ; Fleury, t. 4, l. 27, n. 41.
(54) Orsi, t. 14, l. 32 , n. 97. (55) Libel. Theo. æt Con. Chal. v. Fleury, 7. cit.
(56) Hermant, t. 1 , c. 157. (57) Orsi, l. 32, n. 90. (58) Orsi, loc. cit. n.101.
150 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(59) Hermant, t. 1, c. 158. (1 ) Fleury, t. 4, l. 27, n. 48, in fin. (2) Orsi, t. 14,
1. 35, n. 28 & 29. (3) St. Leo, Epis. 52. (4) Lib. Brev. c. 13, & Mar. in Chron.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 151
number was six hundred and thirty ; and Nicephorus (5) raises it to
six hundred and thirty- six.
63. The first matter the Council deliberated on in the first Ses-
sion, held on the 8th of October, 451 , was the examination of the
conduct ofthe impious Dioscorus. He went to the Synod with the
hope that his party would be still all-powerful through the bishops
who subscribed the acts of the Cabal of Ephesus, but Pascasinus,
standing up, said that Dioscorus should not take his seat in the
Council, but should present himself as a criminal, to be judged :
and seeing him then seated among the bishops, he called on the
judges and the Senate to have him expelled , otherwise he and his
colleagues would leave the Council. The imperial ministers de-
manded from the Legate his reasons for calling for the expulsion of
Dioscorus, and then Lucentius, another of the Legates, answered
that he had dared to summon a Synod , without the authority of the
Apostolic See, which never was lawful, nor ever before done (6) .
Dioscorus then took his seat in the middle of the church , and
Eusebius, of Dorileum, likewise, as his accuser , on account of the
sentence pronounced against himself and against St. Flavian , and
he demanded that the Acts of the Council of Ephesus should be
read . The letter of the Emperor for the convocation of the Coun-
cil was first read , and Theodoret, on account of his writings against
St. Cyril, was at first prevented from taking his place among the
Fathers ; but as St. Leo and the Emperor Marcian had re-established
him in his See, he was introduced as one of the members . His
enemies, however, immediately began tumultuously to oppose his
admission, so the imperial officers ordered him to sit also in the
middle as an accuser, but without prejudice to his rights, and he
was afterwards re-established in his See by the Council itself, after
anathematizing the errors of Nestorius, and subscribing the defini-
tion of Faith , and the Epistle of the Pope, St. Leo (7) . The Acts
of the Latrocinium of Ephesus were next read, and the Profession
of Faith of St. Flavian , and the imperial judges asked the Council
if it was Catholic . The Legates answered in the affirmative , as it
coincided with the letter of St. Leo. Many of the bishops then ,
who sat with Dioscorus's party, went over to the other side, but he,
though left alone almost, as only a few Egyptian bishops held on to
him , still persevered in maintaining the Eutychian errors, and assert-
ing that after the union of the Divinity with the humanity of Christ
we should not say those were two natures, but only one in the In-
carnate Word. When the reading of the Acts was finished , the
imperial minister declared that the innocence of St. Flavian and
Eusebius of Dorileum was fully established, and that those bishops
who had caused them to be deposed should undergo the same sen-
tence themselves ; and thus the first Synod was concluded (8).
(5) Vide Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 4, a. 13, s. 17. (6) Acta, Con. Chal. (7) Orsi,
1. 23, n. 45, 47 & 70. (8) Orsi, ibid.n. 49.
152 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
64: The second Synod was held on the 10th of October, to decide
on the Faith that should be held ; the two creeds of Nice and Con-
stantinople, the letter of St. Leo, and the two letters of St. Cyril
were read, and the bishops then exclaimed : " We all believe the
same. Peter has spoken by the mouth of Leo ; anathema to him
who does not believe likewise." A petition , presented by Eusebius,
against the injustice practised by Dioscorus was then read, but he
had left the church. Three bishops were sent to summon him be-
fore the Council, but on various false pretences he refused to appear,
though cited three times. The Legates then, in the name of the
Pope, declared him excommunicated and deposed from his bishopric,
and all the bishops, both verbally and in writing, confirmed the
sentence, which was sanctioned, likewise, by Marcian and St.
Pulcheria (9). Some monks ofthe Eutychian party now presented
themselves before the Synod ; the principal among them were
Carosus, Dorotheus , and Maximus. When these and their party
entered the church (and among them was Barsumas, at whose ap-
pearance the bishops all cried out : " Out with the murderer of St.
Flavian"), they impudently demanded that Dioscorus and the other
bishops who came with him from Egypt, should be admitted as
members of the assembly, and in case this demand was rejected, they
would separate themselves, they said, from the communion of the
Council. They received for answer, that in that case they would
be deposed, and that if they persevered in disturbing the Church ,
they would be punished, as creators of sedition, by the secular
power ; but, as they pertinaciously persevered, the Council gave
them thirty days for consideration, at the expiration ofwhich they
would be punished as they deserved (10) .
65. After this the bishops subscribed the Dogmatical Epistle of
St. Leo, and set about definitively arranging the articles of Faith
in opposition to the heresy of Eutyches ; a formula composed by
Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and some other bishops,
was read, but was not received by the Pope's Legates ( 11 ) , for it
said that Christ was in two natures, but it did not say that he was
of two natures. The bishops, who pertinaciously declared that
nothing should be added to the ancient symbols, were thus reasoned
with by the judges ; Dioscorus , said they , is satisfied that it should be
declared that Christ is in two natures, but will not allow that he is
oftwo natures ; on the other hand, St. Leo says that there are in
Christ two natures united, without confusion or divisibility, whom ,
then, will you follow, Leo or Dioscorus ? Then all cried out : " We
believe as Leo believes ; he has properly expounded the Faith ;
whosoever contradicts it is a Eutychian." The judges then added :
" So you agree to the definition , according to the judgment of our
(9) Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 3, ar. 13, s. 17 ; Orsi, ibid. n. 50 & 55. (10) Orsi, t. 14,
1. 33, n. 59, 60. (11) Orsi, t. 14, l. 33, n. 62.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 153
Holy Father, that there are in Christ two natures, united without
confusion or division ." Thus the clamours were finally stopped ,
and a formula adopted ( 12 ) , in which it was declared, that the
Fathers took for the rule of their definition the symbols of the two
Councils of Nice and Constantinople, which were also the rule for
that adopted in the Council of Ephesus, in which Pope Celestine
and St. Cyril presided ; in continuation it was said , that although
the forementioned symbols were sufficient for the full knowledge
of the Faith, nevertheless, as the inventors of new heresies had
adopted new expressions , and corrupting the doctrine ofthe Mystery
of the Incarnation, some of them denied to the Virgin the title of
the Mother ofGod, and others taught that the nature of the Divinity
and of the humanity were one and the same, and that the Divine
nature was passible in Christ, therefore the holy Council confirmed
both the Faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers of Nice ,
and of the one hundred and fifty Fathers of Constantinople ; and,
as the Council of Constantinople has added some words to the
Creed of Nice, not because it was deficient in anything essential,
but more clearly to explain the doctrine regarding the Holy Ghost,
in opposition to those who denied the Divinity of the third Person
of the Trinity, thus, with a similar intention, the Council of Chal-
cedon, in opposition to those who wish to corrupt the doctrine of
the Incarnation , and say, that one nature alone was born of the
Virgin, or deny two natures to Christ, besides the two forenamed
symbols admits the synodical letter of the Blessed Cyril, and lastly,
the letter of St. Flavian, against the errors of Eutyches , which cor-
responds with the letter of St. Leo, in which these are condemned,
who divide the " Only-begotten" into two Sons ; and those who
attribute the Passion to his Divine nature ; and those who, of the
Divinity and the humanity, make one nature alone ; and those who
say the flesh of Christ is celestial, or of any other substance than
flesh ; and those who blasphemously teach, that before the union
there were two natures in Christ, but only one after the union.
The Council, therefore , teaches that there is only one Lord Jesus
Christ in two natures, without division , without change, and with-
out confusion ; that the difference of the two natures was never
removed on account of the union , but that each remains properly
the same, both one and the other concurring in one person alone,
and in one substance, so that Jesus Christ is not divided into two
persons, but is always the same, only Son , and only-begotten Word,
God. The Council finally prohibited the teaching or holding of
any other Faith, or any other symbol to be composed for the use of
the Catechumens, renewing after this manner the order of the
Council of Ephesus, notwithstanding the abuse Dioscorus made of
it. When the definitive decree was read, it was uniformly received
by all the Fathers, and first the Legates, and next all the Metropo-
litans, put their signatures to it ( 13) .
66. When all these matters had been defined , the Council made
other regulations, and especially in the sixteenth and last Session,
by the twenty-eighth Canon, the privilege of ordaining the Metro-
politans of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace, who were before subject
to the Patriarch of Antioch, was confirmed to Anatolius, Patriarch
of Constantinople. This privilege was already granted to the
Bishop of Constantinople by a Council of one hundred and fifty
bishops, held in that city, in the time of Theodosius the Great, on
the plea that as Constantinople had become the seat of empire,
and the second Rome in the East, it was only proper that it should
be decorated with the primacy of honour, second only to Rome
itself, especially as it was already in possession ofthe honour for
sixty or seventy years past. The Legate Pascasinus, Bishop of Li-
libeum, opposed this Canon . It was, he said, contrary to the
ancient Canons of the Church, and especially to the sixth Canon of
the Council of Nice , in which it was recognized that the Church of
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem , took precedence of Constan-
tinople, not to speak of the Church of Rome, which always enjoyed
the primacy ; but notwithstanding the opposition, the Fathers re-
mained firm to the arrangement they decreed (14).
67. The bishops then wrote to St. Leo, giving him a statement
of all that was done in the Council, and asking for his confirmation
of their proceedings. In their Synodical epistle they recognize the
Pope as the faithful interpreter of St. Peter, and acknowledge that
he presided at the Synod as head over the members. They first
praise his epistle, and next inform him of the sentence fulminated
against Dioscorus , on account of his obstinacy, and the re-union of
the repentant bishops, and all these things, they said, were effected
with the assistance of the Pontifical Vicars. They made some other
regulations, they said, on the presumption that his Holiness would
confirm them, and especially they confirmed the primacy of ho-
nour to the Archbishop of Constantinople, for the reasons already
stated (15) . Besides this Synodical letter, the Emperor Marcian ,
St. Pulcheria, and Anatolius, wrote without the least delay to St.
Leo, begging him, notwithstanding the opposition of the Legate, to
confirm the twenty-eighth Canon of the Council in favour of the
See of Constantinople ( 16) ; but, although he was extremely de-
sirous of obliging Marcian and St. Pulcheria , still he never would
agree to the violation of the Canons of the Council of Nice, and he
answered them that the prerogatives of the See of Antioch should
be preserved (17) .
68. Before we go any further we shall relate the fate ofEutyches
(13) Orsi, t. 14, l. 33, n. 66. (14) Orsi, t. 14, l. 33, n. 78 & 79. (15) Orsi, l.
cit. n. 84. (16) Orsi, l. cit. n. 82 & 83. (17 ) Fleury, t. 14, l. 28, n . 33 ; Orsi,
2. 86.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 155
(18) Orsi, t. 14, l. 33, n. 4 ; Fleury, ibid. l. 28 , n. 55. (19) Berni, t. 1 , c. 6, p. 534.
(20) Orsi, t. 14, l. 33, n. 55, in fin. 133. (21 ) Evag. 2, c. 5. (22) Ap. Orsi,
t. 14, l. 35, n. 91. (23) Evag. 1, c. 31. (24) Orsi, . cit. n. 90.
156 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
nated, and employed a wretch for that purpose ; but this assassin ,
as he could not come at Juvenal, who escaped to Constantinople,
joined some other wretches along with him, and killed St. Save-
rianus, Bishop of Schytopolis (commemorated in the Roman
Martyrology, on the 21st of February) , and some of his adherents.
He next set about establishing himself in his usurped See, by per-
secuting all who opposed his tyranny ; some he caused to be cruelly
tormented, he burned the houses of others, and , in particular, he put
to death a deacon of the name of Athanasius, and not satisfied with
his murder had his body dragged through the city and cast to the
dogs. Athanasius is commemorated in the Martyrology, on the
5th of July (25 ) . He next set out on a visitation through the
Dioceses of the Patriarchate, accompanied by the monks of his
party, and many others of dissipated characters, who spread deso-
lation and destruction wherever they went. He drove several
bishops from their churches, and he even had some of them killed ,
and put his own partisans in their Sees ; one of these, Theodotus ,
he ordained Bishop of Joppa, and another, Peter of Iberia, Bishop
of Majuma ; and it was from one of these afterwards that the im-
pious Eleurus, the usurper of the See of Alexandria, received con-
secration (26) . When Marcian was informed of the tyranny and
insolence of Theodosius and his monks he appeased the sedition
by proclaiming a pardon to all who would return to the obedience
of the Church, and when he saw himself abandoned by his followers
he privately fled. After various wanderings he came to the con-
vent of Sinai and begged the monks to receive him , but they re-
fused, so he fled on to Arabia, and concealed himself in the solitudes
of that region . His usurpation lasted only a year and eight months,
from the beginning of the year 452, till August, 453, when Juvenal
returned to Jerusalem, and again took possession of his See (27) .
71. About this time, that is in the year 453, St. Pulcheria died ;
though the learned have agreed as to the year, they have not as to
the day of her death ; but the Greeks in their Menelogues, and the
Latins in their Martyrologies, celebrate her festival on the 10th of
September. St. Leo, in one of his Epistles (Ep . 90) , says in her
praise, that she was possessed of the royal power, and the sacer-
dotal learning and spirit, with which she offered to God a perpetual
sacrifice ofpraise : and to the zeal of this holy Empress he ascribed the
stability of the Faith against the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches.
She preserved her virginity in marriage , and by her example induced
her sisters also to consecrate themselves to God. She built many
hospitals, founded several monasteries, and erected a great number
of churches, especially in honour of the Divine Mother, and the
Church soon venerated her as a saint ( 28) . Four years after, in
(25) Orsi, t. 14, l. 33, n. 94. (26) Orsi, n. 111. (27) Orsi, cit. loc. 33, n. 131.
(28) Orsi, t. 15, l. 34, n. 12 & 13.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 157
the year 467 , the Emperor Marcian died . St. Leo calls him a
prince of blessed memory, and the Greeks celebrate his festival on
the 17th of February . We have already seen how great was his
piety, and with what fervour he opposed every enemy of the
Faith (29).
72. We shall now speak of the principal followers of Eutyches .
The second hero of iniquity was Timothy Eleurus, a priest, but
who before his ordination wore the monastic habit, though merely
as a mask of piety. He was of a most ambitious character, so that
scarcely had he heard of the deposition of Dioscorus, when he con-
sidered he had pretensions to the Diocese of Alexandria, but when
St. Proterius was elected in place of Dioscorus, he was filled with
rage, and began to declaim against the Council of Chalcedon. He
succeeded in getting over to his side four or five bishops and some
monks, infected like himself with the errors of Apollinares, and
thus had the boldness to separate himself from the communion of
Proterius. When Marcian was informed of this schism he endea-
voured to extinguish it, but could not succeed, so St. Proterius
assembled a Synod of all Egypt, and condemned Eleurus, Peter
Mongos his companion, and those few bishops and monks who
adhered to him. With all that St. Proterius was obliged to be
constantly on his guard against him, although he was sent into
banishment by the Emperor, and only with difficulty saved his life
during the reign of the Emperor Marcian (30). At the Emperor's
death he renewed his pretensions, set at nought the decree of
banishment he laboured under, returned to Egypt, and endeavoured
to drive St. Proterius from the Church of Alexandria. He con-
cealed himself in a monastery of Alexandria, and to induce the
monks to join his party he used to go about their cells in the night
time, telling them in a feigned voice that he was an angel sent from
heaven to admonish them to separate themselves from Proterius,
and elect Timothy Eleurus for their bishop. Having by these
schemes gained over many monks to his side, he sent them into
Alexandria to excite the people against St. Proterius and the
Council of Chalcedon . When all was prepared, and the people
sufficiently excited , he came forth into the city, accompanied by
his schismatical bishops, Peter Mongos, his monks , and several
other monks, accomplices of his schism, and caused himself to be
proclaimed bishop in the church. He immediately got himself
consecrated by two bishops of his party, and at once began to ordain
deacons, priests, and bishops for the Egyptian churches, and gave
orders that all those ordained by St. Proterius should be expelled,
unless they attached themselves to his party (31 ) .
73. Count Dionisius, the military commander of the province,
(29) Orsi, t. 15, 7. 34, n. 12 & 13, (30) Orsi, t. 14 , 7. 33, n. 105. (31 ) Orsi,
t. 15, l. 34, n. 15 ; Fleury, t. 4, l. 29, n. 2.
158 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(32) Orsi, n. 16, &c.; Baron. An. 457, n. 28. (33) Orsi, t. 15, l. 33, n. 17, &
Fleury, t. 4, 29, n. 2.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 159
(34) Orsi, t. 15 , l. 34, n. 18 & 19. (35 ) Orsi, loc. cit. n. 48. (36 ) St. Leo,
Epis. 137, al. 99. (37) Fleury, t. 4, l. 29, n. 13 ; Orsi, n. 61 & 62.
160 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(38) Fleury, t. 4, l. 29, n. 45. (39) Orsi, t. 15, l. 35, n. 66 & 68. (40) Liberat.
Breviar. c. 16. (41 ) Fleury, . 29, n. 49 ; cum Gennad. de Scrip. Ecclesias. n. 80.
(42) Mosheim, Hist. Ecclesias. cen. v. p. 2, c. 5, n. 12 ; M'Lain, ibid. (43) Orsi,
t. 12, l. 27, n. 14. (44) Evagrius, l. 1 , c. 33. (45) Theod. Philoch. c. 26 .
(46) Fleury, t. 4, l. 29, n. 7. (47) Mazzocchi, t. 3, in Com. in Cal.; Neop. p. 585.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 161
Simon was a great defender of the Church against the errors of the
Eutychians, it will not be irrelevant to give here a short account
of his life. He was born in the village of Sisan, on the frontiers of
Syria, or, as Theodoret says, of Aria. Up to the age of thirteen,
he kept his father's sheep, but after that he gave himself entirely
up to God, and lived in several monasteries ; but even the austere
lives ofthe monks did not satisfy him, so he accustomed himself to
live alone on the top of a column he had built. Moved by a par-
ticular divine instinct, he several times changed from one pillar to
another, but the last one was forty cubits high, and on that he lived
for thirty years till his death, exposed to the sun of summer and
the snows of winter. This pillar was so narrow at the top, that he
had scarcely room on it. He only ate once a-week, and spent several
Lents in the year without any food at all. His only employment was
prayer. Besides other exercises of piety, he made a thousand in-
clinations every day, so performed that he touched his feet with
his head, and this caused a great ulcer on his belly, and three of
the vertebræ of his spine were displaced, and he had painful ulcers
in his thighs, which bled a great deal . The holy monks of Egypt,
dreading lest a life of such penance might be dictated only by some
extravagant notions, and wishing to test his obedience, and see by
that whether it was pleasing to God , sent him a command to come
down from his pillar. When the saint heard the word obedience ,
he immediately prepared himself to descend, but the messen-
ger then said, as he had been instructed : Stop where you are ,
Simon, for we now know that it is the will of God that you should
live on this pillar (48 ). I pass over many wonderful things in his
holy and penitential life, but the most wonderful thing of all was
to see the thousands of conversions this unlettered saint wrought
from this pillar,-not alone of sinners and heretics, but even of the
pagans themselves. People from the most remote regions came to
the foot of his column , for his fame had extended through the
world . Some he brought out of the darkness of infidelity to the
light of faith,-others he led from the ruin of their sins to a holy
life ; many he saved from the pestilence of heresy -especially of that
of Eutyches, which then infested the Church to a great extent. He
wrote a most powerful letter to the Emperor Theodosius (49 ) ,
praying him to labour with all his might for the defence of the
Council of Chalcedon.
78. The death of St. Simon was just as stupendous as his life (50).
He died in the year 449 , and the time of his death was revealed
to him forty years previously. Just before his death, a dreadful
earthquake took place at Antioch ; so the people all crowded round
the pillar of the servant of God to beg his prayers in that awful
(48) Orsi, t. 12, l. 17, n. 14, infra ex Theod. exc. l. 2. (49) Evagrius, l. 2, c. 20.
(50) Orsi, t. 15, l. 34 & 57.
162 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(51) Orsi, cit., n. 57. (52) Orsi, t. 15, l. 35, n. 62. (53) Orsi, t. 15, l. 35,
2. 66, 68. (54) Fleury, 7. 29, n. 49, ex Gennad. de Scrip. Eccles. n. 80.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 163
(2) Fleury, t. 4, l. 29, n. 53. (3) Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 3, a. 15, s. 4. (4) Baron.
Ann. 428. (5) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. (6) Fleury, t. 4, l. 29, n. 54. (7) Nat.
Alex. t. 10, c. 3, ar. 14, s. 5 ; Fleury, t. 5 , l. 30 , n. 21 .
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 165
(8) Fleury, t. 4, l. 29, n . 30 ; Orsi, t. 15, l. 35, n. 18 ; Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 3, art. 17.
(9) Liberat. Breviar His. Eutych. (10) Orsi, loc. cit. (11) Orsi, ibid. n. 64 & 69.
(12) Orsi, vide ibid.; Fleury, loc. cit . n. 49, in fin. ex Evagr. l. 3, c. 10. (13) Fleury,
ibid. n. 50. (14) Fleury, t. 5, l. 30 , n. 17 ; Nat. Alex. loc. cit.
166 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
to the Church, for, although not infected with the heresy of the
Eutychians, he was their great protector, and, by his bad prac-
tices, kept alive a great schism, which was not extinguished till
thirty years or more after his death ( 15 ) . He was accused to the
Pontiff, St. Felix , of many negligences of duty, and especially of
communicating with the impious Mongos, who had anathematized
the Council of Chalcedon and the Epistle of St. Leo. The Pope
admonished him to repent ; but, taking no notice of his remon-
strances, he deposed and excommunicated him, and in that state he
lived for the remainder of his life, and died so (16).
( 16 ). At his death,
in fine, we are horrified at reading of the ruin of religion all over
the East, for the churches were either in possession of heretics, or
of those who communicated with heretics, or, at least, of those who,
by communicating with heretics, were separated from the commu-
nion of Rome ; and almost all this evil originated in the protection
given by Acacius to the enemies of the Church. While I write
this I tremble. A bishop myself, and considering how many, on
account of being exalted to that dignity, have prevaricated and
lost their souls - many, I say, who, ifthey had remained in a private
condition, would be more easily saved. I abstract altogether from
the question , whether he who looks for a mitre is in a state of mortal
sin, but I cannot understand how any one, anxious to secure his
salvation, can wish to be a bishop, and thus voluntarily expose him-
self to the many dangers of losing their souls, to which bishops are
subject.
CHAPTER VI.
ARTICLE I.
1. Regulation made by the new Emperor, Anastasius, to the great Detriment of the
Church. 2. Anastasius persecutes the Catholics ; his awful Death. 3. The Acephali,
and their Chief, Severus. 4. The Sect of the Jacobites. 5. The Agnoites. 6. The
Tritheists. 7. The Corruptibilists. 8. The Incorruptibilists. 9. Justinian falls
into this Error. 10. Good and bad Actions of the Emperor. 11 , 12. The Acemetic
Monks ; their Obstinacy.
1. WHEN Zeno died, the Catholics hoped for peace : but, in 491 ,
Anastasius was elected Emperor, and he commenced a long and
fierce persecution against the Church (1) . In his private life he
appeared a pious man ; but when he was raised to the Empire, and
(15) Orsi, 15, l. 35, n. 27. (16) Orsi, t. 16, l. 36, n. 27, 28. (1) Orsi, t. 16, l. 36,
n. 57.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 167
saw all the Churches of the world split into different factions, so
that the Western bishops would not communicate with the Eastern ,
nor even the Easterns among themselves, and wishing to see no
novelty introduced , as he said, he gave orders ( 2 ) that all the
Churches should remain in the same state he found them , and
banished from their Sees any bishops who introduced novelties.
Nothing could be better than this, if all the Churches were united
in the profession of the true Faith ; but as there were several at
that time which did not adhere to the Council of Chalcedon, to
make a law, that no Church should change its ancient usage, was
the best possible means of perpetuating discord, and this was pre-
cisely the effect it produced.
2. Although Anastasius had shown some signs of piety, still
Euphemius, Patriarch of Constantinople , who had narrowly watched
his sentiments in regard of the Faith, considered him a heretic, and
opposed his exaltation with all his might (3) ; he never even would
consent to it, till he had from him a sworn promise, and signed ,
besides, with his own hand , binding him to defend the Council of
Chalcedon. All this Anastasius did ; but he not only broke his
promise afterwards, but endeavoured (4) to destroy all proof of it,
by requiring the restoration of the paper he had signed and sworn
to , which was kept in the treasury of the Church ; for the reten-
tion of such a document, he said, was an insult to the Empire, as
ifthe word of a Prince was not worthy of faith by itself. He favoured
the heretics, and persecuted the Catholics, especially the Patriarch
Euphemius, whom he succeeded in deposing (5) . He favoured ,
above all others, the Eutychians, who principally infested the
Church at that time. He could not, however, be called an Euty-
chian himself; he was rather one of the sect of Existants or Tolera-
tors, who permitted every religion except the Catholic (6 ) . He
died at last, in the year 518, on the 9th of July, and in the ninetieth,
or, at all events, the eighty-eighth year of his age, having constantly
persecuted the Church during the twenty-seven years he reigned .
According to the account of Cyril, Bishop of Scythopolis, in the
life of St. Saba, quoted by Orsi and Fleury (7) , he had an unhappy
end. St. Saba, he says, came to Aila, where St. Elias, Patriarch
of Jerusalem, was banished. They used to take their meals together,
at the hour of noon every day ; but on the 9th of June, the
Patriarch did not make his appearance till midnight, and, when he
entered, he said , Do you eat, for I will not nor cannot eat any more.
He then told St. Saba, that, at that very hour, the Emperor was
dead, and that he should follow him before ten days, to meet him
at the bar of Divine justice, and, in fact, on the 20th of July , he
slept in the Lord, in the eighty-eighth year ofhis age, having taken
(2) Orsi, n. 68. (3) Evagr . 3, c. 32 ; Orsi, t. 16, l. 35 , n. 37, con . Theodoret.
(4) Orsi, loc. cit. n. 70. (5) Orsi, n. 112. (6) Orsi, t. 19, l. 37, n. 21. (7) Orsi,
. 17, L. 38, n. 34 ; Fleury, t. 5, Z. 31 , n. 33.
168 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
no food for eight days previously. St. Elias, and St. Flavian,
Patriarch of Constantinople, who also died in exile, banished by
Anastasius for defending the Council of Chalcedon, are comme-
morated in the Roman Martyrology, on the 4th of July ( 8 ) . The
circumstances of the Emperor's death were remarkable : On the
night of the 9th and 10th of July a dreadful thunder-storm raged
over his palace. Terrified with the frequent flashes of lightning,
but much more on account of his sins, he imagined that God was now
about to chastise him for his inquities, and he fled wandering from
chamber to chamber ; he, at last, retired into a private cabinet, and
was there found dead, whether from the effects of terror, or struck
by lightning, authors are undecided . This was the end of this bad
man, after twenty-seven years' persecution of the Church of God.
On the day of Anastasius's death, Justin was invested with the Im-
perial dignity ; he was a prince ( 9) always obsequious to the Apos-
tolic See, and zealous in combating heresies, and establishing unity
and peace in the Church . He reigned nine years, and was suc-
ceeded by Justinian , of whom we shall speak by-and-by, and he was
succeeded, in 565 , by his nephew, Justin II ., who began his reign
well, but soon fell into dreadful excesses, though he never lost the
Faith, and died, at last, with sentiments of Christian piety ( 10) .
3. The heresies which disturbed the Church in this century were
almost all offshoots from the stock of Eutychianism. Those from
whom the Catholics suffered most were the Acephali, who were
also Eutychians. They were called Monophysites, as they believed
only one nature in Christ ( 11 ) ; but as they separated themselves
from Mongos, the pretended Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to
adhere, either to the Catholic party, or to their bishop, Mongos,
they were called Acephali , or Headless. They were not without a
chief, withal-one Severus, from the city of Sozopolis, in Pisidia.
He was a Pagan in the beginning of his days, and it is thought he
never sincerely renounced his errors ; he went to Beyroot to study
law, and was convicted there of idolatry and magical practices, so,
to escape the punishment his infamies deserved, he pretended to
embrace Christianity. He was baptized in Tripoli , in Phenicia ( 12) ,
but he was not eight days a Christian, when he forsook the Catholic
communion, and threw himself into the arms of the party who had
separated from Mongos, and he rejected from that out both the
Council of Chalcedon and the Henoticon of Zeno. He was a man
of corrupt morals, but to gain credit with the monks he professed
the monastic life in the monastery of the abbot Nefarius, in Egypt ;
but he was there discovered to be a heretic and expelled, and he
then went to Constantinople, where he some time after found
himself at the head of two hundred monks, and of many other
(8) Orsi, t. 19, 7 42, n. 89. (9) Orsi, t. 19, l. 39, n. 37, in fin. (10) Orsi, t. 19,
l. 43, n. 67. (11) Orsi, loc cit. n. 68. (12) Orsi, t. 16, l. 37 , n. 62, cum Evagr.
1. 3 , n. 33.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 169
(13) Orsi, n. 63. (14) Orsi, n. 71. (15) Orsi, n. 72. (16) Fleury, t. 5, l. 33,
n. 2 ; Nat. Alex. t. 11, c. 3, a. 3 ; Gotti, loc. cit. (17) St. Greg. l. 10, Ep. 39 , a. 42.
170 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
the humanity with the Divinity. God made man, he says, know
the day and the hour by the power of his Divinity.
6. The chief of the Tritheists was John , a grammarian of
Alexandria ; he was known by the name of Philoponos the labourer.
He objected to the Catholics , that if they recognized two natures
in Christ they should admit two persons ; but he was answered that
nature was one thing and person another : for , if nature and per-
sonality were one and the same thing , we should admit three na-
tures in the Trinity as there are three persons . This reasoning was
so convincing to Philoponos that he at once admitted its force , but
it led him into a much greater error , for he recognized three distinct
natures in the Trinity , and , therefore , admitted three distinct Gods ,
and hence his followers were called Tritheists (18) . He wrote
likewise against the resurrection of the flesh ( 19) . With these
exceptions he believed in Christianity , and defended it against
Proclus of Licia , a Platonic philosopher who attacked it at the
time .
7. From this hot-hed of error two other sects sprung up, the
Corruptibilists and the Incorruptibilists . Theodosius, a monk,
founded the Corruptibilists , who believed that Christ had a cor-
ruptible body. These erred, not because they said that the Word
had in Christ taken a corruptible body by its nature, and subject to
hunger and thirst and sufferings, but because they asserted that Christ
by necessity was subject to these sufferings , in the same manner as all
of us were subject to them, so that he should undergo them whether
he willed or not ( 20) . The Catholic doctrine is that the Word had
in the body of Christ put on the common sufferings of mankind,
hunger, weariness , pain, and death, not through necessity , as they
are of necessity with us, the punishment of original sin, but of his
own free will on account of his unbounded charity which induced
him to come " in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans, viii . 3), to
condemn and punish sin in the flesh. And in the same manner,
says St. Thomas (21 ), our Saviour wished to assume the passions of
the mind, sorrow, fear, weariness, not in the same way as they are
in us, opposed to reason , for all the motions of the sensitive appetites
in Christ were ordered according to reason, and were on that
account called in him propassions ; for passion in itself, says the
angelic doctor, is so called when it rules over reason, but it is pro-
passion when it remains in and does not extend beyond the sensitive
appetite.
8. St. Julian of Halicarnassus was the head of the Phantasiasts
or Incorruptibilists. These taught that the body of Christ was
by its nature incorruptible and free from all passions, so that he
suffered neither hunger nor thirst, nor weariness nor pain, but that
( 18) Fleury & Nat. Alex. 7. cit. Berti, Brev. His. t. 1 , s. 6, c. 3. (19) Niceph.
7. 18, c. 47, 48. (20) Gotti, l. cit. c. 76, s. 6, n. 7. (21) St. Thomas, p. 2.
7. 15 , a. 4.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 171
(22) Gotti, l. cit. ex Liberat. in Brev. c. 20. (23 ) Gotti, ibid. (24) Fleury, t. 5,
l. 34, n. 8, cum Evagr. l. 4, n. 30 ; Orsi, t. 19, l. 42, n. 78. (25 ) Fleury, 7. cit.
172 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(26) Evagr. l. 4, n. 33. (27) Fleury, l. c. n. 11. (28 ) Baron. Ann. 565, n. 1.
(29) Evagr. l. 4, c. 40 ; Niceph. Z. 16, c. 31. (30) Orsi, t. 19, l. 42, n. 84. (31) Baron.
loc cit. n. 3.
* Acemetic, or sleepless monks, were a celebrated order in the East. They were called
the sleepless, because night and day they kept up Divine psalmody without intermission ;
the community was divided into three sections, and each spent eight hours out of the
twenty-four singing the praises of God. - TRANS.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 173
(32) Orsi, t. 17, l. 39, n. 123. (33) Orsi, loc. cit. (34) Fleury, t. 5, l. 32, n. 35 ;
Orsi, ibid. n. 24.
174 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
the Trinity suffered in the flesh. He then strove to get the Aceme-
tic monks who had come to Rome, to accept his definition , but they
obstinately refused, and he was obliged to separate them from the
communion of the Church (35 ) . We should remark that the letter
of Pope John did not contradict the letter of Pope Hormisdas, for
this Pope did not condemn the proposition, but only withheld his
approbation for just causes, lest , as Roncaglia says, a hasty defini-
tion at thetime might divide some from the unity ofthe Church (36).
ARTICLE II.
13. It was during this sixth century that the controversy about
the Three Chapters was carried on. These were : First.- The
books of Theodore of Mopsuestia, in which it was clear he taught
the heresy of Nestorius (supra, cap. v. n. 48) ; Second. —The letter
of Ibas to Maris of Persia, in which he condemned alike St. Cyril
and Nestorius, and praised Theodore of Mopsuestia : and, Thirdly.
-The writings of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, against the twelve
anathematisms of St. Cyril. This controversy grievously disturbed
the Church, but it was put at rest by the condemnation of these
Three Chapters, in the year 553 , in the fifth General Council, the
second of Constantinople. The Emperor Justinian hurried on the
condemnation of Theodore and his writings, the letter of Ibas to
Maris the Persian, and the writings of Theodoret against St. Cyril,
and finally, the sentence received the approbation of Pope Vigilius,
in his famous Constitutum. Danæus (1) says that Vigilius was op-
posed to the celebration of this Council, but as he had not the power
to prevent it, and foresaw that a ruinous schism would spring from
his objection, he gave his assent, and , confirmed by the assent ofthe
Holy See, it now ranks among the Ecumenical Councils.
14. Pope Vigilius was blamed for his conduct in regard to this
Council, and for so frequently changing his judgment regarding the
condemnation of the Three Chapters, but Cardinal Norris ( 2 ) , after
relating all his changes, defends him- as does Peter of Marca-
and says that his inconstancy was not weakness but prudence .
" Vigilius ," he says, " was a most tenacious upholder of Pontifical
authority, even setting at defiance the Sovereign himself, as appears
from his actions. He is reproached with inconstancy of mind, and
too great a facility in changing his opinions, for in the case of the
(35) Fleury, t. 5 , l. 32, n. 39 ; Gotti, t. 2, loc. cit. c. 77, l. t. 3 ; Orsi, loc. cit. n. 128.
(36) Roncaglia, Not. apud.; Nat. Alex. t. 11, c. 3, ar. 2. (1) Danes.; Nat. Temp.
p. 255. (2) De Norris ; Diss. Histor. de Syn. v. c. d.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 175
Three Chapters he was often inconsistent, and more than once was
opposed to his previous opinions. In the beginning, while he was
yet in Sicily, he defended the Three Chapters ; but, if we are to
believe Victor, he had already promised to Theodora Augusta that
he would condemn them. When he came to Constantinople he
suspended Menna for condemning the Three Chapters ; but he was
soon after reconciled to him, and juridically condemned them him-
self. Three years after he revoked his judgment, published a new
Constitution , and denied that they could be condemned ; but he
held this opinion for only a few months, for he forwarded an epistle
to Eutyches, declaring the Constitution of no effect, and coming to
the Synod, he proscribed the Three Chapters." That most learned
man, Peter of Marca ( lib. iii., De Concordia Sacerdotii & Imperii ,
cap. 13), testifies that this inconstancy of Vigilius has been consi-
dered prudence by the learned ; he calls it dispensation , for at one
time he acted up to the rigour of law and canons, and then again
dispensed with them for the sake of Faith and public tranquillity.
15. Peter of Marca, therefore, says that the Popes at all times,
in questions relating to discipline, have acted according to the rules
of prudence ; sometimes, when necessary , using all the rigour of the
canon, at other times the dispensing power-called by the Greeks,
Economy, by the Latins , Dispensation - to preserve the union of the
faithful and the peace of the Church. Cardinal Orsi ( 3) remarks,
besides, that it was the last Constitution or Judgment alone that was
proposed to the Church by Vigilius as a peremptory decree, and, as
theologians say, pronounced ex Cathedra . He was unwilling, at
first, to condemn the Three Chapters, because he feared to give a
handle to the Nestorians to throw discredit on the Council of Chal-
cedon, which, it was said, approved of the Three Chapters ; but
when, on one hand, he perceived that the Eutychians more vigo-
rously attacked the Council of Chalcedon , which they said (though
it was not the case) had approved of these Chapters ; and, on the
other, the Nestorians, laying hold of that, boasted that this Council
was favourable to the doctrine of Nestorius ; then, indeed , he was
convinced that it was necessary to condemn them absolutely, and he
accordingly gave a decree to that effect, in unison with the Fathers
of the Council of Constantinople, which is, therefore, as Tournelly
says (4), considered one of the Ecumenical Councils, as it was ap-
proved of by Vigilius, and also by some of his successors, as Pela-
gius II., Leo II., &c. , and Photius, according to Orsi , mentions the
same thing in his writings.
16. How does it happen though, says Maclain , the annotator
of Mosheim (5) , that in the Council of Chalcedon the writings of
Ibas and Theodoret were not condemned, and they themselves were
(3) Orsi, t. 7, l. 39, n. 84. (4) Tournelly, Theol. Comp. t. 3 ; append. a. 2, de Con.
Constan. 2, p. 998. (5) Mosheim, Hist. Eccles. Centur. 6, par. 2, c. 3, p. 839.
176 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
praised for the purity of their Faith , and, for all that, the Council
of Constantinople condemns their writings ? the decision of the
Council of Constantinople then is, he says, opposed to that of
Chalcedon, and is a proof that both the Councils and the Doctors
differ among themselves. Thus, he endeavours to prove the falli-
bility of General Councils of the Catholic Church, as these two
Councils were opposed to each other. But as Selvaggi, in his
sixteenth note, very fairly remarks, this is altogether false, for the
Three Chapters were not approved of by the Council of Chalcedon ;
in fact, as Tournelly also remarks, they were neither approved nor
rejected ; they were altogether passed over in that Council, lest,
by condemning them, more disturbance would be raised in the
Church, already distracted by the Nestorians. Peter of Marca
explains the omission of the condemnation , on the authority of St.
Cyril (6) . Cyril, he says, prudently teaches that rigorous rules
must sometimes be tempered by dispensation , as people at sea
frequently throw some of their merchandise overboard to preserve
the rest ; and in his Epistle to Proclus of Constantinople, he tells
him that the Council of Ephesus acted in this manner, for the
Synod, indeed, condemned the heretical impiety , but in this con-
demnation prudently abstained from mentioning the name of Theo-
dorus, lest many, led away by their respect for his person , would
forsake the Church itself.
17. Juenin (7 ) tells us that the books of Origen were con-
demned in this Council, and the following errors of his especially
were noted : First.-That the souls of men are created before they
are united to their bodies, and that they are joined to the body as
a place of punishment. Second. - That the heavens, the sun, the
moon, the stars, and the waters above the heavens, are animated
and reasoning powers. Third.-That in the general resurrection ,
our bodies will arise all in a round form, and that the pains of the
damned and of the devils will have an end some time or other.
Fourth . That in some future ages Jesus Christ will be again
crucified for the devils, and that the wicked spirits who are in
heaven will inflict this suffering on him. Juenin also remarks
that the condemnation of these erroneous doctrines does not ap-
pear clearly, from the original Acts of the second Council of
Constantinople, as in the edition of L'Abbe, but that Cardinal
Norris clearly shows that they were condemned there, though
Garner maintains that it was not in this Council they were con-
demned at all, but in the Constantinopolitan Council, celebrated
under Menna .
(6) Mos. loc. cit. (7) Juenin, Theol. t. 1 , ar. 5, s. 2, ver. Quinto.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 177
CHAPTER VII .
ARTICLE I.
OF MAHOMETANISM.
1. Birth of Mahomet, and Beginning of his False Religion. 2. The Alcoran filled with
Blasphemy aud Nonsense.
(1) Ver. del Fede, part 3, c. 4, nota a. (2) Fleury, t. 7, l. 38, n. 1. (3) Nat.
Alex. t. 12, c. 12, a. 2. (4) Fleury, loco cit.
M
178 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
infidels with arms, and thus propagate the Faith ; and from that
till his death he was always at war. Now Lord of Mecca, he
made it the Metropolis of the Faithful , and before his death he saw
almost all the tribes of the Arabian peninsula subject to his spiri-
tual and temporal sway.
2. He composed the Koran (Al Koran — the book) , assisted, as
some think, by Sergius, a monk. It is a collection of precepts,
taken from the Mosaic and Christian Law, together with many of
his own, and interspersed with fables and ridiculous revelations.
He recognizes the Divine mission of Moses and Jesus Christ , and
admits many parts of the Scriptures ; but his law, he says, is the
perfection of the Jewish and Christian law, and he is the reformer
of these codes, though, in truth, it is totally different from both
one and the other. He professes that there is but one God ; but
in his Alcoran he relates many trivialities unworthy of the Supreme
Being, and the whole work is, in fact, filled with contradictions, as
I have shown in my book on the " Truth of the Faith ." Jews or
Christians, he says, may be saved by the observance of their respec-
tive laws, and it is indifferent if they exchange one for the other ;
but hell will be for ever the portion ofthe infidels ; those who
believe in one God alone will be sent there for a period not ex-
ceeding, at most, a thousand years, and then all will be received
into the House of Peace, or Paradise. The Mahometan Paradise ,
however, is only fit for beasts ; for filthy sensual pleasure is all the
believer has to expect there. I pass over all the other extrava-
gances of the Koran , having already , in the " Truth of the Faith,"
treated the subject more fully.
3. The Mahometans shave the head, and leave only a lock of
hair on the crown, by which they hope Mahomet will take them
up to heaven, even out of hell itself. They are permitted to have
four wives by their law, and they ought, at least, to have one ;
they may divorce each wife twice. It is prohibited to dispute on
the Alcoran and the Scriptures ; and the devil appears to have
dictated this precept himself, for, by keeping those poor people in
ignorance, he keeps them in darkness. Mahomet died in 631 , in
the sixty-third year of his age, and nine years after he was recog-
nized as sovereign of Arabia. He saw almost the whole peninsula
subject to his sway, and for four hundred leagues to the North and
South of Medina no other sovereign was known . He was suc-
ceeded by Aboubeker, one of his earliest disciples , and a great
conqueror likewise. A long line of caliphs united in their own
persons the spiritual and royal power of the Arabian Empire.
They destroyed the Empire of Persia ; and Egypt, and Syria, and
the rich provinces and kingdoms of the East yielded to their
arms (5) .
ARTICLE II.
(5) Epist. Cyri, p. 952, ap. Fleury, loc. cit. n. 42. (6) Fleury, cit. n. 42.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 181
(7) Fleury, t. 6, l. 37, n. 43, 44. (8) Fleury, loc. cit. l. 28, n. 25. (9) Nat. Alex.
t. 12 , dis. p. 3. (10) Anasta. Præf. ad Joan. Diacon. (11 ) Graveson, Hist. Ecclesi,
t. 3, p. 48, c. 3. (12 ) Cave, Hist. St. Leo, Monoth.
182 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
alone, who operates things both Divine and human, and that both one
and the other operations proceed from the same Incarnate Word,
without division or confusion ; for although the expression of one
or two natures has been made use of by some of the Fathers , still
others look on it as strange, and dread lest some may avail them-
selves of it to destroy the doctrine of the two natures in Christ. On
the other hand, the expression of two operations scandalises many,
as it was never made use of by any of the principal Doctors of the
Church, and because it appears to be the same thing to admit two
contrary wills in Christ, as to admit two Persons. And if the im-
pious Nestorius, although he admitted two Sons, did not dare to
say that there were two wills-nay, more , he declared that in the two
Persons supposed by him, there was only one will-how then can Ca-
tholics, who recognize one Jesus Christ alone, admit in him two wills,
and even one will contrary to the other ? We, therefore, following
in all things the Holy Fathers , confess in Christ one will alone,
and we believe that his flesh, animated with a rational soul , never
of itself made any movement contrary to the Spirit of the Word
which was united in one Person." Such was the famous Ecthesis
of Heraclius, confirmed afterwards by its author, Sergius, in a Cabal
or Council held by him in Constantinople ; we perceive that in the
commencement it prohibits the expression of one or two operations,
to deceive the people, but afterwards the dogma of one will, the
formal heresy of the Monothelites, is maintained (14) . This Ecthesis
was sent to Pope Severinus, but, either because it did not come to
hand, or that he died before it reached Rome, we hear nothing of
its condemnation then, but it was subsequently condemned by Pope
John IV. (15 ) .
10. Notwithstanding the condemnation of the Ecthesis, the
Monothelite heresy still continued to flourish , through the malice
of Pyrrhus and Paul, the successors of Sergius in the See of Con-
stantinople. Paul pretended, for a long time, to be a Catholic ,
but at length he threw off the mask, and induced the Emperor
Constans to publish , in 648 , an edict called the " Type," or for-
mula, imposing silence on both parties. In this formula there is a
summary review of the reasons on both sides, and it then proceeds :
" Wherefore, for the future , we forbid all our Catholic subjects to
dispute about one or two wills or operations, without prejudice,
however, to what was decided by the approved Fathers , relative
to the Incarnation of the Word. We wish , therefore, that they
should hold by the Holy Scriptures, the five General Councils, and
the simple expressions of the Fathers, which doctrine is the rule of
the Church, without either adding to, or diminishing, anything,
nor explaining anything by the private opinions of others, but let
(16) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. n. 6 ; Fleury, loc. cit. n. 45. (17) Fleury, t. 6, l. 38, n. 24,
in tine. ( 18) Anast. in Theod. Con. Lat. s. 2, p . 116. (19) Fleury, loc. cit.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 185
we must admit that he had two natural wills and two essential
operations, and as the two natures did not divide him, so the two
wills and operations essentially attached to the two natures did not
actually divide him, and being united in Christ did not prevent
him from being one alone. But, Pyrrhus replied , it is not possible,
for as there are several wills there should be several persons. Then
you assert, said St. Maximus, that as there are many wills there
must be many persons to wish ; but if you go by this rule, you must
also admit, reciprocally, that as many persons as there are, so many
wills must there be ; but if you admit this, you must grant that
there is but one Person, as Sabellius teaches, for in God and in the
three Divine Persons there is but one will alone, or, you must
grant that as there are in God three persons , so there are three
wills, and consequently three natures, as Arius taught, if according
to the doctrine of the Fathers the number of wills must correspond
to the number of persons. It is, therefore (concludes St. Maxi-
mus) , not true that wherever there are many wills, there are many
persons, but the real truth is that when several natures are united
in the same person, as in Jesus Christ, there are several wills and
operations, though only one person . Pyrrhus raised more diffi-
culties, but St. Maximus answered them all so clearly that he was
at last convinced, and promised him that he would go to Rome,
and retract his errors at the feet of the Pope, which he soon after
did, and presented to his Holiness the instrument of his retracta-
tion (20) ; but again , as we have seen, relapsed.
13. But to return to the Type of Constans ; that, together with
all the Monothelite doctrine, was condemned in Rome in a Synod
held by Pope Martin ; and in consequence, the holy Pontiff was
bitterly persecuted by Constans, and ended his days in the Cri-
mea, in 654, where he was banished (21 ) . Constans himself, after
practising so many cruelties against the Pope and the faithful,
especially in Syracuse, was called away by God, in the year 668,
the twenty-seventh year of his reign, and met an unhappy end.
He went into the bath along with an attendant, who killed him
with a blow on the head, inflicted with the vessel used for pouring
out water, and instantly took to flight ; his attendants, astonished
at his long delay in the bath, at last went in to see what was the
matter, and found him dead (22) . Cardinal Gotti ( 23) says, he
also put St. Maximus to death ; and among his other acts of cruelty
related by Noel Alexander (24 ) , on the authority of Theophanes,
Cedrenus, Paul the deacon, &c. , is the murder of his brother Theo-
dosius. He first got him ordained a deacon through envy , by the
Patriarch Paul, but he never after enjoyed peace of mind, for
he frequently dreamed he saw his brother clad in the diaconal
(20) Fleury, t. 6, l. 38, n. 36 & 40. (21 ) Danaus, Temp. Natio. p. 158. (22) Fleury,
t. 6, l. 39, n. 42. (23) Gotti, Vic. adver. Her. c. 68, ƒ. 4, n. 41. (24) Nat. Alex.
t. 12, c. 5, ar. 3.
186 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
robes, and holding a chalice filled with blood in his hand , and cry-
ing out to him, " Drink, brother, drink."
14. The scene was changed. Constantine Pogonatus, son to
Constans, mounted the Imperial throne ; he was a lover of faith
and justice, and lost no time in procuring the assembly ofthe
Sixth General Council in Constantinople, in 680 ( 25) , which was
presided over by the Legates of Pope Agatho. Noel Alexander
informs us that authors are not agreed as to the number of bishops
who attended ; Theophanes and Cedrenus reckoned two hundred
and nineteen, while Photius only counts one hundred and seventy.
This Council was happily brought to a conclusion in eighteen
Sessions, and on the 18th of October, the definition of the Faith,
in opposition to the heresy of the Monothelites, was thus worded :
"We proclaim . that there are in Christ two natural
operations, invisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, and unconfu-
sedly, according to the doctrine of the Fathers." This definition
was subscribed by all the Fathers (26) . Thus was concluded the
Sixth General Council ; the zeal of the prelates was seconded by
the approbation and authority of the Emperor, whose faith was
lauded by the assembled Fathers, and he was decorated with the
title of the Pious Restorer of Religion. The Pope , St. Leo II .,
the successor of Agatho, who died during the celebration of the
Council, confirmed its decisions and decrees, and as Graveson (27)
says, confirmed by his Apostolic authority this Sixth Council, and
ordained that it should be numbered among the other General
Councils.
15. We should here remark, that Cardinal Baronius (28) , to
wipe off the stain of heresy from Pope Honorius, says, that the
Acts of this Council have not been handed down to us fairly, but
were corrupted through the artifice of Theodore, the Bishop of
Constantinople. But Graveson properly remarks, that this conjec-
ture is not borne out by the learned men of our age, because
(as he says) Christian Lupus, Noel Alexander , Anthony Pagi,
Combesis and Garner, clearly prove the authenticity of the Acts.
Graveson (29) , besides, remarks that several follow Cardinal Bel-
larmine's opinion , and endeavour to clear Honorius, by saying,
that the Fathers of the Council were in error in the examination and
judgment of Honorius ; but, he adds, it is very hard to believe that
all the Fathers, not alone of this Council, but also of the Seventh
and Eighth General Councils, who also condemned Honorius,
were in error, when condemning his doctrine. I think it better,
then, to keep on the highway, and conclude , that Honorius can, by
every right, be cleared from the Monothelite heresy, but still was
(30) Danæus Temp. Not. p. 259. (31) Hermant, t. 5, c. 242. (32) Nat. Alex-
ander, t. 12, ar. 1, s. 4. (33) Nat. Alexander, t. 12, c. 2, ar. 12, s. 2, in fine.
(34) Nat. Alexander, loc. cit. a. 3.
188 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
CHAPTER VIII.
HERESIES OF THE EIGHTH CENTURY.
1. THE first and fifth Acts of the Eighth General Council attest
that the Gentiles , the Jews, the Marcionites, and the Manicheans ,
had previously declared war against sacred images, and it again
broke out in the year 723, in the reign of Leo Isaurus. About
this period, a captain of the Jews, called Sarantapechis ( or four
cubits) , induced the Caliph Jezzid to commence a destructive war
against the sacred images in the Christian churches, promising him
a long and happy reign as his reward. He, accordingly, published
an edict, commanding the removal of all images ; but the Christians
refused to obey him, and six months afterwards God removed him
out of the way. Constantius, Bishop of Nacolia, in Phrygia, intro-
duced this Jewish doctrine among Christians. He was expelled
from his See, in punishment of his perfidy, by his own diocesans,
and ingratiated himself into the Emperor's favour, and induced him
to declare war against images (1 ) .
2. Leo had already reigned ten years, when, in the year 727 ,
he declared publicly to the people, that it was not right to venerate
images. The people, however, all cried out against him ; and he
then said, he did not mean ( 2 ) to say that images should be done
away with altogether, but that they should be placed high up , out
of the reach, that they should not be soiled by the people kissing
them. It was manifest his intention was to do away with them
altogether ; but he met the most determined resistance from St.
Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed his wil-
lingness to lay down his life for the sacred images, which were
always venerated in the Church. The holy pontiff wrote many
(9) Baron. An. 754, n. 37 ; Fleury, loc. cit. n. 5, con. Anas. in Greg. II. & Theophil.
15, p. 543, &c. (10) Fleury, loc. cit. n. 6.
192 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(11) Fleury, t. 6. l. 42, n. 6. (12) Theoph. ar. 13, p. 343, apud ; Fleur. loc. cit. n. 7.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 193
as Constans did Martin . Know, then, that the Popes are the
arbiters of peace between the East and the West, and as to your
threats, we fear them not" ( 13).
9. He wrote a second letter to Leo soon after, but neither the
first nor second reached him, for a priest ofthe name ofGeorge, to
whom they were entrusted, was afraid to present them, so the
Pope put him under penance for his negligence , and sent him
again with the same letters, but the Emperor had the letters
detained in Sicily, and banished the priest for a year, and would
not allow him to come to Constantinople ( 14). The Pope was
highly indignant that his letters were despised, and his Legate ,
George, detained, so he felt himself called on to summon a Council
in Rome, in 732 ( 15 ) , which was attended by ninety-three bishops ,
and by the consuls, the nobility, the clergy, and people of Rome,
and in this assembly it was ordained that all those who showed dis-
respect to holy images should be excluded from the communion of
the Church, and this decree was solemnly subscribed by all who
attended. The Pope again wrote to the Emperor, but his letters
were detained a second time, and the messengers kept in prison.
for a year, at the termination of which, the letters were forcibly
taken from him, and he was threatened and maltreated, and sent
back to Rome. All Italy joined in a petition to the Emperor to
re-establish the veneration ofthe holy images, but even this petition
was taken from the messengers by the patrician Sergius, governor
of Sicily, and they, after a detention of eight months, were sent
back, after having received cruel treatment. The Pope, however,
again wrote to the Emperor, and to the Patriarch Anastasius , but
all in vain, and Leo, enraged with the Pope and his rebellious
subjects in Italy, sent a great fleet against them, but it was ship-
wrecked in the Adriatic. This increased his fury , so he raised to a
third higher the capitation tax in Calabria and Sicily, and obliged
a strict registry to be kept of all the male children that were born,
and confiscated in all the countries where his power reached in the
East, the estates belonging to the patrimony of St. Peter. He
continued to persecute all who still venerated the holy images ; he
no longer, indeed, put them to death , lest they should be honoured
as martyrs, but he imprisoned them, and tortured them first, and
then banished them (16) .
10. About this time the cruel persecution of St. John of Da-
mascus took place. This saint defended , in Syria, the honour due
to the sacred images, so Leo endeavoured to ruin him by an in-
famous calumny ; he had him accused as a traitor to the Saracen
Caliph Hiokam, and the false charge proved by a forged letter ;
the caliph called his council together, and the saint was con-
(13) Fleury, t. 6, l. 42, n. 7 & 8. (14) Fleury, loc. cit. n. 9. (15 ) Anast. in
Greg. III., n. 8 & 9 apud ; Fleury, 7. 42, n. 16. (16 ) Fleury, t. 6, l. 42, n. 16 & 17.
N
194 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
demned, and sentenced to have his hand cut off as a traitor. His
innocence was, however, miraculously proved ; animated with a
lively faith, he went before an image of the Blessed Virgin, whose
honour he constantly defended , placed his amputated hand in con-
nexion with the stump of his arm, prayed to the Holy Mother that
his hand might be again united to his body, that he might be able
to write again in her defence ; his prayer was heard, and he was
miraculously healed ( 17) . Noel Alexander says ( 18 ) , that the
wonderful things related of St. John of Damascus are proved from
th book of the Life of St. John of Jerusalem .
11. The Almighty, in the end, took vengeance on the crimes
of the Emperor, and evils from all sides fell thick upon him ; pesti-
lence and famine ravaged both the city and country, and the
fairest provinces of Asia were laid waste by the Saracens. He
became a prey to the most direful and tormenting maladies him-
self, and died miserably in 741 , leaving the Empire to his son
Constantine Copronimus. He surpassed his father in wickedness,
his morals were most debased, and he had no principle of
religion ; not alone satisfied with destroying the images and
relics of the saints, he prohibited all from invoking their
intercession . His subjects could no longer bear with his vices, so
they rose up against him, and proclaimed his relative, Artavesdes,
Pretor of Armenia, Emperor. This prince, brought up in the
Catholic Faith, re-established the veneration of sacred images ; and
Religion began to hope once more for happy days, but Constan-
tine recovered the Empire, took Constantinople, and Artavesdes
fell into his hands with his two sons, Nicephorus and Nicetus, and
he deprived all three of sight. The justice of God now over-
took the false Patriarch , Anastasius ; he ordered him to be led
through the city, as we have already remarked , mounted on an ass ,
with his face to the tail, and to be severely flogged ; but as he
could find no one wicked enough to carry out his designs, he con-
tinued him in the Patriarchate ; he enjoyed the dignity but a short
time after this disgrace ; he was attacked by a horrible cholic, in
which the functions of nature were disgustingly reversed, and he
left the world without any signs of repentance ( 19) .
12. Constantine, raging more furiously against sacred images
every day, wished to have the sanction of ecclesiastical authority
for his impiety ; he accordingly convoked a General Council, as
Danæus tells us, in 754 , in Constantinople , and three hundred and
thirty-eight bishops assembled , but the Legates of the Apostolic
See, or the bishops of the other Patriarchates, were not present.
Theodore, Bishop of Ephesus, and Palla, or Pastilla, Bishop of
Perga, at first presided , but the Emperor afterwards appointed
(17) Hermant, t. 1, c. 187 ; Gotti, t. 2. c. 80, s . 1 , n. 15, 16, 17. (18) Natal. t. 12,
c. 2, a. 1 , s. 1. (19) Hermant, t. 1, c. 289 ; Baron. 763, n. 19.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 195
saint came boldly forward, and said : " I am he whom you seek ; ”
they immediately threw him on the ground, tied a rope to the
irons on his legs, and dragged him through the streets , kicking
and trampling him on the head and body, and striking him with
clubs and stones all the way. When they dragged him as far as
the Oratory of St. Theodore the Martyr, just outside the first gate
of the Pretorium , he raised up his head and recommended himself
to the intercession of the Martyr. " See," said Philomatus, one of
his tormentors, " the scoundrel wishes to die a martyr," and he at
once struck him on the head with a heavy club , and killed him .
The murderer immediately fell to the ground , the devil entered
into him , and took possession of him, and he died a death of tor-
ment. They still withal continued dragging along the body of St.
Stephen ; the ground was covered with his blood , and his limbs
were torn from his body. If any one refused to insult the sacred
remains , he was looked on as an enemy to the Emperor. They
came at last to a convent of nuns, and the saint's sister was one of
the community ; they thought to make her come out and throw a
stone at the remains of her brother, with her own hand ; but she
concealed herself in a tomb, and they were foiled in their savage
intent. Finally, they threw the bodyof the saint into a pit, at the
Church of the Martyr St. Pelagia , where the Emperor commanded
that the bodies of malefactors and Pagans should be buried . This
saint was martyred in the year 767 (22) .
14. The churches themselves did not escape the fury ofConstan-
tine ; numberless sacrileges were committed in them by his soldiers.
When the decree of the Council was promulgated in the provinces,
the heretics at once commenced the destruction of all pictorial and
sculptural ornaments ; the images were burned or broken, the
painted walls whitewashed, the frames of the paintings were
burned (23) ; in a word, more barbarity was exercised in the name
of a Christian Emperor than under any of his Pagan predecessors .
Michael, the Governor of Anatolia ( 24) , collected together, by order
of the Emperor, in the year 770, all the religious men of the pro-
vince of Thrace in a plain near Ephesus, and then addressed them :
"Whosoever wishes to obey the Emperor, let him dress himself in
white , and take a wife immediately ; but those who refuse it shall
lose their eyes, and be banished to Cyprus." The order was im-
mediately put into execution . Many underwent the punishment
(though some apostatized) , and were numbered among the Martyrs.
The next year the governor sold out all the monasteries , both male
and female, with all the sacred vessels, stock, and entire property,
and sent the proceeds to the Emperor ; he burned all their books
and pictures, burned also whatever reliquaries he could lay hands
(22) Fleury, t. 6, l. 43, n. 36. (23) Fleury, n. 8. (24) Nat. Alex. t. 12, c. 2,
art. 1 , s. 2 ; Fleury, t. 6, l. 44, n. 7.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 197
on, and punished those who had them in their possession as guilty
of idolatry. Some he put to death by the sword, more expired
under the lash ; he deprived an immense multitude of sight ; he
ordered the beards of others to be anointed with oil and melted wax,
and then set on fire ; and more he banished , after subjecting them
to various tortures. Such was the furious persecution by Constan-
tine ofthe venerators of holy images ; but with all his cruelty, he
could not destroy religion , and in the end God destroyed him, by
an extraordinary sickness, in the year 775. According to Danæus,
his death was like that of Antiochus, and his repentance ofthe same
sort as that of his prototype (25) . Fleury says ( 26 ), that Constan-
tine having cast his eye on a crown of gems presented to the Pa-
triarchal Church by the Emperor Heraclius, seized it ; but he had
scarcely put it on his head, when he was covered with carbuncles,
and tortured besides with a violent fever, and that he died in the
most excruciating agony. Van Ranst adds ( 27) , that he died con-
sumed by an internal fire, and crying out that he was burning alive
as a penalty for the irreverence he showed to the images of the
Mother of God.
15. Constantine Copronimus was succeeded by his son, Leo IV.;
he pretended to be a Catholic in the commencement of his reign ,
with the intention of cementing his authority , and more especially
he expressed his wishes that the Mother of God should be treated
with the greatest respect ; he permitted the Religious scattered in
the late persecution to inhabit their monasteries once more, and
assisted them to do so, and he appointed Catholic bishops to the
Sees ; but when he felt himself firmly established on the throne he
threw off the mask and renewed the persecution with all his father's
fury : he even banished the Empress Irene, his wife , because he
suspected that in private she venerated the holy images, and no-
thing would induce him to see her again . His reign, however,
was short ; he was attacked by a strange disorder like his father's,
and died, having only reigned about five years. He had associated
his son Constantine in the Empire with him, but as he was only ten
years old at his father's death, his mother, the Empress Irene , took
the reins of government, and under her pious care the Christian
religion flourished once more. Paul , then Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, was attacked with a severe sickness and took the sudden re-
solution of retiring into a monastery, and declared to the Empress
that against his conscience he condemned the veneration of images
to please the Emperor Copronimus. Withal , he was a virtuous
man, and the Empress endeavoured to force him to resume the
government of his Church, but he was firm in his refusal, and said
he would spend the remainder of his days weeping for his sins (28).
(25) Hermant, t. 1 , c. 299, 300. (26 ) Fleury, 7. 44 , n. 16. (27) Van Ranst,
sc. 8. p. 147. (28) Hermant, f. 1, c. 304, 305.
198 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
walls in houses, and streets, the images of our Lord Jesus Christ,
of the Holy Mother of God, of the Angels, and of all the Saints.
For those who frequently have before their eyes, and contemplate
those sacred images, are more deeply impressed with the memory
of those they represent, and give them an honorary adoration, but
do not, indeed, offer them that real adoration which Faith teaches
should be given to God alone ; for the honour paid to the image is
referred to the principal, and he who venerates an image venerates
the person it represents." It then anathematizes all those who pro-
fess or teach otherwise , and who reject the images, crosses, pictures,
or relics, which the Church honours. This Decree was subscribed
by all the bishops.
19. When the Acts of this Council were brought to France, the
bishops of that nation (34 ), assembled in a Synod , in Frankfort,
absolutely rejected them ; and so did Charlemagne, in the " Four
Books," either composed by him, or more properly published in his
name, in the year 790 , and called the Four Caroline Books . But
as Selvaggi, in his notes on Mosheim, remarks (35), all this was
caused by an error of fact, as the Frankfort Fathers believed that
the Fathers of Nice decided that images should be absolutely wor-
shipped, and this he proves from the Second Canon of the Council
of Frankfort itself. " A question has been submitted to us," it says,
"concerning the new Synod the Greeks have holden in Constanti-
nople, relative to the worship of images, in which it is reported to
have been decided , that those should be anathematized who would
not worship them. This doctrine we totally reject :" " Allata est
in medium quæstio de nova Græcorum Synodo, quam de adorandis
Imaginibus Constantinopoli fecerunt, in qua scriptum habebatur, ut
qui Imaginibus Sanctorum, ita ut Deificæ Trinitatis servitium , aut
adorationem non impenderent, anathema judicarentur. Qui supra
sanctissimi Patres nostri omnimodis adorationem renuentes con-
tempserunt atque consentientes condemnaverunt." This mistake
occurred, as Danæus says, on account of the unfaithful version of
the Acts of the Council of Nice received in France, and translated
from the Greek ; whereas the Council of Nice itself, as we have
already seen, makes the distinction between honorary reverence
and absolute adoration very clearly.
20. Besides, Graveson informs us, that the French bishops did
not consider this Council of Nice as a General one at all, but
merely a Greek national Synod , since it was almost altogether com-
posed of Eastern bishops, and they did not see the customary letter
of confirmation from the Pope to the Emperor and to the whole
Church ; but, as Danæus says , as soon as the matter was cleared up,
there was no longer any disagreement. Still, he says, in the ninth
century, several Emperors, adherents of the Iconoclasts , renewed
(34) Graves. Hist. Eccl. t. 3, col. 4. (36 ) Selvag. nota, 65, ad t. 10, Mosh. p. 1063.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 201
CHAPTER IX .
HERESIES OF THE NINTH CENTURY.
ARTICLE I.
THE GREEK SCHISM COMMENCED BY PHOTIUS.
1. St. Ignatius, by means of Bardas, Uncle to the Emperor Michael, is expelled from the
See of Constantinople. 2. He is replaced by Photius. 3. Photius is consecrated.
4. Wrongs inflicted on St. Ignatius and on the Bishops who defended him. 5. The
Pope sends Legates to investigate the Affair. 6. St. Ignatius appeals from the Juȧg-
ment of the Legates to the Pope himself. 7. He is deposed in a False Council.
8. The Pope defends St. Ignatius. 9. The Pope deposes the Legates and Photius,
and confirms St. Ignatius in his See. 10. Bardas is put to Death by the Emperor,
and he associates Basil in the Empire. 11. Photius condemns and deposes Pope
Nicholas II., and afterwards promulgates his Error concerning the Holy Ghost.
12. The Emperor Michael is killed, and Basil is elected and banishes Photius.
(4) Fleury, loc. cit. n. 3. (5) Nat. Alex. t. 13, Dis. 4, s. 2. (6) Nat. Alex. loc.
cit. s. 2 ; Fleury, t. 7, l. 50, n. 3 ; Baron. An. 858 , n. 25.
204 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
Emperor and Photius, and even not permitted to speak with any
one, except those appointed to visit them, lest they might be
informed of the true state of things regarding the deposition of
St. Ignatius. They were made to understand that if they did not
bend, in all things, to the Emperor's will ( 10) , they would be
banished to a place where nothing but a miserable death awaited
them. At first they resisted, but finally, after spending there eight
months, yielded , and soon after, Photius called together a Council
in Constantinople, which was attended by them and three hundred
and eighteen bishops, but, as Noel Alexander remarks ( 11 ) , they
were merely the nominal Legates of the Pope, for that meeting did
not even preserve the forms of a General Council, as it was the
Emperor himself who presided, and everything was done accord-
ing as he wished, at the instigation of Photius.
6. When the Council was assembled , a message was sent to St.
Ignatius , to appear and defend his cause ; he at once put on his
Pontifical ornaments, and went on foot, accompanied by bishops
and priests, and a great number of the monks and the laity , but
on his way he was met by the patrician , John , who, on the part
of the Emperor, prohibited him, under pain of death , from appear-
ing in the Pontifical robes, but merely in the habit of a simple
monk. He obeyed, and presented himself in this garb in the
Church of the Apostles ; he was there separated from the friends
who accompanied him, and brought alone into the Emperor's pre-
sence, who loaded him with abuse. Ignatius asked leave to speak,
and then asked the Pope's Legates what brought them to Constan-
tinople. They answered, that they came to try his case . The
Saint asked them if they brought letters for him from the Pope,
and was told they had not, as he was no longer considered as
Patriarch, having been deposed by a Council of his province, and
that, therefore, they were there to judge him. " Then banish the
adulterer Photius, first of all," said St. Ignatius, " and if you cannot
do that, you are no longer judges." The Emperor, said they, wishes
us to be judges ; but the Saint peremptorily refused to recognize
them as such, and appealed to the Pope, on the authority of the
fourth Canon of the Council of Sardis, which decrees, that, " If a
bishop be deposed , and he declares that he has a defence to make,
no one must be elected in his place till the Pontiff of the Roman
Church decides his case."
7. Notwithstanding this, seventy-two false and bribed witnesses
were examined, and deposed that the Saint had been guilty of
tyranny in the government of his church, and that he was intruded
into the See by the secular power, and that, therefore , he should ,
according to the Apostolical Canon, be deposed : " If any bishop
obtain his See by secular powers , let him be deposed." On this
(12) Baron. Ann. 861, n. 1 ; Nat. Alex. cit. s. 4, & Bernin. s. 9, c. 9, ex Niceta in Vit.
St. Ig. Nat. (13 ) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. s. 4 ; Fleury, t. 7, c. 53, n. 12 , 13, 14, 18, 19,
& Nat. Alex. t. 14 ; diss. 14, s. 6. ( 14) Nichol. Epis. 13 .
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 207
Emperors were princes and pontiffs, but that after the coming of
Jesus Christ the two powers were divided, as temporal things were
different from spiritual things, and Noel Alexander particularly
calls attention to these expressions in the Pope's letter : " It is
plain that as there is no higher authority than the Apostolic See,
that no one can revoke its judgments ; nor is it lawful for any
one to pass judgment on its judgments, since, according to the
canons, appeals come to it from all parts of the world ; but from it
no one is permitted to appeal." He then says, that the case of
Ignatius and Photius can only be decided by appearing in person ,
or by deputy, in Rome, when both can state their causes of com-
plaint, and defend themselves ( 18 ) . Some time after the Emperor
took the field to conquer Crete, and was accompanied by his
uncle , Bardas, who was so strongly suspected of being a traitor, that
he resolved to put him to death. He was in the Emperor's tent
when he saw the soldiers come to take him, and he threw himself at
his nephew's feet, imploring mercy, but his prayer was in vain ; he
was dragged out and cut to pieces, and a piece of his flesh was
carried round the camp in mockery, fixed on a spear, and thus, in
the year 886 , the unfortunate Bardas closed his mortal career.
The Emperor immediately returned to Constantinople, and ap-
pointed Basil, the Macedonian, who was one ofthe chief instigators
of the death of Bardas, prime minister, and as he was aware of his
incapacity in governing by himself, he soon after associated him
in the Empire, and had him solemnly crowned (19) .
11. Although Photius lost his protector, he did not lose heart ;
he continued to retain the Emperor's friendship, and ingratiated
himself with Basil. He was abandoned by many of his adherents
after he incurred the censure of the Pope, and he then bitterly per-
secuted them whenever he could ; some he deprived of their digni-
ties, some he imprisoned , and he banished the hermits from Mount
Olympus, and burned their cells ( 20) . On the 13th of October, 866 ,
the Pope sent three Legates to Constantinople to appease the Em-
peror and put an end to the discord caused by Photius ; but they
were arrested in Bulgaria by an imperial officer, who treated them.
very disrespectfully, and told them that the Emperor would have
nothing to say to them, so when they perceived the treatment they
were likely to receive if they proceeded to Constantinople, they
returned to Rome ( 21 ) . It came to the knowledge of Photius at
the same time that the Pope had sent other Legates to the Bul-
garians to protest against the new mode of unction introduced by
him ( Photius) among them, in the administration of the sacrament
of Confirmation, and he felt so indignant at this interference, that
he summoned a Council which he called an Ecumenical one , in
(18) Fleury, loc. cit. n. 41 ; Nat. Alex. cit. s. 6. (19) Fleury, n. 42.
20) Fleury, loc. cit. n. 41 . (21 ) Nat. Alex. t. 13, diss. 4, s. 7 ; Fleury, n. 52 , 53 .
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 209
which he got the two Emperors, Basil and Michael , to preside, and
had it attended by the Legates of the other patriarchal Sees, and by
many bishops ofthe patriarchate of Constantinople, to revenge him-
self on the Pope. Persons came forward there and made several
charges against Pope Nicholas. Photius received the accusations ,
and tried the cause, and finally condemned the Pope for many sup-
posed crimes, and deposed and excommunicated him and all who
would hold communion with him. Twenty-one bishops were mad
enough to approve of and subscribe this sacrilegious sentence, and
Photius afterwards forged nearly a thousand other signatures to the
same document (22) . He had now lost all respect for the Pope,
and his insolence arrived at such a pitch, that he sent a circular
letter of his composition to the Patriarch of Alexandria , condem-
natory of several practices and doctrines of the Roman Church, as
the fast on Saturdays, the celibacy of the clergy, but, above all ,
the doctrine ofthe procession ofthe Holy Ghost not from the Father
alone, but from the Father and Son (23) . Baronius (24) even
says, that he taught that every man had two souls. He obtained
the Emperor's permission to summon a second Council in Constan-
tinople, and having done so, he again excommunicated and deposed
the Pope (25) .
12. In the year 867 , the Emperor Michael was killed , while
drunk, by his own guards, at the instigation of Basil, whose life he
sought on account of some disagreements they had. When Basil
thus obtained the undivided sovereignty ofthe Empire, he banished
Photius from the See ofConstantinople, and exiled him to a distant
monastery (26), and the next day he sent the imperial galley to the
island where the Patriarch, St. Ignatius, was confined, to convey
him back to Constantinople, and received him with the highest
honours on his arrival, and solemnly put him in possession of his
See once more (27) . He sent orders then to Photius to restore all
the documents with the Emperor's signature he had in his posses-
sion ; but he sent back word, that as he left the palace by the Em-
peror's command in a hurry, he left all his papers behind him ;
but while he was making this excuse to the prefect sent to him by
Basil, his officers perceived the servants of Photius busy in hiding
several bags filled with documents, with leaden seals appended to
them ; these were immediately seized on and brought to the Em-
peror, and among other papers, two books beautifully written were
found, one containing the Acts of the imaginary Council condemning
Ignatius, and the other the Synodical letter against Pope Nicholas,
filled with calumnies and abuse (28) . Basil then wrote to Pope
Nicholas, giving him an account of the expulsion of Photius and
(22) Baron. Ann. 663, n. 13 ; Nat. Alex. cit. s. 7. (23) Fleury, t. 7, l. 52, n. 55,
56. (24) Baron. Ann. 869, n. 49. (25) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. & Grav. t. 3, s. 9, coll. 4.
(26) Baron. Ann. 367, n. 92 ; Nicetas in Vita St. Ignatii, p. 1226. (27) Fleury, t. 7,
1. 51 , n. 1 , 2. (28) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. s. 9, & Fleury, loc. sit.
210 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
ARTICLE II.
13, 14, 15. The Eighth General Council against Photius, under Pope Adrian and the Em-
peror Basil. 16. Photius gains over Basil, and in the mean time St. Ignatius dies.
17. Photius again gets Possession of the See. 18. The Council held by Photius re-
jected bythe Pope ; unhappy Death of Photius. 19. The Patriarch, Cerularius, revives
and adds to the Errors of Photius. 20. Unhappy Death of Cerularius. 21 , 22. Gre-
gory X. convokes the Council of Lyons at the instance of the Emperor Michael ;
it is assembled. 23. Profession of Faith written by Michael, and approved of by the
Council. 24. The Greeks confess and swear tothe Decisions of the Council. 25. They
separate again. 26. Council of Florence under Eugenius IV.; the Errors are again
discussed and rejected ; Definition of the Procession of the Holy Ghost. 27. Of
the Consecration in Leavened Bread. 28. Of the Pains of Purgatory. 29. Of
the Glory of the Blessed. 30. Of the Primacy of the Pope. 31. Instructions given
to the Armenians, Jacobites, and Ethiopians ; the Greeks relapse into Schism.
(29) Fleury, loc. cit. n. 18. (30) Baron. Ann. 868 , n. 38 ; Nat. Alex. loc. cit. s. 9,
& Fleury, cit. n. 19. (1) Nat. Alex. s. 11 , & Graveson, t. 3, coll. 3, p. 153 .
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 211
(2) Nat. Alex. t. 13 ; Diss. 4, s. 12. (3) Baron. Ann. 869 , n. 28. (4) Baron.
Ann. 869, n. 37, & Fleury, t. 7, l. 51 , n. 29 , & seq. (5) N. Alex. sec. 22, & Fleury,
L. 51 , n. 55.
212 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
( 16) Baron. Ann . 879, t. 10 ; N. Alex. t. 13, diss. 4, sec. 26 ; Fleury, t. 8, l. 53, n. 7.
(17) De Marc. de Concordia, Sac. & Imp. l. 3 , c. 14. (18) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. sec. 28.
(19) Gotti, Ver. Relig. t. 2, c. 85 , sec. 1. (20) Fleury, t. 53, n. 51. (21) Apud
Gotti, loc. cit.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 215
19. Noel Alexander (22) says that the schism was extinguished
on the death of Photius, but that it broke out again ; but
Danæus (23) says, that, on the contrary, his death left it as it was,
and that it broke out with more violence in the time of Nicholas
Chrisobergus, Patriarch , in 981 , of Sisinnius, his successor, in 995 ,
and, more than all, in the reign of Sergius, also Patriarch , who
sent, in his own name, to the bishops of the East, the encyclical
letter written by Photius against the Pope. It gained new strength
in the eleventh century, under the Patriarch Michael Cerularius.
This prelate was of noble birth, but proud and intriguing ; and he
was imprisoned in a monastery, by the Emperor Michael Pophla-
ganius, and was not released till the reign of the Emperor Constan-
tine Monomachus, in the year 1043 ; he uncanonically seized on the
See of Constantinople, but naturally fearing the censures of the
Pope for this act of violence, he laboured to bring to maturity the
seeds of division, previously sown between the two Churches. He
commenced the attack, by writing a letter to John , Bishop of Trani,
in Apulia, charging the Roman See with holding erroneous doctrines
regarding the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and
the Son ; that the soul, after leaving purgatory, went directly to
enjoy beatitude before the General Resurrection ; that the Pope
usurped the authority of Universal Pastor, without having any
authority to do so, and more, that the Latins, by consecrating the
Eucharist in unleavened bread, followed the Jewish practice of
celebrating the Pasch in unleavened bread. In making a charge
of this sort against the Roman Church, he was most surely astray,
for our Lord celebrated the Pasch on the first day of the feast of
the unleavened bread ; and then , according to the precept of God
himself, in Exodus, it was unlawful to have even in the house
leavened bread : " Seven days there shall not be found any leaven
in your houses" (Exod . xii . ) ; and , besides, there was a most ancient
tradition handed down direct from St. Peter himself, as Christian
Lupus (24) says, that Christ offered up the Sacrifice in unleavened
bread, and such was indubitably the universal practice, during the
first centuries in the West, unless, for a short time, when the dis-
cipline was changed , lest the Christians should be scandalised, as if
they were Judaising . It is true, the Greeks have always made
use of leavened bread ; and by doing so, never offended against
Faith, for one Church has never reprobated the custom of another ;
but Cerularius was altogether astray in accusing the Latin Church
of heresy, for using unleavened bread .
20. Pope Leo, to extinguish the fire of schism which was every
day spreading more widely, sent as his Legates to the East, Umbert,
Bishop of Silva Candida, the Cardinal Archdeacon of Rome, and
(22) Nat. Alex. s. 29. (23) Danæus tem. net. p. 271. (24) Chris. Lupus. p. 3,
Couc. Diss. de Act. St. Leo VII.
216 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(27) Nat. Alex. cit. a. 2, n . 1. (28) Nat. Alex. cit. n. 2. (29) Raynal. Ann.
1274, n. 14.
218 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
laid down by the Roman Church ; and the Emperor Michael and
his son Andronicus wrote to the Pope, that all that the Roman
Church believes and teaches was confirmed by these Synods. The
Emperor wrote another letter in 1278 to Nicholas III . , the suc-
cessor of John, informing him that he used every means in his
power to consolidate the union, but that so many outbreaks oc-
curred, and so many plots were laid against him, that he feared he
would be deposed if he tried any further, and he begged of his
Holiness not to be angry if he appeared to yield a little in so deli-
cate an affair. The end of the matter was, that the Greeks, with
few exceptions, every day more and more separated themselves
from the union they had sworn to, and at last Martin IV. , the
successor of Nicholas III ., excommunicated the Emperor, Michael
Paleologus, in 1281 , as a supporter of the Greek schism and heresy,
and forbade all princes, lords, and universities, and the authorities
of all cities and towns, under pain of personal excommunication
and local interdict, from having any connexion with him, as long
as he was under ban of excommunication. Noel Alexander, on the
authority of two authors, says that the Pope excommunicated the
Emperor at the instigation of Charles, King of Sicily, who hoped
that when Michael was by this measure deprived of assistance,
he could easily banish him from the throne, and place his son-in-law
on it; but Roncaglia, in his notes on Alexander, shows that Martin
having renewed the excommunication the following year (as Ray-
naldus relates, Ann . 1281 , N. 8) , proves that the only reason he
could have for doing it was, that the Emperor broke faith, and
gave up the union he had sworn to maintain ( 31 ) .
26. This schism continued for about a hundred and twenty
years longer, from the Council ofLyons, till the year 1439 , when the
Greeks were reduced almost to the last extremity , for the Almighty
permitted the Turks to punish them, and, after conquering the
greater part of their Empire, now threatened their total destruction.
In their distress, they now made overtures for a re-union with the
Roman Church once more, and Pope Eugenius IV. , who was ex-
tremely desirous of acceding to their wishes, convoked a Council
principally for this object, in Ferrara ; and when the plague broke
out in that city, afterwards in Florence , and invited the Emperor,
the Patriarchs, and the other Greek bishops, to attend. The Em-
peror John Paleologus accepted the invitation , and the Patriarch of
Constantinople, the two chief Metropolitans, Basil Bessarion , Arch-
bishop of Nice, and Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus, several other
Greek bishops, seven hundred other distinguished personages, and a
hundred and sixty Latin bishops, assembled in Florence. The points
of disagreement, which were the same as those decided on in the
Council of Lyons ( 32 ) , were again examined . The word , Filioque,
(31) Nat. Alex. t. 17, diss. 7, a. 2, per totum. (32) Spondan. ad Ann. 1438, n . 28.
220 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
" and from the Son," which was added to the Creed by the Latin
Church, to explain that the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the
Father and the Son, as from one principle, was again debated .
Mark, the Greek Archbishop of Ephesus, was the most strenuous
opposer of this addition ; it was unlawful , he said , to add anything
to the ancient Symbols of the Church, but our Theologians replied ,
that the promise made by Jesus Christ to assist his Church was
66
not confined to any period, but lasts till the end of time : “ Behold,
I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world "
(Matt. xxviii . 20) . The word Consubstantial was not, said they,
in the Creed at first ; and for all that the Council of Nice thought it
necessary to add it, to put an end to the subterfuges of the Arians,
and explain that the Word was of the same substance as, and in all
things equal to, the Father. The Councils of Ephesus and Chalce-
don , also, made an addition to the Nicene Creed , to explain the two
natures of Christ, Divine and human , against Nestorius, who taught
that he was a mere man ; and against Eutyches, who asserted that the
human was absorbed by the Divine nature. Hence they argued
that the words, " and from the Son," were added to the Symbol ;
not to prove that the ancient Symbols were imperfect, but to declare
more clearly the truth of the Faith, and that the declaration of the
truth ought not to be called an addition , but rather an explanation .
The Council, therefore , defined : " That this truth should be believed
by all Christians ; that the Holy Ghost is eternally from the Father
and the Son, and that his essence and being is both from the Father
and the Son, and that he proceeds eternally from both, as from one
principle, and by one spiration ; and that this is what the Holy
Fathers mean by saying that he proceeds from the Father by the
Son ; and when the Greeks speak of the Son as the cause , and the
Latins the principle, together with the Father, of the subsistence of
the Holy Ghost, they both mean the same thing." Here are the
words : " Diffinimus, ut hæc fidei veritas ab omnibus Christianis
credatur, quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre , et Filio æternaliter est ;
et essentiam suam , suumque esse subsistens habet ex Patre simul et
Filio ; et ex utroque æternaliter tanquam ab uno principio , et unica
spiratione procedit, declarantes, quod id quod SS . Patres dicunt ex
Patre per Filium precedentem Spiritum Sanctum ; ad hanc intel-
ligentiam tendit, ut per hoc significetur, Filium quoque esse secun-
dum Græcos quidem causam, secundum Latinos vero principium sub-
sistentiæ Spiritus Sancti, sicut et Patrem . Et quoniam omnia quæ
Patris sunt, Pater ipse unigenito Filio suo gignendo dedit, præter
esse Patrem, hoc ipsum quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit ex Filio ,
ipse Filius a Patre æternaliter habet, a quo etiam æternaliter genitus
est. Diffinimus insuper, explicationem verborum illorum Filioque,
veritatis declarandæ gratiæ, et imminente tunc necessitate, ac ra-
tionabiliter Symbolo fuisse appositam ."
27. The question of the validity of the consecration of the Eucha-
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 221
rist in unleavened bread was then discussed, but the parties soon.
agreed on this, as there was no doubt that wheaten bread was the
essential matter of the Sacrament, and it was but a matter of dis-
cipline, whether it was leavened or unleavened ; and it was then
defined that each priest should follow the custom of his own Church,
whether of the East or the West.
28. Purgatory, and the state of beatitude the just enjoy, pre-
vious tothe General Resurrection, was then discussed . Both parties
soon agreed on these points, for as to Purgatory, the Greeks never
denied its existence, but they taught that the stains of sin are there
purged away by the penalty of sorrow, and not of fire ; and they,
accordingly, at once agreed to the definition of the Council, which
decided that the souls are purged from the stain of sin , in the next
life, by punishment, and that they are relieved by the suffrages of
the faithful, and especially by the sacrifice of the Mass, but does not
specify either the penalty of sorrow or of fire ; and the Council of
Trent, in the Twenty-fifth Session , in the Decree on Purgatory, de-
cided the same, though many ofthe Holy Fathers, as St. Ambrose,
St. Augustin, St. Gregory, Bede, and the Angelic Doctor, St.
Thomas, particularly mention the penalty of fire, as I have remarked
in my Dogmatic Work on the Council of Trent, in opposition to the
Innovators (33) ; and they found their opinion on the text of St.
Paul (1 Cor. iii. 12) . The following is the decree of the Council :
" Item (definimus) si vere pœnitentes in Dei charitate decesserint,
antequam dignis poenitentiæ fructibus de commissis satisfecerint, et
omissis, eorum animas pœnis purgatoriis post mortem purgari, et ut
a pœnis hujusmodi releventur, prodesse eis Fidelium vivorum suf-
fragia, missarum scil . sacrificia, orationes, et eleemosynas, et alia
pietatis officia, secundum Ecclesia instituta."
29. The Greeks also accepted the definition of the Council, that
the just enjoy the beatific vision previous to the General Resurrec-
tion. This is the Decree : " Illas (Animas) etiam, quæ post con-
tractam peccati maculam, vel in suis corporibus, vel eisdem exutæ
corporibus (prout superius dictum est) , sunt purgatæ , in Colum
mox recipi, et intueri clare ipsum Deum trinum , et unum sicuti est,
pro meritorum tamen diversitate, alium alio perfectius ; illorum
autem animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato , vel solo originali de-
cedunt mox in infernum descendere , pœnis tamen disparibus puni-
endas." Theologians commonly teach that the blessed will not have
the fulness of beatitude till after the General Judgment, when their
souls will be united with their bodies. This St. Bernard (34), speak-
ing of the two stoles of the blessed , says : " The first stole is the
happiness itself, and the rest of the soul ; but the second is immor-
tality and the glory of the body."
(33) In cit. Sogg. 25, n. 7, & 27. (34) S. Bernard, t. 1 , q. 1033 ; Serm. 3, om. SS.
n. 1.
222 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
short duration, for the Greeks, on their return home, again fell back
into their former errors, principally at the instigation of the wicked
Mark of Ephesus. The chastisement of God soon overtook that
fickle people ; in 1453 , Mahomet II . took Constantinople by assault,
and gave it up to sack and slaughter ; the infuriated soldiery slew
all who came in their way, cast down the altars, profaned the mo-
nasteries, and despoiled the wretched inhabitants of all their pro-
perty. Thus fell the Empire of the East, after eleven centuries of
a glorious existence . The Greeks continue, to the present day,
obstinately attached to their errors ; they are the slaves of the Turks
in their ancient capital . That noble Church, that gave to the world
Athanasius, Gregory , Basil, and so many other learned and holy
doctors, now lies trampled under foot, vice usurping the place of
virtue, and ignorance seated in the chair of learning. The Greek
Church, in a word, the mother of many saints and doctors of
the Church, has, on account of its separation from the Roman See,
fallen into a state of deplorable barbarity and wretched slavery (37) .
CHAPTER X.
WE pass over the tenth century, because in that age no new heresy
sprung up in the Church ; but Danæus (1) says, that there was
both great ignorance aud great disunion in the West, so that even
the Apostolic See was not exempt from intrusions and expulsions.
Graveson (2) states the same, and says, that it was a great mark of
Divine protection, that, amid so many evils, a schism did not arise
in the Church.
ARTICLE I.
1. Stephen and Lisosius burned for their Errors. 2. The new Nicholites and the Inces-
tuosists. 3. Berengarius, and the Principles of his Heresy. 4. His Condemnation
and Relapse. 5. His Conversion and Death.
(37) Hermant. t. 2, c. 201 ; Berti, Br. H. t. 2, s. 16, c. 5. (1) Danes, gen. tem.
not. p. 275. (2) Graveson, Hist. Ecclesias. t. 3, sec. 10, coll. 2.
224 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
and Lisosius, who were considered both holy and learned men .
They taught, that all that the Scriptures say about the Trinity and
the creation of the world is mere nonsense, as the heavens and the
earth are from all eternity, and never had a beginning. They
denied the Incarnation and the Passion of Christ, and , conse-
quently, the value of baptism. They condemned matrimony, and
denied that good works were rewarded, or evil ones punished , in the
next life. They used to burn an infant eight days old , and pre-
served his ashes for the viaticum of the sick. A Norman gentle-
man, called Arefastus, informed Robert, King of France, of the
practices and doctrines of those wretches, and he, at once, went to
Orleans himself, accompanied by the queen, and a number of
bishops. These prelates finding Stephen and Lisosius obstinate in
their errors, held a Synod , and deposed and degraded them , and
they were then, by the king's orders, brought outside the city, shut
up in a cabin with several of their followers, and burned alive ( 1 ).
2. The new Nicholites also made their appearance in this century.
These were some clergymen in holy orders, who preached that it
was lawful for them to marry. The sect, called Incestuosists, also
then disturbed the Church . These taught that it was lawful to
contract marriage within the four prohibited degrees of consan-
guinity (2).
3. The remarkable heresy of Berengarius also sprung up in this
century, and it is one of the prodigies of Divine mercy, to see that
this heretic , after so many relapses, in the end died a true penitent
and in communion with the Church. Berenges, or Berengarius,
was born in the early part of this century, in Tours ; he first
studied in the school of St. Martin , and then went to prosecute
his studies at Chartres, under Fulbert, the bishop of that city. A
certain author (3) , speaking of his haughtiness, says, that while only
a scholar he cared but very little for his master's opinions, and des-
pised altogether anything coming from his fellow-students ; he was
not, however, deeply grounded in the abstruse questions of philo-
sophy, but took great pride in quibbles, and strange interpretations
of plain words. His master, Fulbert, well aware of his petulant
genius, and his desire of novelty, frequently advised him to follow .
in everything the doctrine of the Fathers, and to reject all new
doctrines. He returned to Tours, and was received among the
chapter of the church of St. Martin , and was appointed a dignitary,
the master of the school, as it was called. He next became trea-
surer of the church, and then went to Angers, and was appointed
archdeacon by the Bishop Eusebius Bruno, one of his own scholars.
It was in Angers, according to Noel Alexander and Graveson (4) ,
(1 ) Fleury, t. 8, l. 58, n. 53 & 55 ; Graves. t. 3, sec. 11, coll. 5 ; Gotti, Ver. Relig.
t. 2, c. 86, sec. 1 ; Berti, sec. 11, c. 3 ; Van Ranst, sec. 11, p. 173, & seq. (2) Van
Ranst, sec. 11 , p. 167 ; Berti, Brev. Hist. sec. 11, c. 3. (3) Quidmond. Z. 1, de Corp.
Xti. ver. in Euch. (4) Nat. Alex. t. 14, sec. 11 , c. 4, art. 2 ; Graves. , t. 3, sec. 11, col. 3.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 225
that he first began , about the year 1047 , to disseminate his errors ;
and Baronius says, that the Bishop Eusebius connived at it, though
Noel Alexander acquits him (5) . At first, he attacked the sacra-
ment of matrimony, the baptism of infants, and other dogmas
of the Faith ; but he soon gave up all other questions , and confined
himself to one alone-the denial of the Real Presence of the Body
and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist . He attacked Paschasius
Radbert, who, in 831 , wrote a learned treatise on the Eucharist,
aud held up to admiration John Scotus Erigena, who flourished in
the ninth century, and is believed to have been the first who
attacked the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
Cardinal Gotti, however, remarks , that Berenger is looked on as
the founder of this heresy, as the Church was obliged to summon
several Councils to condemn it, as we shall see hereafter (6) .
4. Berengarius was first condemned in the year 1050, in a Roman
Council, held under Pope St. Leo IX. , but he took so little notice
of this, that he called it the Council of Vanity. He was condemned ,
likewise, in the Council of Vercelli , held the same year, and that
Council also condemned the book of John Scotus. He was again
condemned in a Council held in Paris , under the reign of King
Henry I.; and Victor II., the successor of St. Leo, condemned him
in a Synod, held in Florence, in the year 1055. In the same year
he abjured his errors-convinced by Lanfranc that he was wrong-
in a Council held at Tours, and swore never again to separate him-
self from the Faith of the Catholic Church ; but his subsequent
conduct proved that he was not sincere in this recantation . In the
year 1059, therefore, Pope Nicholas II. convoked a Council in
Rome of 113 bishops, and then Berengarius again made his profes-
sion of Faith, according to the form prescribed to him, and swore
again never to deviate from it, and threw his own works and those
of John Scotus into a great fire, which was lighted in the midst of
the Council . Still he was unchanged ; on his return to France he
again relapsed, and even wrote a book in defence of his heresy, and
in defiance of the Church of Rome . Alexander II., the successor
of Nicholas, paternally admonished him by letter ; but he not only
obstinately held out, but even sent him a disrespectful answer.
Maurilius, Archbishop of Rouen, therefore, considered himself
obliged to adopt extreme measures, and in a Council, held in 1063,
excommunicated him and all his followers, and the Decrees of this
Council were confirmed by another, held in Poictiers, in 1075 .
Finally, St. Gregory VII . , to put an end to the scandal altogether,
convoked a Council, in Rome, of one hundred and fifty bishops, in
1079, in which the Catholic doctrine was confirmed , and Berenga-
rius, confessing himself convinced, took an oath to the following
(5) Nat. Alex . t. 14, diss. 1 , art. 4. (6) Gotti, Ver. Rel. t. 2, c. 87, sec. 1 & 2 ;
Fleury, t. 8, l. 59, n. 65 ; Graves. loc. cit.
P
226 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
effect : " I confess that the bread and wine placed on the altar are
substantially converted into the true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ,
by the mystery of sacred prayer and the words of our Redeemer,
not alone by the sign and virtue of a Sacrament, but by the truth
of substance, &c." (7)
5. Notwithstanding all this, when Berengarius returned to France,
he again retracted his confession by another writing (8) ; but in the
year following, 1080, he obtained from the Divine Mercy the grace
of a true conversion, and in a Council, held at Bordeaux , retracted
this last work of his, and confirmed the profession of Faith he made
at Rome ; and he survived this last retraction for nearly eight years,
and in the year 1088 , at the age of nearly ninety years, he died a
true penitent, in communion with the Church, after spending these
eight years in retirement in the island of St. Cosmas, near Tours,
doing penance for his sins ( 9 ). William of Malmesbury (10) says,
that when just about to die, Berengarius exclaimed, remembering
all the perversions his heresy had caused : " To-day Jesus Christ
shall appear to me-either to show me mercy on account of my re-
pentance, or, perhaps, to punish me, I fear, for having led others
astray." St. Antoninus, De Bellay, Mabillon , Anthony Pagi, Noel
Alexander, Graveson, and several other authors, assert that his re-
pentance was sincere , and that he never relapsed during the last
years of his life-a remarkable exception to so many other heresi-
archs, who died in their sins.
ARTICLE II.
(7) Fleury, t. 9, l. 62, n. 60 ; N. Alex. loc. cit. art. 17 ; Gotti, loc. cit. s. 3. (8) Ma-
billon, pref. 2, sec. 6, n. 31. (9) Fleury, t. 9, 1. 63, n. 40. (10) Villel. Malmesb.
de Rebus Angl. l. 3. (1) Bibli. Cum. p. 1120.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 227
(2) Graves. Hist. t. 3, sec. 12, coll. 2. (3) Nat. Alex. t. 14, sec. 12, c. 4, art. 4 ;
Gotti, Ver. Rel. t. 2, c. 89, s. 1. (4) Gotti, loc. cit. n. 10, l. 69, n. 24 ; N. Alex. loc.
cit.; Graves. loc. cit. (5) Gotti, c. 79, sec. 2. (6) Nat. Alex. cit. art. 7 ; Fleury,
cit. n. 24.
228 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(7) Fleury, n. 25. (8 ) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. (9) Fleury, t. 10, l. 67, n. 22.
(10) Fleury, loc. cit. n. 21 ; Nat. Alex. t. 15, diss. 7, a. 7.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 229
to get him to change his sentiments, without giving him any pain ;
but though Abelard promised amendment, there was no change,
and knowing that there was soon to be a Council at Sens, he called
on the archbishop, and complained that St. Bernard was privately
speaking against his works, and begged the archbishop to summon
the saint to the Council, promising publicly to defend his writings.
St. Bernard at first refused ; but finally conquered his repugnance,
and although not prepared for the dispute, attended on the ap-
pointed day, the 2nd of June, 1140. He produced Abelard's book
in the assembly, and quoted the errors he marked in it ; but Abe-
lard, instead of answering, judging that the Council would be op-
posed to him , appealed to the Pope previous to the delivery of the
sentence, and left the meeting. Though the bishops did not con-
sider his appeal canonical, still, out of respect for the Pope, they did
not condemn Abelard in person ; but St. Bernard having proved
that many propositions in the book were false and heretical, they
condemned these, and then forwarded an account of the whole pro-
ceedings to Innocent II., requesting him to confirm their condem-
natory sentence by his authority, and to punish all who would pre-
sume to contravene it (11 ) . St. Bernard wrote to the same effect
to Innocent, and the Pope not only condemned the writings of
Abelard, but his person likewise, imposing perpetual silence on him
as a heretic, and excommunicating all who would attempt to defend
him ( 12).
11. Ábelard was on his way to Rome to prosecute his appeal,
but happening to pass by Clugni , he had a meeting with Peter the
Venerable, the Abbot of that monastery, and with the Abbot of
Citeaux, who came on purpose to reconcile him with St. Bernard .
The Abbot of Clugni joined his entreaties to those of his brother
of Citeaux , and persuaded him to go and see St. Bernard, and retract
the errors this holy doctor charged him with. Abelard yielded at
last ; he went to Citeaux , became reconciled to St. Bernard and
returned to Clugni, and being there informed that the condemna-
tion of the Council was confirmed by the Pope, he ' resolved to aban-
don his appeal, and to remain in that abbey for the remainder of
his life. The abbot offered to receive him with all his heart, if the
Pope had no objection . Abelard wrote to the Pope, and obtained
his consent, and then became an inmate of the Abbey of Clugni .
He lived there for two years, wearing the habit of the convent, and
leading a life of edification , and even gave lessons to the monks ;
but he was obliged , on account of a heavy fit of sickness , to go for
change of air to the Priory of St. Marcellus, in Burgundy , and he
died there on the 21st of April , in the year 1142 , the 63rd of his
age, and went to enjoy, we hope, eternal happiness ( 13 ) .
(11) Fleury, t. 10, l. 68, n. 61 , 62 ; Nat. Alex. c. 1 . (12) Fleury, loc. cit. n. 67 ;
Nat. Alex. art. 8 in fine. ( 13 ) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. art. 12, & Fleury, loc. cit.
230 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(14) Fleury, n. 61, Alex. art. 5, ex Ep. St. Bernar. (15) Graveson, t. 3, sec. 12,
coll. 3. (16 ) Gotti, Ver. Rel. t. 2, c. 90, s. 3, cum Baron. Ann. 1140, n. 11, & seq.
(17) Nat. Alex. t. 14, s. 12 , c. 3, art. 8.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 231
(18) Fleury, t. 10, l. 68, n. 55 ; Gotti, loc. cit. s. 1 ; Nat. Alex. loc. cit. (19) Nat.
Alex. loc. cit.; Fleury, t. 10, l. 69, n. 10 ; Gotti, loc. cit. (20) Van Ranst, Hist. p. 148 ;
Fleury, t. 10, . 70, n. 1 ; Nat. Alex. & Gotti, loc. cit.
232 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES,
the person of the Son, and that baptism is received alone by those
predestined to glory. He was charged with these errors in the
year 1145, and Pope Eugenius III. , to whom the complaint was
made, ordered his accusers to have the whole affair investigated in
a Council in Paris. The Synod was accordingly held, and St.
Bernard attended, and strenuously combated his errors ; but nothing
was decided till the following year, in which a Council was held
in Rheims, at which the Pope himself attended, and condemned
Gilbert's doctrine. He at once bowed to the decision of the
Pontiff, abjured his errors, was reconciled to his accusers, who
were two of his own archdeacons, and returned with honour to his
diocese (21 ).
16. Other heretics disturbed the peace of the Church in this
century. One of these was Folmar, Principal of the Church of
Trieffenstein, in Franconia ; he said that in the Eucharist the blood
alone of Jesus Christ was received under the appearance of wine,
and the flesh alone, not the bones or the members, under the
appearance of bread, and that it was not the Son of Man that was
received, but the flesh alone of the Son of Man . He , however,
soon retracted, and abjured his errors in a letter he wrote to the
bishops of Bavaria and Austria ( 22 ). Tanquelinus taught that the
reception of the Holy Eucharist was of no avail for salvation, and
that the ministry of priests and bishops was of no value, and was
not instituted by Christ. He infected the city of Antwerp, but it
was afterwards purged from this heresy by St. Norbert, founder
of the Premonstratensians and Archbishop of Magdeburg ( 23) .
Joachim, an abbot in Calabria , lived also in this century ; he fell
into some errors regarding the Trinity, in a treatise he wrote
against Peter Lombard ; he denied that the three Divine Persons
are one and the same as the Divine Nature, and he also said that
in the mystery of the Trinity, essence generates essence, insinuat-
ing by that, that each Divine Person has a particular essence.
This was a renewal of the Tritheism of John Philiponus, infected
with the Eutychian heresy, who taught that there are three natures
in the Trinity, confounding the three Persons with the three natures.
This treatise was condemned in the Fourth Council of Lateran,
celebrated by Innocent III., in 1215. Joachim, however, had
previously died in 1201 , and submitted all his writings to the
judgment of the Church, so Honorius III. , the successor of Inno-
cent, would not have him considered as a heretic ( 24). The
Apostolicals also infested the Church about this time ;. among
other errors, they condemned marriage , and even bound themselves
by a vow of chastity, though the licentiousness of their lives showed
(21 ) Nat. Alex. t. 14, s. 12, c. 4, a. 9 ; Graveson, His. Eccl. t. 3, sec. 12, coll. 3;
Fleury, t. 10, l. 69, n. 23. (22) Nat. Alex. t. 14, s. 12 , c. 4, ar. 12. (23) Nat. loc.
cit. ar. 6. (24) Graves. t. 3, s. 12, Coll. 3 ; Fleury, t. 11, l. 77, n. 46 ; Berti, s. 12,
c. 3 ; Van Ranst, p. 214.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 233
what little regard they had for that angelic virtue (25) . We have
already spoken of the Bogomiles ( Chap. iv. N. 81 ), treating of the
heresy of the Messalians . We have now to investigate the history
of the Waldenses
17. Peter Waldo, the founder of the sect of the Waldenses,
began to preach his heresy in the year 1160, on the occasion of the
sudden death of a great personage in Lyons, who dropped dead in
the presence of a great many people. He was so terrified at the
occurrence, that he immediately distributed a large sum of money
to the poor, and a great many people joined him out of devotion,
and became his followers. He was a man of some learning , and
began to explain the New Testament to his followers, and taught
several errors . The clergy immediately took up arms against him,
but he set them at defiance, telling his followers that they (the
clergy) were both ignorant and corrupt, and that they were envious
of his exemplary life and learning. Such is the origin of the
Waldenses, according to Fleury, Alexander, and Gotti ( 26) ; but
Graveson gives another account ( 27) ; he says, that Peter Waldo ,
having either heard or read the 19th chapter of the Gospel of St.
Matthew, in which our Lord tells us that we should sell our goods,
and give the price to the poor, persuaded himself that he was called
on to renew the Apostolic life, and accordingly sold his property,
gave all to the poor, and led a life of poverty himself. A person
of the name of John , terrified at the sudden death already spoken
of, sold his patrimony, likewise , and joined him ; many others fol-
lowed their example, and in a little time the sect became so
numerous, that in the diocese of Poictiers alone they had forty-one
schools . From these seats of iniquity sprung several sects, enu-
merated by Rainer ( 28 ) , who for seventeen years was a Waldensian ,
but his eyes at length being opened to their impiety, he forsook
them, joined the Catholic Church, and became a distinguished
member of the Order of St. Dominick . The different sects that
sprouted out from the parent stock took various names ; they were
called Waldenses, from Peter Waldo ; Lyonists, or poor men of
Lyons, from the city whence they originated ; Picards, Lombards,
Bohemians, Bulgarians, from the provinces they overran ; Arnaldists,
Josepeists, and Lollards, from Doctors of the sect ; Cathari , from
the purity of heart they boasted of; Bons Hommes , or good men,
from their apparent sanctity and regularity of life ; Sabbatists, or
Insabatists, either from the peculiar shoe or sandal, with a cross
cut on the top, which they wore, or because they rejected the
celebration of the Sabbath and other festivals ( 29 ) .
18. The Waldenses fell into very many errors, which Rainer,
quoted by Noel Alexander, enumerates (30). We will only men-
(25) N. Alex. loc. cit. ar. 11. (26) Fleury, t. 11, l. 73, n. 55 ; Nat. Alex . t. 14,
c. 4, ar. 13 ; Gotti, t. 2, c. 93, s. 1. (27) Graves. t. 3, s. 12, Coll. 3. (28 ) Rainer,
Opusc. de Hæret. (29) Graves. loc. cit. & Nat. Alex. loc. cit. (30) Nat. Alex.
loc. cit. ar. 13, s. 2, & seq.
234 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
tion the principal ones here. The Roman Church, they said, failed
in the time of Pope St. Sylvester, when it entered into the posses-
sion of temporal property, and that they alone were the true
Church, as they followed the Apostles and the Gospel in holding
no possessions. The Pope, they said, was the head of all errors,
the bishops, Scribes, and the religious, Pharisees. Tithes ought
not to be paid, as they were not paid in the primitive Church.
They only believed in two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist,
and baptism, they said, was of no use to infants. A priest falling
into mortal sin, according to them, lost the power of absolving and
consecrating, and, on the contrary, a good layman has the power
of giving absolution. They rejected indulgences, and the dispen-
sations of the Church, the fasts commanded to be observed , and all
the ceremonies of the Roman Church. They abhorred holy images
and the sign of the Cross even ; denied the distinction between
mortal and venial sin , and said it was unlawful to take an oath,
even in judgment. These heretics were first condemned by Alex-
ander III., in 1163 ; in the Synod of Tours, in 1175 or 1176 ; in
the Synod of Lombes, in 1178 ; in one held in Toulouse by Peter,
Cardinal and Legate of the Pope ; in the Third General Council
of Lateran, in 1179 ; in the Fourth General Council of Lateran, in
1215 ; and finally, in the Constitution of Gregory IX., " Cap.
Excommunicamus, 15 de Herat." in which all the heretics of all
the above-named sects are anathematized ( 31 ) .
ARTICLE III.
19. The Albigenses and their Errors. 20. The Corruption of their Morals. 21. Con-
ferences held with them, and their Obstinacy. 22. They create an Anti-Pope.
23. Glorious Labours of St. Dominick, and his stupendous Miracles. 24. Crusade
under the Command of Count Montfort, in which he is victorious. 25. Glorious
Death ofthe Count, and Destruction of the Albigenses. 26. Sentence of the Fourth
Council of Lateran, in which the Dogma is defined in Opposition to their Tenets.
27. Amalric and his Heresy ; the Errors added by his Disciples ; they are condemned.
28. William de St. Amour and his Errors. 29. The Flagellants and their Errors.
30. The Fratricelli and their Errors, condemned by John XXII.
19. THE heretics called the Albigenses , sprung from the Wal-
denses, made their appearance in this century, and were so called ,
because they first spread themselves in the territory of the city of
Albi , or that part of Narbonic Gaul called Albigensum, and sub-
sequently inthe province of Toulouse ( 1 ) . Graveson (2) says that
the impurities of all other heresies were joined in this one sect.
This sect was in existence previous to the reign of Innocent III.,
but it was so strong in the year 1198 , that Cesarius ( 3 ) , a contem-
(31 ) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. s. 7. (1) Nat. Alex. t. 16, c. 3, ar. 1. (2) Graves. t. 3,
s. 12, Coll. 3. (3) Cæsar Heisterb. Dial. Mirac. Diss. 5, c. 2.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 235
poraneous author, says, that almost all the pure grain of the Faith
of the people was turned into tares. Spondanus gives the following
list of their errors (4) : First.-They received the New Testament
alone, rejecting the Old, with the exception of the passages quoted
by our Lord, and his Apostles ; they, likewise renounced all Catholic
Doctors, and when asked for an account of their Faith , they said
they were not bound to answer. Second. They taught that there
were two Gods, a good and a bad one ; the good one, the author of
the New Testament, and the Creator of all invisible things ; the
bad one, the author of the Old Testament, the Creator of man , and
of all visible things. Third.-They said that baptism was useless
to infants. Fourth.-That an unworthy priest had not power to
consecrate the Eucharist. Fifth.- That matrimony was nothing
more than concubinage, and that no one could be saved in that
state, and still their morals were most corrupt. Sixth . That no
one should obey either bishops or priests, unless they have acquired
the qualities required by the Apostles ; and that they have no power
in the Sacraments or in Divine things, and that no one, therefore,
should pay tithes to them . Seventh. That churches should not
be dedicated to God or the Saints, and that the faithful are not
bound to pray or to give alms, either to the poor or to churches,
and that it was quite sufficient to confess to any one at all, and that
penance was of no use. Noel Alexander (5) , besides these errors,
enumerates several others, as that the Fathers of the Old Testament
were all damned ; that St. John the Baptist was a demon ; that the
Roman Church is the harlot ofthe Apocalypse ; that the resurrection
of the body is all a lie ; that the Sacraments are all false , and that
the Eucharist, Confirmation , Orders, and the Mass are nothing
more than superstitions ; that the souls of men are no other than
the rebellious spirits who fell from heaven ; that there was no pur-
gatory, and they blasphemously applied to the Virgin Mother of
God a term we dread to make use of.
20. They led most horribly immoral lives. Lucas Tudensis (6) hor-
rifies us by recounting what he heard from some of them who forsook
the sect, and joined the Catholic Church . Murder, cheating, theft,
and usury were quite common among them, but their impurities
were above all of the most horrible description ; the nearest relatives
had no regard to the decencies of life, or the very laws of nature
itself. The old people, he says, are blasphemous and cruel ; the
young ripe for every wickedness ; the children, from the universal
depravity, belonging to no father in particular, are depraved from
their childhood ; and the infants imbibe the most pernicious errors
with their mothers' milk ; the women, without shame or modesty,
go about among their neighbours, making others as bad as them-
(4) Spondan. Epit. Baron. ad Ann. 1181 . (5) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. s. 2.
(6 ) Lucas Tuden. 7. 3, adv. Albig.
236 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES,
selves . Among the other proofs of their impiety, Cesarius (7) tells
us, that when they were besieged by the Catholics in Bessiers, they
indecently defiled a book of the Gospels, and threw it from the
walls into the ranks of the besiegers, amidst a shower of arrows,
crying out : " Behold your law, wretches."
21. The Albigenses laboured to gain proselytes not alone by
persuasion, but by force of arms likewise ; and the Catholics , there-
fore, found it necessary to have recourse not alone to preaching,
but were obliged to summon the power of the Prince to their aid.
Peter of Castlenau and Rodulph, Cistercian monks, together with
their Abbot, Arnold , appointed Apostolic Legates by Innocent III. ,
were the first to oppose them. The holy Bishop of Osma joined
them, and without attendance or money, like the Apostles , they
proceeded on foot to preach to the heretics, and their first conference
was held in Montreal, in the diocese of Carcasonne. They disputed
for fifteen days in presence of judges chosen for the purpose, and
the heretics were convinced, but the judges being favourable to the
heretical party , suppressed the sentence, and would not even give
up the Acts of the disputation. The preachers remained in the city
to instruct the people, and supported themselves by begging from
door to door. The Abbot of Citeaux and twelve of his monks,
together with the Bishop of Osma, spread themselves through the
country, preaching and disputing with the heretics. The Bishop
of Osma and some other prelates held another conference with the
Albigenses in Pamiers, and the heretics were so confounded that
the judge of the Conference, a nobleman of the city, abjured
his errors , and more followed his example every day (8) . The
Cistercian, Peter of Castlenau , the Pope's Legate, having found it
necessary to excommunicate Raymond, Count of Toulouse, the
chief favourer of the heretics, was summoned before him to clear
himself from charges laid against him; he went accordingly, but
nothing was decided on in the interview ; the Count even uttered
threats against him when he was about to take his departure, and
sent two of his servants to accompany him. One of them, while
the Legate was passing the Rhone, ran him through with a lance.
Peter at once felt that the wound was mortal. " God pardon me ,"
said he, " as I pardon you ," and died shortly after. Pope Innocent,
when informed of his death, declared him a martyr, and excommu-
nicated his murderers and all their accomplices, and gave orders to
the bishops of the provinces of Arles and Narbonne and the neigh-
bouring territories again to excommunicate the Count of Tou-
louse (9).
22. A few years after the Albigenses elected a person of the name
of Bartolomew, an anti- Pope. He resided on the borders of Dal-
matia and Bulgaria , and was the chief adviser of the heretics. He
appointed another person ofthe same name as his vicar, and he took
up his residence in the territory of Toulouse, and sent round to all
the neighbouring cities his principal's letters, headed , " Bartholomew,
servant of the servants of the holy Faith, to N. N. health ." This
vicar pretended to consecrate bishops and regulate the Church ( 10),
but the Almighty soon put a stop to all by the death of the anti-
Pope ( 11 ).
23. It is now time to speak of the glorious labours of St. Domi-
nick, who may justly be called the exterminator of the Albigenses
He was engaged nine years, according to Graveson, or seven, ac-
cording to Van Ranst, in battling with them, and finally he insti-
tuted the Order of Preachers, to bring back the strayed sheep to the
fold of the Catholic Church. He attended the Bishop of Osma at
the conference he held with the heretics, and was a most strenuous
opponent of their errors, both by preaching and writing, and God
confirmed his exertions by miracles. Peter de Valle Sernai , a Cis-
tercian monk (12 ) , relates the following miracle, and says he had it
from the man himself in whose possession the paper was. After the
conference of Montreal, St. Dominick wrote down the texts he cited
on a sheet of paper, and gave it to one ofthe heretics to peruse them
at his leisure. The next evening several Albigenses were seated
round a fire considering it, when one of them proposed to throw
the paper into the fire, and if it burn, said he, that is a proof
that our faith is the true one, but should that not be the case, we
must believe the Catholic faith. All agreed, the paper was cast
into the flames, and , after lying there some time, it leaped out un-
scorched . All were surprised ; but one ofthe most incredulous
among them suggested that the experiment should be tried again ;
it was done so, and the result was the same. Try it a third, said
the heretic ; a third time it was tried , and with the same effect. But
for all that they agreed to keep the whole affair a secret, and re-
mained as obstinate as before. There was a soldier present, however,
somewhat inclined to the Catholic faith, and he told it to a great
many persons ( 13) . God wrought another more public miracle
through his servant in Fois, near Carcasonne ; he challenged the
heretics, in one of his sermons, to a formal disputation , and each
party agreed to bring, in writing, to the Conference, their profes-
sion of Faith , and the principal arguments in support of it. The
saint laid down his document, the heretics did the same ; they then
proposed that each paper should be thrown into the fire, to leave
the judgment to God. St. Dominick, inspired by the Almighty,
immediately cast his paper into the flames ; the heretics also threw
in theirs, which was immediately burned to ashes, while the saint's
(10) Parisius, Hist. Anglic. an. 1223. (11 ) Fleury, t. 11 , Z. 78, n. 60 ; Gotti, loc.
cit.; Nat. Alex. loc. cit. s. 2. (12) Pat. Vallis. Ser. His. Albig. c. 7. (13) Nat.
Alex. t. 16, c. 3 ; Gotti, Ver. Rel. t. 2, c. 94, cap. 3.
238 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
his God on the altar. Another messenger came in haste to tell him
his troops were giving way, but he dismissed him, saying : " I want
to see my Redeemer." After adoring the Sacred Host, he raised
up his hands to heaven, and exclaimed : " Now thou dost dismiss
thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word, in peace, because mine
eyes have seen thy salvation. Now," said he, "let us proceed, and
die, if necessary, for him who died for us." His soldiers rallied at
once when he appeared among them; but he approached too near
to the engines, and a stone from one of them struck him in the head,
and he had barely time to recommend himself to God and the
Blessed Virgin, when his spirit fled. This was on the 25th of
June, 1218 (17 ) . After the death of this great champion of the
Lord, and martyr of Christ, as Peter de Valle Sernai ( 18) calls him,
Louis VIII., King of France, prosecuted the war, and in the year
1236 took Avignon from the enemy, after a siege of three months,
and several other strong places besides. St. Louis IX. , by the ad-
vice of Pope Gregory IX. , prosecuted the war, and having taken
the city of Toulouse, the young Count Raymond-for his wicked
father met with a sudden death- signed a treaty of peace, on the
conditions prescribed to him by the King and the Pope's Legate,
the principal one of which was, that he would use all his power to
extirpate the Albigensian heresy in his territory. The heretics,
thus deprived of all assistance, dwindled away by degrees, and
totally disappeared, as Graveson tells us ( 19 ), though Noel Alexan-
der and Cardinal Gotti say that they were not totally put down (20).
26. These heretics having been previously condemned in parti-
cular Synods, at Montilly, Avignon, Montpelier, Paris, and Nar-
bonne, were finally condemned in the Fourth General Council of
Lateran, celebrated and presided over by Pope Innocent III., in
1215. In the first Chapter of this Council it was decreed , in oppo-
sition to these heretics, " that there was one universal principle, the
Creator of all, visible and invisible, corporeal and spiritual things,
who by his Almighty power, in the beginning of time, created from
nothing both spiritual and corporeal, angelic and earthly beings,
and man likewise, as consisting of body and spirit. The devil, and
all other evil spirits, were created by God good , according to their
nature, but became bad of themselves, and man sinned at the sug-
gestion of the devil. The Holy Trinity, undivided, as to its com-
mon essence- divided, as to its personal proprietates- gave saving
doctrine to mankind, by Moses and the Holy Prophets, and other
servants, according to the properly-ordained disposition of time ;
and, at length, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, by the
whole Trinity in common , incarnate of Mary, ever Virgin, con-
ceived by the co-operation of the Holy Ghost, and made true man,
(17) Fleury, t. 11, l. 78, n. 18 ; Nat. and Gotti, loc. cit. (18) Pet. Vallises. Ilis.
Albig. c. 86. (19) Grav. loc. cit. (20) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. sec. 4, & Gotti, loc. cit.
240 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
composed of a rational soul and a real body, one person in two na-
tures, more clearly pointed out to us the way of life ; who, accord-
ing to his Divinity, being impassible and immortal, was made
passible and mortal, according to his humanity, and suffered and
died on the wood of the Cross for the salvation of mankind , de-
scended into hell, arose from the dead , and ascended into heaven ;
but he descended in the spirit, arose in the flesh, and in both ascended
into heaven, and shall come in the end of the world to judge both
the living and the dead, and shall render to each- both the repro-
bate and the elect-according to their works. For all shall arise in
the same bodies they now have , to receive, according to their de-
serts, either rewards or punishment—the wicked , eternal punish-
ment with the devil-the good , eternal glory with Christ. There
is one universal Church of all the faithful, out of which there is no
salvation, in which Jesus Christ is, at the same time, priest and
sacrifice , and his body and blood is truly contained under the ap-
pearance of bread and wine, the bread being, by the Divine power,
transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into the blood, that
we might receive from him what he received from us to perfect the
mystery of Unity; and no one but a priest rightly ordained accord-
ing to the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ himself granted
to the apostles, and to their successors, can consecrate this holy Sa-
crament. The Sacrament of Baptism, consecrated to the invocation
of the undivided Trinity, Father, Son , and Holy Ghost, properly
administered in water, both to infants and adults , by any person ,
according to the form of the Church , is available to salvation . And
should any one, after receiving baptism, fall into sin, he can be
always healed by true repentance. Not virgins alone, and those
who observe continence, but married persons, likewise, pleasing
God by true faith and good works, shall deservedly obtain eternal
happiness (21 ).
27. In this century also lived Amalric, or Amaury, a priest, a
native of Bene , near Chartres. He studied in Paris, and was a
great logician, and taught this science with great applause. He
then applied himself to the study of Sacred Scripture and theology,
and as he was fond of newfangled opinions, he had the rashness to
teach that every Christian ought to believe himself a natural mem-
ber of Christ, and that no one could be saved unless he so believed.
The University of Paris condemned this opinion in 1204 , but
Amalric refused to submit to the sentence, and appealed to Inno-
cent III., and went to Rome to prosecute his appeal in person ;
the Pope, however, confirmed the sentence, and obliged him to
make a public abjuration in the presence of the University. He
obeyed the Pope's orders in 1207, but his heart belied what his
lips uttered, and so great was his chagrin that he soon after died .
(25) Fleury, t. 12, l. 84, n. 30 ; Nat. Alex. t. 16, c. 3, ar. 7 ; Berti, Brev. Histor. sec.
13, c. 3. (26) Nat. Alex. t. 16, sec. 13, art. 5 ; Fleury, t. 13, l. 84, n. 62.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 243
face VIII., Celestine's successor, soon saw that this institute was a
source of error, which was spreading every day more widely, and
he, accordingly, in express terms, condemned it ; but , notwithstand-
ing this sentence, the Fratricelli every day increased in numbers, and
openly preached their tenets. John XXII . , therefore, found it
necessary to publish a Bull against them in 1318, and, as Noel
Alexander relates, condemned the following errors adopted by
them -First.- They taught that there were two churches, one
carnal, abounding in delights, and stained with crime, governed
by the Roman Pontiff and his prelates ; the other spiritual, adorned
with virtue, clothed in poverty, to which they alone, and those
who held with them, belonged, and of which they, on account
of their spiritual lives, were justly the head. Second.- That the
venerable churches, priests, and other ministers, were so deprived
both of the power of order and jurisdiction, that they could neither
administer the sacraments, nor instruct the people, as all who did
not join their apostacy were deprived of all spiritual power, for
(as they imagined) , as with them alone holiness of life was found,
so with them alone authority resided. Third.-That in them alone
was the Gospel of Christ fulfilled, which hitherto was either thrown
aside or totally lost among men (27).
ARTICLE IV .
HERESIES OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.
31. The Beghards and Beguines ; their Errors condemned by Clement V. 32. Marsilius
of Padua, and John Jandunus ; their Writings condemned as heretical by John XXII.
83. John Wickliffe, and the Beginning of his Heresy. 34. Is assisted by John Ball ;
Death of the Archbishop of Canterbury. 35. The Council of Constance condemns
forty-five Articles of Wickliffe. 36, 37. Miraculous Confirmation of the Real Pre-
sence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. 38. Death of Wickliffe.
(27) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. (1 ) Van Ranst, Hist. Heres. p. 221.
244 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES,
ordained, and bishops should not ordain any one without his autho-
rity. We will now speak of Wickliffe, the leader of all the so-called
Reformers.
33. John Wickliffe began to preach his heresy in 1374, some
say because he was disappointed in the bishopric of Winchester.*
He was learned in scholastic theology, which he taught at Oxford,
and was a favourite preacher, always followed by the people. He
led an austere life, was meanly clothed, and even went barefooted.
Edward III. died, and was succeeded by his grandson, Richard,
the son of Edward, the Black Prince, who was then only eleven
years of age ; and his uncle, the Duke of Lancaster, was a man of
very lax sentiments in regard to religion , and extended his protec-
tion to Wickliffe, who openly preached his heresy (3) . Gregory IX.,
who then governed the Church , complained to the Archbishop of
Canterbury and the Bishop of London, that they were not active
enough in putting a stop to this plague, and he wrote on the same
subject to the King and the University of Oxford (4) . A Synod
of Bishops and Doctors was accordingly summoned, and Wickliffe
was cited to appear and account for himself; he obeyed the sum-
mons, and excused himself by explaining away, as well as he
could, the obnoxious sense of his doctrine, and putting another
meaning on it. He was then only admonished to be more prudent
for the future was absolved , and commanded to be silent from
thenceforward (5 ) .
34. Wickliffe was assisted by a wicked priest of the name of
John Ball, who escaped from the prison where his bishop had con-
fined him for his crimes, and joined the Reformers, who gladly re-
ceived him. The subject of his discourses to the people was, that
all ranks should be levelled , and the nobility and magistracy done
away with, and he was joined by over an hundred thousand
levellers. They laid their demands before the sovereign, but
could not obtain what they desired ; they considered that the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Simon Sudbury, a good man in the
main, but too weak a disposition to cope with the troubles of the
times, influenced the sovereign's mind against them ; they re-
solved on his death, therefore, and stormed the tower, where he
had taken refuge, and found him praying, and recommending his
soul to God. He addressed them mildly, and tried to calm their
rage, but his executioner, John Sterling, stepped forward , and told
him to prepare for death. The good bishop then confessed that
(3) Nat. Alex. s. 6, n. 1 ; Gotti, loc. cit. n. 2. (4) Gotti, ib. n. 3 ; Nat. Alex. 6,
n. 1; Grav. loc. cit. (5) Nat. Alex. s. 6, n. 1 ; Gotti, ibid. n. 5, & Grav. loc. cit.
I believe the holy author was misled in this fact ; it is generally supposed that the
primary cause of his rancour against the monastic orders and the Court of Kome were his
expulsion from the wardenship of Canterbury Hall, into which he had illegally intruded
himself. See LINGARD, vol. iv. c. 2.
246 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
The oaths which are taken to corroborate contracts and civil affairs
are unlawful. Augustin, Benedict, and Bernard are damned,
unless they repented of having possessions, and of instituting and
entering into religious orders ; and so from the Pope to the lowest
religious they are all heretics. All religious orders altogether are
invented by the devil.
36. Enumerating these errors, I cannot help remarking that
Wickliffe, the Patriarch of all the modern heretics, attacks especially
the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, as we see in
his first three propositions, and in this he was followed by all
the modern heresiarchs ; but God at the same time confirmed the
faith of his people by extraordinary miracles ; and I will just men-
tion three of them (among a great number), on the authority of
authors of the first character. Nicholas Serrarius (9) relates, that
when the Wickliffites first began to attack this dogma of the Faith
in 1408, the following miracle took place : a priest, called Henry
Otho, was one day saying Mass in Durn, in the diocese of Wurtz-
burg, and through his want of caution upset the chalice, and the
Sacred Blood was spilled all over the corporal . It appeared at
once of the real colour of blood , and in the middle of the corporal
was an image of the Crucifix, surrounded with several other images
of the head of the Redeemer crowned with thorns. The priest
was terrified, and although some other persons had already noticed
the accident, he took up the corporal and laid it under the altar-
stone, that it might decay in some time and nothing more would
be known about it. God , however , did not wish that such a miracle
should be concealed. The priest was at the point of death , and
remorse of conscience troubled him even more than the agony he
was suffering ; he could bear it no longer, but confessed all, told
where the corporal was concealed , and then died immediately. All
was found to be as he stated, and God wrought other miracles to
confirm its truth. The magistrates investigated the whole affair
with the greatest caution and deliberation , and sent an authentic
account of it to the Pope, and he published a brief, dated the
31st of March, 1445, inviting all the devout faithful to ornament
and enlarge the church honoured by so stupendous a miracle.
37. Thomas Treter ( 10 ) relates the next miracle. Some Jews
bribed an unfortunate Christian servant woman to procure a con-
secrated Host for them, and when they got it they brought it into
a cavern, and cut it in little bits on a table with their knives, in
contempt ofthe Christian Faith. The fragments immediately began
to bleed, but instead of being converted by the miracle, they buried
them in a field near the city of Posen , and went home. A Christian
child soon after , who was taking care of some oxen, came into the
field, and saw the consecrated particles elevated in the air, and
ARTICLE V.
(1) Coclæus, Hist. Hussit. Æneas Silv. Hist. Bohem. c. 35 ; Bernin. t. 4, sec. 15, c. 2,
p. 9; Graves. t. 4, coll. 8, p. 75 ; Gotti, Ver. &c. c. 105.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 251
into the hands of Huss, and though filled with blasphemy, pleased
him by the bold novelty of their doctrines, and he imagined that
they were well calculated to make an impression on the ardent minds
ofthe youth ofthe University. He could not at once begin to teach
them, for he was one of the doctors who, a little while before , had
subscribed the condemnation of Wickliffe's errors (2 ) , so he con-
tented himself, for the present, with merely making them subjects
of discussion with his pupils ; but little by little he became more
bold, and not alone among the students of the University, but
even among the people in the churches, he disseminated the pes-
tilence . At length, he threw off the mask altogether, and preach-
ing one day in the Church of SS. Matthias and Matthew, in Prague,
he publicly lauded the works of Wickliffe , and said , if he were
dying, all he would desire is to be assured of the same glory that
Wickliffe was then enjoying in heaven.
40. He next translated some of Wickliffe's works into Bohe-
mian, especially the Trialogue, the worst of them all. He was
joined at once by several priests of relaxed morals , and also by
several doctors, discontented with the unjust distribution of church
patronage, which was too often conferred on persons whose only
qualification was nobility of birth, while humble virtue and learn-
ing was neglected. Among the doctors who joined him was Jerome
of Prague, who, in the year 1408, had , like Huss, condemned the
errors of Wickliffe, but now turned round, and even accused the
Council of Constance of injustice for condemning them . Shinko ,
Archbishop of Prague, summoned a Synod, which was attended by
the most famous doctors, and condemned the propositions broached
by Huss, and he was so enraged at this, that he endeavoured to stir
up the people to oppose it ; the archbishop, accordingly , excom-
municated him, and sent a copy of the condemnation of his doctrine
to Pope Alexander V., but Huss appealed to the Pope , who was
badly informed, he said, of the matter, and in the meantime, the
archbishop died, and thus Bohemia became a prey to heresy. Huss
was now joined by Jacobellus of Misnia, and Peter of Dresden ,
who went about preaching to the people against the error the Church
was guilty of, as they said, in refusing the people communion under
both kinds, and proclaimed that all who received under one kind
were damned . John Huss and his followers took up this new doc-
trine, and so deeply was the error implanted in the minds of the
Bohemian Hussites, that even all the power of the imperial arms
could scarcely eradicate it.
41. Noel Alexander enumerates the errors of Huss under thirty
heads (3) . We will only take a succinct view of the most impor-
tant ones. The Church, he said , was composed of the predestined
(2) Nat. Alex. sec. 14, c. 3, a. 22, sec. 6 ; Eneas Silv. Hist. Bohem. c. 35. (3) Nat.
Alex. sec. 15, c. 2, a. 1 , sec. 2.
252 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
alone ( Art. 1 , 3 , 5 , 6 ) ; and the two natures, the Divinity and the
humanity, are one Christ ( Art. 4) . Peter neither was nor is the
head of the Catholic Chureh ( Art. 7 , 10 , 11 ) ; and civil and eccle-
siastical lords, as prelates and bishops, are no longer so while in
mortal sin (Art. 30) ; and he says the sameof the Pope (Art.
20, 22 , 24, 26 ) . The Papal dignity is derived from the power of
the Emperor (Art. 9) ; and ecclesiastical obedience is an invention
of the priests (Art. 15). Everything the wicked man does is
wicked, and everything the virtuous man does is virtuous (Art. 16).
Good priests ought to preach, though they be excommunicated
(Art. 17 , 18) ; and in Art. 19 , he reprobates ecclesiastical censures.
It was an act of iniquity to condemn the forty-five articles of
Wickliffe ( Art. 25) . There is no necessity of a head to rule the
Church, for the apostles and other priests governed it very well
before the office of Pope was introduced ( Art. 27, 28, 29 ) . These
are, in substance, the errors of John Huss. Van Ranst (p. 275)
remarks, that it appears from his own works, that he always held
the belief of the Real Presence, and when, in the fifteenth Session
of the Council, he was accused of teaching that, after the consecra-
tion, the substance of bread remained in the Eucharist, he denied
that he ever either taught or believed so. He also admitted sacra-
mental confession, with its three parts, as we do -Extreme Unction ,
and all the other sacraments- prayers for the dead —the invocation
and intercession of saints. How unjustly, then, says the same
author, do the Lutherans and Calvinists condemn in the Church of
Rome these dogmas held by Huss himself, whom they venerate as
a witness of the truth, and through whom they boast that they have
derived the original succession of their churches !
42. We now come to speak of the sad end the obstinacy of Huss
brought him to . The Pope condemned Wickliffe and his errors,
in a Synod held in Rome, in 1413. When this came to the know-
ledge of Huss, he published several invectives against the Fathers
composing the Synod , so the Pope found himself obliged to suspend
him from all ecclesiastical functions, the more especially as he had
been cited to Rome, but refused to come. In the year 1414, a
General Council was held in the city of Constance , at which twenty-
nine Cardinals, four Patriarchs, and two hundred and seven prelates
assisted, andthe Emperor Sigismund attended there in person also (4).
John Huss was summoned by the Emperor to present himself be-
fore the Council and defend his doctrine, but he refused to leave
Prague until he was furnished by him with a safe conduct. The
Emperor gave him the protection he demanded, and he, accord-
ingly, came to Constance, puffed up with the idea, that he would,
by his reasoning, convince the Fathers of the Council that he was
right. He was quite satisfied , also, that in case even the Council
forget that the devil has martyrs, and infuses into them a false con-
stancy, and as St. Augustin says : " It is not the punishment, but
the cause, that makes a martyr ;" that is, the confession of the true
Faith. The flames burned so fiercely, that it is thought he was
immediately suffocated, for he gave no other signs of life. His
ashes were cast into the lake, and thus the scene closed on John
Huss (9).
47. We have now to speak of Jerome of Prague, who having
joined Huss in his errors, was his companion in a disgraceful death
and perdition. He was a layman, and joined Huss in all his
endeavours to disseminate his errors, led astray himself, first by
Wickliffe's works, and next by the preaching of his master. He
came to Constance to try and be of some assistance to Huss, but
was taken and obliged to appear before the Council, together with
his patron, but he was not finally tried for a year after the death of
Huss. A lengthened process was instituted against him, and it
was proved, as Raynaldus tells us ( 10), that he preached the same
errors as Wickliffe and Huss, that he was guilty of several excesses,
and had caused several seditious movements in divers kingdoms
and cities. When first brought before the Council in 1414 , he
confessed that he was wrong, and said that he was satisfied to
abjure his heresy, even according to the formula required by the
Council. He, therefore, got permission to speak with whom he
pleased, and he then was so imprudent as to tell his friends that
his retractation was extorted from him, not by conscience, but be-
cause he was afraid of being condemned to be burned alive, but
that now he should defend his doctrines to the death. When he
was discovered, he was obliged to appear again before the Council ,
in 1415 , and when the Patriarch of Constantinople called on him
to clear himself from the new charges laid against him, he spoke
out plainly, and said that his former abjuration was extorted by the
dread of being burned alive ; that he now held as true all the
articles of Wickliffe, and that he was anxious to expiate at the
stake the fault of his former retractation. The Fathers ofthe Council
still charitably gave him time to repent, but, at last, in the twenty-
fifth Session , after the Bishop of Lodi endeavoured by every means
in his power to induce him to retract, he was declared an obstinate
heretic , and handed over to the civil magistrate, who had him led
to the pile. Even then, several persons endeavoured to get him
to retract, but he said that his conscience would not allow him ; he
took off his clothes without any assistance, was tied to the stake,
and the pile was fired . His agony was much longer than that of
John Huss, but , like him, he died without any signs of repent-
ance (11 ).
48. The unhappy end of John Huss and Jerome of Prague did
not put a stop to the progress of their doctrines ; on the contrary,
(9) Varill. loc. cit. p. 48 ; Gotti, loc. cit. s. 3, n. 8 ; Van Ranst, 279. (13) Rainal
Ann. 1415, n. 13 & seq. (11) Varil. p. 51 , 1 ; Gotti, c. 105 ; Bern. t. 4, c. 4.
256 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
CHAPTER XI.
this age was Luther ; but many writers assert that Erasmus was his
predecessor, and there was a common saying in Germany that Eras-
mus ( 1) laid the egg, and Luther hatched it (2) . Erasmus was born
in Holland ; his birth was illegitimate, and he was baptized by the
name of Gerard, which he afterwards changed to the Greek name
Erasmus -in Latin , Desiderius ( 3) . At an early age he was received
among the Regular Canons of St. Augustin, and made his religious
profession ; but, weary of a religious life, and regretting having
made his vows, he left the cloister and lived in the world , having,
it is supposed, obtained a Papal dispensation . He would certainly
have conferred a benefit on the age he lived in, had he confined
himself to literature alone ; but he was not satisfied without writing
on theological matters, interpreting the Scriptures, and finding fault
with the Fathers ; hence , as Noel Alexander says of him, the more
works he wrote the more errors he published. He travelled to many
Universities, and was always honourably received , on account of his
learning; but a great many doubted of his faith, on account of the
obscure way he wrote concerning the dogmas of religion ; hence,
some of the Innovators, friends of Erasmus , often availed themselves
of his authority, though he frequently endeavoured to clear himself
from the imputation of favouring them, especially in a letter he
wrote to Cardinal Campeggio (4) .
2. A great contest at that time was going on in Germany,
between the Rhetoricians and Theologians. The Rhetoricians
upbraided the Theologians with their ignorance, and the barbarism
of the terms they used . The Theologians , on the other hand,
abused the Rhetoricians for the impropriety and profaneness of the
language they used in the explanation of the Divine Mysteries.
Erasmus, who took the lead among the Rhetoricians, began by
deriding, first, the style, and , next, the arguments of the Theo-
logians ; he called their theology Judaism , and said that the proper
understanding of ecclesiastical science depended altogether on eru-
dition and the knowledge of languages. Many writers openly
charge Erasmus with heresy : he explained everything just as it
pleased himself, says Victorinus (5) , and vitiatedeverything he
explained. Albert Pico , Prince of Carpi , a man ofgreat learning (6),
and a strenuous opponent of the errors of Erasmus, assures us that
he called the Invocation ofthe Blessed Virgin and the saints idolatry ;
condemned monasteries and ridiculed the Religious, calling them
actors and cheats, and condemned their vows and rules ; was opposed
to the celibacy of the clergy, and turned into mockery Papal
indulgences, relics of saints, feasts and fasts, and auricular confes-
sion ; asserts that by Faith alone man is justified (7) , and even
(1) Rainald. Ann. 1516, n. 91 ; Bernin. t. 4. sec. 26, c. 2, p. 255. (2) Gotti, Ver.
Rel. c. 108, sec. 2 , n. 6. (3) Nat. Alex. t. 19, sec. 15, c. 5, art. 1 , n. 12.
(4) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. (5) Victor. in Scholiis ad Epist. Hier. Ep. 30.
(6) Rainald. & Bernin. loc. cit. (7) Alberto Pico, l. 20.
R
258 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(25) Hermant, c. 228 ; Van Ranst, p. 299 ; Gotti, c. 108, sec. 3, n. 3. (26) Ap. Van
Ranst, Hist. p. 300. (26) Gotti, sec. 2, n. 8.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 261
which flowed from the pen of the former, and accordingly sum-
moned him to Rome to defend himself. Luther excused himself
on the plea of delicate health, and the want of means to undertake
long a journey, and added, that he had strong suspicions ofthe
Roman judges ; he also induced the Duke of Saxony , and the Uni-
versity of Wittemberg, to write to his Holiness to the same effect,
and to request him to appoint judges in Germany to try the
cause ( 28) . The Pope dreaded to entrust the case to the decision
of the Germans, as Luther already had a powerful party in his own .
country ; he therefore sent as his Legate a latere, Thomas Vio, called
Cardinal Cajetan, commissioning him to call on the secular power
to have Luther arrested, and to absolve him from all censures in
case he retracted his errors, but should he obstinately persist in
maintaining them , to excommunicate him ( 29 ) .
8. On the Legate's arrival in Augsburg, he summoned Luther
before him, and imposed three commandments on him : First.—
That he should retract the propositions asserted by him. Secondly.-
That he should cease from publishing them ; and finally, that he
should reject all doctrines censured by the Church . Luther
answered that he never broached any doctrine in opposition to the
Church ; but Cajetan reminded him that he denied the treasure of
the merits ofJesus Christ and his saints, in virtue ofwhich the Pope
dispensed indulgences , as Clement VI . declared in the Constitution
Unigenitus ; that he also asserted that to obtain the fruit of the sa-
craments it was only required to have the faith of obtaining them.
Luther made some reply , but the cardinal, smiling, said he did not
come to argue with him, but to receive his submission , as he had
been appointed (30) . Luther was alarmed at finding himself in
Augsburg, then totally Catholic , without a safe conduct (although
Noel Alexander ( 31 ) says he obtained one from Maximilian ; Her-
mant, Van Ranst, and Gotti deny it ( 32) , and Varillas wonders at
his boldness in presenting himself without it), and asked time for
reflection, which was granted him, and on the following day he
presented himself before the Legate, together with a notary public,
and four senators ofAugsburg, and presented a writing signed with
his own hand, saying that he followed and revered the Roman
Church in all her acts and sayings , past, present, and to come, and
that if ever he said anything against her, he now revoked and un-
said it. The cardinal, well aware that he had written several things
which were not in accordance with the Catholic Faith , wished to
have a still more ample retractation , but still he flattered himself
that the one obtained was so much gained . Luther, however, soon
slipped through his fingers, for he then persisted that he had neither
(28) Gotti, ibid. n. 9, & Van Ranst, loc. cit. (29) Nat. Alex. t. 19, ar. 11, sec. 4;
Gotti, loc. cit. sec. 2, n. 20 ; Hermant, t. 2, c. 229. (30) Hermant, c. 230. (31 ) Nat.
Alex. loc. cit. sec. 4. (32) Hermant, cit. c. 230 ; Van Ranst, p. 302 ; Gotti, sec. 3,
n. 10.
262 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(33) Nat. Alex. ar. 11 , sec. 4, n. 1 ; Gotti, c. 108 , sec. 3, n. 10. (34) Nat. Alex.
loc. cit.; Van Ranst, p. 302. (35) Van Ranst, p. 302. (36) Luther, t. 1 ; Oper.
p. 208. (37) Gotti, sec. 3, n. 11. (38) Gotti, c. 108, sec. 3, n. 12 ; Van Ranst,
p. 302 ; Nat. Alex. sec. 4, n. 1 ; Hermant, c. 229.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 263
(39) Hermant, c. 229 ; Nat. Alex. sec. 4, n. 1 ; Van Ranst, p. 302. (40) Van Ranst,
p. 303 ; Varillas, 1. 3, p. 48.
264 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(41) Hermant, t. 1 , c. 230. (42) Gotti, c. 108, n. 13. (43) Cochleus de Act. &
Script. Luth. Ann. 1523.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 265
broken up by the Emperor. 20. Dispensation given by the Lutherans to the Land-
grave to have two Wives. 21. Council of Trent, to which Luther refuses to come ;
he dies, cursing the Council. 22. The Lutherans divided into fifty-six Sects.
23. The Second Diet of Augsburg, in which Charles V. published the injurious For-
mula of the Interim . 24, 25. The Heresy of Luther takes Possession of Sweden,
Denmark, Norway, and other Kingdoms.
(1) Nat. Alex. sec. 14, n. 4 ; Varill. t. 1 , 7. 4, dalla, p. 175 ; Van Ranst, p. 304.
(2) Nat. Alex. loc. cit.; Van Ranst, p. 205.
266 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
would not have escaped, were it not for the Elector Frederick, who
bribed the soldiers who escorted him, and had him conveyed to a
place of security. A report was then spread abroad, that Luther
was imprisoned before the expiration of the safe conduct , but the
Elector had him conveyed to the Castle of Watzberg, near Alstad,
in Thuringia, a place which Luther afterwards called his Patmos.
He remained there nearly ten months, well concealed and guarded,
and there he finished the plan of his heresy, and wrote many of his
works. In the works written here, Luther principally attacked the
scholastic Theologians, especially St. Thomas, whose works , he said,
were filled up with heresies. We should not wonder he called the
works of St. Thomas heretical, who centuries before had confuted
his own pestilential errors (3) .
15. In the year 1529, another Diet was held in the city of
Spire, by the Emperor's orders, in which it was decided, that in
these places in which the edict of Worms was accepted, it should
be observed ; but that wherever the ancient religion was changed,
and its restoration could not be effected without public disturb-
ances, matters should remain as they were until the celebration of
a General Council. It was, besides, decided that Mass should freely
be celebrated in the places infected with Lutheranism , and that the
Gospel should be explained , according to the interpretation of the
Fathers approved by the Church. The Elector Frederick of
Saxony, George of Branderburg, Ernest and Francis, Dukes of
Luneburg, Wolfgang of Anhalt, and fourteen confederate cities
(thirteen, according to Protestant historians) , protested against this
Decree, as contrary to the truth of the Gospel, and appealed to a
future Council, or to some judge not suspected , and from this pro-
test arose the famous designation of Protestant (4) .
16. The same year another Conference, composed of Lutherans
and Zuinglians, or Sacramentarians, was held in Marpurg, under
the patronage of the Landgrave of Hesse, to endeavour to establish
a union between their respective sects. Luther, Melancthon, Jonas,
Osiander, Brenzius, and Agricola appeared on one side, and Zuin-
glius, Ecolampadius, Bucer, and Hedio , on the other. They agreed
on all points, with the exception of the Eucharist, as the Zuinglians
totally denied the Real Presence of Christ. Several other Con-
ferences were held to remove , if possible, the discussion of doctrine
objected to then by the Catholics, but all ended without coming to
any agreement. In this the Providence of God is apparent ; the
Roman Church could thus oppose to the innovators that unity of
doctrine she always possessed, and the heretics were always con-
founded on this point (5) . About this period Luther married an
abbess of a convent. His fellow-heresiarch Zuinglius , also a priest,
(3) Hermant, c. 230, 231 ; Van Ranst, loc. cit. (4) Nat. Alex. t. 9, sec. 4, n. 9 ,
ex Sleidano, l. 6 ; Van Ranst, p. 306 ; Hermant, t. 2, c. 244. (5) Van Ranst, p. 806 ;
Nat. Alex. loc. cit. n. 10.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 267
(8) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. n. 11 ; Hermant, c. 244. (9) Varillas, t. 1 , l. 10, p. 445,
coll. 1.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 269
(10) Nat. Alex. sec. 4, n. 10, in fin. ex Cochlæo in Act. Lutheri & Sleidano, l. 7 ; Van
Ranst, p. 307. (11) Nat. Alex. sec. 4, n. 13 ; Hermant, t. 2, c. 245. (12) Van
Ranst, p. 307 ; Nat. Alex. t. 19, c. 10, sec. 4, n. 1. (13) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. (14) Va-
rillas, t. 1, l. 7, p. 530, c. 2.
270 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(15) Cochleus in Actis Lutheri. (16) Gotti, c. 105, s. 5, n. 7 ; Van Ranst, p. 308 ;
Bernin. t. 4, sec. 16, c. 5 , p. 454 ; Varillas, t. 2, l. 14, p. 34. (17) Varillas, t. 2, l. 24,
p. 366. (18) Varillas, L. 25, p. 393.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 271
(19) Varill. t. 2, l. 17, p. 122 , & l. 24, p. 364 . (20) Lindan, Epist., Roram in Luther.
(21) Ńat. Alex. t. 19, c. 10, art. 5, p. 321. (22) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. c. 10, art. 5.
272 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
are also some Catholics, but they were obliged to assemble pri-
vately for the Holy Sacrifice, and even now, though the spirit of
the age is opposed to persecution, they labour under many re-
straints and disabilities. Norway, till lately , and Iceland at the
present day, belongs to Denmark, and Lutheranism is likewise the
religion of these countries, though the people, especially in the
country parts, preserve many Catholic traditions, but they were
till lately destitute of priests aud sacrifice.* In Lapland, some
Pagans remain as yet, who adore the spirits ofthe woods, and fire ,
and water ; they have no Catholic missioner to instruct them.
There are, indeed, but few Catholics altogether in the Northern
kingdoms. Formerly, the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carthusians,
Cistercians, and Brigittines, had convents there, but now all have
disappeared (24) .
* N.B. - A Vicar Apostolic has been appointed to Sweden and Norway. In 1856 , a
Prefect Apostolic, Abbé Djonvoski, has been appointed for Iceland, Lapland, Greenland,
and the Arctic Regions of America.
S
274 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES,
his sins, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the incurring eternal
damnation ; this contrition only makes a man a hypocrite, and a
greater sinner. Seventh. -That proverb is most true, and better
than all the doctrine about conditions given as yet : the highest
penance is not to act so again , and the best penance is a new life.
Eighth Presume not by any means to confess venial sins, and not
even every wicked sin ; for it is impossible that you should know
all your mortal sins, and hence, in the primitive Church only
these manifestly mortal were confessed. Ninth.- When we wish
clearly to confess everything, we act as if we wished to leave nothing
to the mercy of God to pardon. Tenth.- Sins are not remitted
to any one, unless (the priest remitting them) he believes they
are remitted-yea, the sin remains unless he believes it remitted ;
for the remission of sin and the donation of grace is not enough,
but we must also believe it is remitted. Eleventh. You should
on no account trust you are absolved on account of your contrition ,
but because ofthe words of Christ : " Whatsoever thou shalt loose."
Hence, I say, trust, ifyou obtain the priest's absolution, and believe.
strongly you are absolved, and you will be truly absolved, no matter
about contrition. Twelfth.-If by impossibility you should con-
fess without contrition , or the priest should absolve you only in
joke, and you, nevertheless, believe you are absolved , you are most
certainly absolved. Thirteenth . - In the Sacraments of Penance
and the Remission of Sins, the Pope or bishop does no more than
the lowest priest- nay, if a priest cannot be had, any Christian ,
even woman or child , has the same power. Fourteenth . - No one
ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor ought a priest to ask
such a question . Fifteenth . They are in great error who approach
the Sacrament of the Eucharist with trust, because they have con-
fessed, are not conscious to themselves of any mortal sins, have said
the prayers and preparations for Communion-all these eat and
drink unto themselves judgment ; but if they believe and trust,
they will then obtain grace : this faith alone makes them pure and
worthy. Sixteenth .- It seems advisable that the Church, in a
General Council, should declare that the laity should communicate
under both kinds, and the Bohemians who do so are not heretics
but schismatics. Seventeenth .- The treasures of the Church, from
which the Pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ or
his saints. Eighteenth. Indulgences are pious frauds of the
faithful, and remission of good works, and are of the number of
those things that are lawful, but not expedient. Nineteenth.-
Indulgences are of no value to those who truly obtain them for the
remission of the punishment due to the Divine justice for their
actual sins. Twentieth. -They are seduced who believe indul-
gences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit. Twenty-
first.-Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and should
be granted only to the hardened and impatient. Twenty-second .--
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 275
For six classes of persons indulgences are neither useful nor neces-
sary-to wit, the dead, those on the point of death, the sick, those
who are lawfully impeded, those who have not committed crimes ,
those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those
who mend their lives. Twenty-third.- Excommunications are
merely external penalties, and do not deprive a man of the common
spiritual prayers of the Church. Twenty-fourth. - Christians should
be taught rather to love excommunication than to fear it. Twenty-
fifth. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter , is not the Vicar
of Christ instituted by Christ himself in St. Peter, Vicar over all
the Churches of the world. Twenty-sixth. -The word of Christ to
St. Peter, "Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth ," & c . , extended
but to what St. Peter himself alone had bound . Twenty-seventh .
-It is not certainly in the power of the Pope or the Church by
any means to lay down articles of faith nor laws of morals, nor good
works. Twenty-eighth.-If the Pope with a great part of the
Church should think so and so , although not in error, it is, never-
theless, neither sin nor heresy to think the contrary, especially in a
matter not necessary to salvation , until by a General Council one
thing is rejected and the other approved. Twenty-ninth .- We
have a way open to us for weakening the authority of Councils ,
and freely contradicting their acts, and judging their decrees, by
freely confessing whatever appears true, no matter whether approved
or condemned by any Council . Thirtieth.- Some of the articles
of John Huss , condemned in the Council of Constance, are most
Christian, most true , and most evangelical , such as not even the
universal Church could condemn . Thirty-first.-The just man sins
in every good work. Thirty-second. -A good work, be it never
so well performed , is a venial sin. Thirty-third.-It is against the
will of the spirit to burn heretics. Thirty-fourth.- To fight against
the Turks is to oppose the will ofGod , who punishes our iniquities
through them. Thirty-fifth . - No man can be certain that he is not
in a constant state of mortal sin on account of the most hidden vice
of pride. Thirty-sixth.- Free will after sin is a matter of name
alone, and while one does what is in him he sins mortally. Thirty-
seventh . - Purgatory cannot be proved from the Holy Scriptures
contained in the Canon of Scripture. Thirty-eighth .- The souls
in purgatory are not sure of their salvation - at least all of them ;
nor is it proved by reason or Scripture that they are beyond the
state of merit or of increasing charity. Thirty-ninth -The souls
in purgatory continually sin, as long as they seek relief and dread
their punishment. Fortieth . - Souls freed from purgatory by the
suffrages of the living, enjoy a less share of beatitude than if they
satisfied the Divine justice themselves . Forty-first.- Ecclesiastical
prelates and secular princes would do no wrong if they abolished
the medicant orders.
27. Besides the errors here enumerated and condemned by the
276 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
Faith without the works of the law, " he adds the word alone, " by
Faith alone." In the Diet of Augsburg, some one said to him, that
the Catholics spoke very loudly of this interpretation , when he made
that arrogant answer : " If your Papist prattles any more about this
word alone, tell him that Doctor Martin Luther wishes it to be so ;
sic volo, sic jubeo , sit pro ratione voluntas- I wish so , I order so,
let my will be sufficient reason for it."
30. In the year 1523 he composed his book, " De Formula
Missæ et Cominunionis ;" he abolished the Introits of the Sundays,
all the festivals of saints, with the exception of the Purification and
Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin ; he retained the Kyrie, the
Gloria, and one Collect, the Epistle, the Gospel, and the Nicene
Creed , but all in the vulgar tongue ; he then passed on to the Pre-
face, omitting all the rest ; he then says: " Who, the day before
he suffered," &c. , as in the Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass, but the
words of the Consecration are chaunted as loud as the Pater Noster,
that they may be heard by the people. After the Consecration , the
Sanctus is sung, and the Benedictus qui venit said ; the bread and
the chalice is elevated immediately after the Pater Noster is said,
without any other prayer, then the Pax Domini, &c. The Commu-
nion follows, and while that is going on, the Agnus Dei is sung ; he
approves of the Orationes Domine Jesu , &c. , and Corpus D. N. J. C.
custodiat, &c. He allows the Communion to be sung, but in place
of the last Collect, chaunts the prayer, Quod ore sumpsimus, &c .,
and instead of the Ita Missa est, says Benedicamus Domine. He
gives the chalice to all, permits the use of vestments, but without
any blessing, and prohibits private Masses . To prepare for Com-
munion , he says confession may be permitted as useful, but it is not
necessary. He allows Matins to be said, with three lessons , the
Hours, Vespers , and Complin.
31. In the year 1525 , Carlostad attacked the doctrine of the Real
Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacrament , saying that the word this
did not refer to the bread, but to the body of Christ crucified .
66
Luther opposed him in his book, " Contra Prophetas seu Fanaticos ;"
in this he first speaks of images, and says that in the law of Moses
it was images of the Deity alone which were prohibited ; he before
admitted the images of the saints and the cross. Speaking of the
Sacrament he says, by the word hoc, this , the bread is pointed out,
and that Christ is truly and carnally in the supper. The bread and
the body are united in the bread , and (speaking of the Incarnation)
as man is God , so the bread is called his body and the body bread.
Thus Luther falsely constitutes a second hypostatic union between
the bread and the body of Christ. Hospinian quotes a sermon
Luther preached against the Sacramentarians, where , speaking of
the peace they wished to have established , if the Lutherans would
grant them the liberty to deny the Real Presence , he says : " Cursed
be such concord which tears asunder and despises the Church .” He
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 279
then derides their false interpretation ofthe words , " This is my body."
He commences with Zuinglius, who says the word is is the same as
signifies. " We have the Scripture," says Luther, " which says, This
is my body; but is there any place in the Scriptures where it is
written , This signifies my body.' He then ridicules the interpre-
tation of the others. " Carlostad," he says, " distorts the word this;
Ecolampadius tortures the word body; others transpose the word this;
and say, my body which shall be delivered for you is this ; others say,
that which is given for you, this is my body ; others maintain the text ,
this is my body, for my commemoration ; and others again say, this
is not an article of Faith." Returning , then , on Ecolampadius, who
said it was blasphemous to assert that God was kneaded, baked,
and made of bread, he retorts : " It would also, I suppose, be blas-
phemous to say God was made man , that it was most insulting to
the Divine Majesty to be crucified by wicked men, and concludes
by saying: " The Sacramentarians prepare the way for denial of all
the articles of Faith , and they already begin to believe nothing."
Speaking of Transubstantiation, he says : " It makes but little dif
ference for any one to believe the bread to remain or not to remain
in the Eucharist, if he believe in Transubstantiation." In an agree
ment made with Bucer, at Wittemberg, in 1526 , he granted that
the body and blood of Christ remained in the Sacrament only while
it was received.
32. Melancthon and his Character. 33. His Faith, and the Augsburg Confession com-
posed by him. 34. Matthias Flaccus, Author of the Centuries. 35. John Agricola,
Chief of the Antinomians ; Atheists. 36. Andrew Osiander, Francis Stancaro, and
Andrew Musculus. 37. John Brenzius, Chief of the Ubiquists. 38. Gaspar
Sneckenfield abhorred even by Luther for his Impiety. 39. Martin Chemnitz, the
Prince of Protestant Theologians, and Opponent of the Council of Trent.
(1) Nat. Alex. t. 19, a. 11 ; s. 3, n. 4 ; Gotti, Ver. Rel. s. 109, sec. 3 ; Van Ranst,
p. 308 ; Hermant, c. 241. (2 ) Hermant, loc. cit. (3) Varillas Hist. 20, 2, l. 24,
p. 363 . (4) Varillas, s. 1 , l. 8, p. 364. (5) Gotti, loc. cit. n. 2. (6 ) Flore-
mund. l. 2, c. 9 ; Van Ranst, & Gotti, loc. cit.; & Nat. Alex. loc. cit. n. 10. (7) Berti,
Hist. sec. 16, c. 3. (8) Ap. Spondam. ad an. 1560, n. 32.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 281
(9) Gotti, c. 109, sec. 7, n. 1, 2 ; Van Ranst, p. 310 ; Varillas, t. 1 , l. 17, p. 122, &
t. 2, l. 24, p. 363 ; Nat. Alex. t. 19, a. 11 , sec. 3, n. 10. (10 ) Nat. Alex. t. 19, a. 11 ,
sec. 3, n. 7 ; Gotti, c. 109 , sec. 5, n. 7 ; Van Ranst, p. 310. (11) Varillas, t. 1, l. 11,
p. 512. (12) Remund. in Synopsi, l. 2, c. 16. (13) Gotti, loc. cit. sec. 6, n. 1 ad
6 ; N. Alex. loc. cit. n. 8 ; Van Ranst, cit. p. 310 . (14) Gotti, sec. 7, n. 8 ; Van
Ranst, loc. cit.; Nat. Alex. loc. cit. n. 11. (15) St. Thomas, p. 3, q. 64, ar. 1 .
(16 ) Gotti, sec. 7 , n. 8 ; Van Ranst, p. 310.
282 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(17) Gotti, loc. cit. sec. 6. (18) Remund. in Synopsi, l. 2, c. 14, n. 2. (19) Nat.
Alex. t. 1, sec. 3, n. 8, 9 ; Gotti, sec. 6, n. 8 ad 10 ; Van Ranst, p. 293. (20) Bossuet,
Istor. l. 2, n. 41. (21) Gotti, c. 109, sec. 5 , n. 6 ; Van Ranst, p. 311.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 283
tion. " After Luther's death , this sect increased somewhat ; but in
a Synod, held at Naumburg, in 1554, by Bucer , Melancthon, and
some others, all the author's works were condemned ( 22 ) .
39. Martin Chemnitz was a poor woolcomber's son, in the Mark
of Brandenburg. He was born in 1522 , and followed his father's
business until the age of fourteen , when he commenced his studies
in Wittemberg. His Theological Professor was Melancthon, who
was so well satisfied with the progress he made, that he called him
the Prince of Protestant Theologians. He taught Theology in
Brunswick, for thirty years, and died in 1586 , the sixty-fourth
year of his age. Chemnitz laboured strenuously along with Bucer,
to bring about an agreement between the Lutherans and Sacramen-
tarians, but without effect. He published many works , but his
principal one is the " Examen Con . Tridentini ," in which he en-
deavours to upset the decisions of the Council . He does not admit,
as Canonical, any books of Scripture only those approved of by
all the Churches, not those approved of by Councils alone ; he
praises the Greek and Hebrew text, and rejects the Vulgate
wherever it disagrees with them ; he rejects tradition, but believes
in free will, and thinks that, with the assistance of grace, it can
accomplish something good. He says that man is justified by Faith
alone, through medium of which the merits of Christ are applied
to him, and that good works are necessary to salvation, but still
have no merit. Baptism and the Eucharist, he says, are properly
the only sacraments-the rest are but pious rites ; and in the
Eucharist he rejects both the Transubstantiation of the Catholics ,
and the Impanation of the Lutherans, but does not decide whether
the body of Christ is really present in the bread and wine ; he
merely says it is not a carnal presence, that Christ is there alone
in the actual use of the Communion and that it must always be
taken under both kinds. He admits that the Mass may be called
a sacrifice, but not a true sacrifice, only under the general deno-
mination of a good work. It is not necessary, he says, speaking of
the sacrament of Penance , to confess all our sins, but he allows the
absolution of the Minister, though not as coming from the Minis-
ter himself, but from Christ, through his promise . Purgatory,
according to him, cannot be proved from Scripture . We should
honour the saints, their images, and relics, but not have recourse
to their intercession , and we should observe the Sundays , but no
other festival (23).
40. The Anabaptists ; they refuse Baptism to Children. 41. Their Leaders- Seditions
and Defeat. 42. Are again defeated under their Chief, Munzer, who is converted
at his Death. 43. They rebel again under John of Leyden, who causes himself to be
crowned King, is condemned to a cruel Death, and dies penitent. 44. Errors of the
Anabaptists. 45. They are split into various Sects.
(1) Gotti, Ver. Rel. t. 2, c. 110, sec. 1 , n. 1. (2) August. Serm. 176 , alias 10, de
Verb. Apost. (3) Orig. t. 2, p. 35, St. Iren. p. 147, n. 4 ; Tertul. p. 231 ; St. Greg.
Naz. t. 1, p. 658 ; St. Amb. t. 1, p. 349 ; St. Cypr. Epist. ad Fidum, n. 59 ; St. Aug.
Serm. 10, de Verb. Apost. alias 177.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 285
This Canon condemns most clearly both the Anabaptist and Lu-
theran heresies.
41. The chief of the Anabaptists was Nicholas Stork, or Storchius ,
sometimes also called Pelargus. He was at first a disciple of Luther,
but soon the head of a new heresy, which he preached in 1522,
saying it was revealed to him from heaven. Being banished from
Wittemberg, he went to Thuringia, where, together with his first
error, he preached many others, such as that all men enjoy universal
freedom from restraint, that all property is common , and should be
equally divided, and that all bishops, magistrates, and princes who
opposed his true Church should be put to death (4). Here he was
joined by Thomas Munzer, a priest, a follower of Luther, also, who
pretended to lead a most mortified life, and boasted of having frequent
ecstacies and extraordinary communications from the Deity. He
abused the Pope for teaching too severe a doctrine, and Luther for
promulgating too lax a one. He everywhere censured Luther's
morals and conduct, accused him of debauchery and lasciviousness,
and said it was impossible to believe God would make use of so
wicked a man to reform his Church. Through Luther's influence ,
he and all his followers were banished from Saxony (5). He then
went to Thuringia, and preached the same errors as Storchius ,
especially in Munster, teaching the country people that they should
not obey either prelates or princes. In a short time he rallied
round him the great body of the Anabaptists, and led forth three
hundred thousand ignorant peasants (6), causing them to forsake
their spades for the sword, and promising them the assistance of
God in their battles . These poor deluded creatures at first did a
great deal of harm , but when regular troops were brought against
them, they were soon , notwithstanding their immense numbers,
completely routed , not being trained to the use of arms. Those
who escaped the slaughter marched towards Lorrain, with the in-
tention of devastating that province ; but the Count Claude of Guise,
brother to the Duke of Lorrain , slaughtered twenty thousand of
them in three victories which he gained (7 ). Sleidan ( 8 ) says that
these poor peasants, when they were attacked by the troops, ap-
peared quite demented, and neither defended themselves nor fled ,
but began to sing a popular hymn, imploring the assistance of the
Holy Ghost, whose protection, according to Munzer's promises, they
expected.
44. In the meantime, while Munzer, with his Anabaptist fol-
lowers , were ravaging Thuringia, they were encountered by an
army commanded by Duke George of Saxony, who promised them
peace if they laid down their arms ; but Munzer, thinking himself
fost if the conditions were accepted , encouraged them to refuse all
(4) Nat. Alex. t. 18, art. 11 , sec. 12 ; Gotti, loc. cit. n. 2. (5) Varillas, t. 1, 7. 6,
p. 266. (6) Varillas, p. 270 ; Hermant, Hist. t. 2, c. 239. (7) Hermant, loc. cit.;
Varill. P 267. (8) Ap. Gotti, ibid . n. 7, ex Sleidan, l. 5.
286 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES,
(9) Nat. Alex. t. 29, cit. sec. 12, Gotti, cit. cap. 110, sec. 1 , n. 7. (10) Nat. Alex.
loc. cit.; Gotti, n. 8 ; Varill. p. 288 ; Van Ranst, sec. 16, p. 313 ; Hermant, c. 239.
(11) N. Alex. cit. a. 12 , n. 2 ; Varill. p. 427 ; V. Ranst, p. 315 ; Her. c. 241.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 287
with pincers by two executioners for two hours, and he bore it all
without a murmur, saying he deserved it for his sins, and imploring
the Divine Mercy ; his companions died in their obstinacy ( 12 ) ,
and Hermant says, that his sect has spread its roots into many
Christian kingdoms (13).
46. The errors of the Anabaptists were : First. That children
should not be baptized , but only adults capable of reason. Second.-
That no Christian could be a civil magistrate. Third. It is in no
case lawful for Christians to swear. Fourth.-War is unlawful to
Christians .
47. The Anabaptists soon split into several sects- some say four-
teen, some, even seventy. Some were called Munzerites, after
Thomas Munzer ; some who preferred voluntary poverty, Huttites,
from John Hut ; others , Augustins, from Augustin Boehem, who
taught that heaven would not be opened till after the day of judg-
ment ; others, Buholdians, from John ( Buhold) of Leyden, whose
history we have just given- these preached polygamy, and wished
to destroy all the wicked ; some Melchiorists, from Melchior Hoff-
man, who taught that Christ had but one nature, that he was not
born ofMary, and various other errors ; some were called Mennonites ,
from Mennon - these held heretical opinions regarding the Trinity ;
some Davidians, the followersof one George, who called himself
the Third David, the true Messiah, the beloved Son of God , born
of the Spirit, not of the flesh, the pardoner of sins ; he died in 1556 ,
and promised to rise again in three years. This vain prophecy had
some truth in it, for three years afterwards, the Senate of Basle
caused him to be disinterred , and his remains burned along with
his writings. The Clancularists, when asked if they were Anabap-
tists, denied it ; they had no churches, but preached in private
houses and gardens. The Demonists , following the errors of Origen,
said the devils would be saved in the end of the world . The
Adamites appeared naked in public, having, as they asserted , re-
covered the pristine innocence of Adam. The Servetians, followers
of Michael Servetus, joined to the errors of the Anabaptists blas-
phemies against the Trinity and Jesus Christ. The Condormientes
slept together without distinction of sex, and called this indecency
the new Christian Charity. The Ejulants, or Weepers , said there
was no devotion so pleasing to God as weeping and wailing. Noel
Alexander and Van Ranst enumerate many other classes of these
fanatics ( 14).
(12) Varill. p. 436. (13) Her. loc. cit.; V. Ranst, p. 314. (14 ) Nat. Alex.
t. 19, art. 11, n. 4 ; Van Ranst, p. 315, & seq.
288 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
ARTICLE II.
THE SACRAMENTARIANS.
SEC. L. - CARLOSTAD.
48. Carlostad, Father of the Sacramentarians. 49. He is reduced to live by his Labour
in the Field ; he gets married, and composed a Mass on that Subject. 53. He dies
suddenly.
(1 ) Nat. Alex. t. 19, s. 3 ; Gotti, Ver. Rel. c. 109, s. 1 ; Van Ranst, s. 16, p. 217 ;
Hermant, t. 1 , c. 231 ; Varillas, t. 1, l. 3, p. 148. (2 ) Hermant, c. 234 ; Gotti, s. 1,
n. 2 ; Varillas, t. 1 , l. 3, p. 211. (3) Berti, Brev. Hist. s. 3.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 289
(4) Bos. Stor. del Variaz. l. 2, n. 12. (5) Gotti, c. 109, n. 3, ex Cochleo, ad an.
15, 25 ; V. Ranst, p. 217 ; Var. 242. (6) Octavius Lavert. p. 117. (7) Rinal.
an. 1523, n. 74. (8) Varillas, l. 8, p. 359. (9) Lancis. t. 4, Ist. s. 16, c..3 ; Var.
loc. cit.
* Deus qui post tam longam et impiam Sacerdotum tuorum cæcitatem Beatum An-
dream Carlostadium ea gratia donare dignatus es, ut primus, nulla habita Papistici
Juris ratione, uxorem ducere ausus fuerit, da quæsumus ut omnes Sacerdotes recepta
sana mente, ejus vestigia sequentes ejectis concubinis aut eisdem ductis ad legitimum
consortium thori convertantur.
Oremus- Nos ergo concubinis nostris gravati, te Deus poscimus, ut illius, qui Patres
nostros sectatus antiquos tibi placet, nos imitatione gaudeamus in æternum .
T
290 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
that immediately one of his children ran to him telling him that he
had seen the same vision, and that it said to him : " Tell your
father that in three days I will deprive him of life , breaking his
head." All that is known for certain is that he died suddenly, and
died, as he had lived , without any signs of repentance.
(1) Nat. Alex. t. 19, sec. 16, art. 11, c. 3, n. 2 ; Gotti, Ver. Rel. c. 100, s. 2, n. 1 ;
Varillas, t. 1 , . 4, p. 155. (2) Apud. Nat. Alex. s. 8, n. 2 ; Gotti, loc. cit. n. 1.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 291
the sacraments, original sin, and other points, but his chief blasphe-
mies were against the Holy Eucharist, which turned even Luther
against him, who at first called him the strong champion of Christen-
dom , but ended by calling him a heretic. He first said that the
Eucharist was a remembrance of the passion of Christ, but, as
Varillas remarks, then came the difficulty, that the Apostle says
the Eucharist is to be eaten, but not the remembrance, and he five
times changed his mode of explaining the communion ; he rejected
the Transubstantiation of the Catholics, the Impanation of the
Lutherans, and the explanation given by Carlostad ( N. 48) . He
then began to teach, that in the words, " This is my body," the
word is has the same meaning as signifies, that is, this bread signifies
the body of Christ ; but still the difficulty was not solved , for he
could nowhere find that the word est was used for significat (3) ,
when one morning, at break of day, a spirit, whether a black or
white one he does not remember, spoke to him , and said : " Ignorant
man, read the twelfth chapter of Exodus, where it is said, For it
is the phase, that is the passage, of the Lord." Behold, said he,
here the word is stands for the word signifies ; and thus he began
to teach , that as the Pasch ofthe Jews was but a mere figure of the
passing of the Lord, so the Eucharist was the figure of Christ
sacrificed on the Cross . To authenticate this discovery of his, he
got the translation of the New Testament printed, and where the
text says, " This is my body," he inserted, this " signifies my
body" (4) . Nothing, however, can be more foolish than this
argument, for in Exodus the explanation is annexed : This is the
Phase, that is the passage, of the Lord ; but surely the text of the
Gospel does not give any explanation , that the words " this is my
body," refer not to the body, but to the figure of Jesus Christ (5) .
This error we refute at length in the Confutation X., No. 11 .
53. Zuinglius printed sixty-seven propositions, by way of doubt,
and placarded them in all the towns of the diocese of Constance.
The Dominicans preached against them as heretical, and offered to
convince Zuinglius of his errors in a public disputation . Zuinglius
accepted the challenge, but the Dominicans understood that it was
to take place inthe presence of the judges appointed by the Bishop
of Constance, while he, on the other hand, insisted it should be
held in presence of the Senate of Zurich, composed of two hundred
laymen, the majority of whom knew not how to read or write ; in
this move he was successful, for the Senate thought themselves
competent judges in religious matters, and would not yield their
pretended right to any one ; in effect, the Congress took place in
their presence, and the bishop not being able to prevent it, sent his
Vicar- General to try and bring matters to some rational arrangement.
(2) Zuinglius, 1. de Subsid. Euch. (4) Hermant, t. 1, c. 237. (5) Gotti, loc.
cit. n. 4 ; Varill. 7. 7, p. 304 ; Nat. Alex. loc. cit.
292 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
This took place, according to Varillas, in 1524 , and the Senate com-
manded all the ecclesiastics of Zurich to attend . Zuinglius first read
his Theses , and explained them without meeting with any interrup-
tion ; he then asked if any one had any reply to make ; the Vicar-
General answered, that a great deal of what he set forth was an ab-
surdity. Zuinglius replied in his defence . TheVicar-General answered
that he was sent by his bishop neither to dispute nor give decisions,
that it was a Council alone should decide, and then was silent ; the
other ecclesiastics were asked if they had anything to say ; they
followed the Vicar-General's example, and were silent also ; the
Senate, therefore, gave the palm of victory to Zuinglius, and made
a Decree, that thenceforward the pure Gospel (according to
Zuinglius) should be preached in all Zurich, that no more notice
should be taken of traditions, and that the Mass and the adoration
of the Eucharist should be abolished ( 6 ). This decree was opposed
by the other Cantons, and in the year 1526 another public dispu-
tation was held in Swiss Baden ( 7) , between Zuinglius and Eco-
lampadius, on the one side, and Ecchius and some others, on the
Catholic side, in which the arguments of Ecchius were so con-
vincing, that by a formal Decree, the Swiss recognized the Real
Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the invocation of saints, and
veneration of sacred images, and purgatory , and condemned the
doctrine of Luther and Zuinglius.
54. In the year 1528 , Zuinglius sold his prebend, and married,
shamelessly asserting that he had not sufficient confidence in him-
self to resist the vice of incontinence (8) , and in the same year the
Canton of Berne united with Zurich in embracing his doctrine.
Basle, Schaffhausen , St. Gall , and three others, soon followed this
example ; Lucerne , Switz , Zug, Uri , and Underwalden, remained
Catholic, and were soon after obliged to go to war with the heretical
cantons, for the following reason (9) . The Catholic party deposed
two officers who embraced the Zuinglian doctrines ; they were
received by the Zuinglians, who provided them with places, and
through revenge, prevented the merchants who supplied the
Catholic cantons with corn, as they do not produce enough for
their own consumption, from passing through their territories.
The Catholics complained of this, as an infraction of the Confede-
ration League, but were told they were only treated as they
deserved, for insulting the new religion. Eight thousand Catholics
took the field in October, 1532 ; fifteen hundred of the Zurich
troops were entrenched outside the city ; the Catholics assaulted
them in that position and put them to flight. Twenty thousand
of the Zurich troops then marched out to attack the Catholics, and
Zuinglius, against the advice of his friends, insisted on marching
(10) Varill. t. 1, l. 4, p. 355. (11) Nat. Alex. loc. cit.; Gotti, n. 13, & Van Ranst,
p. 318. (12) Varill. loc. cit. p. 358, & seq. (13) Bossuet, Hist. de Variat. 1. 2,
n. 19. (1) Nat. Alex. t. 19, s. 3, n. 3. (2) Florimund in Synopsi. l. 2, c. 8, n. 9.
294 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(3) Gotti, loc. cit. n. 15. (4) Gotti, n. 16, & Nat. Alex. loc. cit. (5) Varill. 7. 8,
p. 356. (6) Gotti, n. 17. (7) Gotti, c. 109, s. 2, in fine. (8) Gotti, t. 2, c. 109,
s. 4; Varil. t. 1 , l. 8, p. 363. (9) Gotti, loc. cit. n. 1. (10) Varil. loc. cit.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 295
ARTICLE III .
58. Birth and Studies of Calvin. 59. He begins to broach his Heresy ; they seek to im-
prison him, and he makes his Escape through a Window. 60. He commences to
disseminate his Impieties in Angouleme. 61. He goes to Germany to see Bucer, and
meets Erasmus. 62. He returns to France, makes some Followers, and introduces
the " Supper ;" he afterwards goes to Basle, and finishes his " Instructions. " 63. He
goes to Italy, but is obliged to fly ; arrives in Geneva, and is made Master of The-
ology. 64. He is embarrassed there. 65. He flies from Geneva, and returns to
Germany, where he marries a Widow. 66. He returns to Geneva, and is put at the
Head of the Republic ; the impious Works he publishes there ; his Dispute with Bolsec.
67. He causes Michael Servetus to be burned alive. 68. Unhappy End of the Cal-
vinistic Mission to Brazil. 69. Seditions and Disturbances in France on Calvin's
Account ; Conference of Poissy. 70. Melancholy Death of Calvin. 71. His personal
Qualities and depraved Manners .
58. JOHN CALVIN was born on the 10th ofJuly, 1509 , in Noyon ,
in the ancient province of Picardy, some say he was born in Bourg
de Pont ; but the almost universal opinion is, that he was born in
the city itself, and Varillas ( 1 ) says that the house in which he first
saw the light was afterwards razed to the ground by the people, and
that a person who subsequently rebuilt it was hanged at the door.
He was the third son ofGerard Caudin (he afterwards changed his
(15) Varillas, l. 17, p. 106 ; Berti, Hist. sec. 16, c. 3 ; Van Ranst, sec. 16, p. 391 ;
Dizion. Portat. loc. cit. (1) Varillas, Istor. della Rel. t. 1, l. 12, p. 450.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 297
(2) Varillas, al. loc. cit.; Nat. Alex. t. 19, a. 13, sec. 1, n. 1 ; Gotti, Ver. Rel. t. 2,
c. 111 , sec. 1, n. 1 ; Hermant, Hist. de Conc. t. 2, c. 271 ; Van Ranst, Hist. Hær. p. 119 ;
Berti, Hist. sec. 16, c. 3, p. 161 ; Lancist, Hist. t. 4, sec. 16, c. 5. (3) Nat. loc. cit. n. 1 ;
Gotti, ibid. n. 3 ; Hermant, cit. c. 271 ; Varil. al. loc. cit. p. 451. (4) Gotti, cit. c. 111 ,
n. 5; Van Ranst, p. 320 ; Varill. t. 1, l. 10, p. 452. (5) Van Ranst, p. 330 ; Gotti,
loc. cit. n. 5 ; N. Alex . loc. cit. s. 1 , n. 1. (6 ) Varillas, 10, p. 345.
298 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(7) Nat. Alex. t. 19, a. 13, s. 1 ; Gotti, c. 3, s. 1, n. 3 ; Van Ranst, p. 330 ; Varil.
7. 30, p. 454. (8) Varil. cit. p. 454 ; Gotti, loc. cit. n. 6.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 299
friends that he saw in that young man one who would be a great
plague to the Church (9) .
62. Calvin, finding it difficult to make many proselytes to his Sa-
cramentarian doctrines in Germany, returned to France in 1535 , and
went to Poictiers , where at first , in the privacy ofa garden , he began
to expound his tenets to a few, but his followers increasing, he trans-
ferred his chair to a hall of the University, called Ministerium , and
here the Calvinistic teachers took the name of ministers, as the Lu-
therans called themselves preachers. Calvin sent out from this several
ministers to the neighbouring towns and villages, and, by this means,
made a great many proselytes ( 10) . Itwas there he first published the
forty articles of his heresy, and it was there also he introduced the
Supper, or Manducation , as he called it, which was privately cele-
brated in the following manner : First, some part of the Testament
relative to the Last Supper was read, then the minister made a few
observations on it, but in general the burden of these discourses
was the abuse of the Pope and of the Mass, Calvin always saying
that in the New Testament no mention is made of any other sacri-
fice than that of the Cross . Bread and wine were then set on the
table , and the minister, instead of the words of consecration , said :
66
My brethren, let us eat of the bread and drink of the wine of the
Lord, in memory of his passion and death." The congregation
were seated round a table, and the minister, breaking off a small
portion of bread, gave it to each, and they ate it in silence ; the wine
was dispensed in like manner. The Supper was finished by a
prayer, thanking God for enlightening them, and freeing them from
Papistical errors ; the Our Father and the Creed was said , and they
swore not to betray anything that was there done . It was, how-
ever, impossible to conceal the existence of this new Church of
Poictiers, and as the Royal Ordinances were very rigorous against
innovators, and Calvin felt that he could not be safe in Pictou , he
went to Nerac in Aquitaine, the residence of Margaret, Queen of
Navarre, a patroness of the new doctrine. Even here he was not
in safety, as Royal edicts were every day published against heretics,
so he went to Basle, where he employed himself in preparing his
four books of the Institutes for the press. He was twenty-six years
of age when he published this work, with the motto, " I came not
to send peace, but a sword ;" showing, like a true prophet , the great
evils this work would bring on France, and every other country
where its pestilential doctrines would be embraced (11) .
63. While Calvin was at Basle he felt a great desire to propa-
gate his doctrine in Italy, where Luther could make no way; and
understanding that Renee, daughter of Louis XII . of France, and
wife of Hercules of Este , Duke of Ferrara , was a woman fond of
(9) Van Ranst, s. 16. p. 323 ; Nat. Alex. loc. cit. n. 1 ; Varill. p. 459. (10)Varill.
1. 10, p. 457 ; Hermant, t. 2, c. 271 ; Nat. Alex. s. 1 , n. 1 ; Gotti, c. 111, s. 2, n. 1 .
( 11 ) Nat. Alex. t. 19, a. 13, n . 2 ; Van Ranst, p. 321 ; Gotti, c. 111 , s. 2, n. 4.
300 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(12) Varill. t. 1, l. 10, p. 465 ; Van Ranst, p. 321. (13) Apud Berti, Brev. Hist.
t. 2, s. 16, c. 2, p. 162. (14) Nat. Alex . loc. cit. n. 2 ; Van Ranst, p. 221 ; Gotti,
c. 111, s. 1 , n. 6. (15) Gotti, ibid.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 301
despair, and that he was condemned to suffer the pains of hell, but
his detention, unlike that of the reprobate, which endures for eter-
nity, only lasted for a short time ; from this Charles argued that
Calvin denied the Divinity of Christ. Calvin cleared himself
and Farrell from these charges, and his accuser was banished from
Geneva, a most fortunate circumstance for him, as it opened his eyes
to Divine grace. He went to Rome, and obtained absolution for
his errors, and died in the Catholic Church. This affair concluded,
Calvin had a serious dispute with his confrere Farrell, who , follow-
ing the custom of Berne, used unleavened bread for the Supper ,
while Calvin insisted on using leavened bread, saying it was an
abuse introduced by the scholastic Papists, to use the other. The
magistrates , however, were in favour of the use of unleavened
bread. Calvin, anxious to differ as much as possible from Zuin-
glius ( 16 ), preached to the people, and got them to declare in his
favour, so much so that Easter being now nigh they said they would
not communicate unless with leavened bread ( 17) . The magis-
trates, jealous of their authority, appointed a minister called Maré
to administer the Sacrament, with unleavened bread, in St. Peter's
Church ; but Calvin frightened him so much that he hid himself,
and the magistrates then commanded that there should be no com-
munion that day, and banished both Calvin and Farrell from the
city (18 ).
65. Calvin went to Berne to plead his cause, but met with
another adventure there. A Flemish Catholic, of the name of
Zachary, was at that time before the Council of Berne ; he held a
disputation about matters of Faith with Calvin ; in the midst of it
he took out a letter, and asked him if he knew the writing. Calvin
acknowledged it was written with his own hand ; the letter was
then read, and found to contain a great deal of abuse of Zuing-
lins ( 19). The meeting immediately broke up, and he, seeing
Berne was no longer a place for him, went to Strasbourg, where
he was again received by his friend Bucer, and appointed Pro-
fessor of Theology, and minister of a new church, in which he col-
lected together all the French and Flemings who embraced his
doctrine ; here also, in the year 1538 , he married one Ideletta, the
widow of an Anabaptist, with whom he lived fourteen years, but
had no children, though Varillas says he had one, but it only
lived two days (20 ).
66. Calvin sighed to return to Geneva, and in 1541 was re-
called . He was received with every demonstration of joy and
respect, and was appointed Chief of the Republic . He then esta-
blished the discipline of his sect, and the Senate decreed that
(16) Varill. l. 12, p. 512 , & Nat. Alex. a. 13 ; s. 1, n. 1. (17) Nat. cit. n. in fin. ;
Gotti, s. 2, n. 7. (18 ) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. n. 3 ; Varill. p. 513 ; Van Ranst, p. 121 ;
Gotti, c. 111 , s. 2, n. 8. (19) Varill. 7. 11 , p. 514. (20) Gotti, s. 2, n. 9 ; Varill.
loc. cit. Nat. Alex. ibid.
302 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(21) Nat. Alex . t. 19, ar. 13, sec. 1 ; n. 4, & seq.; Gotti, c. 111 , sec. 2, n. 10.
(22) Gotti, n. 11. (23) Gotti, n. 11-14. (24) Nat. Alex. cit. sec. 1 , n. 8 ; Gotti,
loc. cit. n. 14. (25) Varillas, t . 2, l. 20.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 303
(26) Varillas, t. 2, l. 20, p. 219 ; Gotti, c. 111 , sec. 3, n. 1 ; Nat. Alex. loc. cit. sec. 1,
n. 9. (27) Varillas, l. 20, p. 221 .
304 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(28) Nat. Alex. t. 19, ar. 13, sec. 1, n. 10 ; Varillas, l. 21 , p. 256 ; Gotti, c. 111,
sec. 3, n. 5. (29) Gotti, loc. cit. n. 6. (30) Varillas, l. 23, n. 331 ; Gotti, loc. cit.
n. 8.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 305
then dragged thirty-six of them, tied with ropes, and covered with
blood, through the streets of the city to prison. Beza wrote a
flaming account of this victory of the Faith, as he called it, to
Calvin.
70. At length the day of Divine vengeance for the wretched
Calvin drew nigh ; he died in Geneva, in 1564, on the 26th day
of May, in the 54th year of his age. Beza says he died calmly ;
but William Bolsec, the writer of his life , and others, quoted by
Noel Alexander and Gotti ( 31 ) , assert that he died calling on the
devil, and cursing his life, his studies, his writings, and , at the same
time, exhaling a horrible stench from his ulcers , and thus he
appeared before Christ, the Judge, to answer for all the souls lost,
or to be lost, through his means.
71. Varillas, in his account of Calvin's character and personal
qualities, says (32) he was endowed by God with a prodigious
memory, so that he never forgot what he once read , and that his
intellect was so acute, especially in logical and theological sub-
tleties , that he at once discovered the point on which everything
hinged in the doubts proposed to him. He was indefatigable in
studying, in preaching, in writing, and in teaching, and it is
wonderful how any man could write so many works during the
time he lived, and, besides, he preached almost every day, gave a
theological lecture every week, on every Friday, held a long con-
ference with his followers on doubts of faith, and almost all his
remaining time was taken up in clearing up and answering the
knotty questions of his friends. He was very temperate both in
eating and drinking, not so much through any love of the virtue
of abstinence, as from a weakness of stomach, so that he was some-
times two days without eating. He suffered also from hypochon-
dria, and frequent headachs, and hence his delicate health made
him melancholy. He was very emaciated, and his colour was so
bad, that he appeared as if bronzed all over. He was fond of soli-
tude, and spoke but little. He was graceless in his delivery , and
frequently, in his sermons, used to break out in invectives against
the Catholic Church and people. He was prompt in giving advice
or answers, but proud and rash, and so rude and intractable, that
he easily fell out with all who were obliged to have any commu-
nication with him ( 33). He was very vain of himself, and on that
account affected extreme gravity. He was the slave of almost
every vice, but especially hatred, anger, and vindictiveness, and
on that account Bucer, though his friend , in a letter of admonition
to him, says he is a mad dog, and as a writer inclined to speak
badly of every one. He was addicted to immorality, at all events
in his youth , and Spondanus says ( 34 ) , he was charged even with
(31 ) Nat. Alex. sec. 1 , n. 16 ; Gotti, ibid. n. 9. (82) Varillas, t. 1 , l. 10, p. 459.
(33) Spondan. ad an. 1564 ; Nat. Alex. ar. 13, sec. n. 16 ; Gotti, loc. cit. sec. 3, n. 10 ;
Varillas, l. 12, t. 1, l. 10, p. 450. (34) Spondan. ad an. 1534.
U
306 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
SEC. II. — THEODORE BEZA, THE HUGUENOTS, AND OTHER CALVINISTS WHO DISTURBED
FRANCE, SCOTLAND, AND ENGLAND.
72. Theodore Beza ; his Character and Vices. 73. His Learning, Employments, and
Death. 74. Conference of St. Francis de Sales with Beza. 75. Continuation ofthe
same Subject. 76, 77. Disorders of the Huguenots in France. 78. Horrors com-
mitted by them ; they are proscribed in France. 79. Their Disorders in Flanders.
80. And in Scotland. 81. Mary Stuart is married to Francis II. 82. She returns
to Scotland and marries Darnley, next Bothwell ; is driven by Violence to make a
fatal Renunciation of her Crown in favour of her Son. 83. She takes Refuge in Eng-
land, and is imprisoned by Elizabeth, and afterwards condemned to Death by her.
81. Edifying Death of Mary Stuart. 85. James I., the Son of Mary, succeeds Eliza-
beth ; he is succeeded by his Son, Charles I. , who was beheaded. 86. He is succeeded
by his Son, Charles II., who is succeeded by his Brother, James II. , a Catholic, who
died in France.
(35) Varillas, loc. cit. (36) Nat. Alex. cit. n. 16, in fin. (37) Gotti, sec. 1, n. 6.
(38) Remundus, l. 1 , c. 9, n. 3.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 307
(1) Gotti, c. 114, sec. 4, n. 1 , 6 ; Varillas, t. 2, l. 18, 137. (2 ) Berti, Brev. Hist.
t. 2, sec. 16, c. 1. (3) Spondan. ad An. 1561 , n. 19. (4) Florimund, Remund.
l. 8 , c. 17, n. 6.
308 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
old man, with a long white beard, and in his hand a beautifully
bound little volume. When the gentleman asked him what it con-
tained, he showed him that it was a book of sonnets , and said : " Sic
tempus fallo"-" I thus cheat time." " Oh," said the gentleman to
a friend of his, " is it thus this holy man , with one foot already in
Charon's bark, passes his time ?" Beza continued for forty-one
years after Calvin's death to govern the Church of Geneva, or rather
to poison it by his bad example and doctrine ; he was, however,
called to account for all before God, in the year 1605 , the eighty-
fifth of his age ( 5 ) Let not the reader wonder that I have said so
much about the vices of Luther, Calvin , and Beza . I have done so
on purpose, that every one may understand that God did not send
such men to reform his Church , but rather the devil to destroy it.
In this, however, no heresiarch ever can or ever has succeeded , for
our Lord has promised to protect it to the end of the world , “ and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
74. I will here relate a conference St. Francis de Sales had with
Beza, about the year 1597 , as we find it in the saint's life (6 ) .
Clement VIII . desired St. Francis to see Beza and try could he
convert him. The saint made his way into Geneva, at the risk of
his life, and called on Beza, whom he found alone. He commenced
by begging Beza not to believe all he heard of him from his
enemies. Beza answered that he always considered St. Francis a
man of learning and merit, but that he regretted seeing him devote
his energies to prop up anything so weak as the Catholic religion .
St. Francis then asked him if it was his opinion that a man could
be saved in the Catholic Church ? Beza demanded a little time.
before he would give his answer ; he went into his study, remained
walking about for a quarter of an hour, and then coming out said :
66
Yes ; I believe that a man may be saved in the Catholic Church."
" Why, then," said St. Francis, " have you established your Refor-
mation with so much bloodshed and destruction , since, without any
danger, a man may be saved, and never leave the Catholic Church ?"
" You have put obstacles in the way of salvation ," said Beza , " in
the Catholic Church, by inculcating the necessity of good works ;
but we, by teaching salvation by faith alone, have smoothened the
way to heaven." " But you ," said St. Francis, " by denying the
necessity of good works, destroy all human and divine laws, which
threaten punishment to the wicked, and promise rewards to the
good ; and Christ says, in the Gospel, that not only those who do
evil, but, likewise, those who omit to do the good commanded to
be done, shall suffer eternal punishment. It is necessary, also ," said
he, " in order to know the true Faith, that there should be some
judge from whom there is no appeal, and to whose judgment all
(5) Gotti, loc. cit. n. 7, 10. (6) Vita di St. Francesco di Sales, da Pietro Gallo,
1. 2, c. 21 , 22.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 309
taught others, and become a convert. Beza said that he did not
despair of salvation in his own Church . The saint then , seeing that
his heart was made of stone, left him, under a promise of returning
soon again to visit him ; but this was not in his power, for the Ge-
nevese put guards to watch their minister, and determined to put
St. Francis to death if he ever came again. Some say that Beza
was anxious to see him again, and that he retracted his errors, and
that on that account his friends gave out that the violence of his
sickness deranged his mind ; but we know nothing of this for cer-
tain, and it is most probable that he died as he lived. The writer
of St. Francis's life says, also , that Des Hayes, Governor of Montar-
gis, being in Geneva, and conversing familiarly one day with Beza,
asked him why he remained in his new sect? He pointed out to
him a young woman in his house, and said, this is what retains me ;
and it is supposed that this was his second wife , whom he married
when he was seventy years old.
76. We have now to speak of the French Calvinists, or Hu-
guenots, as they are generally called , as is supposed , from the Castle
of Hugon, near Toulouse, close by which they had their first con-
venticle, and of the desolation they caused in France. Volumes
would not suffice to relate all the destruction caused by Calvin and
his followers, not only in France, but in many other countries. I
will only then give a sketch of them, to show how much harm one
perverse heresiarch may occasion. During the reigns of Francis I.
and his son, Henry II ., though both zealous Catholics, and ever
prosecuting the Calvinists with the utmost rigour, even condemn-
ing many of them to the stake, still this heresy was so spread
through every province of the kingdom, that there was not a city
or town but had its temple or ministers of the new sect. In the
year 1559 , however, when Henry was succeeded by his son,
Francis II., only sixteen years of age, it broke forth like a torrent,
and overwhelmed the whole kingdom with errors, sacrileges, sedi-
tion, and bloodshed (7) . Jeane, Queen of Navarre, was the chief
promoter of all this ; she used all her endeavours to extinguish the
Faith ; she encouraged the heretics to take up arms, and when they
were worsted, she was always ready to assist them. She encouraged
Louis Bourbon , Prince of Conde, too, at his first presentation to
her, to take up arms in the cause of the Reformation , and she was
the head of the conspiracy of Amboise, which, however, did not
succeed according to her wishes (8 ) . The Huguenots, however,
are blamed for the death of the young King, Francis II., who , it
is said, was poisoned by a Huguenot surgeon, at the age of seven-
teen, by putting poison into his ear while treating him for an
abscess (9).
(7) Van Ranst, Hist. sec. 16, p. 322. (8) Van Ranst, loc. cit. vide Her. t. 2 , c. 272.
(9) Spondan. ad an. 1560, n. 7.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 311
(10) Nat. Alex. t. 19, c. 11, art. 9, n. 3, & 4. (11) Nat. Alex. n. 5 ; Hermant, t. 2,
c. 306. (12) Apud Gotti, c. 111, s. 4, n. 15.
312 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(13) Gotti, loc. cit. n. 16, c. 17. (14) Varillas, t. 2, l. 27, dalla p. 441, Jovet
Storia della Relia, t. 1, p. 95. (15) Jovet, loc. cit. p. 105.
80. Calvinism spread itself also into Scotland , and totally infected
that kingdom. Varillas (16) gives the whole history of its intro-
duction there ; we will give a sketch of it. The perversion of this
kingdom commenced with John Knox, an apostate priest of disso-
lute morals, who was at first a Lutheran , but afterwards residing
some time in Geneva, and being intimate with Calvin , became
one of his followers, and so ardent was he in his new religion, that
he promised Calvin that he would risk everything to plant it in
Scotland ; soon after he quitted Geneva and came to Scotland to put
his design into execution. The opportunity was not long wanting.
Henry VIII. , King of England , strove to induce his nephew,
James V., King of Scotland, to follow his example, and establish a
schism and separate himself from the Roman Church, and invited
him to meet him at some place where they could hold a conference
and discuss the matter. King James excused himself under various
pretexts, and the upshot of the matter was that Henry went to war
with him. James gave the command of his army to a favourite of
his, Oliver Sinclair, whom the nobility obeyed with the greatest
reluctance, as he was not of noble birth, and the consequence was
that the Scots were beaten, and James died of grief (17) , leaving
an infant, only eight days old , to inherit his throne, Mary Stuart.
Now this was exactly what Knox wanted ; a long regency was just
the thing to give him an opportunity to establish his opinions, and
he unfortunately succeeded so well that he substituted Calvinism
for Catholicity. The infant Mary, being now Queen of Scotland ,
Henry VIII . asked her in marriage for his son Edward, afterwards
the sixth of that name, and then only five years old. This demand
raised two parties in the kingdom. James Hamilton , Earl of
Arran, then all-powerful in Scotland , and Governor of the kingdom ,
favoured Henry's wishes, gained over by Knox, who had already
instilled heretical opinions into his mind ; and one great reason he
alleged was, that it would establish a perpetual peace between the
two kingdoms. On the contrary, the Archbishop of St. Andrew's,
David Beatoun ( 18) , afterwards Cardinal, and the Catholics, gave
it all the opposition in their power, as tending to make Scotland a
province of England , but the chief cause of their opposition to it
was the injury to religion , for this marriage would draw Scotland
into schism .
81. Meanwhile , the Regent, who was a friend of the heretics,
permitted the Calvinists to disseminate their doctrines, and gave
liberty to every one in private or in public to pray as he liked, or,
in other words, to choose whatever religion he pleased . The arch-
bishop opposed this concession , but the Calvinists rose in arms
against him, and imprisoned him, and made him promise to favour
(16) Varillas, Hist . Her. t. 2, l. 28, dalla p. 471 ; Hermant, Histor. de Concil. t. 2 , c. 265.
(17) Varillas, p. 475. (18) Varillas, loc. cit.
314 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
the English alliance . In this, however, they did not succeed, for
previous to her departure for England, the cardinal, with consent
of the Queen-Mother, Mary of Lorrain , sister to the Prince of
Guise, proposed to Francis I., King of France , to marry Mary to
the Dauphin, son of Henry II . The King of France was very well
pleased with the proposal, and sent a large body of troops into
Scotland, which kept the Calvinists in check, and enabled the
Queen Regent to send her daughter to France, and so Mary was
sent, before she completed her seventh year, to be brought up in
the family of Henry II ., and in time to be married to his son,
Francis II. On the death of Francis I. and Henry II ., Mary was
married to Francis II., but was soon left a widow, and the marriage
was not blessed with children . Queen Mary then returned to
Scotland, where she found religious affairs in the greatest confusion .
The Calvinists assassinated the archbishop in his very chamber,
and afterwards hanged his body out of the window ( 19 ).
82. The rebels, likewise, in this sedition , destroyed the churches,
and obliged the Queen-Mother to grant them the free exercise of
Calvinism . Such was the miserable state of the kingdom when
the Queen returned to it from France ; and she immediately set
about remedying these religious disorders. About the year 1568
she married Henry Darnley (20) , who was afterwards assassinated
in the King's house by Earl Bothwell, leaving one son , afterwards
James VI . (21 ) . Bothwell, blinded with love of the Queen , en-
gaged a body of conspirators, seized her as she was returning from
visiting her son at Stirling, brought her to a castle, and obliged
her to marry him. On hearing this the Calvinists immediately
broke out into rebellion against her, and accused her of being privy
to the murder of her former husband, since she married his mur-
derer, but the principal cause of their hatred to her was her religion.
Bothwell himself, however, who had to fly to Denmark from this
outbreak, declared before his death that the Queen was perfectly
innocent of Henry Darnley's murder. The Calvinists , however,
glad of a pretext to persecute the Queen, became so bold at last ,
that they took her prisoner and confined her in a castle, and the
perfidious Knox advised that she should be put to death . The
rebels did not go so far as that, but they told her that she should
consent to be banished either into France or England , and should
renounce the crown in favour of her son , and on her refusal they
threatened to throw her into the lake, and one of them had the
cowardice to hold a dagger to her breast. Under fear of death she
then took the pen and signed the deed making over the kingdom
to her son, then thirteen months old (22 ).
83. The poor Queen was still detained in prison , notwithstand-
(19) Varill. t. 28, 1. 2, p. 426. (20) Varill. p. 479. (21 ) Varill. p. 500.
(22) Varill. p. 502, 503.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 315
(23) Varill. p. 50, seq. (24) Vide P. Suar. t. 3, in St. Thom. c. 72, ar . 8, in fin.
316 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
oratory, and went to the scaffold which was prepared in the hall of
Fotheringay Castle, the last prison she inhabited. Everything was
covered with black, the hall, the scaffold, and the pulpit from which
the sentence was read . Mary entered , covered with a long veil,
which reached to her feet, a golden cross on her breast, a Rosary
pendant at her girdle, and a crucifix in one hand , the Office of
the Blessed Virgin in the other. She went forward with a majestic
gait, and calling Melvin , her Major-domo, she saluted him with a
serene countenance, and said : " My dear Melvin , when I am dead
go to my son and tell him that I die in the Catholic religion, and
tell him if he loves me or himself to follow no other ; let him put
his trust in God, and He will help him, and tell him to pardon
Elizabeth for my death , which I voluntarily embrace for the Faith ."
She then requested the Governor to allow the persons composing her
suite to be present at her death, that they might certify that she
died in the Catholic Faith. She knelt down on a cushion covered
with black, and heard the sentence signed by Elizabeth's own hand
read, she then laid her head on the block, and the executioner cut
it off at the second stroke. Her body was buried near Queen
Catherine's, the wife of Henry VIII., and it is said this inscription
was put on her tomb, but immediately after removed by order of
Elizabeth : " Maria Scotorum Regina virtutibus Regiis et animo
Regio ornata, tyrannica crudelitate ornamentum nostri seculi extin-
guitur." Mary's death filled all Europe with horror and compassion
for her fate, and even Elizabeth, when she heard it, could not con-
ceal the effect it had on her, and said it was too precipitate, but for
all that she continued to persecute the Catholics more and more,
and added many martyrs to the Church (25) .
85. James VI., King of Scotland, and the son of Queen Mary,
took little heed of his mother's advice or example , for, after Eliza-
beth's death , being then King of Scotland , he succeeded her, and
took the title of James I., King of Great Britain, and the year after
his coronation, which took place in 1603 , he ordered , under pain
of death, that all Catholic priests should quit the kingdom . In
the year 1606 he brought out that famous declaration that the
King of England was independent of the Roman Church , called
the Oath of Supremacy. He died in 1625, the fifty-ninth year of
his age, and the twenty-second of his English reign. He was the
first King who governed the three kingdoms of England , Ireland ,
and Scotland, but he lived and died a heretic, while his mother
lived forty-two years in almost continual sorrow and persecution ,
but died the death of the just. This unhappy monarch was suc-
ceeded by his son, Charles I., born in the year 1600 , and like his
father, the Sovereign of three kingdoms ; he followed his father's
87. Calvin adopts the Errors of Luther. 88. Calvin's Errors regarding the Scriptures.
89. The Trinity. 90. Jesus Christ. 91. The Divine Law. 92. Justification.
93. Good Works and Free Will. 94. That God predestines Man to Sin and to
Hell, and Faith alone in Jesus Christ is sufficient for Salvation. 95. The Sacra-
ments, and especially Baptism. 96. Penance. 97. The Eucharist and the Mass.
98. He denies Purgatory and Indulgences ; other Errors.
97. CALVIN adopted almost all the principal errors of Luther, who
adopted almost all the errors of the ancient heretics, as we shall
hereafterwards show in the refutation of Luther and Calvin. Prate-
318 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(9) Gotti, Vera Chiesa, t. 1 , c. 8, sec. 1 , n. 9. (10) Calvin. Instit. 7. 1, c. 13, sec. 9,
n. 23, 24. (11) Calv. l. 3, c. 3, sec. 10. ( 12 ) Idem. Z. 3, c. 14, sec. 4. (13) Idem.
1. 3 , c. 11 , sec. 15, 16. (14) Idem, l. 3, c. 11 , sec. 3. (15) Calv. Inst. l. 3, c. 2,
sec. 16, & seq. (16) Idem, l. 3, c. 2 , sec. 11 , 12. (17) Tertull. de Script. Hærat. c. 42.
320 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(18) Calv. Inst. l. 3, c. 2 sec. 16, & seq. (19) Calv. l. 2, c. 3. (20) Calvin
de Prædest. Dei, æterna. na.) Calv. Inst. l. 3, c. 23. (22) Calv. ibid.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 321
it ; and wicked, for he himself first causes a man to sin , and then
punishes him for it. Finally, they make God distribute his rewards
unjustly, since he gives his grace and heaven to the wicked , merely
because they have Faith, that they are justified, though they should
not even be sorry for their sins. Calvin says that this is the benefit
of the death of Christ ; but I answer him thus : If, according to his
system, a man may be saved , then good works are no longer neces-
sary, and Christ died to destroy every precept both of the Old and
New Law, and to give freedom and confidence to Christians to do
whatever they like, and to commit even the most enormous sins ,
since it is enough to secure their salvation without any cooperation
on their part, that they should merely believe firmly that God does
not impute to them their sins, but wishes to save them through the
merits of Christ, though they do everything in their power to gain
hell . This certain faith in our salvation, which he calls confidence ,
God, he says, gives to the elect alone.
95. Speaking of the sacraments, he says that they have effect on
the elect alone, so that those who are not predestined to eternal
happiness , though they may be in a state of grace, receive not the
efiect of the sacrament. He also says that the words of the ministers
of the sacraments are not consecrating , but only declaratory , in-
tended alone to make us understand the Divine promises (23) , and
hence he infers, that the sacraments have not the power of confer-
ring grace, but only of exciting our Faith , like the preaching of the
Divine Word (24) , and he ridicules our theological term , ex opere
operato, for explaining the power of the sacraments, as an invention
of ignorant monks ; but in this he only shows his own ignorance ,
as he understands by opus operatum, the good work of the ministers
of the sacraments (25) . We, Catholics, understand by opus opera-
tum , not the act of the minister himself, so much as the power
which the Almighty gives to the sacraments (if not hindered by
sin) , of operating in the soul ; that which the sacrament signifies, as
Baptism, to wash ; Penance, to forgive ; the Eucharist, to nourish .
He denies that there is any difference between the sacraments of
the Old and the New Law (26) ; but St. Paul says that the former
were but weak and needy elements (Gal. iv. 9), and a shadow of
things to come ( Colos . ii . 17 ) . He ridicules the sacramental cha-
racter which is impressed by Baptism, Confirmation , and Orders ( 27) ,
and Christ, he says, only instituted three sacraments Baptism, the
Supper, and Ordination ; the first two he positively asserts to be
sacraments, and the third he admits. " The imposition of hands,"
he says, " which is performed in true and lawful Ordinations, I
grant to be a sacrament ;" but he totally rejects the Sacraments of
Confirmation , Penance , Extreme Unction , and Matrimony (28) .
(23) Calvin. Instit. l. 4, c. 14, s. 4. (24) Idem, l. 4, c. 14, s. 11. (25) Idem,
1. 4, c. 14, s. 26. (26) Idem, l. 4, c. 14, s. 23. (27) Calvin, Instit. in Antid. Conc.
Trid. ad Can. 9, Sess. 7. (28) Idein, l. 4, c. 19, s. 19, 20.
X
322 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(29) Idem, c. 19, s. 31. (30) Idem, l. 4, c. 15, s. 20. (31) Bossuet, Variat. t. 3,
7. 14, n. 37. (32) Calvin, l. 4, c. 15, s. 20 & seq. (33 ) Idem, l. 3, c. 15, s. 3 & 4.
(34 ) Vide loc. cit. (35) Calvin, loc. cit. de Cœna Dom. (36) Calvin, Instit. l. 4,
c. 17, s. 32. (37) Idem, loc. cit. s. 33, 34.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 323
99. THE sect of Calvin was soon divided into numerous other
sects- in fact, we may say that from every sect a thousand others
sprung, and that is the case, especially in England, where you can
scarcely find the members of the same family believing the same.
thing. We shall speak of the principal sects described by Noel
Alexander and Cardinal Gotti (1 ) . These are the Reformed, who
(38) Calvin, 7. 4, c. 17, s. 46-48. (39) Dallæus, Apol. Eccl. Reform. p. 43.
(40) Calvin, Instit. l. 4, c. 18. (41) Idem, l. 3, c. 5, s. 6, 10. (42) Calvin, Inst.
Idem, l. 3, c. 5, s. 2. (43) Idem, l. 3, c. 20. (44) Idem, I. c. II. (45) Idem,
1. 4, c. 6. (46) Idem, l. 4, c. 9. (47) Idem, l. 4, c. 20. (48) Idem, l. 4, c. 12,
8. 19 & 20. (49) Ibid. s. 23. (50) Idem, l. 4, c. 13, s. 6. (51 ) Calvin, Re-
spons. de Usur. inter Epist. p. 228 ; Nat. Alex. t. 19 , art. 13 , s. 2 ; Gotti, t. 2, c. 3, s. 5.
(1) Nat. Alex. t. 19, art. 13, s. 3 ; Gotti, Ver. Rel. c. 312, s. 1 , 2.
324 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
dance of the Divine light they enjoyed . They reject not only all
ecclesiastical, but even civil ceremonies, for they never uncover for
any one. They say no prayers in their meeting-houses ; they even
look on prayer as useless, for they are justified by their own justice
itself. They did believe, though it is supposed they hold those
opinions no longer, that Jesus Christ despaired on the cross , and
that he had other human defects. They held erroneous opinions
even on the first dogmas of Faith, not believing in the Trinity, or
the second coming of Christ, or in hell or heaven after this life ;
many of these opinions, which were held by the first Quakers , are
now changed or modified, and it is difficult at present to know
exactly what their creed is. Their founder was an Englishman,
John Fox, a tailor. There is another sect, called Ranters, who
believe that nothing is vile or unlawful which nature desires .
Another sect was called Levellers, enemies of all political order ;
they wished that all men should dress exactly alike, and that no one
should be honoured more than another, and they frequently were
punished for seditious conduct by the magistrates.
104. The Anglo-Calvinists are different from the Puritans, In-
dependents, and Presbyterians, both in church discipline and doc-
trine. Unlike all these sects, they have preserved the Episcopal
Order, not alone as distinct from other offices, but as superior by
Divine right ; they retain a sort of form of consecration for bishops ;
they ordain priests, and confirm those who have received Baptism,
and show some honour to the Sign ofthe Cross , which their cognate
sects reject totally. Besides bishops, there are chancellors, arch-
deacons, deans, and rectors of parishes ; they have preserved the
cathedrals , and have canons and prebends, who say morning and
evening prayers, and the surplice is used as a vestment. They
recognize both the orders of priesthood and deaconship . The King,
according to the laws of Henry and Elizabeth, is head of the
Church, and the fountain of all ecclesiastical authority. The Sove-
reign, they say, has the power of making new laws , and establish-
ing new rites, with consent of the Metropolitan and Convocation ;
and his royal tribunal decides all judgments brought before it. He
can, with his Council, decide on matters of Faith, publish ordinances
and censures. Such are the powers granted to the Sovereign , in the
work entitled , " The Policy of the Church of England ," published
in London, in the year 1683.
105. The Piscatorians were so called , from John Piscator, a
Professor of Theology, and pastor, at Herborne, a proud and vain
man. He differed in several points with the Calvinists . He divided
the justification of Christ into active and passive ; the active he
acquired by the holiness of his life -the passive, by his sufferings ;
the active justification was profitable to himself alone— the passive
to us, and it is by this we are justified. It is, on the contrary, our
doctrine, that Christ, by his labours and sufferings, gained merit
326 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
both for himself and us ; as the Apostle says : " He humbled him-
self, being made obedient unto death . .....For which God
exalted him, &c." (Philip. ii. 8, 9) . Hence God exalted him, both
for the sanctity of his life, and for his passion . He , likewise , taught
that the breaking of the bread in the " Supper" was essential ; and
the Academy of Marpurg embraced this opinion , but the other Cal-
vinists did not. The Mosaic Law, he said, should be observed, as
far as the judicial precepts go. He differed almost entirely with
Calvin, regarding predestination, the atonement, penance, and other
points, and composed a new Catechism . He likewise published a
new version of the Bible, filled with a thousand errors. Both
himself and his doctrines were unanimously condemned by the Re-
formers.
106. Two other Calvinistic sects had their origin in Holland ,
the Arminians and Gomarists. Arminius or Harmensen , and Gomar ,
were Professors of Theology in the University of Leyden . In 1619 ,
Arminius published a Remonstrance, and, on that account, his fol-
lowers were called Remonstrants. In this writing, or Catechism ,
which in several articles comes near to the Catholic doctrine, he
rejects eight errors of Calvin. The first error he attacks is , that
God gives to the predestined alone, faith, justification , and glory ;
God, he says, wishes the salvation of all men, and gives all sufficient
means of salvation , if they wish to avail themselves of them. He
rejects the second error, that God, by an absolute decree, has des-
tined many to hell before he created them ; he says, that such repro-
bation is because of the sins they commit, and die without repenting
of. Of the third error, that Christ has redeemed the elect alone,
he says that no one is excluded from the fruit of redemption , if he
is disposed to receive it as he ought. The fourth error he reproves,
is that no one can resist grace ; this, he says, is false, for man by
malice can, if he like, reject it. The fifth error is, that he who has
once received grace cannot again lose it ; but he teaches that in
this life we may both lose the grace received , and recover it again
by repentance. Gomar (2) , on the other hand, though a professor
in the same University, adopted all the dogmas of Calvin , and
opposed Arminius and his Remonstrants with the greatest violence,
and his disciples were called Anti-Remonstrants, and they accused
the Arminians of Pelagianism . The dispute, at length, became so
violent, that the States-General convoked a Synod , at Dort, to ter-
minate it, and invited deputies from England , Scotland, Geneva,
and other kingdoms. The Synod was held ; but as almost all the
deputies who attended were Calvinists, or differed but slightly from
the Calvinistic doctrines, the Arminians were condemned , and the
Gomarists got the upper hand. The States' Chancellor, Barneveldt,
and Hugo Grotius, took the part of Arminius, for which Barneveldt
CHAPTER XII .
ARTICLE I.
(3) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. Gotti, Ver. Rel. c. 12, sec. 2, n. 40 ; Dizion. Port. alla parola
Grozio. ( 1 ) Jovet. Storia delle Relig. t. 2, dal prin.; Gotti Ver. Re. c. 113, s. 1.
328 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(4) Gotti, loc. cit. n. 2. (5) Bossuet, Hist. des Variat. t. 2, l. 7, n. 1 . (6) Nat.
Alex. Hist. t. 19, c. 13, a. 3, n. 1 ; Gotti, c. 213, s. 2, n. 6. (7) Gotti, s. 2, n. 3.
330 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES,
tions (8 ) , tells us, that Henry having asked the opinion of the
Sorbonne as to the validity of his marriage, forty-five doctors gave
their opinion that it was valid, and fifty-three were of the contrary
opinion, but Molineaux says, that all these votes were purchased
on the occasion. Henry even wrote to the Lutheran doctors in
Germany, but Melancthon, having consulted others, answered him
that the law prohibiting a man to marry his brother's wife could be
dispensed with, and that his marriage with Catherine was, there-
fore, valid. This answer was far from being agreeable to Henry,
so he held on to Wolsey's opinion , and determined to marry Anna
Boleyn. It has been said that this lady was even Henry's own
daughter, and it is said that her father, who was ambassador in
France at the time, came post to England ( 9) when he heard of
the affair, and told Henry that his wife confessed to him that Anna
was Henry's daughter, but Henry made him, it is said , a rude
answer, told him to go back to his place, and hold his tongue, and
that he was determined to marry her. Mary Boleyn , her sister,
was, however, one of Henry's mistresses. It is also said, that,
from the age offifteen , Anna was of bad character, and that, during
her residence in France, her conduct was so depraved that she was
called usually by an improper name ( 10) .
4. Henry, fully determined to marry this unfortunate woman ( 11 ) ,
sent to Rome to demand of the Pope to appoint Cardinal Campeg-
gio and Cardinal Wolsey to try the case of the divorce . The
Pope consented, but the Queen appealed against these prelates as
judges, one of them being the King's subject, and the other under
obligations to him. Notwithstanding the appeal , the cause was
tried in England, and Henry was in the greatest hurry to have it
decided , being certain of a favourable issue for himself, as one of
the judges was Wolsey, the prime mover of the case. Wolsey,
however, was now afraid of the tempest he raised, which portended
the ruin of religion , so he and Campeggio tried every means to
avoid coming to a decision , seeing the dreadful scandal it would
cause if they gave a decision in the King's favour, and dreading
his displeasure if they decided against him. The Pope admitted
the justice of the Queen's appeal (12) , and prohibited the Cardinal
Legates from proceeding with the cause, which he transferred to
his own tribunal. Henry then sent Cranmer to Rome to look
after his interests. This man was a priest, but of immoral life, and
had privately embraced the Lutheran doctrines, and he was
indebted to Anna Boleyn for the King's favour. Henry likewise
endeavoured to draw to his party Reginald Pole and Thomas
More ; but these were men of too much religion to yield to him.
(13) Gotti, c. 113 , sec. 2 , n. 13 in fin. & Nat. Alex . loc. cit. n. 2. (14) Jovet, t. 2,
p. 29 ; Gotti, sec. 2, n. 14. (15) Bossuet, l. 7, n. 9. (16) Nat. Alex. t. 19, c. 13,
a. 3, n. 2 ; Gotti, loc. cit. (17) Gotti, c. 113, sec. 2, n. 15. (18) Nat. Alex. t. 19,
c. 13, a. 3, n. 3.
332 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
* " Of which Church and clergy (English) we acknowledge his Majesty to be the chief
protector, the only and supreme Lord, and as far as the Law of Christ will allow, the
supreme head. "-Lingard Hist. of England, vol. 6, c. 3.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 333
seven months after her marriage, and Henry continued his perse-
cution of the Catholics, by sending to prison Bishop Fisher, Sir
Thomas More , and two hundred Observantine Friars of the Order
of St. Francis ; and in the parliament convoked on the 3rd of
November, 1534, a bill was passed in both houses, declaring Mary,
the daughter of Catherine, excluded from the succession , and re-
cognizing Elizabeth, Anna's daughter, as heiress to the throne.
The power ofthe Pope in England and Ireland was rejected at the
same time, and whoever professed to believe in the primacy of the
Holy See was declared a rebel. He assumed an authority over the
bishops of the kingdom greater than the Pope ever possessed , for
he granted them their powers as if they were secular magistrates ,
only till he wished to revoke them, and it was only by his autho-
rity they were allowed to ordain priests or publish censures. Fi-
nally , it was decreed that the King was the supreme head of the
Church of England ; that to him alone it belonged to extirpate
heresies and correct abuses, and that to him, by right, belonged all
tithes and first-fruits. The name of the Pope was expunged from
the Liturgy, and among the petitions of the Litany the following
was sacrilegiously inserted : " From the tyranny and detestable
enormities of the Bishop of Rome deliver us, O Lord” ( 25) .
8. Henry knew that his assumption of the primacy was con-
demned, not alone by Catholics, but even by Luther and Calvin , so
he gave orders that it should be defended by theologians in their
writings, and many complied with this command- some willingly,
and others were forced to it. He was desirous that his relative,
Reginald Pole, should publish something in favour of it, but he not
alone most firmly refused to prostitute his pen to such a purpose,
but wrote four books, " De Unione Ecclesiastica," in opposition to
the pretended right, which so provoked the tyrant, that he declared
him guilty of high treason , and a traitor to his country, and tried
to get him into his power to put him to death , and when he could
not accomplish his wish, he had his mother, his brother, and his
uncle executed, and this noble family was almost destroyed and
brought to ruin. He, for the same reason, commenced a most
dreadful persecution of the Friars, especially the Franciscans, Car-
thusians, and Brigittines, many of whom he put to death (26), be-
sides Bishop Fisher and Thomas More, whom he sent to execution
in the year 1534 (27) . While Bishop Fisher was in prison , he was
appointed Cardinal by Paul III ., which , when Henry heard, he at
once had him condemned to death. It is related of this holy
bishop, that when he was about to be brought to the place of exe-
cution , he dressed himself in the best clothes he could procure, as
that was, he said, the day of his marriage, and as, on account of his
(25) Nat. Alex. t. 19, c. 13, a. 3, n. 5 ; Gotti, c. 113, sec. 2, n. 21. (26) Gotti,
n. 22 ; Nat. Alex. loc. cit. n. 5. (27) Bossuet, His. l. 7, n. 11.
334 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
age and his sufferings in prison , he was so weak that he was obliged
to lean on a staff, when he came in sight of the scaffold he cast it
away, and cried out : " Now,99 my feet, do your duty, you have now
but a little way to carry me." When he mounted the scaffold he
entoned the Te Deum, and thanked the Almighty for permitting
him to die for the Faith ; he then laid his head on the block. His
head was exposed on London Bridge, and, it is said, appeared quite
florid , and more like the head of a living than a dead person , so
that it was ordered to be taken down again (28). Sir Thomas
More also died a glorious death. When he heard that the Bishop
of Rochester was condemned to death, he exclaimed : " O Lord , I
am unworthy of such glory, but I hope thou wilt render me
worthy." His wife came to the prison to induce him to yield to the
King's wishes, but he refused , and after fourteen months' confine-
ment he was brought to trial, but never swerved , and was con-
demned to lose his head. When about to mount the scaffold , he
called to a man near him to assist him to climb the steps ; " But
when I am to come down, my friend ," said he, " I will want no one
to assist me." On the scaffold he protested before the people that
he died for the Catholic Faith . He then most devoutly recited the
Miserere, and laid his head on the block . His execution spread
general grief all over England (29 ) .
9. When Paul III. , the successor of Clement, was informed of
the turn affairs had taken, he summoned Henry and all his accom-
plices to his tribunal , and in case of contumacy, fulminated the
sentence of excommunication against him, but this was not published
at the time, as there appeared still some hope that he would change
his conduct ; but all was in vain, he only every day involved him-
self more and more in crime. He now, as head of the Church ,
issued a commission to Cromwell, a layman , to visit the convents,
both male and female, in his dominions, to dismiss all religious who
were not twenty-four years of age, and to leave the others at liberty
to go or stay, as they wished ; this, it is said, though I believe not
on sufficient foundation , threw ten thousand religious back again
into the world ( 30) . About this time Queen Catherine died ; she
always bore her affliction with the greatest patience, and just before
her death , wrote to the King in terms which would melt the hardest
heart ( 31 ). The vengeance of the Almighty was now impending
over Anna Boleyn, the first cause of so much misery and woe.
Henry's affection was now very much cooled towards her, especially
as he became enamoured of one of her maids of honour, Jane Sey-
mour. Anna still had some hopes of regaining his affection, by
presenting him with a male heir, but in this she was disappointed ,
the child was still born ; then her misfortunes commenced ; she was
(28) Sand. l. 1 , de Schis. Ang. p. 135 ; Gotti, sec. 2, n. 22. (29) Sand. & Gotti,
loc. cit. n. 23. (30) Gotti, a 113, s. 2, n. 24 ; Nat. Alex. t. 19, c. 13, art. 3, n. 6.
(31 ) Sanders, l. 1, p. 107, 112 ; Gotti, s. 3, n. 25 ; Nat. Alex. loc. cit.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 335
(35) Varill. t. 1 , c. 11 , p. 315 ; Nat. Alex. loc. cit. n. 8. (36) Gotti, s. 2, n. 23.
(37) Varill. p. 306 ; Nat. Alex. loc. cit.; Gotti, s. 2, n. 2. (38) Varill. l. 11, p. 507,
& seq. (39) Varill. t. 1 , l. 12, p. 551.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 337
16. The Duke of Somerset, as Guardian of Edward VI. , governs the Kingdom. 17. He
declares himself a Heretic, and gives Leave to the Heretics to preach ; invites Bucer,
Vermigli, and Ochino to England, and abolishes the Roman Catholic Religion.
18. He beheads his Brother, the Lord High- Admiral. 19. He is beheaded himself.
20. Death of Edward ; the Earl Warwick makes an Attempt to get Possession of
the Kingdom, and is beheaded, but is converted, and dies an edifying Death.
(1) Varillas, Istor. t. 2, p. 100 ; Nat. Alex. t. 19, c. 13, a. 4 ; Hermant, Ist. t. 2,
e. 267; Gotti, Ver. Rel. c. 114, s. 1 , n. 1. (2) Varillas, loc. cit. p. 101 ; Gotti, loc.
cit. n. 2 ; Hermant, c. 267. (3 ) Varillas, t. 2, l. 17, p. 105, & seq.; Nat. Alex. art. 4.
(4 ) Varillas, 7. 17, p. 116. (5) Bossuet, n. 90.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 341
(6) Bossuet, t. 2, l. 7, n. 96. (7) Gotti, loc. cit. sec. 1 , n. 3 ; Nat. Alex. loc. cit.;
Bossuet, Hist. l. 7, n. 86. (8) Varillas, l. 17, p. 126. (9) Varillas, loc. cit. p. 126 ,
coll. 2.
(10 ) Varillas, l. 17, p. 120.
342 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES,
21. Mary refuses the Title of Head of the Church ; repeals her Father's and Brother's
Laws ; Cranmer is condemned to be burned, and dies a Heretic ; Mary sends off all
Heretics from her Court. 22. Cardinal Pole reconciles England with the Church ;
her Marriage with Philip II. , and Death.
21. THE good Queen Mary, on her accession to the throne, re-
fused to take the impious title of Head of the Church , and imme-
diately sent ambassadors to Rome, to pay obedience to the Pope.
She repealed all the decrees of her father and brother, and re-
established the public exercise of the Catholic religion ( 1 ). She
imprisoned Elizabeth, who twice conspired against her, and, it is
said, she owed her life to the intercession of King Philip . She
opened the prisons, and gave liberty to the bishops and other
Catholics who were confined ; and on the 5th of October, 1553 ,
the Parliament rescinded the iniquitous sentence of Cranmer,
Archbishop of Canterbury, by which he declared the marriage of
Catherine and Henry null and void, and he was condemned to be
burned as a heretic. When the unfortunate man found that he
was condemned to death , he twice retracted his errors ; but when
all this would not save him from being burned , he cancelled
his retractation , and died a Calvinist (2 ) . By the Queen's orders ,
the remains of Bucer and Fagius, who died heretics, were exhumed
and burned ; and thirty thousand heretics were banished the king-
dom, comprising Lutherans, Calvinists, Zuinglians, Anabaptists,
Socinians, Seekers , and such like . The Seekers are those who are
seeking the true religion, but have not yet found it, nor ever will
out of the Catholic Church alone ; because in every other religion,
if they trace it up to the author, they will find some impostor, whose
imagination furnished a mass of sophisms and errors.
22. Mary, likewise, proclaimed the innocence of Cardinal Pole,
and requested Julius III . to send him to England as his Legate a
latere. He arrived soon after, and , at the request of the Queen,
reconciled the kingdom again to the Church, and absolved it from
(13) Varillas, 20, p. 202, a. 211 ; Nat. Alex. t. 19, c. 13, art. 5 ; Gotti, c. 114, sec. 1 ,
1. 4; Hermant, c. 268. (1) Bartol. l. 1, c. 3 ; Nat. Alex . loc. cit.; Hermant, c. 269 ;
Varillas, t. 2, 1. 20, p. 212 ; Gotti, c. 114, sec. 2, a. 1. (2) Varillas, 1. 21 , p. 252 ;
Gotti, ibid. n. 4 ; Hermant, loc. cit.; Bossuet, Ist. l. 7, n. 103. (3) Nat. Alex. ibid.;
Gotti, loc. cit. n. 4.
344 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
23. Elizabeth proclaimed Queen ; the Pope is dissatisfied, and she declares herself a Pro-
testant. 24. She gains over the Parliament, through the Influence of three of the
Nobility, and is proclaimed Head of the Church. 25. She establishes the Form of
Church Government, and, though her Belief is Calvinistic, she retains Episcopacy, &c.
26. Appropriates Church Property, abolishes the Mass ; the Oath of Allegiance ; Per-
secution of the Catholics. 27. Death of Edmund Campion for the Faith. 28. The
Pope's Bull against Elizabeth. 29. She dies out of Communion with the Church.
30. Her Successors onthe Throne of England ; deplorable State of the English Church.
31. The English Reformation refutes itself.
ever, answered, that it was not lawful for her to have assumed the
government of the kingdom , a fief of the Holy See, without the
consent of Rome, that it would be necessary to examine the rights
which Queen Mary of Scotland had to the throne also, and there-
fore that she should place herself altogether in his hands, and that
she would experience from him paternal kindness. Elizabeth then
saw that it would be difficult to keep herself on the throne , unless
by separating from the Roman Church ; she therefore tore off the
mask, recalled her Ambassador, Cairne, from Rome, and publicly
professed the heresy she had previously embraced in private (3) .
24. All now she had to do was to get the Parliament to establish
the Reformed Religion , and this was easily accomplished . The
House of Commons being already gained over, the only difficulty
was to get the peers to agree to it. The Upper House was almost
entirely led by the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Dudley, and the Earl of
Arundel. On each of these Elizabeth exercised her influence,
and through them gained over the majority of the peers, especially
as the lay peers were more numerous than the bishops, to declare
her Head of the Church . All the regulations made in religious
affairs during the reign of Edward VI . were re-established , and those
of Mary repealed (4) . Each of these noblemen expected that Eliza-
beth, who was a most consummate intriguer, would make him the
partner of her crown (5 ) . There were sixteen thousand ecclesiastics
in England . Three-fourths, as Burnet writes, immediately joined
the Reformers. The greater part of the clergy were married at
that period, and this was the reason, as Burnet himself allows , that
they changed so easily.
25. Elizabeth, now fortified with parliamentary authority, pro-
hibited most rigorously any of her subjects from obeying the Pope,
and commanded all to recognize her as Head of the Church, both
in spirituals and temporalities. It was also ordained , at the same
time, that to the Crown alone belonged the appointment of bishops,
the convocation of Synods, the power of taking cognizance of heresy
and abuses, and the punishment of spiritual delinquencies. A
system of church government and discipline was also established,
and though the doctrine of the Anglican Church is Calvinism,
which rejects bishops, together with all the sacred ceremonies of
the Roman Church, as well as altars and images , still she wished
that the bishops should be continued , but without any other power
than what they held from herself. " Nisi ad beneplacitum Reginæ
nec aliter nisi per ipsam a Regali Majestate derivatum auctori-
tatem" (6) . Then was seen in the Church what before was unheard
of a woman arrogating to herself the supremacy of the Church.
How totally opposed this was to the Scriptures, St. Paul tells us
plainly, for he says ( 1 Cor. xiv. 34) ; " Let women keep silence
(3) Nat. Alex. loc. cit.; Gotti, c. 114 ; Varillas, t. 2 ; Hermant, c. 270. (4) Nat.
Alex. ar. 6, Gotti, s. 3. (5) Varillas, l. 22. (6) Nat. Alex. loc. cit.; Gotti, cit. n. 3.
346 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(10) Bartol. Istor. d'Inghil. 7. 6, c. 1. (11) Nat. Alex. t. 19, art. 3, s. 6 ; Gotti, c.
144, s. 3, n. 8.
348 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(12) Varil. t. 2, 1. 26, p. 437. (13) Idem, l. 29. (14) Idem, l. 28. (15 ) Nat.
Alex. art. 3 ; Gotti, c. 114, s, 3 ; Bartoli. Istor. d'Inghil, l. 6. (16) Bartoli. Istor. cit.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 349
wishes of his good mother, never to follow any other than the
Catholic religion ; he leant, therefore, to Lutheranism - was any-
thing but a friend to the Calvinists—and was anxious that Scotland,
which kingdom he retained, should follow the Lutheran doctrine
also ; but in this he was disappointed. His son and successor,
Charles I. , endeavoured to carry out his father's intentions, and lost
his head on the scaffold. He was succeeded by his son , Charles II . ,
who died without issue, and the crown then devolved on his brother,
James II. This good Prince declared himself a Catholic, and the
consequence was, that he was obliged to fly to France, where he
died a holy death in 1701 , leaving one son, James III . , who lived
and died in Rome, in the Catholic Faith. In fine, unhappy Eng
land was, and is, separated from the Catholic Church, and groans
under the weight of various heresies . Every religion, with the ex-
ception ofthe Catholic, is tolerated , but the faithful are exposed to
all the frightful severities of the penal laws, and there are among the
sectarians almost as many religions as individuals. In fact, we may
say, that in that unhappy country there is no religion at all, for, as
St. Augustin says (17) : " The true religion99 was always one, from
the beginning, and will always be the same."
31. I have placed at the end ofthe historical portion of the
Work, the Refutation of the principal Heresies which infected the
Church, but it is impossible to take any particular hold of the Eng-
lish schism, for it is not a religion in itself, so much as a mixture
composed of every heresy, excluding Catholicity, the only true re-
ligion. This is, then, according to Burnet, " The Work of Light,"
which smooths the way to heaven. What blindness, or rather,
what impiety ! The Reformation smooths the way to heaven , by
allowing every one to live as he pleases , without law or sacraments,
and with no restraint. A foreign Protestant author even ridicules
Burnet's boast : " The English, by the Reformation," he says,
" have become so totally independent , that every one takes what-
ever road to heaven that pleases himself." Thus the English
Reformation refutes itself.
* This was written in the last century, but the reader will praise the Almighty that
such a state of things exists no longer. The holy Author can now look down from heaven
on a flourishing Church in England, and behold his own children, the Redemptionists,
labouring with the other faithful labourers of the Gospel, in extending the kingdom of
Christ.
350 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES,
ARTICLE II .
32. Character of Servetus ; his Studies, Travels, and false Doctrine. 33. He goes to
Geneva ; disputes with Calvin, who has him burned to Death.
(1) Jovet, Hist. delle Relig. t. 2, p. 287 ; Varil. t. 1, l. 8, p. 370 ; Nat. Alex. s. 19 ;
Gotti, Ver. Rel. l. 2 , c. 115 ; Van Ranst, s. 16, p. 325. (2) Varil. loc. cit. (3) Jovet,
p. 288.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 351
(4) Nat. Alex. t. 19, art. 14 ; Van Ranst, p. 326. (1) Van Ranst, p. 326.
352 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(2 ) Gotti, c. 115 ; Nat. Alex. t. 19, ar. 14 ; Jovet, t. 1, p. 296. (3) Jovet, loc. cit.
4) Van Ranst, loc. cit. (5) Gotti, s. 2, 3 ; Nat. Alex. cit.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 353
(6) Gotti, loc. cit. (7) Spondan. ad Ann. 1561 , n. 34 ; Van Ranst, sec. 16, p. 327 ;
Gotti, c. 115. (8) Jovet, His. Rel. p. 291 ; Gotti, s. 2, n. 6 ; Nat. Alex. t. 19, art. 14.
(9) Jovet, p. 294.
Z
354 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
men subject to be deceived, like any one else that the Word of
God alone is sufficient for understanding the Articles of Faith-
that it is clear enough in itself, and requires no explanation ; and
now you want to make use of the same arms against us which you
blame the Catholics for having recourse to .' This answer was
applauded by the Prince and the majority of the meeting, and the
preachers were confounded, and knew not what reply to make.
Arianism then became the most numerous sect in Transylvania,
and the impious doctrine of Arius was resuscitated after a lapse
of nine hundred years. It is worthy of remark, as Jovet ( 10) tells
us, that the first who embraced it were all Lutherans or Calvinists,
and that all their chiefs came to an unhappy end. Paul Alciatus,
their companion, at last became a Mahometan , as Gotti informs us.
Francis David, as Noel Alexander tells us, was killed by a house
falling on him ; another of them, called Lismaninus , drowned him-
self in a well, and Blandrata (11) was killed by a relative of his , to
rob him.
38. Bernard Ochino was also an Antitrinitarian . He was a Ca-
puchin friar, and the heretics even make him founder of that In-
stitute ; but the Capuchin Chronicle, and the majority of writers ,
deny this and say he was only General of the Capuchins for a
while ( 12). Their real founder was Matthew de Basso , in 1525 ,
and Ochino did not enter the order until 1534 , nine years after, when
the order already had three hundred professed members. He lived as
a Religious for eight years, and threw off the habit in 1542. At
first, while a Religious, he led a most exemplary life ( 13) , wore a
very poor habit, went always barefooted , had a long beard, and ap-
peared to suffer from sickness and the mortified life he led . When-
ever he had occasion, in his journeys, to stop in the houses of the
great, he eat most sparingly, and only of one dish , and that the
plainest scarcely drank any wine-and never went to bed, but
extending his mantle on the ground, took a short repose . With all
this, he was puffed up with vanity, especially as he was a most elo-
quent preacher, though his discourses were more remarked for orna-
ment of diction than soundness of doctrine , and the churches were
always crowded when he preached . The Sacramentarian Valdez,
who perverted Peter Martyr ( Chap. xi . art. ii . sec . iii. n. 57) , was
also the cause of his fall . He perceived his weakness, he saw he
was vain of his preaching, and (14) he used frequently go to hear
him , and visit him afterwards, and under the praises he administered
to him for his eloquence, conveyed the poison of his sentiments.
Ochino had a great opinion of his own merits, and hoped, when he
was made General of his Order, that the Pope would raise him to
some higher dignity, but when he saw that neither a cardinal's hat,
(10) Jovet, cit. p. 300. (11) Nat. Alex. s. 3 ; Gotti, s. 2, n. 6 ; Jovet, cit.
(12) Varill. Hist. t. 2, p. 109 ; Gotti, 115. (13) Varill. p. 111. (14) Varill. cit.
0
p. 10 .
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 355
nor even a mitre , fell to his lot, he entertained the most rancorous
feeling against the Roman Court, and Valdez made him an easy
prey. Being now infected with the poisonous sentiments of Zuin-
glius and Calvin, he began in the pulpit to speak derogatory of the
Pope and the Roman See, and preaching in the archbishoprics of
Naples, after Peter Martyr, he began to deride the doctrines of pur-
gatory and indulgences, and sowed the first seeds of that great revo-
lution which afterwards, in 1656 , convulsed the city. When the
Pope received information of this, he commanded him to come to
Rome and account for his doctrine. His friends advised him to
go ; but, as he felt himself hurt by the order, he was unwilling to
obey. While he was thus wavering he went to Bologna , and called
on the Cardinal Legate, Contarini , to solicit his protection and in-
terest. The cardinal was then suffering from sickness, of which, in
fact, he died soon after ; so he received him coldly, hardly spoke to
him, and dismissed him. He now suspected that the cardinal knew
all, and would have him put in prison , so he threw off the habit,
and went to Florence, where he met Peter Martyr, and concerted
with him a flight to Geneva, then the general refuge of apostates.
In fact, he arrived there even before Peter Martyr himself, and
though sixty years old, he brought a young girl of sixteen along
with him, and married her there, thus giving a pledge of his per-
petual separation from the Catholic Church. He then wrote an
apology of his flight, and abused, in the most violent terms, the
Order of St. Francis and the Pope, Paul III. The Pope for a while
entertained the notion of dissolving the Capuchin Order altogether,
but relinquished it on finding that Ochino had made no perverts
among that body.
39. Calvin received Ochino most kindly on his arrival in Geneva,
but he soon perceived that the Capuchin had no great opinion of
him, and leaned more to the doctrines of Luther, and he therefore
began to treat him with coolness ; so, having no great affection for
the doctrines of either one or the other, he determined to establish
his fame by founding a new sect. He then took up the opinions
of Arius, and published some tracts in Italian, in which he con
founded the personality and properties of the Three Divine Per-
sons , so Calvin procured a sentence of banishment to be passed on
him by the Senate of Geneva. He then went to Basle, but as he
was not safe even there, he went to Strasbourg, to Bucer, who pro-
tected heretics of every shade, and received him kindly, appointed
him Professor of Theology, and took him, along with himself and
Peter Martyr, to England afterwards. They were both banished
from that kingdom by Queen Mary , on her accession, together with
thirty thousand others, so he went first to Germany and then to
Poland. Even there he had no rest, for all heretics were banished
from that country by the King, Sigismund, and so , broken down
by old age, and abandoned by every one , he concealed himself in
356 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
the house of a friend , and died of the plague in 1564, leaving two
sons and a daughter, their mother having died before. Cardinal
Gotti , Moreri , and others, say that he died an apostate and impe-
nitent ; but Zachary Boverius, in the Annals of the Capuchins,
proves on the authority of other writers, and especially of the Do-
minican, Paul Grisaldus, and of Theodore Beza himself, that he
abjured all his errors, and received the sacraments before his death .
Menochius and James Simidei follow the opinion of Boverius. I
do not give an opinion either on one side or the other, but, with
Spondanus and Graveson, leave the matter between them (15).
40. Perverse Doctrine of Lelius Socinus. 41. Faustus Socinus ; his Travels, Writings,
and Death. 42. Errors of the Socinians.
40. LELIUS and Faustus Socinus, from whom the Socinians take
their name, were born in Sienna. Lelius was the son of Marianus
Socinus, a celebrated lawyer, and was born in 1525. His talents
were of the first order, and he surpassed all his cotemporaries at the
schools ; but he, unfortunately, became acquainted with some Pro-
testants, and they perverted him ; so, dreading to come under the
notice of the Inquisition, then extremely strict in Italy, he left it at
the age of twenty-one, and spent four years in travelling through
France, England, Flanders, Germany, and Poland, and finally came
to Switzerland, and took up his abode in Zurich. He was intimate
with Calvin, Beza, Melancthon , and several others of the same sort,
as appears from their letters to him; but he attached himself
chiefly to the Antitrinitarian doctrines of Servetus. When he
learned that Servetus was burned in Geneva, he hid himself, and
fled to Poland first, and afterwards to Bohemia, but after a time re-
turned to Zurich, where he died, in the year 1562, at the early age
of thirty-seven ( 1 ) .
41. Faustus Socinus was a nephew ofthe former ; he was born in
1539 , and was infected with his uncle's heresy. He was twenty-
three years of age when his uncle died. He at once went to Zurich
and took possession of all his manuscripts, which he afterwards
published , to the great injury of the Church . Next, pretending
that he was a true Catholic (2) , he returned to Italy, and lived for
nine years attached to the service of the Duke of Tuscany, who
treated him with honour and respect. Finding it impossible to
spread his heresy in Italy as he wished , he went to Basle, and lived
(15) Gotti, cit. sec. 2, n. 8 ; Varillas, p. 112, & seq.; Nat. Alex. t. 19, a. 14, sec. 3 ;
Van Ranst, sec. 16, p. 328 ; Bern. t. 4, sec. 16, c. 5 ; Berti, Brev. Hist. Eccl. sec. 6, c. 3 ;
Bover. in Ann. Capuccin. 1543 ; Menoch. Cent. p. 2, c. 89 ; Paulus Grisald. Decis. Fid.
Cath. in Ind. Error. & Hærat. Simid. Comp. Stor. degli Eresiarchi, sec. 16 ; Graveson, t. 4,
Hist. Eccl. coll. 3. (1) Nat. Alex. t. 19, art. 14 ; Gotti, c. 116, sec. 3, n. 1 ; Van Ranst,
sec. 16, p. 328. (2) Gotti, loc. cit. n. 2.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 357
(3) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. n. 1. (4) Gotti, cit. n. 2. (5) Nat. Alex. n. 2 ; Gotti, n. 3.
358 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
but the damned will not suffer for ever. Eighteenth .- They
teach, with Luther, that the Church failed, and did not continually
exist. Nineteenth -That Antichrist began to exist when the
Primacy of the Bishop of Rome was established . (It is remarkable
that heretics of every class attack the Primacy of the Pope. )
Twentieth. That the words, " Thou art Peter, and on this rock,"
& c. , were addressed equally to the other Apostles as to Peter.
Twenty-first. That the words, " The gates of hell shall not pre-
vail against it," do not mean that the Church can never fail.
Twenty-second.- That the keys given to St. Peter have no other
meaning but this : That he had the power of declaring who did
or did not belong to the state of those who enjoy the Divine
Grace. Twenty-third. They deny that we should have faith in
General Councils. Twenty-fourth .-They deny that it is lawful
for Christians to defend their lives by force against unjust aggres-
sors , for it is impossible, they say, that God would permit a pious
and religious man to be placed in these circumstances, so that
there would be no way of saving himself unless by shedding the
blood of another. Besides, they say, that it is even worse to kill
an aggressor than an enemy , for he who kills an enemy kills one
who has already done him an injury ; but he who kills an aggressor
kills one who has as yet done him no injury, and only desires to
injure him and kill him ; and even he cannot be sure that the
aggressor intends to kill him at all, as, perhaps, he only intends to
terrify him, and rob him then with more ease to himself. Here
are the original words of the proposition, as quoted by Noel
Alexander, error 39 : " Non licere Christianis vitam suam, suo-
rumque contra latrones, et invasores vi opposita defendere, si
possint ; quia fieri non potest, ut Deus hominem vere pium , ipsique
ex animo confidentem, tali involvi patiatur periculo, in quo ipsum
servatum velit, sed non aliter, quam sanguinis humani effusione.
Homicidium aggressoris pro graviori delicto habendum esse, quam
ipsam vindictam. Vindicando enim retribuo injuriam jam accep-
tam : at hic occido hominem , qui me forsan nondum læserat, nedum
occiderat, sed qui voluntatem tantum habuit me lædendi , aut occi-
dendi ; imo de quo certo scire non possum, an me animo occidendi ,
et non potius terrendi tantum, quo tutius me spoliari possit, aggre-
diatur." Twenty-fifth - That it is not necessary for Preceptors to
have a Mission from the Superiors of the Church, and that the
words of St. Paul, " How shall they preach if they be not sent ?"
are to be understood when they preach doctrines unheard till then,
such as the doctrine preached by the Apostles to the Gentiles, and,
therefore, a Mission was necessary for them. I omit many other
errors of less importance, and refer the reader to Noel Alexander,
who treats the subject diffusely. The worst is, that this sect still
exists in Holland and Great Britain. Modern Deists may be called
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 359
followers of Socinus, as appears from the works they are every day
publishing. * The Socinians say of their founder, Faustus :
Toto licet Babylon destruxit tecta Lutherus,
Muros Calvinus, sed fundamenta Socinus (6).
Well may this be said, for the Socinians deny the most funda-
mental articles of the faith.
CHAPTER XIII.
ARTICLE I.
1. Isaac Perieres, Chief of the Pre-Adamites ; abjures his Heresy. 2. Mark Anthony de
Dominis ; his Errors and Death. 3. William Postellus ; his Errors and Conversion ;
4. Benedict Spinosa, Author of a new Sort of Atheism. 5. Plan of his impious System ;
his unhappy Death.
(6) Gotti, c. 115, sec. 3, n. 15 ; Van Ranst, p. 308. (1) Berti, Brev. Hist. t. 2,
sec. 17 ; Bernini, t. 4, sec. 17, c. 5.
(2) Van Ranst, sec. 17, p. 525 ; Bernin , t. 4, sec . 17, c. 1, 2, 3 ; Berti, loc . cit.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 361
and does away with the Divinity altogether, for he says that the
world is a mere work of nature, which necessarily produced all
creatures from all eternity. That which we call God , he says, is
nothing else but the power of nature diffused in external objects ,
which , he says, are all material . The nature of all things , he says,
is one substance alone, endowed with extension and mind, and it
is active and passive ; passive, as to itself-active, inasmuch as it
thinks. Hence he supposes that all creatures are nothing but
modifications of this substance ; the material ones modifications of
the passive substance, and the spiritual ones—that is, what we call
spiritual, for he insists that all are material- being modifications
of the active substance. Thus, according to his opinion, God is, at
the same time, Creator and Creation , active and passive, cause and
effect. Several authors, as Thomasius, Moseus, Morus, Buet, Bayle,
and several others, Protestants even, combated this impious system
by their writings . Even Bayle, though an Atheist himself, like
Spinosa, refuted it in his Dictionary. I , also, in my work on the
Truth ofthe Faith (4 ) , have endeavoured to show the incoherence
of the principles on which he founds his doctrines, and, therefore ,
I do not give it a particular refutation in this work. Notwith-
standing the monstrosity of his system, Spinosa had followers ; and
it is even said, that there are some at present in Holland , though
they do not publicly profess it, only among themselves. The
work itself was translated into several languages, but its sale was
prohibited by the States of Holland . Spinosa died at the Hague,
on the 23rd of February, 1677, in the 59th year of his age. Some
say, that his servants being all at church on a Sunday, found him
dead on their return , but others tell that he was dying of consump-
tion, and feeling death approaching, and knowing that it is natural
for every one to call on God, or some superhuman power, to assist
him, at that awful moment, he, dreading to call on God for assist-
ance, or to let it be seen that he repented of his doctrine, ordered
that no one should be allowed into his chamber, and there at last
he was found dead (5) .
ARTICLE II.
6. Michael Baius disseminates his unsound Doctrine, and is opposed. 7. St. Pius V.
condemns seventy-nine Propositions of Baius, and he abjures them. Retractation
written by Baius, and confirmed by Pope Urban VIII.
(1) Possevin. t. 2, in M. Bajum. (2) Gotti, Ver. Rel . t. 2, c. 116 ; Bernin. sec. 16.
364 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
ARTICLE III.
9. Cornelius, Bishop of Ghent, and Cornelius, Bishop of Ipres ; his Studies and Degrees.
10. Notice of the condemned Work of Jansenius. 11. Urban VIII. condemns the
Book of Jansenius in the Bull " In eminenti ;" the Bishops of France present the
Five Propositions to Innocent X. 12. Innocent condemns them in the Bull " Cum
occasione ;" Notice of the Propositions. 13. Opposition of the Jansenists ; but
Alexander VIII. declares that the Five Propositions are extracted from the Book,
and condemned in the Sense of Jansenius ; Two Propositions of Arnould condemned.
14. Form of Subscription commanded by the Pope to be made. 15. The Religious
Silence. 16. The Case of Conscience condemned by Clement XI. in the Bull Vineam
Domini. 16. The Opinion, that the Pontificate of St. Paul was equal to that of St.
Peter, condemned.
16. About the year 1702, the Jansenists again raised the point
of the religious silence, by the publication of a pamphlet, in which
it was said that Sacramental Absolution was denied to a clergyman
because he asserted that he condemned the five propositions , as far
as the law was concerned (jus) , but as to the fact that they were to
be found in Jansenius's book, that he considered it was quite enough
to preserve a religious silence on that point. This was the famous
Case of Conscience, on which forty Doctors of Paris decided that
absolution could not be refused to the clergyman. The Pope,
however, condemned this pretended silence by a formal decree,
" Ad perpetuam rei memoriam," on the 12th of January, 1703.
Many ofthe French bishops also condemned it, and more especially
Cardinal de Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, who likewise obliged the
forty doctors to retract their decision , with the exception of one
alone, who refused , and was, on that account, dismissed from the
Sorbonne, and that famous Faculty also branded their decision as
rash and scandalous, and calculated to renew the doctrines of Jan-
senius, condemned by the Church. Clement XI . expedited another
Bull , Vineam Domini, &c. , on the 16th of July, 1705 , condemning
the " Case of Conscience ," with various notes. All this was because
the distinction of Law and Fact (Juris et Facti) was put forth to
elude the just and legitimate condemnation of the five propositions
of Jansenius. This is the very reason Clement himself gives for
renewing the condemnation. His Bull was accepted by the whole
Church, and, first of all, by the assembly of the Gallican Church ;
thus the Jansenists could no longer cavil at the condemnation of the
book of their patron ( 13) . In the Refutation of the errors of Jan-
senism, we will respond to their subterfuges in particular.
17. We may as well remark here, that about this time an anony-22
mous work appeared , entitled, " De SS. Petri et Pauli Pontificatu,
in which the writer endeavoured to prove that St. Paul was,
equally with St. Peter, the Head of the Church. The author's in-
tention was not to exalt the dignity of St. Paul, but to depress the
primacy of St. Peter, and, consequently, of the Pope . The book
was referred to the Congregation of the Index, by Innocent XI.,
and its doctrine condemned as heretical by a public Decree ( 14) .
The author lays great stress on the ancient practice used in Pontifi-
cal Decrees, that of painting St. Paul on the right and St. Peter on
the left. That, however, is no proof that St. Paul was equally the
Head of the Church, and exercised equal authority with St. Peter,
for not to him but St. Peter, did Christ say, " Feed my sheep .'
Hence, St. Thomas says ( 15), " Apostolus fuit par Petro in execu-
tione, authoritatis, non in auctoritate regiminis." Again, if the
argument be allowed that, because St. Paul was painted to the
right of St. Peter, he was equal to him, would it not prove even that
(13) Jour. 257. (14) Gotti, c. 118, s. 4. (15) St. Thom. in cap.ii. ad Galatas.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 371
ARTICLE IV.
18. Quesnel is dismissed from the Congregation of the Oratory. 19. He publishes several
unsound Works in Brussels. 20. Is imprisoned, escapes to Amsterdam, and dies
excommunicated. 21. The Book he wrote. 22. The Bull " Unigenitus," con-
demning the Book. 23. The Bull is accepted by the King, the Clergy, and the
Sorbonne ; the Followers of Quesnel appeal to a future Council. 24. Several Bishops
also, and Cardinal de Noailles, appeal to a future Council likewise, but the Council
of Embrun declares that the Appeal should not be entertained. 25. The Consul-
tation of the Advocates rejected by the Assembly of the Bishops ; Cardinal de Noailles
retracts, and accepts the Bull ; the Bull is declared dogmatical by the Sorbonne and
the Bishops. 26. Three Principles of the System of Quesnel.
(16) St. Thomas in cap. i. ad Gal. l. 1. (17) Bell, de Rom. Pontiff. c. 27. (18) St.
Thom. in 2 Cor. l. 3, c. n. (1) Tour. Comp. Theol. t. 5, p. 1, Diss. 9, p. 396.
372 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(6) Tour. p. 409 , 310. (7) Tour. p. 412. (8) Tour. p. 419. (9) Tour.
p. 426 & seq.; Gotti, 2, n. 3, 4.
374 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(11) Tour. cit. (12) Tour. cit. (13) Tour. cit. (14) Tour. cit. (15) Tour. cit.
376 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
ARTICLE V.
29. The unsound Book of Molinos called the " Spiritual Guide." 30. His impious Doc-
trine, and the Consequences deduced from it. 31. His affected Sanctity ; he is found
out and imprisoned, with two of his Disciples. 32. He is condemned himself, as well
as his Works ; he publicly abjures his Errors and dies penitent. 33. Condemnation
of the Book entitled " The Maxims of the Saints."
sions ; and they justified this by that text of Job (xvi. 18) : " These
things have I suffered without the iniquity of my hand, when I
offered pure prayers to God." Molinos, in his forty-ninth propo-
sition, gives an impious explanation to this text ; " Job ex violentia
Dæmonis se propriis manibus polluebat, " &c. ( 2 ) .
31. This hypocrite lived in Rome unfortunately for twenty-two
years, from the year 1665 till 1687 , and was courted by all, espe-
cially by the nobility, for he was universally esteemed as a holy
man, and an excellent guide in the way of spiritual life . His
serious countenance, his dress neglected, but always clerical, his
long and bushy beard, his venerably old appearance, and his slow
gait, all were calculated to inspire devotion, and his holy conversa-
tion caused him to be venerated by all who knew him. The
Almighty at length took compassion on his Church, and exposed
the author of such iniquity. Don Inigo Carracciolo , Cardinal of
St. Clement, discovered that the diocese of Naples was infected with
the poisonous error, and immediately wrote to the Pope, imploring
him to arrest the progress of the heresy by his supreme authority,
and several other bishops, not only in Italy, but even in France,
wrote to the same effect. When his Holiness was informed of this,
he published a circular letter through Italy, pointing out, not so
much the remedy as the danger of the doctrine which was extend-
ing itself privately. The Roman Inquisitors then , after taking in-
formation on the subject, drew up a secret process against Molinos,
and ordered his arrest. He was accordingly taken up, with two of
his associates, one a priest of the name of Simon Leone, and the
other a layman, called Anthony Maria, both natives of the village
of Combieglio, near Como, and all three were imprisoned in the
Holy Office (3) .
32. The Inquisition , on the 24th of November, 1685 , prohibited
the " Spiritual Guide" of Molinos, and on the 28th of August,
1687 , condemned all his works, and especially sixty-eight proposi-
tions extracted from his perfidious book " The Guide," and of
which he acknowledged himself the author, as we read in Ber-
nini (4). He was condemned himself, together with his doctrine,
and after twenty-two months' imprisonment, and the conviction of
his errors and crimes, he professed himself prepared to make the act
of abjuration . On the 3rd of September, then, in 1687 , he was
brought to the Church of " the Minerva," before an immense con-
course of people, and was placed by the officials in a pulpit, and
commenced his abjuration. While the process was read, at the
mention of every heretical proposition and every indecent action
proved against him, the people cried out with a loud voice, “fuoco ,
fuoco"-" burn him." When the reading of the process was con-
cluded, he was conducted to the feet of the Commissary of the Holy
(2) Gotti, n. 2, 3. (3) Gotti, loc. cit. n. 4, 5, (4) Bernin. loc. cit.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 379
Office, and there solemnly abjured the errors proved against him,
received absolution, was clothed with the habit of a penitent, and
received the usual strokes of a rod on the shoulders ; he was then
again conducted back to the prison of the Holy Office by the
guards, a small apartment was assigned to him, and he lived for ten
years with all the marks of a true penitent, and died with these
happy dispositions. Immediately after his abjuration , Pope Inno-
cent XI . published a Bull on the 4th of September, 1687 , again
condemning the same propositions already condemned by the Holy
Inquisition ; and on the same day the two brothers, the disciples of
Molinos, Anthony Maria and Simon Leone, already mentioned,
made their abjuration , and gave signs of sincere repentance (5).
33. About the end of the 17th century there was a certain lady
in France, Madame Guion, who, filled with false notions of spiri-
tual life, published several manuscripts, against which Bossuet, the
famous Bishop of Meaux, wrote his excellent work, entitled " De
Statibus Orationis," to crush the evil in the bud. Many, however,
deceived by this lady's writings, took up her defence, and among
these was Fenelon, the Archbishop of Cambray, who published
another work, with the title of " Explanations of the Maxims of
the Saints on Interior Life." This book was at once condemned by
Innocent XII., who declared that the doctrine of the work was like
that of Molinos. When Fenelon heard that his book was condemned
he at once not only obeyed the decision of the Pope, but even
published a public edict, commanding all his diocesans to yield
obedience to the Pontifical decree (6). The propositions con-
demned by the Pope in this book were twenty-three in number ;
they were condemned on the 12th of March, 1699, and Cardinal
Gotti gives them without curtailment.
SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER.
elapsed since, and though heresy has produced nothing new- for
every heresiarch only reproduces the errors of his predecessors-
still it will not, I hope, be ungrateful to the reader to have before
him a succinct account of the sectaries who have since appeared,
especially the Methodists, the most numerous, and, on many ac-
counts , the most remarkable body of the present day. It is a fact
which every close observer must be aware of, that heresy naturally
tends to infidelity . When once we lose hold of the anchor of Faith,
and set up our own fallible judgments in opposition to the authority
of the Church, we are led on from one false consequence to another ,
till in the end we are inclined to reject Revelation altogether. Such
is the case, especially in Germany at the present day, where Ration-
alism has usurped the place of religion, and infidelity is promul-
gated from the Theological Chair. It is true that in Catholic
countries infidelity has also not alone appeared , but subverted both
the throne and altar, and shaken society to its very foundations ;
but there it is the daughter of indifferentism . Lax morality pro-
duces unbelief, and those whose lives are totally opposed to the
austere rule of the Gospel, are naturally anxious to persuade them-
selves that religion is altogether a human invention . This madness,
however, passes away after a time. Religion is too deeply rooted
in the hearts of a truly Catholic people to be destroyed by it. The
storm strips the goodly tree of a great deal of its fruit and foliage,
the rotten branches are snapped off, and the dead and withered
leaves are borne away, but the vital principle of the trunk remains
untouched, and in due season produces again fruit a hundred-fold .
2. That free spirit of inquiry, the boast of Protestantism , which ,
rejecting all authority, professes to be guided by reason alone, pro-
duced Rationalism . Luther and Calvin rejected several of the most
important Articles of the Christian Faith. Why should not their
followers do the same ? They appealed to reason-so did their
disciples ; one mystery after another was swept away, till Revelation,
we may say, totally disappeared, and nothing but the name of
religion remained. The philosopher Kant laid down a system, by
which true and ecclesiastical religion were distinguished . True
religion is the religion of reason ; ecclesiastical, the religion of
Revelation, and this is only a vehicle for conveying the truths of
natural religion. By this rule, then, the Scriptures were inter-
preted. Nothing but what reason could measure was admitted ;
every mystery became a myth : miracles were all the effects of na-
tural causes, working on an unenlightened and wonder-loving
people. Hetzel, Eichhorn, the Rosenmüllers, promulgated these
blasphemies. Strauss, in his " Life of Christ," upsets all Revelation ;
and Becker teaches that St. John the Baptist and our Lord, with
the determination of upsetting the Jewish Hierarchy, whose pride
and tyranny they could not bear, plotted together, and agreed that
one should play the part of the precursor and the other of the
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 381
(1) Perron. de Protes. (2) Encyc. Brit. Art. Zinzendorf and United Brethren.
(3) Mosheim, Cent. XVIII.
382 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
REFUTATION I.
THE Catholic Church teaches that there are in God one Nature and
three distinct Persons. Arius, of whose heresy we shall have to
speak in the next chapter, admits the distinction of Persons in the
Trinity, but said that the three Persons had three different natures
among themselves, or, as the latter Arians said, that the three Per-
sons were of three distinct natures. Sabellius, on the other hand,
confessed, that in God there was but one nature ; but he denied the
distinction of Persons , for God , he said , was distinguished with the
name of the Father, or the Son , or the Holy Ghost, by denomina-
tion alone, to signify the different effects of the Divinity, but that
in himself, as there is but one nature, so there is but one Person.
The Sabellian heresy was first taught by Praxeas, who was refuted
by Tertullian in a special work. In the year 257, the same heresy
was taken up by Sabellius ( 1 ) , who gave it great extension, especially
in Lybia, and he was followed by Paul of Samosata. These denied
the distinction of the Persons, and, consequently, the Divinity of
Jesus Christ, and, therefore, the Sabellians were called Patro-pas-
sionists, as St. Augustin (2 ) tells us, for as they admitted in God
only the Person of the Father alone, they should , consequently,
admit that it was the Father who became incarnate, and suffered
for the redemption of mankind . The Sabellian heresy, after being
a long time defunct, was resuscitated by Socinus , whose arguments
we shall also enumerate in this dissertation.
2. In the first place, the plurality and the real distinction of the
three Persons in the Divine nature is proved from the words of
Genesis : " Let us make man to our own image and likeness"
(Gen. i . 26) ; and in chap. iii., v. 22 , it is said : " Behold , Adam is
become one of us ;" and again, in chap. xi., ver. 7 : " Come ye,
therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongues." Now
these words, " let us do," " let us go down," " let us confound ,"
show the plurality of Persons, and can in no wise be understood of
the plurality of natures, for the Scripture itself declares that there is
but one God, and if there were several Divine natures, there would
be several Gods ; the words quoted, therefore, must mean the
plurality of Persons. Theodoret ( 1 ) , with Tertullian, makes a
reflection on this, that God spoke in the plural number, “ let us
make," to denote the plurality of Persons, and then uses the singu-
lar, " to our image," not images, to signify the unity of the Divine
nature.
3. To this the Socinians object :-First.- That God spoke in the
plural number, for the honour of his Person, as kings say " We"
when they give any order. But 99.66 we answer, by saying, that sove-
reigns speak thus, " we ordain," " we command," in their ordinances,
for then they represent the whole republic, but never when they
speak oftheir private and personal acts ; they never say, for example,
66 66
we are going to sleep," or we are going to walk," nor did God
speak in the way of commanding, when he said, " Behold Adam is
become as one of us." Secondly.- They object, that God did not
thus speak with the other Divine Persons, but with the Angels ;
but Tertullian, St. Basil, Theodoret, and St. Irenæus, laugh at this
foolish objection (2) , for the very words, " to our image and like-
ness," dispose of it, for man is not created to the image of the
angels, but of God himself. Thirdly. They object, that God spoke
with himself then, as if exciting himself to create man, as a sculptor
might say, “ Come, let us make a statue." St. Basil ( 3) , opposing
the Jews, disposes of this argument. " Do we ever see a smith,"
he says, " when sitting down among his tools, say to himself— Come,
let us make a sword?" The saint intends by this to prove, that,
when God said , " let us make," he could not speak so to him-
self alone, but to the other Persons : for no one, speaking to himself,
says, " let us make." It is clear, therefore, that he spoke with the
other Divine Persons.
4. It is proved, also, from the Psalms (ii. 7) : " The Lord hath
said to me, thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee."
Here mention is made of the Father begetting the Son, and of the
Son begotten ; and in the same Psalm the promise is made : " I will
give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of
the earth for thy possession ." Here a clear distinction is drawn
between the Person of the Son and the Person of the Father, for
we cannot say it is the same Person who begets and is begotten.
(1) Theod. qu. 19, in Gen. (2) Tertull. 1. contra Prax. c. 12 ; St. Basil, t. 1 ;
Hom. 9 in Hexamer.; Theod. qu. 19, in Gen.; St. Iræn. l. 4, n. 37. (3) St. Basil,
lec. cit. p. 87.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 393
And St. Paul declares that these words refer to Christ the Son of
God : " So Christ also did not glorify himself, that he might be
made a high priest, but he that said unto him : Thou art my son;
this day have I begotten thee" ( Heb. v. 5. )
5. It is also proved by the 109th Psalm : " The Lord said to my
Lord, sit thou at my right hand ;" and it was this very passage that
our Saviour made use of to convince the Jews, and make them
believe that he was the Son of God. "What think you of Christ,
said he ? Whose Son is he ? They say to him : David's. He
saith to them: How, then, doth David in spirit call him Lord,
saying , &c. If David then call him Lord, how is he his Son ?"
(Mat. xxii. 42-45) . Christ wished by this to prove that, although
the Son of David, he was still his Lord, and God , likewise, as his
Eternal Father was Lord.
6. The distinction of the Divine Persons was not expressed more
clearly in the Old Law, lest the Jews, like the Egyptians, who
adored a plurality of Gods, might imagine that in the three Divine
Persons there were three Essential Gods. In the New Testament,
however, through which the Gentiles were called to the Faith, the
distinction of the three Persons in the Divine Essence is clearly
laid down, as is proved, first from St. John , i. 1 : "In the beginning
was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God ." Now, by the expression, " the Word was with God," it is
proved that the Word was distinct from the Father, for we cannot
say of the same thing, that it is with itself and nigh itself at the
same time. Neither can we say that the Word was distinct by
Nature, for the text says, "the Word was God ;" therefore, the dis-
tinction of Persons is clearly proved, as St. Athanasius and Tertul-
lian agree (4). In the same chapter these words occur : " We saw
his glory, the glory as it were of the only-begotten of the Father."
Here no one can say, that the Son is begotten from himself; the
Son, therefore, is really distinct from the Father.
7. It is proved, also, from the command given to the Apostles :
" Go, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost" (Mat. xxviii.
19) . Hence the words, in the name, denote the unity of Nature,
and signify that Baptism is one sole operation of all the three
named Persons ; and the distinct appellation afterwards given to
each Person, clearly proves that they are distinct. And, again,
if these three Persons were not God, but only creatures, it would
be absurd to imagine that Christ, under the same name , would
liken creatures to God.
8. It is proved, also, by that text of St. John : " Philip, he that
seeth me seeth the Father also ......... I will ask the Father, and
he shall give you another Paraclete" (John, xiv. 9 , 16 ). By the
(4) Tert. adv. Prax. c. 26 ; St. Ath. Orat. contr. Sab. Gregal.
394 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
words, " he that seeth me seeth the Father," he proves the unity of
the Divine Nature ; and by the other expression, " I will ask ,"
&c. , the distinction of the Persons, for the same Person cannot
be at once the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is
even more fully explained by the words of St. John, xv. 26 :
" But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father shall send
in my name."
9. It is also proved by that text of St. John : " There are three
who give testimony in heaven- the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost, and these three are one" (1 John, v. 7.) Nor is
the assertion of the adversaries of the Faith, that the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost, are merely different in name, but not
in reality, of any avail, for then it would not be three testimonies
that are given, but only one alone, which is repugnant to the text.
The Socinians labour hard to oppose this text especially, which so
clearly expresses the distinction of the three Divine Persons, and
they object that this verse is wanting altogether in many manu-
scripts, or, at all events, is found only in part ; but Estius, in his
commentaries on this text of St.John , says, that Robert Stephens,
in his elegant edition of the New Testament, remarks that, having
consulted sixteen ancient copies collected in France, Spain , and
Italy, he found that, in seven of them, the words "in heaven" alone
were omitted, but that the remainder of the text existed in full.
The Doctors of Louvain collected a great number of manuscripts
for the edition of the Vulgate brought out in 1580 , and they attest
that it was in five alone that the whole text was not found (5) . It
is easy to explain how a copyist might make a mistake in writing
this verse, for the seventh and eight verses are so much alike, that
a careless copyist might easily mix up one with the other. It is
most certain that in many ancient Greek copies, and in all the Latin
ones, the seventh verse is either put down entire, or, at least, noted
in the margin ; and, besides, we find it cited by many of the
Fathers, as St. Cyprian , St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius , St. Fulgen-
tius, Tertullian, St. Jerome, and Victor Vitensis (6 ) . The Council
of Trent, above all , in its Decree of the Canonical Scriptures, Sess .
IV. , obliges us to receive every book of the Vulgate edition, with
all its parts, as usually read in the Church : " If any one should not
receive as holy and canonical the entire books, with all their parts,
as they are accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and
contained in the old Vulgate edition .....let him be anathema."
The seventh verse quoted is frequently read in the Church, and
especially on Low Sunday.
10. The Socinians, however, say that it cannot be proved from
(5) Tournel. Theol. Comp. t. 2, qu. 3, p. 41 ; Juenin. Theol. t. 3, c. 2. (6) St. Cypr.
1. 1, de Unit. Eccl.; St. Ath. l. 1. ad Theoph.; St. Epiph. Hær.; St.Fulg. 1. contra Arian.;
Tertull. 1. adv. Prax. 25 ; St. Hier. (aut Auctor) Prol. ad Ep. Canon. Vitens. 7. 3, de
Pers. Afr.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 395
that text of St. John, that there are in God three distinct Persons ,
and one sole essence, because, say they, the words " these three are
one" signify no other union but the union of testimony, as the words
of the eighth verse signify, " There are three that give testimony
on earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood , and these three
are one." These words prove, according to us, that Christ is truly
the Son of God, which is what St. John is speaking about ; and
this, he says, is testified bythe water of Baptism, by the blood shed
by Jesus Christ, and by the Holy Spirit, who teaches it by his illu-
minations, and in this sense St. Augustin , St. Ambrose, and Liranus
explain it, and especially Tirinus, who rejects the explanation of
an anonymous author, who interprets the water as that which
flowed from our Lord's side ; the blood, that which flowed from his
heart when it was pierced with a spear ; and the spirit, the soul of
Jesus Christ. To return to the point, however ; I cannot conceive
any objection more futile than this. So from the words of St. John,
" the Father, the Son , and the Holy Ghost," the distinction of the
Divine Persons cannot be proved , because these Persons " are one,"
that is, make one testimony alone, and denote by that, that they
are but one essence. But we answer, that we are not here labour-
ing to prove that God is one, that is, one essence, and not three
essences ; for our adversaries themselves do not call this in doubt,
and, besides, it is proved from a thousand other texts of Scripture
adduced by themselves, as we shall soon see ; so that, granting even
that the words " are one" denote nothing else but the unity of tes-
timony, what do they gain by that ? The point is this- not whe-
ther the unity of the Divine Essence is proved by the text of St.
John, but whether the real distinction of the Divine Persons is
proved by it, and no one, I think , can deny that it is, when St.
John says , " There are three who give testimony in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost." If three give testimony,
it is not one Person, but three distinct Persons, who do so, and that
is what we mean to prove. have found several other answers to
this objection in various authors, but this, I think, is the clearest
and the most convincing against the Socinians.
11. The real distinction of the Divine Persons is also proved
from the traditions of the Fathers, and from their unanimous
consent in teaching this truth. To avoid doubtful meanings,
however, it is right to premise that in the fourth century, about
the year 380, there were great contests in the Church, even
among the Holy Fathers themselves, regarding the word Hypos-
tasis, and they were split into two parties. Those who adhered
to Miletius taught that there are in God three Hypostases ; and
those who followed Paulinus, that there was only one, and so the
followers of Miletius called the followers of Paulinus Sabellians ,
and these retorted by calling the others Arians. The whole dis-
pute, however, arose from the doubtful meaning of the word
396 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(10) St. Hilar. in 12 lib.; St. Greg. Nazian. in plur. Orat. Nyss. Orat. contra Ennom.;
St. Chrys. in 5 Hom.; St. Amb. lib. de Spir. S. St. Augus. l. 15 ; Jo. Dam. l. 1, de Fide.
(11) St. Clem. Epis. ad Corint.; St. Polycar. Orat. in suo marg. apud Euseb. l. 4 ; His.
c. 14 ; Athenagor. Leg. pro Chris.; St. Iren. in ejus oper.; Tertullian. contra Prax.
Diony. Alex. Ep. ad Paul. Samosat.; St. Gregor. Thaum. in Expos. Fid.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 397
earth , and there is none with me" ( Isaias, xliv. 24) ; but to this
we answer, that the words " I am the Lord" refer not alone to
the Father, but to all the three Persons, who are but one God
and one Lord. Again , " I am God , and there is no other” ( Isaias,
xlv. 22. Hence, we assert that the word I does not denote the
person of the Father alone, but also the Persons of the Son and
of the Holy Ghost, because they are all but one God ; and the
words " there is no other" signify the exclusion of all other Persons
who are not God. But, say they, here is one text, in which
it is clearly laid down that the Father alone is God, " yet to us
there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we
unto him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things,
and we by him" ( 1 Cor. viii. 6). To this we answer, that here
the Apostle teaches the faithful to believe one God in three
Persons, in opposition to the Gentiles, who, in many Persons,
adored many Gods. For as we believe that Christ, called by St.
Paul " one Lord," is not Lord alone, to the exclusion of the
Father, so, when the Father is called " one Lord ," we are not to
believe that he is God alone, to the exclusion of Christ and of the
Holy Ghost ; and when the Apostle speaks of " one God the
Father," we are to understand that he speaks of the unity of
Nature, and not of Person.
13. Again, they object that our natural reason alone is sufficient
to prove to us, that as among men three persons constitute three
individual humanities, so in God the three Persons, if they were
really distinct, would constitute three distinct Deities . To this we
reply, that Divine mysteries are not to be judged according to our
stunted human reason ; they are infinitely beyond the reach of our
intellect. " If," says St. Cyril of Alexandria, " there was no
difference between us and God, we might measure Divine things
by our own standard ; but if there be an incomprehensible distance
between us, why should the deficiency of our nature mark out a
rule for God ?" (12) If, therefore, we cannot arrive at the compre-
hension of Divine mysteries, we should adore and believe them ;
and it is enough to know that what we are obliged to believe is
not evidently opposed to reason. We cannot comprehend the
greatness of God, and so we cannot comprehend the mode of his
existence. But, say they, how can we believe that three Persons
really distinct are only one God, and not three Gods ? The
reason assigned by the Holy Fathers is this- because the principle
of the Divinity is one, that is, the Father, who proceeds from
nothing, while the two other Persons proceed from him, but in
such a manner that they cease not to exist in him, as Jesus Christ
says : " The Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John , x. 38 ) .
And this is the difference between the Divine Persons and human
for that requires that the Persons should be really distinct among
themselves, and that the Divine Essence should be common to
each. But then, say they, those four expressions , the Essence , the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are not synonymous ; they,
therefore, mean four distinct things, and that would prove not
alone a Trinity, but a Quaternity in God. The answer to this
frivolous objection is very simple . We freely admit that these
four words are not synonymous, but for all that, the Essence is
not distinct from the Persons ; the Divine Essence is an absolute
thing, but common to all the three Persons, but the three Persons,
though distinct among themselves, are not distinct from the
Essence, for that is in each of the three Persons, as the Fourth
Council of Lateran (can . 2 ) declares : " In Deo Trinitas est non
quaternitas quia qualibet trium personarum, est illa res videlicet
essentia, sive natura Divina quæ sola est universorum principium
præter quod aliud inveniri non potest."
16. The Socinians object- Fifthly. - The Father generated the
Son, either existing or not existing ; ifhe generated him already ex-
isting, he cannot be said to be generated at all , and if the Son was
not existing, then there was a time when the Son was not, therefore
they conclude that there are not in God Three Persons of the same
essence. To this we reply, that the Father has always generated
the Son, and that the Son is always existing, for he was generated
from all eternity, and will be generated for ever, and therefore we
read in the Psalms : " To-day I have begotten thee" ( Psalms, ii. 7) ,
because in eternity there is no succession oftime, and all is equally
present to God. Neither is there any use in saying that the Father
has generated the Son in vain, as the Son already existed always,
for the Divine generation is eternal, and as the Father generating
is eternal, so the Son is eternally generated ; both are eternal , but
the Father has been always the principium in the Divine nature .
17. Finally, they object that the primitive Christians did not
believe the mystery of the Trinity, for if they did, the Gentiles
would have attacked them on the great difficulties with which this
mystery, humanly speaking, was encompassed ; at all events, they
would have tried to prove from that that they believed in a plu-
rality of Gods, but we find no such charge made against the Chris-
tians by the Gentiles, nor do we find a word about it in the Apolo-
gies written by the early Fathers in defence of the Faith. To this
we answer : First. That even in these early days the pastors ofthe
Church taught the Catechumens the Apostles ' Creed, which con-
tains the mystery of the Trinity, but they did not speak openly of
it to the Gentiles, who, when their understanding could not com-
prehend Divine things, only mocked them . Secondly. - Many of
the writings ofthe Gentiles have been lost in the lapse of centuries,
and through the prohibitory decrees of the Christian Emperors, and
many of the Apologies were lost in like manner. Praxeas, how-
400 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
ever, who denied the Trinity, uses this very argument against the
Catholics : " If you admit three Persons in God," says he, " you
admit a plurality of Gods like the Gentiles." Besides, in the first
Apology of St. Justin, we read that the idolaters objected to the
Christians, that they adored Christ as the Son ofGod. The pagan
Celsus, as we find in Origen ( 13) , argued that the Christians, by
their belief in the Trinity, should admit a plurality of Gods, but
Origen answers him that the Trinity does not constitute three Gods,
but only one, for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, though
three Persons, are still only one and the same essence. The acts
of the martyrs prove in a thousand places that the Christians be-
lieved that Jesus Christ was the true Son of God , and they could
not believe this unless they believed at the same time that there
were three Persons in God.
REFUTATION II .
when we show that the Word in all things, not only like unto the
Father, but consubstantial to the Father, that is of the very same
substance as the Father, as likewise the Simonians, Corinthians,
Ebionites, Paulinists , and Photinians, who laid the foundations of
this heresy, by teaching that Christ was only a mere man, born .
like all others, from Joseph and Mary, and having no existence
before his birth. By proving the Catholic truth , that the Word is
true God, like the Father, all these heretics will be put down, for
as the Word in Christ assumed human nature in one person, as St.
John says : " The Word was made flesh ;" if we prove that the
Word is true God, it is manifest that Christ is not a mere man , but
man and God.
2. There are many texts of Scripture to prove this, which may
be divided into three classes. In the first class are included all
those texts in which the Word is called God , not by grace or pre-
destination, as the Socinians say, but true God in nature and sub-
stance . In the Gospel of St. John we read : " In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God , and the Word was
God. The same was in the beginning with God . All things
were made by him, and without him was made nothing that was
made" (John, i .) St. Hilary looked on this passage as proving so
clearly the Divinity of the Word , that he says ( 1), " When I hear
the Word was God, I hear it not only said but proved that the
Word is God. Here the thing signified is a substance where it is
said was God. For to be, to exist, is not accidental , but substan-
tial." The holy doctor had previously met the objection of those
who said that even Moses was called God by Pharoe (Exod. viii.)
and that judges were called Gods in the 81st Psalm, by saying :
It is one thing to be, as it were, appointed a God, another to be
God himself; in Pharoe's case a God was appointed as it were
(that is Moses) , but neither in name or nature was he a God, as the
just are also called God : " I said-you are Gods." Now the ex-
pression " I said," refers more to the person speaking than to the
name of the thing itself; it is, then, the person who speaks who
imposes the name, but it is not naturally the name of the thing
itself. But here he says the Word is God , the thing itself exists ,
in the Word, the substance of the Word is announced in the very
name : " Verbi enim appellatio in Dei Filio de Sacramento nativi-
tatis est." Thus, says the Saint, the name of God given to Pharoe
and the Judges mentioned by David in the 81st Psalm was only
given them by the Lord as a mark of their authority, but was not
their proper name ; but when St. John speaks ofthe Word, he does
not say that he was called God, but that he was in reality God :
" The Word was God."
3. The Socinians next object that the text of St. John should
not be read with the same punctuation as we read it, but thus :
" In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God ,
and the Word was. God the same was in the beginning," &c . , but
this travestie of the text is totally opposed to all the copies of the
Scriptures we know, to the sense ofall the Councils, and to all anti-
quity. We never find the text cut up in this way ; it always was
written " The Word was God." Besides, if we allowed this Soci-
nian reading of the text, the whole sense would be lost, it would
be, in fact, ridiculous, as if St. John wanted to assert that God
existed, after saying already that the Word was with God . There
are, however, many other texts in which the Word is called God,
and the learned Socinians themselves are so convinced ofthe weak-
ness of this argument, as calculated only to make their cause ridi-
culous, that they tried other means of invalidating it, but, as we
shall presently see, without succeeding.
4. It is astonishing to see how numerous are the cavils of the
Arians. The Word, they say, is called God, not the God the
fountain of all nature, whose name is always written in Greek with
the article (o Theos) , such, however, is not the case in the text ;
but we may remark that in this very chapter, St. John , speaking of
the supreme God, " there was a man sent from God, whose name
was John," does not use the article, neither is it used in the 12th,
13th , or 18th verses. In many other parts of the Scriptures,
where the name of God is mentioned, the article is omitted, as
in St. Matthew, xiv. 33, and xxvii . 43 ; in St. Paul's 1st Epistle to
the Corinthians, viii . 4, 6 ; to the Romans, i . 7 ; to the Ephe-
sians, iv. 6 ; and on the other hand we see that in the Acts of the
Apostles , vii . 43 ; in the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, iv. 4, and
in that to the Galatians, iv. 8 , they speak of an idol as God, and
use the article, and it is most certain that neither St. Luke nor St.
Paul ever intended to speak of an idol as the supreme God. Besides,
as St. John Chrysostom teaches (2) , from whom this whole answer,
we may say, is taken , the Word is called God , sometimes even with
the addition of that article, on whose omission in St. John they lay
such stress, as is the case in the original of that text of St. Paul,
Romans, ix. 5 : " Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all
things , God blessed for ever." St. Thomas remarks, that in the
first cited passage the article is omitted in the name of God , as the
name there stands in the position not of a subject, but a predicate:
" Ratio autem quare Evangelista non apposuit articulum hinc
nomini Deus . est quod Deus ponitur hic in prædicato et
tenetur formaliter, consuetum erat autem quod nominibus in præ-
dicato positis non ponitur articulus cum discretionem importet" (3).
5. They object, fourthly, that in the text of St. John the Word
is called God, not because he is so by nature and substance, but
(2) St. Jo. Chry. in Jo. (3) St. Thom. in cap. 1, Joan. lec. 2.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 403
only by dignity and authority, just as they say the name of God is
given in the Scriptures to the angels and to judges. We have
already answered this objection by St. Hilary ( N. 2) , that it is one
thing to give to an object the name of God , another to say that he
is God. But there is, besides , another answer. It is not true that
the name ofGod is an appellative name, so that it can be positively
and absolutely applied to one who is not God by nature ; for
although some creatures are called Gods , it never happened that
any one of them was called " God," absolutely, or was called true
God , or the highest God, or singularly God , as Jesus Christ is
called by St. John : " And we know that the Son of God is come,
and he hath given us understanding, that we may know the true
God, and may be in his true Son" ( 1 John , v. 20) . And St.
Paul says, " Looking for the blessed hope and the coming of the
glory of the great God, and our Saviour, Jesus Christ" (Epis. to
Titus, ii . 13) , and to the Romans, ix . 5 : " Of whom is Christ ,
according to the flesh , who is over all things God, blessed for ever."
We likewise read in St. Luke, that Zachary, prophesying regard-
ing his Son, says, " And thou , child, shalt be called the prophet of
the Highest, for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to pre-
pare his ways" (Luke, i . 76 ) ; and again, ver. 78 : " Through the
bowels of the mercy of our God, in which the Orient from on high
has visited us."
6. Another most convincing proof of the Divinity of the Word
is deduced from the 1st chapter of St. John , already quoted. In
it these words occur : " All things were made by him , and without
him was made nothing that was made." Now any one denying
the Divinity of the Word must admit from these words that either
the Word was eternal, or that the Word was made by himself. It
is evidently repugnant to reason to say the Word made himself,
nemo dat quod non habet. Therefore, we must admit that the
Word was not made , otherwise St. John would be stating a false-
hood when he says, " Without him was made nothing that was
made." This is the argument of St. Augustin (4 ) , and from these
words he clearly proves that the Word is of the same substance as
the Father : " Neque enim dicit omnia, nisi quæ facta sunt, idest
omnem creaturam ; unde liquido apparet, si facta substantia est,
ipsum factum non esse , per quem facta sunt omnia. Et si factum
non est, creatura non est ; si autem creatura non est, ejusdem cum
Patre substantiæ cujus Pater, ergo facta substantia, quæ Deus non
est, creatura est ; et quæ creatura non est, Deus est. Et si non est
Filius ejusdem substantiæ cujus Pater, ergo facta substantia est :
non omnia per ipsum facta sunt ; et omnia per ipsum facta sunt.
Ut unius igitur ejusdemque cum Patre substantiæ est, et ideo non
tantum Deus , sed et verus Deus." Such are the words of the
Holy Father ; the passage is rather long, but most convincing.
(4) St. Aug. l. n. de Trinit. cap. 6.
404 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(5) St. Athan. Orat. con. Arian. n. 9. (6) St. Cyprian, de Unit. Eccles. (7) St.
Aug. Tract. 48 in Joan. (8) St. Joan. Chrysos. Hom. 6 in Jo.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 405
(9) St. Athan. Orat. 4 ad Arian. (10) St. August. lib. 1, con. Maxim. cap. 24.
406 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(11 ) St. August. Ep. 66. (12) St. Hilar. 7. 7, de Trin. n. 21. (13) St. Amb.
7. 1, de Fide ad Gratian, c. 5. (14) St. Aug. l. 6, de Trinit. c. 5.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 407
before : " Nemo dat quod non habet” —No one can give what he
has not.
14. They assert, secondly, that the words " in the beginning"
must be understood in the same way as in the passage in the 1st
chapter of Genesis ; " In the beginning, God created the heavens and
the earth ;" and as these were created in the beginning, so also the
Word was created . The answer to this is, that Moses says : " In
the beginning God created ;" but St. John does not say in the be-
ginning the Word was created , but the Word was , and that by him
all things were made.
15. They object, in the third place, that by the expression ,
"the Word," is not understood a person distinct from the Father,
but the internal wisdom of the Father distinct from him, and by
which all things were made. This explanation , however, cannot
stand, for St. John, speaking of the Word, says : " By him all
things were made," and towards the end of the chapter : " The
Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us;" now we cannot
understand these expressions as referring to the internal wisdom of
the Father, but indubitably to the Word , by whom all things were
made, and who , being the Son of God , became flesh , as is declared
in the same place : " And we saw his glory, the glory as it were of
the only-begotten of the Father." This is confirmed by the Apostle,
when he says, that by the Son (called by St. John the Word) the
world was created. In these days hath spoken to us by his Son,
whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made
the world" (Heb. i . 2 ) . Besides, the eternity of the Word is proved
by the text of the Apocalypse (i. 8) : " I am Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the end, who is, and who was, and who is to
come ;" and by the Epistle to the Hebrews ( xiii . 8 ) , " Jesus Christ,
yesterday, and to-day, and the same for ever."
16. Arius always denied that the Word was eternal , but some of
his latter followers, convinced by the Scriptures, admitted that he
was eternal, but an eternal creature , and not a Divine Person. The
answer given by many theologians to this newly invented error
is, that the very existence of an eternal creature is an impos-
sibility. That a creature, they say, should be said to be created,
it is necessary that it should be produced out of nothing, so that
from a state of non-existence, it passes to a state of existence, so
that we must suppose a time in which this creature did not exist.
But this reply is not sufficient to prove the fallacy of the argument,
for St. Thomas (15 ) teaches , and the doctrine is most probable, that
in order to assert that a thing is created, it is not necessary to sup-
pose a time in which it was not, so that its non-existence preceded
its existence ; but it is quite enough to suppose a creature, as nothing
18. Now, it being admitted that by the Word all things were
made, it is a necessary consequence that the Word was not made
by himself, for otherwise there would exist a being made, but not
made by the Word , and this is opposed to the text of St. John , who
says that " by him all things were made." This is the great argu-
ment of St. Augustin against the Arians, when they assert that the
Word was made : " How," says the Saint ( 17), " can it be possible
that the Word is made, when God by the Word made all things ?
If the Word ofGod himself was made, by what other Word was
he made ? If you say it was by the Word of the Word, that, I say,
is the only Son of God ; but, if you say it is not by the Word of
the Word, then you must admit that that Word, by whom all things
were made, was not made himself, for he could not, who made all
things, be made by himself.
19. The Arians, too much pressed by this argument to answer
it, endeavour to do so by a quibble- St . John, say they, does not
tell us that all things were made by Him (ab ipso) , but rather
through Him (per ipsum), and hence they infer that the Word was
not the principal cause of the creation of the world , but only an
instrument the Father made use ofin creating it, and therefore they
agree that the Word is not God. But we answer, that the creation
of the world, as described by David and St. Paul, is attributed to
the Son of God. " In the beginning, O Lord," says David, “ thou
foundedst the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands"
(Psalm ci . 26) ; and St. Paul, writing to the Hebrews, dictates
almost a whole chapter to prove the same thing ; see these passages :
" But to the Son, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever" (i . 8) ;
and again, verse 13, " But to which of his angels said he at any
time, sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool."
Here St. Paul declares that that Son of God called by St. John
" the Word" has created the heavens and the earth , and is really
God, and as God, was not a simple instrument, but the Creator-in-
Chief of the world . Neither will the quibble of the Arians on the
words per ipsum and ab ipso avail, for in many places of the Scrip-
tures we find the word per conjoined with the principal cause : Pos-
sedi hominem per Deum (Gen. iv . ) ; Per me Reges regnant (Prov.
viii .) ; Paulus vocatus Apostolus Jesu Christi per voluntatem Dei
(1 Cor. i .)
20. There is another proof of the Divinity of the Word in the
5th chapter of St. John , where the Father wills that all honour
should be given to the Son the same as to himself: " But he hath
given all judgment to the Son , that all may honour the Son as they
honour the Father" (John, v. 22 , 23 ) . The Divinity of the Word
and of the Holy Ghost is also proved by the precept given to the
Apostles : " Go ye, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name ofthe Father, and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost"
(Matt. xxviii. 19) . The Holy Fathers, St. Athanasius, St. Hilary,
St. Fulgentius, and several others, made use of this text to convince
the Arians, for baptism being ordained in the name of the three
Divine Persons , it is clear that they have equal power and authority ,
and are God ; for if the Son and the Holy Ghost were creatures we
would be baptized in the name of the Father, who is God, and of
two creatures ; but St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, states that
this is opposed to our Faith, " Lest any should say that you are
baptized in my name" ( 1 Cor. i . 15) .
21. Finally, there are two powerful arguments, to prove the
Divinity ofthe Word. The first is taken from the power mani-
fested by the Word in the fact related in the fifth chapter of St.
Luke, where Christ, in healing the man sick of the palsy , pardoned
him his sins, saying : " Man, thy sins are forgiven thee" (Luke, v.
20) . Now, God alone has the power of forgiving sins, and the
very Pharisees knew this, for they said : " Who is this who
speaketh blasphemies ? who can forgive sins but God alone ?"
(Luke, v. 21).
22. The second proof is taken from the very words of Christ
himself, in which he declares himself to be the Son of God . He
several times spoke in this manner, but most especially when he
asked his disciples what they thought of him : " Jesus saith to them,
Whom do you think I am ? Simon Peter answered and said:
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God . And Jesus an-
swering, said to him : Blessed art thou , Simon Barjona, because
flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is
in heaven" (Matt. xvi . 15 , 17 ) . He also declared it as we have
seen above, when Caiphas asked him, " Art thou Christ, the Son
of the Blessed God ? And Jesus said to him, I am" (Mark, xiv.
61 ) . See now the argument. The Arians say that Christ is not
the true Son of God , but they never said he was a liar ; on the con-
trary, they praise him, as the most excellent of all men and
enriched, above all others, with virtues and divine gifts. Now, if
this man (according to them) called himself the Son of God, when
he was but a mere creature, or if he even permitted that others
should consider him the Son of God, and that so many should be
scandalized in hearing him called the Son of God , when he was
not so in reality , he ought at least declare the truth , otherwise he
was the most impious of men. But no ; he never said a word,
though the Jews were under the impression that he was guilty of blas-
phemy, and allowed himself to be condemned and crucified on that
charge, for this was the great crime he was accused of before Pilate,
" according to the Law he ought to die, because he made himself
the Son of God" (John , xix . 7) . In fine, we reply to all opponents,
after Jesus Christ expressly declared himself the Son of God , as we
remarked in St. Mark's Gospel, chap . xiv. 62 , " I am ," though this
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 411
declaration was what cost him his life, who will dare to deny, after
it, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?
SEC. II. THE DIVINITY OF THE WORD PROVED BY THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY
FATHERS AND COUNCILS.
66
Son is true God, like the Father. Neither," he says, " the Lord
(the Father) nor the Holy Ghost would have absolutely called him
God, if he was not true God." And again (5 ) , he says, " the Father
is the measure, and he is infinite , and the Son containing him must
be infinite likewise." They object that St. Iræneus has said that
the day of judgment is known to the Father alone, and that the
Father is greater than the Son ; but this has been already answered
(vide n. 10) ; and again , in another place, where the Saint says,
66
Christ, with the Father, is the God of the living" (6).
28. Athenagoras, a Christian philosopher of Athens, in his
Apology for the Christians, writes to the Emperors Antoninus and
Commodus, that the reason why we say that all things were made
by the Son is this : " Whereas," he says, " the Father and the Son
are one and the same, and the Son is in the Father, and the Father
in the Son, by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Mind and
Word is the Son of God." In these words : " Whereas the Father
and the Son are one," he explains the unity of nature of the Son
with the Father ; and in the other, " the Son is in the Father, and
the Father in the Son ," that peculiarity of the Trinity called by
theologians Circuminsession , by which one Person is in the others.
He immediately adds : " We assert that the Son the Word is God,
as is also the Holy Ghost united in power."
29. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, under the Emperor Marcus
Aurelius, says (7) : " We ought to know that our Lord Christ is
true God and true man- God from God the Father- man from
Mary, his human Mother." Clement of Alexandria ( 8 ) writes :
" Now the Word himself has appeared to man, who alone is both
at the same time God and man .' And again he says (9) : " God
hates nothing, nor neither does the Word, for both are one, to wit,
God, for he has said, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God." Origen ( 10) wrote against
Celsus, who objected to the Christians, that they adored Jesus
Christ as God, though he was dead, and he thus expresses himself:
"Be it known to our accusers that we believe this Jesus to be God
and the Son of God." And again he says ( 11 ) , that although Christ
suffered as man, the Word who was God did not suffer. " We
distinguish," he says, " between the nature of the Divine Word,
which is God, and the soul of Jesus." I do not quote the passage
which follows, as it is on that theologians found their doubts of the
faith of Origen, as the reader may see by consulting Nat. Alexan-
der ( 12), but there can be no doubt, from the passage already
quoted, that Origen confessed that Jesus was God and the Son of
God.
(5) St. Iræn. ad Hær. l. 4, c. 8. (6) Idem, l. 3, c. 11. (7) Theoph. l. 5 ; Allegor.
in Evang. (8) Clem. Alex . in Admon. ad Græcos. (9) Idem, l. 1 ; Pædagog. c. 8.
(10) Origen, l. 3, cont. Celsum. (11) Idem, l. 4, cont. Celsum. (12) Nat. Alex.
sec. 3, Diss. 16, art. 2.
414 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(13 ) Dionys. Alex. apud St. Athan. t. 1, p. 561. (14) St. Greg. Thaum. p. 1, Oper.
apud Greg. Nyssen. in Vita Greg. Thaum. (15) St. Hier. de Scrip. Eccles. c. 34.
(16) Theodoret, Dial. 1 , p. 37. ( 17) St. Cyprian, de lib. Unit. Eccles. ( 18) Idem,
I de Idol. vanit. (19) Tertull. Apol. c. 21. (20) Idem, lib. con. Praxeam, c. 25.
(21 ) Vide Juvenin. t. 3, q. 2, c. 1 , a. 1, sec. 2 ; Tournelly, t. 2, q. 4, art. 3, sec. 2 ; An-
toin. Theol. Trac. de Trin. e. 1, art. 3.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 415
(22) Socinus, Epist. ad Radoc. in t. 1, suor. Oper. (1) St. Ambrose, l. 5, de Fide,
e. 8, n. 115.
416 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that
sent me" (John, vi. 38) ; and also that passage of St. Paul : " And
when all things shall be subdued unto him , then the Son also him-
self shall be subject unto him, that put all things under him"
( 1 Corinth. xv. 28) . The Son, therefore, obeys, and is subject
to the Father, and, therefore, is not God. In regard to the first
text, we answer that Jesus Christ then explained the two wills,
according to the two natures he had to wit, the human will, by
which he was to obey the Father, and the Divine will, which was
common both to him and the Father. As far as the second text
goes, St. Paul only says, that the Son, as man, will be always sub-
ject to the Father ; and that we do not deny. How, then, can it
interfere with our belief in his Divinity ? Third.-They object
that passage of the Acts of the Apostles (iii . 13) : " The God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of
our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus , whom you , indeed , de-
livered up," &c . See here, they say, how a distinction is made
between the Son and between the Father, who is called God. We
answer, that this refers to Christ as man , and not as God ; for the
words, " he glorified his Son, " are to be understood , as referring to
Christ in his human nature. St. Ambrose, besides, gives another
answer, when he says, " that if the Father is understood by the
name of God alone , it is because from him is all authority."
35. The following objections are just of the same character as
the preceding. They object, fourthly, that text of the Proverbs :
" The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he
made anything from the beginning " (Prov . viii . 22 ) . This is the
text, according to the Vulgate, and the Hebrew original is just the
same ; but in the Greek Septuagint it is thus read : " The Lord
created me in the beginning of his ways." Therefore , the Arians
say, the Divine Wisdom which is here spoken of was created, and
they strengthen their argument, by quoting from Ecclesiasticus
(xxiv. 14) : " From the beginning, and before all ages, I was
created." We answer, first of all, the true reading is that of the
Vulgate, and that alone, according to the Decree of the Council of
Trent, we are bound to obey ; but though we even take the Greek,
it is of no consequence, as the word created (here used in the text
of Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus) , as St. Jerome and St. Augustin (2)
teach us, does not exactly mean creation, for the Greeks promis-
cuously used the words created and begotten , to signify sometimes
creation, sometimes generation, as appears from Deuteronomy
(xxxii. 16) : " Thou hast forsaken the God that begot thee , and
hast forgotten the Lord that created thee." Hence generation is
taken for creation . There is a passage also in the Book of Proverbs,
which , if we consider the text, can only be understood of the
(2) St. Hieron. in Cap. 4 ; Ep. ad Eph. St. August. lib. de Fil. & Simb.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 417
(3) St. Hilar. lib. de Synod. c. 5. (4) St. Aug. l. 5, de Trin. c. 12 ; St. Fulgent.
lib. contra serm. fastid. Arian. St. Athanas. Orat. contra Arian. (5) St. Cyril, 1. 25 ;
Thesaur. (6) St. Basil, l. 4, con. Eunom. (7) Tertul. con. Prax. c. 7. (8) St.
Ambrose, l. 1 , de Fide.
2D
418 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
whole Trinity, which we invoke when we say: " Our Father, who
art in heaven." We thus , also, answer the other text adduced from
St. Paul to Timothy : " For there is one God and one Mediator of
God and man, the man , Christ Jesus ( 1 Tim. ii . 5) . The expres-
sion, " one God," does not exclude the Divinity of Jesus Christ ;
but, as St. Augustin remarks, the words which immediately follow,
66 one Mediator of God and man ," prove that Jesus Christ is both
God and man . " God alone," the Saint says, " could not feel death ,
nor man alone could not subdue it."
40. They object, eighthly, the text : " But of that day or time,
no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but
the Father " (Mark , xiii . 32) . So, say they, the Son is not omni-
scient. Some have answered this, by saying, that the Son did not
know the day of judgment as man, but only as God ; but this does
not meet the objection, since we know from the Scriptures, that to
Christ, even as man, the fulness of knowledge was given : " And
we saw the glory, the glory as it were of the only-begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth " (John , i. 14) ; and again : " In19
whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
(Colos. ii . 3) . And St. Ambrose ( 10) , treating of this point, says :
" How could he be ignorant of the day of judgment, who told the
hour, and the place, and the signs, and the causes of judgment."
The African Church, therefore, obliged Leporius to retract, when
he said , that Christ, as man, did not know the day ofjudgment, and
he at once obeyed . We, therefore, answer, that it is said the Son
did not know the day of judgment, as it would be of no use, nor fit
that men should know it. This is the way in which St. Augustin
explains it. We are, therefore, to conclude that the Father did not
wish that the Son should make known the day, and the Son , as his
Father's Legate, said in his name, he did not know it, not having
received a commission from his Father to make it known.
41. They object, ninthly, that the Father alone is called good ,
to the exclusion of the Son : " And Jesus said to him : Why callest
thou me good ? None is good but one, that is God" (Mark, x. 18 ).
Christ, therefore, they say, confesses that he is not God. St. Am-
brose ( 11) answers this. Christ, he says, wished to reprove the young
man , who called him good, and still would not believe he was God,
whereas, God alone is essentially good ; it is, says the Saint, as if
our Lord should say : " Either do not call me good, or believe me
to be God."
42. They object, tenthly, that Christ has not full power over all
creatures, since he said to the mother of St. James and St. John :
" To sit on my right or left hand, is not mine to give you" ( Matt.
xx. 23). We answer, it cannot be denied, according to the Scrip-
tures, that Christ received all power from his Father : " Knowing
that the Father had given him all things into his hands" (John , xiii.
3) ; " All things are delivered to me by my Father” ( Matt . xi. 27) ;
" All power is given to me in heaven , and on earth" (Matt. xxviii.
18). How, then, are we to understand his inability to give places
to the sons of Zebedee ? We have the answer from our Lord him-
self: " It is not mine," he says, "to give to you, but to them for
whom it is prepared by my Father." See, then, the answer : " It
is not mine to give you ;" not because he had not the power of
giving it, but I cannot give it to you, who think you have a right
to heaven, because you are related to me ; for heaven is the portion
of those only for whom it has been prepared by my Father ; to
them, Christ, as being equal to the Father, can give it. " As all
things," says St. Augustin (12 ), " which the Father has, are mine,
this is also mine , and I have prepared it with the Father."
43. They object, eleventhly, that text : " The Son cannot do
anything from himself, but what he sees the Father doing" ( John ,
v. 19) . St. Thomas ( 13) answers this. " When it said that the
Son cannot do anything for himself, no power is taken from the
Son, which the Father has, for it is immediately added : " For
what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth, in like man-
ner ;" but it is there that the Son has the power, from his Father,
from whom he also has his Nature." Hence, Hilary ( 14 ) says :
" This is the Unity of the Divine Nature ; ut ita per se agat Filius
quod non agat a se." The same reply will meet all the other texts
they adduce, as : " My doctrine is not mine" (John , vii . 16 ) ; “ The
Father loves the Son, and shows him all things" (John, v. 20) ;
" All things are delivered to me by my Father" ( Matt . xi. 27) . Ali
these texts, prove, they say, that the Son cannot be God by Nature
and Substance. But we answer, that the Son, being generated by
the Father, receives everything from him by communication , and
the Father, generating, communicates to him all he has, except the
Paternity ; and this is the distinction between him and the Son , for
the power, the wisdom , and the will , are all the same in the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Arians adduce several other
texts, but the reader will find no especial difficulty in answering
them, by merely referring to what he has already read.
REFUTATION III.
1. THOUGH Arius did not deny the Divinity of the Holy Ghost,
still it was a necessary consequence of his principles, for, denying
the Son to be God, the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father
and the Son , could not be God. However, Aezius, Eunomius,
Eudoxius, and all those followers of his, who blasphemously taught
that the Son was not like unto the Father, attacked also the Divinity
of the Holy Ghost, and the chief defender and propagator of this
heresy was Macedonius. In the refutation of the heresy of Sabellius,
we will prove, in opposition to the Socinians, that the Holy Ghost
is the Third Person of the Trinity, subsisting and really distinct
from the Father and the Son ; here we will prove that the Holy
Ghost is true God, equal and consubstantial to the Father and the
Son.
SECT. I. THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY GHOST PROVED FROM SCRIPTURES, FROM THE
TRADITIONS OF THE FATHERS, AND FROM GENERAL COUNCILS.
be invalid : " He who curtails the Trinity , and baptizes in the name
of the Father alone, or in the name of the Son alone, or omitting
the Holy Ghost, with the Father and Son , performs nothing, for
initiation consists in the whole Trinity being named ." The Saint
says that ifwe omit the name ofthe Holy Ghost the baptism is invalid,
because baptism is the Sacrament in which we profess the Faith,
and this Faith requires a belief in all the three Divine Persons
united in one essence , so that he who denies one of the Persons
denies God altogether. " And so," follows on St. Athanasius,
" Baptism would be invalid, when administered in the belief that
the Son or the Holy Ghost were mere creatures." He who divides
the Son from the Father, or lowers the Spirit to the condition of a
mere creature, has neither the Son nor the Father, and justly, for,
as it is one baptism which is conferred in the Father, and the Son,
and the Holy Ghost and it is one Faith in Him, as the Apostle says ,
so the Holy Trinity, existing in itself, and united in itself, has, in
itself, nothing of created things. Thus, as the Trinity is one and
undivided, so is the Faith of three Persons united in it, one and un-
divided . We, therefore, are bound to believe that the name of the
Holy Ghost, that is, the name of the Third Person expressed by
these two words, so frequently used in the Scriptures , is not an
imaginary name, or casually invented , but the name of the Third
Person, God, like the Father and the Son. We should remember,
likewise, that the expression, Holy Ghost, is , properly speaking, but
one word, for either of its component parts might be applied to the
Father or the Son, for both are Holy, both are Spirit, but this word
is the proper name of the Third Person of the Trinity . " Why
would Jesus Christ," adds St. Athanasius, " join the name of the
Holy Ghost with those of the Father and the Son, if he were a
mere creature ? is it to render the three Divine Persons unlike each
other ? was there anything wanting to God that he should assume a
different substance, to render it glorious like unto himself?"
4. Besides this text of St. Matthew, already quoted, in which
our Lord not only orders his disciples to baptize in the name of the
three Persons, but to teach the Faith : " Teach all nations , baptizing
them in the name of the Father," &c., we have that text of St.
John : " There are three who give testimony in heaven , the Father,
and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one "
( 1 John, v. 7) . These words ( as we have already explained
in the Refutation of Sabellianism , n. 9) , evidently prove the unity
of nature, and the distinction of the three Divine Persons (16).
The text says, " These three are one ;" if the three testimonies are
one and the same, then each of them has the same Divinity, the
same substance, for otherwise how, as St. Isidore ( 17) says, could
the text of St. John be verified ? " Nain cum tria sunt unum sunt."
St. Paul says the same, in sending his blessing to his disciples in
Corinth : " The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of
God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all"
(2 Cor. xiii. 13).
5. We find the same expressions used in those passages of the
Scriptures which speak of the sending of the Holy Ghost to the
Church, as in St. John ( xiv. 16 ) : " I will ask the Father, and he
will give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for
ever. Remark how our Lord uses the words, " another Paraclete,"
to mark the equality existing between himself and the Holy Ghost.
Again, he says, in the same Gospel ( xv. 26 ) : " When the Para-
clete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of
Truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of
me." Here Jesus says, " he will send" the Spirit of Truth ; now
this Spirit which he will send is not his own Spirit, for his own
Spirit he could communicate or give, but not " send ," for sending
means the transmission of something distinct from the person who
sends. He adds, " Who proceeds from the Father ;" and " proces-
sion," in respect of the Divine Persons, implies equality ; and it is
this very argument the Fathers availed themselves of against the
Arians, to prove the Divinity of the Word, as we may see in the
writings of St. Ambrose ( 18) . The reason is this : the procession
from another is to receive the same existence from the principle
from which the procession is made, and , therefore , if the Holy
Ghost proceeds from the Father, he receives the Divinity from the
Father in the same manner as the Father himself has it.
6. Another great proof is, that we see the Holy Ghost called
God in the Scriptures, like the Father, without any addition ,
restriction, or inequality. Thus Isaias, in the beginning of his 6th
chapter, thus speaks of the Supreme God : " I saw the Lord sitting
upon a throne high and elevated ; ......upon it stood the seraphim,
and they cried to one another, Holy, Holy , Holy, the Lord
God of Hosts, all the earth is full of his glory ; ..... and I heard
the voice of the Lord saying, ...... Go, and thou shalt say to this
people, hearing, hear and understand not...... Blind the heart
of this people, and make their ears heavy." Now, St. Paul informs
us that this Supreme God , of whom the Prophet speaks, is the Holy
Ghost. Here are his words : " Well did the Holy Ghost speak to
our fathers by Isaias the Prophet, saying : " Go to this people, and say
to them , with the ear you shall hear," &c. (Acts , xxviii . 25 , 26) . So
we here see that the Holy Ghost is that same God called by Isaias
the Lord God of Hosts. St. Basil (19) makes a beautiful reflection
regarding this expression, the Lord God of Hosts. Isaias, in the
prayer quoted, refers it to the Father. St. John (cap. 12 ), applies it
to the Son, as is manifest from the 37th and the following verse,
where this text is referred to, and St. Paul applies it to the Holy
Ghost: " The Prophet," says the Saint, " mentions the Person of
the Father, in whom the Jews believed, the Evangelist the Son,
Paul the Holy Spirit"-" Propheta inducit Patris in quem Judei
credebant personam Evangelista Filii , Paulus Spiritus, illum ipsum
qui visus fuerat unum Dominum Sabaoth communiter nominantes.
Sermonem quem de hypostasi instituerunt distruxere indistincta
manente in eis de uno Deo sententia." How beautifully the Holy
Doctor shows that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are
three distinct Persons, but still the one and the same God, speak-
ing by the mouth of his Prophets. St. Paul, also, speaking of that
passage in the Psalms (xciv. 9) , " Your fathers tempted me," says,
that the God the Hebrews then tempted was the Holy Ghost ;
" therefore," says the Apostle, " as the Holy Ghost saith ..
yourfathers tempted me" (Heb. iii. 7 , 9) .
7. St. Peter confirms this doctrine (Acts, i. 16) , when he says.
that the God who spoke by the mouth of the Prophets is the Holy
Ghost himself: " The Scripture must be fulfilled , which the Holy
Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David." And in the second
Epistle (i. 21 ), he says : " For prophecy came not by the will of
man at any time, but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the
Holy Ghost." St. Peter, likewise , calls the Holy Ghost God, in
contradistinction to creatures. When charging Ananias with a lie,
he says : "Why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst
lie to the Holy Ghost,. . . . . .thou hast not lied to man , but to God"
(Acts, v. 4) . It is most certain that St. Peter, in this passage,
intended to say that the Third Person of the Trinity was God,
and thus St. Basil , St. Ambrose , St. Gregory Nazianzen ( 20 ) , and
several other Fathers , together with St. Augustin ( 21 ), understood
it so. St. Augustin says : " Showing that the Holy Ghost is God ,
you have not lied ," he says, "to man, but to God."
8. Another strong proof of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is,
that the Scriptures attribute to him qualities which belong alone
by nature to God : First.- Immensity, which fills the world: " Do
not I fill the heaven and the earth, saith the Lord ?" (Jer. xxiii.
24). And the Scripture then says that the Holy Ghost fills the
world : " For the Spirit of the Lord hath filled the whole world"
(Wisdom, i. 7) . Therefore the Holy Ghost is God . St. Ambrose
says (22 ) : " Of what creature can it be said what is written of the
Holy Ghost, that he filled all things ? I will pour forth my Spirit
over all flesh, &c . , for it is the Lord alone can fill all things, who
says, I fill the heaven and the earth." Besides, we read in the
Acts (ii. 4) , " They were all filled with the Holy Ghost." " Do
we ever hear," says Didimus, the " Scriptures say, filled by a
(20) St. Basil, l. 1, con. Eunom. et lib. de Sp. S. c. 16 ; St. Ambro. l. 1, de Spir. S.
c. 4 ; St. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. 37. (21) St. Augus. 1. 2, con. Maximin. c. 21.
(22) St. Ambrose, l. 1, de S. S. c. 7.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 425
( 23) St. Athanas. Epis. 1 , ad Serapion, n. 22. (24) St. Athanas. ibid.
426 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES,
(25) Didim. l. de St. San. (26) St. Augus. in 1 Cor. c. 6 ; Coll. eum Maximin. in
Arian. (27) St. Fulgentius, l. 3 ad Trasimund c. 35.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 427
(28) St. Basil, l. 1, de S. Sancto, c. 25. (29) St. Basil, 7. de S. Sancto, c. 29.
428 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
equally, and therefore believed them all three to be truly and sub-
stantially God. What makes this stronger is , that St. Clement is
contrasting the three Divine Persons with the gods of the Gentiles,
who had no life , while God in the Scriptures is called " the living
God." It is of no importance either, that the words quoted are
not found in the two Epistles of St. Clement, for we have only
some fragments of the Second Epistle, and we may, therefore ,
believe for certain, that St. Basil had the whole Epistle before him,
of which we have only a part.
15. St. Justin, in his second Apology, says : " We adore and
venerate, with truth and reason, himself (the Father) , and he who
comes from him . ..... .. .the Son and the Holy Ghost." Thus
St. Justin pays the same adoration to the Son and the Holy Ghost
as to the Father. Athenagoras, in his Apology, says : "We be-
lieve in God, and his Son, the Word , and the Holy Ghost, united
in power : .For the Son is the mind, the word, and the
wisdom ofthe Father, and the Spirit is as the light flowing from
fire." St. Iræneus ( 30) teaches that God, the Father, has created
and now governs all things, both by the Word and by the Holy
Ghost. " For nothing," he says, " is wanting to God, who makes,
and disposes, and governs all things, by the Word and by the
Holy Ghost." We here see, according to St. Iræneus, that God
has no need of anything ; and he afterwards says, that he does all
things by the Word and by the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost
is, therefore, God, the same as the Father. He tells us, in another
part of his works (31 ) , that the Holy Ghost is a creator, and
eternal, unlike a created spirit. " For that which is made is,"
he says, " different from the maker ; what is made is made in
time, but the Spirit is eternal." St. Lucian , who lived about
the year 160, says, in a Dialogue, entitled Philopatris, attri-
buted to him, addressing a Gentile who interrogates him : " What,
then , shall I swear for you ?" Triphon, the Defender of the
Faith, answers : " God reigning on high.........the Son of the
Father, the Spirit proceeding from the Father, one from three,
and three from one." This passage is so clear that it requires
no explanation. Clement of Alexandria says (32) : " The Father
of all is one ; the Word of all is also one ; and the Holy Ghost
is one , who is also everywhere." In another passage he clearly
explains the Divinity and Consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost with
the Father and the Son ( 33 ) : " We return thanks to the Father
alone, and to the Son, together with the Holy Ghost, in all things
one, in whom are all things, by whom all things are in one, by
whom that is which always is." See here how he explains that the
three Persons are equal in fact, and that they are but one in essence.
(30) St. Iræn 7. 1, ad Hæres. c. 19. (31 ) St. Iræn. l. 5 , c. 12. (32 ) Clem.
Alex. Padag. l. 1 , c. 6. (38) Idem, l. 3, c. 7.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 429
Tertullian ( 34) professes his belief in the " Trinity of one Divinity,
the Father, the Son , and the Holy Ghost ;" and in another place (35),
he says : " We define, indeed , two, the Father and the Son , nay,
three, with the Holy Ghost ; but we never profess to believe in two
Gods, although the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy
Ghost God, and each one is God," &c. St. Cyprian ( 36) , speaking
of the Trinity, says : " Whenthe three are one, how could the Holy
Ghost be agreeable to him, if he were the enemy of the Father or
the Son ?" And, in the same Epistle, he proves that Baptism ad-
ministered in the name of Christ alone is of no avail , for " Christ ,"
he says, " orders that the Gentiles should be baptized in the full and
united Trinity." St. Dionisius Romanus, in his Epistle against
Sabellius, says : " The admirable and Divine unity is not , therefore ,
to be divided into three Deities ; but we are bound to believe in
God, the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus, his Son , and in the
Holy Ghost." I omit the innumerable testimonies of the Fathers
of the following centuries ; but I here merely note some of those
who have purposely attacked the heresy of Macedonius , and these
are-St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory
of Nyssa, St. Epiphanius, Didimus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St.
Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Hilary (37) . These Fathers, imme-
diately on the appearance of the Macedonian heresy, all joined in
condemning it— a clear proof that it was contrary to the Faith of
the Universal Church.
16. This heresy was condemned , besides, by several Councils,
both general and particular. First . It was condemned (two years
after Macedonius had broached it) by the Council of Alexandria ,
celebrated by St. Athanasius, in the year 372 , in which it was de-
cided that the Holy Ghost was consubstantial in the Trinity. In
the year 377, it was condemned by the Holy See, in the Synod of
Illiricum ; and about the same time, as Theodoret ( 38 ) informs us ,
it was condemned in two other Roman Synods, by the Pope , St.
Damasus. Finally, in the year 381 , it was condemned in the first
Council of Constantinople, under St. Damasus ; and this Article
was annexed to the symbol of the Faith : " We believe in the Holy
Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, proceeding from the Father, and
with the Father and the Son to be adored and glorified , who spoke
by the Prophets." He to whom the same worship is to be given
as to the Father and the Son , is surely God. Besides, this Council
has been always held as ecumenical by the whole Church, for
though composed of only one hundred and fifty Oriental bishops,
still, as the Western bishops, about the same time, defined the same
(34) Tertul. de Pudic. c. 21. (35) Idem, con. Praxeam, c. 3. (36) St. Cyp.
Ep. ad Juba. (37) St. Athan. Ep. ad Serap.; St. Basil, l. 3, 5, cont. Eunom. & l. de
Spi. S.; St. Greg. Naz. l. 5, de Theol.; St. Greg. Nys. l. ad Eust.; St. Epiphan. Hier. 74 ;
Didimus, . de S. San.; St. Cyril, Hieros. cat. 16, 17 ; St. Cyril, Alex. 7. 7, de Trin. &
1. S. Sanc.; St. Hil. de Trinit. (38) Theodoret, l. 2, Hist. c. 22.
430 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
Article of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, under St. Damasus , this
decision has been always considered as the decision of the Univer-
sal Church ; and the subsequent General Councils-that is, the
Council of Chalcedon , the second and third of Constantinople, and
the second of Nice-confirmed the same symbol. Nay more, the
fourth Council of Constantinople pronounced an anathema against
Macedonius, and defined that the Holy Ghost is consubstantial to
the Father and to the Son . Finally, the fourth Council of Lateran
thus concludes : " We define that there is but one true God alone ,
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, three Persons indeed ,
but only one essence, substance , or simple nature .....And that all
these Persons are consubstantial, omnipotent, and co-eternal , the one
beginning of all things."
17. First, the Socinians, who have revived the ancient heresies,
adduce a negative argument. They say that the Holy Ghost is
never called God in the Scriptures, nor is ever proposed to us to be
adored and invoked . But St. Augustin ( 1 ) thus answers this argu-
ment, addressing the Macedonian Maximinus : " When have you
read that the Father was not born, but self-existing ? and still it is
no less true," &c. The Saint means to say that many things in the
Scriptures are stated , not in express terms, but in equivalent ones,
which prove the truth of what is stated, just as forcibly ; and , for a
proof of that, the reader can refer to N. 4 and 6 , where the Divinity
of the Holy Ghost is incontestibly proved , if not in express, in equi-
valent terms.
18. Secondly, they object that St. Paul , in his first Epistle to the
Corinthians, speaking of the benefits conferred by God on mankind ,
mentions the Father and the Son, but not the Holy Ghost. We
answer, that it is not necessary, in speaking of God, that we should
always expressly name the three Divine Persons, for, when we speak
of one, we speak of the three, especially in speaking of the opera-
tions, ad extra, to which the three Divine Persons concur in the
same manner. "Whosoever is blessed in Christ," says St. Am-
brose (2), " is blessed in the name of the Father, and ofthe Son, and
of the Holy Ghost , because there is one name and one power ; thus,
likewise , when the operation of the Holy Ghost is pointed out, it is
referred, not only to the Holy Ghost, but also to the Father and
the Son."
19. They object, thirdly, that the primitive Christians knew
nothing ofthe Holy Ghost, as we learn from the Acts of the Apos-
tles, when St. Paul asked some newly-baptized , if they had received
the Holy Ghost, they answered : " We have not so much as heard
(1) St. Augus. 1. 2, alias 3, cont. Maxim. c. 3. (2) St. Amb. l. 1 , de Sanc. c. 3.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 431
(3) St. Augus. Trac. 99, in Joan. (4) St. Ambrose, l. 2, de Sp. San. c. 12. (5) St.
Augus. Coll. cum Maxim. (6) St. Ambrose, l. de Sp. San. c. 11.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 433
REFUTATION IV .
THE HERESY OF THE GREEKS, WHO ASSERT THAT THE HOLY GHOST
PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER ALONE, AND NOT FROM THE FATHER
AND THE SON.
SEC. I.- IT IS PROVED THAT THE HOLY GHOST PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER AND
THE SON.
text not only proves the dogma decided by the Council of Con-
stantinople against the Arians and Macedonians, that the Holy
Ghost proceeds from the Father (" And in the Holy Ghost the
Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father ") ; but also
that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, as is shown by the
words : " Whom I will send you ; " and the same expression is
repeated in St. John in other places : " For if I go not, the Para-
clete will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you "
(John, xvi. 7). " But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the
Father will send in my name " (John , xiv . 26 ) . Inthe Divinity, a Per-
son is not spoken of as sent, unless by another Person from whom
he proceeds. The Father, as he is the origin of the Divinity, is
never spoken of in the Scriptures as being sent. The Son, as he
proceeds from the Father alone, is said to be sent, but it is never
thus said of the Holy Ghost : " As the Father living, sent me, &c. ,
God sent his Son, made from a woman, &c." When, therefore , the
Holy Ghost is said to be sent from the Father and the Son, he
proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father ; especially as this
mission of one Divine Person from another cannot be understood
either in the way of command or instruction, or any other way,
for in the Divine Persons both authority and wisdom are equal.
We, therefore, understand one Person as sent by another, according
to the origin, and according to the procession of one Person from the
other, this procession implying neither inequality nor dependence. If,
therefore, the Holy Ghost is said to be sent by the Son , he proceeds
from the Son. " He is sent by him," says St. Augustin ( 1 ) , " from
whence he emanates," and he adds, " the Father is not said to be
sent, for he has not from whom to be, or from whom to proceed."
3. The Greeks say that the Son does not send the Person of
the Holy Ghost, but only his gifts of grace, which are attributed
to the Holy Spirit. But we answer that this interpretation is
wrong, for in the passage of St. John, just quoted , it is said that
this Spirit of Truth, sent by the Son, proceeds from the Father ;
therefore, the Son does not send the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but
the Spirit of Truth himself, who proceeds from the Father.
4. This dogma is proved from all those texts, in which the
Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of the Son-" God has sent the
Spirit of his Son into your hearts" ( Gal. iv. 6)—just as, in another
place, the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of the Father ; " For it
is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh
in you" (Mat. x. 20) . If, therefore, the Holy Ghost is called the
Spirit of the Father, merely because he proceeds from the Father,
he also proceeds from the Son, when he is called the Spirit of
the Son. This is what St. Augustin says (2) : " Why should we
not believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son,
(1) St. Augus. l. 4, de Trinit. c. 20. (2) St. Augus. Trac. 99, in Joan.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 435
when he is the Spirit of the Son ?" And the reason is evident,
since he could not be called the Holy Ghost of the Son, because
the Person of the Holy Ghost is consubstantial to the Son, as the
Greeks said : for otherwise the Son might be called the Spirit of
the Holy Ghost, as he is also consubstantial to the Holy Ghost.
Neither can he be called the Spirit of the Son, because he is the
instrument of the Son , or because he is the extrinsic holiness of
the Son, for we cannot speak thus of the Divine Persons ; there-
fore, he is called the Spirit of the Son, because he proceeds from
him. Jesus Christ explained this himself, when, after his Resur-
rection, he appeared to his disciples, and " breathed on them, and
said to them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost," &c. (John , xx. 22 ).
Remark the words, " he breathed on them, and said," to show
that, as the breath proceeds from the mouth, so the Holy Ghost
proceeds from him. Hear how beautifully St. Augustin (3)
explains this passage: " We cannot say that the Holy Ghost does
not proceed from the Son also, for it is not without a reason that
he is called the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. I
cannot see what other meaning he had when he breathed in the
face of his disciples, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost. For that
corporeal breathing was not, indeed......the substance of the
Holy Ghost, but a demonstration, by a congruous signification ,
that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Father alone, but
from the Son likewise."
5. It is proved, thirdly, from all those passages of the Holy
Scripture, in which it is said that the Son has all that the Father
has, and that the Holy Ghost receives from the Son. Hear what
St. John says : " But when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he
will teach you all truth . For he shall not speak of himself; but
what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak, and the things
that are to come he shall show you . He shall glorify me ; because
he shall receive of mine, and shall show it to you. All things
whatsoever the Father hath are mine. Therefore, I said, that he
shall receive of mine , and show it to you" (John , xvi. 13 , &c.)
It is expressly laid down in this passage, that the Holy Ghost
receives of the Son, " shall receive of mine ;" and when we speak
of the Divine Persons, we can never say that one receives from
the other in any other sense but this, that the Person proceeds
from the Person he receives from . To receive and to proceed
is just the same thing, for it would be repugnant to sense , to say
that the Holy Ghost, who is God equal to the Son, and of the
same Nature as the Son, receives from him either knowledge or
doctrine. It is said, therefore, that he receives from the Son,
because he proceeds from him, and from him receives , by com-
munication, the Nature and all the attributes of the Son.
(4) St. August. l. 2 (alias 3) , cent. Maxim. c. 14. (5) St. Ansel. 7. de Proc. Spi. S. c. 7.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 437
because the Son would proceed from the Father by the intellect,
and the Holy Ghost by the will . But the Latins answered , justly,
that this would not be enough to form a real distinction between
the Son and the Holy Ghost, because, at the most, it would be
only a virtual distinction such as that which exists in God between
the understanding and the will, but the Catholic Faith teaches us
that the three Divine Persons, though they are of the same nature
and substance, are still really distinct among themselves . It is
true that some of the Fathers, as St. Augustin and St. Anselm ,
have said that the Son and the Holy Ghost are also distinct,
because they have a different mode of procession , one from the
will and the other from the understanding ; but when they speak
thus they only mean the remote cause of this distinction , for they
themselves have most clearly expressed, on the other hand, that
the proximate and formal cause of the real distinction of the Son
and the Holy Ghost is the relative opposition in the procession of
the Holy Ghost from the Son. Hear what St. Gregory of Nyssa (7)
says : " The Spirit is distinguished from the Son , because it is by
him he is." And St. Augustin himself, whom the Greeks consider
as favouring their party (8), says : " Hoc solo numerum insinuant,
quod ad invicem sunt." And St. John of Damascus ( 9) also says ,
that it is merely in the properties of Paternity, Filiation and Pro-
cession, that we see the difference, according to the cause and the
effect : " In solis autem proprietatibus, nimirum, Paternitatis Fili-
ationis, et Processionis secundum causam, et causatam discrimen
advertimus." The Eleventh Council of Toledo (Cap. I.) says :
" In relatione Personarum numerus cernitur ; hoc solo numerum
insinuat, quod ad invicem sunt."
9. Finally, it is proved by the tradition of all ages , as is mani-
fest from the text of those Greek Fathers whom the Greeks them-
selves consider an authority, and of some Latin Fathers who wrote
before the Greek schism. St. Epiphanius, in the Anchoratum,
thus speaks : " Christ is believed from the Father, God of God ,
and the Spirit from Christ, or from both ;" and in the Heresia he
says : " But the Holy Ghost is from both, a Spirit from a Spirit."
St Cyril ( 10) writes : " The Son, according to nature, is indeed
from God (for he is begotten of God and of the Father), but the
Spirit is properly his, and in him, and from him ;" and again ( 11 ) :
" The Spirit is of the essence of the Father and the Son, who pro-
ceeds from the Father and the Son ." St. Athanasius explains (12)
the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son in equivalent
expressions. " The Spirit," he says, " does not unite the Word
with the Father, but the Spirit receives from the Word......what-
soever the Spirit has he has from the Word." St. Basil ( 13),
(7) St. Greg. Nyss. 7. ad Ablavium. (8) St. Augus. trac. 39, in Jo. (9) Jo.
Dainase. 7. 1 , de Fide, c. 11. (19 ) St. Cyril. in Joelem, c. 2. (11 ) Idem, l. 14,
Thesaur. (12 ) St. Athan. Orat. 3, cont. Arian. n. 24. (13) St. Basil, l. 5, cont. Eunom.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 439
replying to a heretic, who asks him why the Holy Ghost is not
called the Son of the Son, says, he is not called so , " not because
he is not from God through the Son, but lest it might be imagined
that the Trinity consists of an infinite multitude of Persons, if Sons
would follow from Sons, as in mankind." Among the Latin
Fathers, Tertullian (14) writes : " The Son is deduced from the
Father, the Spirit from the Father by the Son." St. Hilary ( 15)
says : " There is no necessity to speak of Him who is to be con-
fessed as coming from the Father and the Son. " St. Ambrose
says ( 16), that " the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the
Son," and in another place ( 17) , " the Holy Ghost , truly a Spirit,
proceeding from the Father and the Son , not the Son himself."
10. I omit the authorities of the other Fathers, both Greek and
Latin, collected by the Theologian John , in his disputation with
Mark of Ephesus, in the Council of Florence , where he clearly
refuted all the cavils of that prelate. It is of more importance to
cite the decisions of the General Councils, which have finally de-
cided on this dogma , as the Council of Ephesus , the Council of
Chalcedon, the Second and Third Councils of Constantinople, by
approving the Synodical Epistle of St. Cyril of Alexandria, in which
this doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father
and the Son is expressed in these terms : " The Spirit is called the
Spirit of Truth , and Christ is the Truth , so that he proceeds from
him as he does from the Father." In the Fourth Council of Lateran ,
celebrated in the year 1215 , under Innocent III. , both Greeks and
Latins united in defining (cap. 153), " that the Father was from
none, the Son from the Father alone, and the Holy Ghost equally
from both, always without beginning and without end." In the
Second Council of Lyons, held in 1274 , under Gregory X. , when
the Greeks again became united with the Latins, it was again agreed
on by both that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the
Son : " With a faithful and devout confession we declare that the
Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son , not as from two
principles, but as from one principle-not by two spirations, but by
one spiration."
11. Finally, in the Council of Florence, held under Eugenius
IV. , in the year 1438 , in which both Greeks and Latins were again
united , it was decided unanimously, " that this truth of Faith should
be believed and held by all Christians, and that all should then
profess that the Holy Ghost eternally proceeds from the Father and
the Son, as from one principle, and by one spiration ; we also define ,
explaining the word " Filioque" (and from the Son) , that it has been
lawfully and rationally introduced into the Creed, for the sake of
declaring the truth, and because there was a necessity for doing so
(14) Tertul. 7. cont. Praxeam, c. 4. (15) St. Hilar. 7. 2, de Trin. (16) St. Am-
brose, l. 1 , de S. S. c. 11 , art. 10. (17) Idem. de Symb. ap. c. 30.
440 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
at the time." Now, all those Councils in which the Greeks joined
with the Latins in defining the procession ofthe Holy Ghost from
the Father and the Son , supply an invincible argument to prove
that the schismatics uphold a heresy , for otherwise we should admit
that the whole united Church , both Latin and Greek, has defined
an error in three General Councils .
12. As to theological reasons , we have already given the two
principal ones : the first is, that the Son has all that the Father has,
with the exception of the Paternity alone, which is impossible, on
account of the Filiation . " All things whatsoever the Father hath
are mine" (John, xvi. 15 ) ; therefore, if the Father has the power of
spirating the Holy Ghost, the same power belongs also to the Son,
since there is no relative opposition between the Filiation and the
active spiration . The second reason is , that if the Holy Ghost did
not proceed from the Son, he would not be really distinct from the
Son , for then there would be no relative opposition or real distinc-
tion between them , and , consequently, the mystery of the Trinity
would be destroyed . The other arguments adduced by theologians
can either be reduced to these, or are arguments a congruentia, and,
therefore, we omit them.
13. THEY object, first, that the Scripture speaks of the procession
of the Holy Ghost from the Father alone, and not from the Son,
but we have already answered this ( N. 6 ) , and we remind the reader
that though the Scripture does not express it in formal , it does in
equivalent terms, as has been already proved. But, besides , remem-
ber that the Greeks recognized , equally with the Latins, the autho-
rity of tradition , and that teaches that the Holy Ghost proceeds
from the Father and the Son.
14. They object, secondly, that in the First Council of Constan-
tinople, in which the Divinity of the Holy Ghost was defined , it
was not defined that he proceeded from the Father and the Son,
but from the Father alone ; but to this we reply , that this Council
did not declare it, because this was not the point that the Mace-
donians controverted. The Council, therefore, defined the proces-
sion from the Father alone, because the Macedonians and Euno-
mians denied the procession from the Father, and, consequently,
the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. The Church does not draw up
definitions of Faith until errors spring up, and, on that account, we
see, that in several General Councils afterwards, the Church defined
the procession of the Holy Ghost as well from the Son as from the
Father.
15. They object , thirdly, that when , in the Council of Ephesus ,
the priest Carisius publicly read a Symbol, composed by Nestorius,
in which it was asserted that the Holy Ghost was not from the Son,
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 441
nor that he had not his substance through the Son, that the Fathers
did not reject the doctrine . We reply, First.-That this can be
easily explained, by supposing that Nestorius properly denied , in a
Catholic sense, that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, in opposition
to the Macedonians, who said that he was a creature of the Son ,
and had received existence from the Son, just like any other crea
ture. Secondly.-We should not forget that in the Council of
Ephesus it was not of the procession of the Holy Ghost that they
were treating at all , and, therefore, they left it undecided , as it is
always the practice of Councils, as we have stated already, not to
turn aside to decide on incidental questions , but merely to apply
themselves to the condemnation of those errors alone on which they
are then deciding.
16. They object , fourthly, some passages of the Holy Fathers
which appear to deny the procession from the Son. St. Dionisius (1)
says, that the Father alone is the consubstantial fountain of the
Divinity : " Solum Patrem esse Divinitatis fontem consubstantia-
lem." St. Athanasius ( 2 ) says , that he is the cause of both Persons :
" Solum Patrem esse causam duorum ." St. Maximus says (3), that
the Fathers never allowed the Son to be the cause, that is , the
principle, of the Holy Ghost : " Patres concedere Filium esse
causam, id est principium, Spiritus Sancti." St. John of Damascus
says (4), We believe the Holy Ghost to be from the Father, and we
call him the Spirit of the Father : " Spiritum Sanctum et ex Patre
esse statuimus , et Patris Spiritum appellamus." They also quote
certain passages of Theodoret, and , finally, they adduce that fact
which we read of in the life of Pope Leo III., who commanded that
the word " Filioque" (and from the Son) , added by the Latins to the
Symbol of Constantinople, should be expunged, and that the Sym-
bol, with that word omitted , should be engraved on a table of
silver, for perpetual remembrance of the fact. We answer that the
preceding authorities quoted from the Holy Fathers prove nothing
for the Greeks. St. Dionisius calls the Father alone the fountain of
the Divinity, because the Father alone is the first fountain , or the
first principle, without a beginning, or without derivation from any
other Person of the Trinity. To St. Dionisius we can add St. Gre-
gory of Nazianzen (5 ) , who says, " Quidquid habet Pater, idem
Filii est, excepta causa . But all that the Saint means to say is,
that the Father is the first principle, and for this special reason he
is called the cause of the Son and the Holy Ghost, and this reason
of the first principle cannot be applied to the Son in this way, for
he has his origin from the Father ; but by this the Son is not ex-
cluded from being, together with the Father, the principle of the
Holy Ghost, as St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, and several others,
(1) St. Dionys. l. 1, de Divin. nom. c. 2. (2) St. Athan. Quæs. de Nat. Dei. (3) St.
Maxim. Ep. ad Marin. (4) St. Damas. 7. 1 , de Fide Crth. c. 11. (5) St. Greg.
Nazian. Orat. 24, ad. Episcop.
442 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(6) Petavius, l. 7 , de Trin. c. 17, n. 12. (7) Bessar. Orat. pro. Unit.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 443
REFUTATION V.
the branches : he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth
much fruit ; for without me you can do nothing" (John , xv. 5).
Therefore, Jesus Christ teaches that of ourselves we can do nothing
available to salvation , and, therefore , grace is absolutely necessary
for every good work, for otherwise, as St. Augustin says, we can
acquire no merit for eternal life : " Ne quisquam putaret parvum
aliquem fructum posse a semetipso palmitem ferre, cum dixisset hic,
fertfructum multum, non ait, sine me parum, potestis facere : sed ,
nihil potestis facere : sive ergo parum, sive multum, sine illo fieri
non potest, sine quo nihil fieri potest." It is proved , secondly, from
St. Paul (called by the Fathers the Preacher of grace), who says,
writing to the Philippians : " With fear and trembling work out
your salvation , for it is God who worketh in you both to will and
to accomplish according to his good - will" (Phil. ii . 12 , 13 ) . In
the previous part of the same chapter he exhorts them to humility :
" In humility let each esteem others better than themselves," as
Christ, who, he says, " humbled himself, becoming obedient unto
death ;" and then he tells them that it is God who works all good in
them. He confirms in that what St. Peter says : " God resisteth the
proud, but to the humble he giveth grace” ( 1 Peter, v. 5 ) . In fine ,
St. Paul wishes to show us the necessity of grace to desire or to
put in practice every good action , and shows that for that we should.
be humble, otherwise we render ourselves unworthy of it. And
lest the Pelagians may reply, that here the Apostle does not speak
of the absolute necessity of grace, but of the necessity of having it
to do good more easily, which is all the necessity they would admit,
see what he says in another text : " No man can say, the Lord
Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost" ( 1 Cor. xii. 3) . If, therefore, we
cannot even mention the name of Jesus with profit to our souls,
without the grace of the Holy Ghost, much less can we hope to
work out our salvation without grace.
3. Secondly.- St. Paul teaches us that the grace alone of the law
given to us is not, as Pelagius said, sufficient, for actual grace is
absolutely necessary to observe the law effectually : " For if justice
be by the law, then Christ died in vain" (Gal. ii . 21 ) . By justice
is understood the observance of the Commandments, as St. John
tells us : " He that doth justice is just" ( 1 John , iii . 7 ) . The
meaning ofthe Apostle, therefore, is this : If man, by the aid of the
law alone, could observe the law, then Jesus Christ died in vain ;
but such is not the case. We stand in need of grace, which Christ
procured for us by his death . Nay , so far is the law alone suffi-
cient for the observance of the commandments, that, as the Apostle
says, the very law itself is the cause of our transgressing the law,
because it is by sin that concupiscence enters into us : " But sin
taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner
of concupiscence . For without the law sin was dead. And I lived .
some time without the law, but when the commandment came , sin
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 445
(1) St. Augus. 1. de Spir. S. et litt. (2 ) St. Augus. l. 4, con. Julian. c. 3. (4) St.
Augus, loc. cit. ad Corinth.
446 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
SEC. III. THE NECESSITY AND THE GRATUITY OF GRACE IS PROVED BY TRADITION ;
CONFIRMED BY THE DECREES OF COUNCILS AND POPES.
(10) C. Orsi ; Ir. Ecc. t. 13, l. 29, n. 52, cum. St. Prosp. l. con. Collat. c. 21.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 449
13. THE Pelagians object, firstly, if you admit that grace is ab-
solutely necessary to perform any act conducive to salvation, you
must confess that man has no liberty, and free will is destroyed
altogether. We answer, with St. Augustin , that man, after the fall,
is undoubtedly no longer free without grace, either to begin or bring
to perfection any act conducive to eternal life , but by the grace of
God he recovers this liberty, for the strength which he is in need
of to do what is good is subministered to him by grace, through
the merits of Jesus Christ ; this grace restores his liberty to him , and
gives him strength to work out his eternal salvation , without , how-
ever, compelling him to do so : " Peccato Adæ arbitrium liberum
de hominum natura perisse, non dicimus, sed ad peccandum valere
in homine subdito diabolo . Ad bene autem, pieque vivendum non
valere, nisi ipsa voluntas hominis Dei gratia fuerit liberata, et ad
omne bonum actionis, sermonis cogitationis adjuta." Such are St.
Augustin's sentiments (1 ).
14. They object, secondly , that God said to Cyrus : " Who say
to Cyrus, thou art my shepherd, and thou shalt perform all my
pleasure" ( Isaias, xliv. 28 ) ; and, in chap . xlvi . v. 11, he calls him,
66
a man of his will." Now, say the Pelagians, Cyrus was an idola-
ter, and, therefore , deprived of the grace which is given by Jesus
Christ, and still, according to the text of the Prophet, he observed
all the natural precepts ; therefore without grace a man may observe
all the precepts of the law of nature. We answer, that in order to
understand this, we should distinguish, with theologians, between
the will of Beneplacitum and the will called of Signum . The Bene-
REFUTATION VI .
SEC. I. THE COMMENCEMENT OF FAITH AND EVERY GOOD DESIRE IS NOT FROM
OURSELVES, BUT FROM GOD.
2. FIRST, that it is clearly proved from St. Paul : " Not that we
are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves ; but
our sufficiency is from God" (2 Cor. iii. 5). Thus the beginning
of believing that is, not that beginning of Faith arising from the
intellect, which naturally sees the truth of the Faith , but that pious
desire of Faith, which is not yet formal faith, for it is no more than
a thought, of wishing to believe, and which, as St. Augustin says,
precedes belief-this good thought, according to St. Paul, comes
from God alone. Such is the explanation St. Augustin gives of
the text : " Attendant hic, et verba ista perpendant, qui putant ex
nobis esse Fidei coeptum, et ex Deo esse Fidei supplementum
Quis enim non videt, prius esse cogitare quam credere ? Nullus
quippe credit aliquid , nisi prius crediderit esse credendum. Quam-
vis enim rapte, quamvis celerrime credendi voluntatem quædam
" Likewise, the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not
what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself asketh
for us" (Rom. viii. 26) . Hence, St. Augustin says (3) : " Quid est ,
ipse Spiritus interpellat, nisi interpellare facit ;" and he adds: " At-
tendant quomodo falluntur, qui putant esse a nobis, non dari nobis ,
ut petamus, quæramus, pulsemus, et hoc esse dicunt, quod gratia
præceditur merito nostro ..... Nec volunt intelligere, etiam hoc
Divini muneris esse, ut oremus, hoc est petamus, quæramus, atque
pulsemus ; accepimus enim Spiritum adoptionis, in quo clamamus
Abba Pater." The same holy doctor teaches us that God gives to
all the grace to pray, and through prayer the means of obtaining
grace to fulfil the commandments ; for otherwise, if one had not.
the efficacious grace to fulfil the commandments, and had not the
grace to obtain this efficacious grace, through means of prayer
either, he would be bound to observe a law which to him was im-
possible. But such, St. Augustin says, is not the case. Our Lord
admonishes us to pray with the grace of prayer, which he gives to
all, so that by praying we may obtain efficacious grace to observe
the commandments. He says : " Eo ipso quo firmissime creditur,
Deum impossibilia non præcipere, hinc admonemur et in facilibus
(that is, in prayer) quid agamus, et in difficilibus (that is, observing
the commandments) quid petamus." This is what the Council of
Trent afterwards decreed on the same subject (Sess. vi. c. xi .) , fol-
lowing the remarkable expressions of the great Doctor : " Deus
impossibilia non jubet, sed jubendo monet, et facere quod possis , et
petere quod non possis, et adjuvat ut possis" (4). Thus by prayer
we obtain strength to do what we cannot do of ourselves ; but we
cannot even boast of praying, for our very prayer is a gift from God.
9. That God gives generally to all the grace of praying, St. Au-
gustin (independently of the passages already quoted) teaches in
almost every page of his works. In one place he says : " Nulli
enim homini ablatum est scire utilitur quærere" (5). And again :
" Quid ergo aliud ostenditur nobis, nisi quia et petere et quæ-
rere. Ille concedit , qui ut hæc faciamus, jubet" (6) . In another
place, speaking of those who do not know what to do to obtain
salvation, he says , they should make use of what they have received,
that is, of the grace of prayer, and that thus they will obtain sal-
vation ( 7) : " Sed hoc quoque accipiet, si hoc quod accipit bene
usus fuerit ; accepit autem, ut pie et diligenter quærat, si volet."
Besides, in another passage ( 8 ) , he explains all this more diffusely,
for he says it is for this reason that God commands us to pray, that
by prayer we may obtain his gifts, and that he would invite us in
vain to pray, unless he first gave us grace to be able to pray, and
by prayer to obtain grace to fulfil what we are commanded : " Pre-
(3 ) St. Aug. Ibid. (4) Ibid. (5) St. Aug. 1. de Lib. Arb. c. 19, n. 53.
( 6) Idem, l. 1, ad Simp. q. 2. (7) Idem, Trac. 26 , in Joan. c. 22, n. 65.
(8) St. Aug. de Grat. & Lib. Arb. c. 18.
456 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES , -
REFUTATION VII.
SEC. I. IN JESUS CHRIST THERE IS BUT THE ONE PERSON OF THE WORD ALONE, WHICH
TERMINATES THE TWO NATURES, DIVINE AND HUMAN, WHICH BOTH SUBSIST IN THE
SAME PERSON OF THE WORD, AND, THEREFORE, THIS ONE PERSON is, at the SAME
TIME, TRUE GOD AND TRUE MAN.
3. OUR first proof is taken from all those passages in the Scrip-
ture, in which it is said that God was made flesh , that God was
born of a Virgin, that God emptied himself, taking the form of a
servant, that God has redeemed us with his blood, that God died
for us on the cross. Every one knows that God could not be con-
ceived, nor born, nor suffer, nor die , in his Divine nature , which
is eternal, impassible, and immortal ; therefore, if the Scripture
teaches us that God was born , and suffered , and died , we should
understand it according to his human nature, which had a begin-
ning, and was passible and mortal. And, therefore , if the person
in which the human nature subsists was not the Divine Word, St.
Matthew would state what is false when he says that God was con-
ceived and born of a Virgin : " Now all this was done that it might
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 459
saith to them, but whom do you say that I am ? Simon Peter an-
swered and said : Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And
Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou , Simon Barjona, be-
cause flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father
who is in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 15-17) . Then Jesus himself, at the
very time that he calls himself man, approves of Peter's answer,
who calls him the Son of God, and says that this answer was re-
vealed to him by his eternal Father. Besides, we read in St.
Matthew (iii. 17) , St. Luke (ix. 13), and St. Mark (i . 11 ) , that
Christ, while he was actually receiving Baptism as man from St.
John, was called by God his beloved Son : " This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased ." St. Peter tells us that in Mount
Thabor the Eternal Father spoke the same words : " For, he received
from God the Father, honour and glory ; this voice coming down
to him from the excellent glory : This is my beloved Son , in whom
I have pleased myself, hear ye him" (2 Pet. i. 17). Christ, as man,
is called the only begotten Son of the Eternal Father, by St. John :
" The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him" (John , i . 18) . As man alone, he is called God's
own Son : " He spared not his own Son , but delivered him up for
us all " ( Rom. viii. 32 ) . After so many proofs from the Holy
Scriptures, who will be rash enough to deny that the man Christ is
truly God?
6. The Divinity of Jesus Christ is proved from all these passages
of the Scriptures, in which that which can only be attributed to
God is attributed to the Person of Christ-Man , and from thence we
conclude that this Person, in which the two natures subsist , is true
God. Jesus, speaking of himself, says : " I and the Father are
one " (John, x. 30) ; and in the same place he says : " The Father
is in me, and I in the Father " (ver. 38) . In another passage we
read that St. Philip , one day speaking with Jesus Christ , said :
" Lord, show us the Father," and our Lord answered : " So long a
time have I been with thee, and have you not known me ? Philip ,
he that seeth me seeth the Father also. Believe you not that I am
in the Father and the Father in me ?" (John, xiv. 8, 11 ). By
these words Christ showed he was the same God as the Father.
Christ himself said to the Jews that he was eternal : " Amen,
99
amen , I say unto you, before Abraham was I am (John, vii. 58 ) ;
and he says , also, that he works the same as the Father: " My
Father worketh until now, and I work..... for what things soever
he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner " (John , v. 17).
He also says : " All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine
(John, xvi. 15 ). Now, if Christ was not true God all these sayings
would be blasphemous, attributing to himself what belongs to God
alone.
7. The Divinity of Christ- Man is proved from those other
passages of the Scriptures, in which it is said that the Word, or the
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 461
Son of God, became incarnate : " The Word was made flesh and
dwelt among us " (John, i. 14) ; " For God so loved the world as
to give his only begotten Son " (John , iii . 16) ; " He spared not his
own Son, but delivered him up for all of us " (Rom. viii. 32). Now,
if the Person of the Word was not hypostatically united— that is,
in one Person with the humanity of Christ-it could not be said
that the Word was incarnate , and was sent by the Father to redeem
the world, because if this personal union did not exist between the
Word and the humanity of Christ, there would be only a moral
union of habitation , or affection , or grace, or gifts, or operation,
and in this sense we might say that the Father and the Holy Ghost
became incarnate also, for all these sorts of unions are not peculiar
to the Person of the Word alone, but to the Father and the Holy
Ghost, likewise , for God is united in this manner with the Angels
and Saints. God has frequently sent Angels as his ambassadors ;
but as St. Paul says, our Lord has never taken the nature of
angels : " For nowhere doth he take hold of the angels, but of the
seed of Abraham he taketh hold " ( Heb . ii . 16) . Thus, if
Nestorius means to assert that unions of this sort are sufficient to
enable us to say that the Word was incarnate, we should also say
that the Father was incarnate, for the Father, by his graces and
his heavenly gifts, was united with, and morally dwelt in , Jesus
Christ, according to what our Lord himself says : " The Father is
in me......the Father remaining in me " (John, xiv. 10) . We
should also admit that the Holy Ghost became incarnate , for Isaias,
speaking of the Messiah, says : " The Spirit of the Lord shall rest
upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding " (Isaias, xi. 2).
And in St. Luke it is said, that " Jesus was full of the Holy Ghost"
Luke , iv. 1 ) . In fine, according to this explanation , every Saint
or holy person who loves God could be called the Incarnate Word,
for our Saviour says : " If any one love me ....
.. .. my Father will
love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with
him" (John, xiv. 23) . Thus Nestorius should admit, either that
the Word is not incarnate, or that the Father and the Holy
Ghost are incarnate. This was the unanswerable argument of St.
Cyril (1) : " Quod unus sit Christus, ejusmodi in habitatione
Verbum non fieret caro, sed potius hominis incola ; et conveniens
fuerit illum non hominem, sed humanum vocare, quemadmodum et
qui Nazareth inhabitavit, Nazarenus dictus est, non Nazareth .
Quinimo nihil prorsus obstiterit ......hominem vocari una cum
Filio etiam Patrem, et Spiritum Sanctum, habitavit enim in nobis."
8. I might here add all those texts of Scripture in which Christ
is spoken of as only one Person subsisting in two natures, as in St.
Paul : " One Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things," &c. (1
Cor. viii. 6) , and several other texts of like import. If Nestorius
insisted that there were two Persons in Christ, he makes out not
one, but two Lords-one , the Person of the Word which dwells in
Christ, and the other the human Person . I will not detain the
reader, however, by quoting more Scriptural authorities, for every
proof of the Incarnation upsets the whole structure of Nestorianism.
9. We now come to Tradition , which has always taught the
Faith of the unity of the Person of Jesus Christ in the Incarnation
of the Word. In the Apostles' Creed , taught by the Apostles them-
selves, we say, we believe " in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary."
Now, the same Jesus Christ who was conceived, born, and died , is
the only Son of God, our Lord ; but that would not be the case, if
in Christ, as Nestorius taught, there was not only a Divine, but a
human Person, because he who was born and died would not have
been the only Son of God , but a mere man.
10. This profession of Faith is laid down more amply in the
Nicene Creed, in which the Fathers defined the Divinity of Jesus
Christ, and his consubstantiality with the Father, and thus con-
demned the heresy of Nestorius, even before it sprung up : " We
believe," say the Fathers, " in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of
God, the only begotten Son of the Father, that is , of the substance
of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God,
born, not made , consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things
were made, both those in heaven and those on the earth, who for
us men, and for our salvation , descended and was incarnate, and was
made man ; he suffered and arose the third day," &c. Behold,
therefore, how Jesus Christ alone, who is called God, the only be-
gotten of the Father, and consubstantial to the Father, is called man,
who was born, died , and rose again. This same Symbol was ap-
proved of by the second General Council, that is, the first of Con-
stantinople, which was also held before Nestorius promulgated his
blasphemies ; and according to the same Symbol of Nice, he was
condemned in the third General Council, that of Ephesus, which
was held against his errors. In the Symbol attributed to St. Atha-
nasius, the dogma is thus established in opposition to Nestorianism :
" Our Lord Jesus Christ is God and man ..... equal to the Father,
according to his Divinity ; less than the Father, according to his
humanity ; who, although he is God and man, these are not two, but
one Christ..... one altogether not by the confusion of substance,
but by Unity of the Person."' "
11. Besides those Symbols, we have the authority of the holy
Fathers who wrote before the rise of this heresy. St. Ignatius the
Martyr (2) says : " Singuli communiter omnes ex gratia nominatim
convenientes in una Fide, et uno Jesu Christo , secundum carnem
ex genere Davidis, Filio hominis, et Filio Dei ." See here how he
mentions one Jesus Christ, the Son of man and the Son of God . St.
Iræneus says (3 ) : " Unum et eundem esse Verbum Dei , et hunc
esse unigenitum, et hunc incarnatum pro salute nostra Jesum Chris-
tum." St. Dionisius of Alexandria, in a Synodical Epistle, refutes
Paul of Samosata, who said that in Christ there were two Persons
and two Sons ; the one the Son of God, born before all ages ; the
other the Son of David, called Christ. St. Athanasius (4) says :
66 Homo
' una Persona , et unum animal est ex spiritu et carne com-
positum, ad cujus similitudinem intelligendum est, Christum unam
esse Personam, et non duas"-that, as soul and body make but one
person in man, so the Divine and human nature constitute but one
Person in Christ. St. Gregory of Nazianzen ( 5) says : " Id quod
non erat assumpsit, non quo factus, sed unum ex duobus fieri sub-
stinens ; Deus enim ambo sunt id quod assumpsit, et quod est
assumptum , naturæ duæ in unum concurrentes, non duo Filii." St.
John Chrysostom (6) thus writes : " Etsi enim (in Christo) duplex
natura ; verumtamen indivisibilis unio in una filiationis Persona, et
substantia." St. Ambrose ( 7) tersely explains : " Non alter ex
Patre, alter ex Virgine, sed item aliter ex Patre, aliter ex Virgine."
St. Jerome, opposing Elvidius, says , that " we believe that God was
born of a Virgin ;" and in another place he says (8) : " Anima et
caro Christo cum Verbo Dei una Persona est , unus Christus."
12. It would extend the work too much to quote more from the
holy Fathers, so I will pass on to the Decrees of Councils. The
Council of Ephesus ( 9) , after a mature examination of the Catholic
dogma, by Scripture and Tradition , condemned Nestorius, and de-
posed him from the See ofConstantinople. Here are the words of
the Decree: " Dominus noster Jesu Christus quem suis ille blas-
phemis vocibus impetivit per Ss. hunc Synodum eundem Nestorium
Episcopali dignitate privatum, et ab universo sacerdotum consortio,
et cœtu alienum esse definit." The fourth General Council , that of
Chalcedon, defined the same thing (Act. 5) : " Sequentes igitur Ss.
Patres, unum, eumdemque confiteri Filium, et Dominum nostrum
Jesum Christum consonanter omnes docemus, eundem perfectum
in Deitate, et eundem perfectum in humanitate, Deum verum, et
hominem verum ..... non in duas personas partitum, aut divisum ,
sed unum eundemque Filium, et unigenitum Deum Verbum , Do-
minum Jesum Christum." The third Council of Constantinople-
that is, the sixth General Council- defined the same doctrine in
the last Action; and the seventh General Council , that is, the se-
cond of Nice, did the same in the seventh Action.
(3) St. Iræn. 7. 3, c. 26, al. 18, n. 2. (4) St. Athan. . de Inc. Verb. n. 2.
(5) St. Greg. Naz. Orat. 31. (6) St. Joan. Chry. Ep. ad Cæsar. (7) St. Amb.
de Incar. c. 5. (8) St. Hieron. trac. 49, in Joan. (9) Concil. Ephes. t. 3 ; Con.
p. 115, & seq.
464 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
(1) Petav. . 7, c. 4 , n. 11 , et c. 5, n. 8.
2 G
466 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
David now quoted : " So Christ also did not glorify himself, that
he might be made a high priest, but he that said unto him , Thou
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Heb. v. 5) . Jesus
Christ, therefore, even according to his humanity, is the true Natu-
ral Son of God (2) .
and St. Peter answered : " Thou art Christ, the Son of the living
God ;" and our Saviour answered : " Blessed art thou, Simon
Barjona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but
my Father who is heaven." Therefore, the Son of Man is the true
Son of God, and, consequently, Mary is the Mother of God.
22. In the second place this truth is proved from tradition . The
Symbols or Creeds already quoted against Nestorius, proving that
Jesus Christ is true God, also prove that Mary is the true Mother
of God, since they teach, " That he was conceived of the Holy
Ghost from the Virgin Mary , and was made man." The decree of
the Second Council of Nice ( Act. VII . ) even declares, if possible ,
more clearly, that Mary is the true Mother of God : " Confitemur
autem et Dominam nostram sanctam Mariam proprie et veraciter
(properly and truly) Dei Genitricem, quoniam peperit carne unum
ex S. Trinitate Christum Deum nostrum ; secundum quod et Ephe-
sinum prius dogmatizavit Concilium , quod impium Nestorium cum
Collegis suis tanquam personalem dualitatem introducentes ab
Ecclesia pepulit."
23. Mary has been called the Mother of God by all the Fathers.
I will merely quote from a few who wrote in the early ages pre-
vious to Nestorius. St. Ignatius the martyr ( 1) says : " Deus noster
Jesus Christus ex Maria genitus est." St. Justin ( 2 ) : " Verbum
formatum est, et homo factus est ex Virgine ;" and again : " Ex
virginali utero Primogenitum omnium rerum conditarum carne
factum vere puerum nasci, id præoccupans per Spiritum Sanctum."
St. Iræneus (3 ) says : " Verbum existens ex Maria, quæ adhuc erat
Virgo, recte accipiebat generationem Adæ recapitulationis." St.
Dionisius of Alexandria writes (4) : " Quomodo ais tu , hominem
esse eximium Christum, et non revera Deum, et ab omni creatura
cum Patre, et Spiritu Sancto adorandum, incarnatum ex Virgine
Deipara Maria ?" And he adds : " Una sola Virgo filia vitæ genuit
Verbum vivens, et per se subsistens increatum, et Creatorem." St.
Athanasiuss (5) ays : " Hunc scopum, et characterem sanctæ Scrip-
turæ esse, nempe ut duo de Salvatore demonstret : illum scilicet Deum
semper fuisse, et Filium esse ........ ipsumque postea propter nos
carne ex Virgine Deipara Maria assumpta, hominem factum esse."
St.Gregory of Nazianzen (6) says : " Si quis sanctam MariamDeiparam
non credit, extra Divinitatem est." St. John Chrysostom says ( 7) :
" Admodum stupendum est audire Deum ineffabilem, inerrabilem ,
incomprehensibilem, Patri æqualem "" per virgineam venisse vulvam,
et ex muliere nasci dignatum esse .' Among the Latin Fathers
we will quote a few. Tertullian says (8) : " Ante omnia commen-
danda erit ratio quæ præfuit, ut Dei Filius de Virgine nasceretur."
(1) St. Ignat. Ep. ad Ephe. a. 14. (2) St. Justin, Apol. & Dialog. cum Triphon
n. 44. (3) Iræn. l. 3, c. 21, al. 31 , n. 10. (4) St. Dionis. Ep. & Paul, Samos
(5) St. Athan. Orat. 3, a. 4, con. Arian. (6) St. Greg. Nazian. Orat. 51
(7) St. Chrys. Hom. 2, in Matth. n. 2. (8) Tertul. I. de Cor. Chris. c. 17.
468 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
26. FIRST, they object that the word Deipara , or Mother of God,
is not used either in the Scriptures or in the Symbols of the Coun-
cils ; but we answer, that neither in Scripture or Symbols do we
find the word Christotocos, Mother of Christ ; therefore, according
to that argument, she should not be called the Mother of Christ,
as Nestorius himself calls her. But we will give even a more
direct answer. It is just the same thing to say that Mary is the
Mother of God, as to say that she conceived and brought forth
God ; but both Scripture and Councils say that she brought forth
a God, they, therefore, proclaim her, in equivalent terms, the
Mother of God. Besides, the Fathers of the first centuries, as we
have quoted, constantly called her the Mother of God , and the
Scripture itself calls her Mother of our Lord, as Elizabeth, when
filled with the Holy Ghost, said: " Whence is this to me, that the
Mother of my Lord should come to me ?"
27. They object , secondly, that Mary did not generate the
Divinity, and, consequently, she cannot be called the Mother of
God. We answer, that she should be called the Mother of God,
because she was the mother of a man, who was at the same time
true God and true man,,just as we say that a woman is the mother
of a man composed both of soul and body, though she only pro-
duces the body, and not the soul, which is created by God alone.
Therefore, as Mary, though she has not generated the Divinity,
still, as she brought forth a man, according to the flesh , who was,
at the same time, God and man, she should be called the Mother
of God.
28. They object, thirdly , that the Mother ought to be consub-
stantial to the Son ; but the Virgin is not consubstantial to God,
therefore, she ought not to be called the Mother of God. We
answer, that Mary is not consubstantial to Christ as to the Divinity,
but merely in humanity alone, and because her Son is both man
and God, she is called the Mother of God . They say, besides , that
if we persist in calling her the Mother of God, we may induce the
simple to believe that she is a Goddess herself; but we answer, that
the simple are taught by us that she is only a mere creature , but
that she brought forth Christ, God and man . Besides, if Nestorius
was so scrupulous about calling her the Mother of God , lest the
simple might be led to believe that she was a Goddess , he ought to
have a greater scruple in denying her that title, lest the simple
might be led to believe, that as she was not the Mother of God,
consequently Christ was not God.
470 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES .
REFUTATION VIII.
SEC. L - IN CHRIST THERE ARE TWO NATURES THE DIVINE AND THE HUMAN NA-
TURE- DISTINCT, UNMIXED, UNCONFUSED, AND ENTIRE, SUBSISTING INSEPARABLY
IN THE ONE HYPOSTASIS, OR PERSON OF THE WORD.
expresses the doctrine of the two natures : " Medicus unus est et car-
nalis , et spiritualis, genitus et ingenitus, seu factus et non factus, in
homine existens Deus, in morte vita vera, et ex Maria et ex Deo, pri-
mum passibilis , et tunc impassibilis , Jesus Christus Dominus noster."
St. Athanasius wrote two books against Apollinares, the predecessor
of Eutyches. St. Hilary says (4 ) : " Nescit plane vitam suam , nescit
qui Christum Jesum ut verum Deum, ita et verum hominem igno-
rat." St. Gregory of Nazianzen says (5) : " Missus est quidem, sed
ut homo ; duplex enim erat in eo natura." St. Amphilochius, quoted
by Theodoret in the dialogue Inconfusus, writes thus : " Discerne
naturas, unam Dei , alteram hominis ; neque enim ex Deo excidens
homo factus est, neque proficiscens ex homine Deus." St. Ambrose
says (6) : " Servemus distinctionem Divinitatis , et carnis , unus in
utraque loquitur Dei Filius, qui in eodem utraque natura est. St.
John Chrysostom says ( 7) : " Neque enim (Propheta) carnem dividit
a Divinitate , neque Divinitatem a carne ; non substantias confun-
dens, absit, sed unionem ostendens . .... Quando dico eum fuisse
humiliatum , non dico mutationem , sed humanæ susceptæ naturæ
demissionem ." St. Augustin writes ( 8 ) : " Neque enim illa suscep-
tione alterum eorum in alterum conversum, atque mutatum est ; nec
Divinitas quippe in creaturam mutata est, ut desisteret esse Divini-
tas ; nec creatura in Divinitatem , ut desisteret esse creatura ."
12. I omit a great number of authorities of other holy Fathers
taken into account by the Council of Chalcedon , consisting of
nearly six hundred Fathers, in which Eutyches was condemned ,
and which thus defined the doctrine of the Church ( Act. V. ) :
" Sequentes igitur Ss. Patres unum eundem confiteri Filium et
Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum consonanter omnes docemur,
eundem perfectum in Deitate , et eundem perfectum in humanitate,
Deum verum, et hominem verum ; eundem ex anima rationali, et
corpore ; consubstantialem Patri secundum Deitatem , consubstan-
tialem nobiscum secundum humanitatem ante secula quidem de
Patre genitum secundum Deitatem , in novissimis autem diebus
eundem propter nos , et propter nostram salutem ex Maria Virgine
Dei Genitrice secundum humanitatem, unum eundem Christum ,
Filium , Dominum, unigenitum in duabus naturis inconfuse, immu-
tabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter agnoscendum ; nusquam sublata
differentia naturarum propter unitionem, magisque salva proprietate
utriusque naturæ, et in unam Personam , atque substantiam concur-
rentes." It is related that the Fathers, after hearing the dogmatical
Epistle of St. Leo to St. Flavian , read in the Council, all cried out
as with one voice : " This is the faith of the Fathers and of the
Apostles ; we and all orthodox believers hold this faith ; anathema
to him who believes otherwise. Peter has spoken through Leo."
(4) St. Hil. l. 9, de Trin . (5) St. Greg. Nazian. Orat. de Nat. (6) St. Ambrose,
1. 2 , de Fide, c. 9, alias 4, n. 79. (7) St. Chrysos. in Psalm xliv. n. 4. (8) St.
Aug. . 1, de Trin. c. 7, n. 14.
476 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as it
were of the only begotten of the Father." Now, here the Word is
said to have dwelt among us, which is a proof that he is different
from us, for that which dwells is different from that which is dwelt
in. Here are his words ( 1 ) : " Quid enim subjicit ? Et habitavit.
in nobis.' Non enim mutationem illam incommutabilis illius
naturæ significavit, sed habitationem , et commemorationem ; porro
id quod habitat, non est idem cum eo quod habitatur, sed diversum. "
And here we may remark, that these expressions of St. John give
a death blow, at the same time, to the Eutychian and Nestorian
heresies, for when Nestorius says that the Word dwells in the hu-
manity of Christ alone, because the Evangelist says, " he dwelt
among us," he is refuted by the antecedent part of the sentence,
" the Word was made flesh," which proves not alone a mere inha-
bitation , but a union with human nature in one Person ; and , on
the other hand, when Eutyches says that the Word is said to be
turned into flesh, he is refuted by the subsequent expression, " and
dwelt among us, " which proves that the Word is not changed into
flesh (even after the union of the flesh ) , but remains God the same
as before, without confounding the Divine nature with the human
nature he assumed.
19. We should not be startled , either, at the expression , " made
flesh," for this is but a manner of expressing a thing, and does not
at all times mean the conversion of one thing into another, but fre-
quently that one thing was superadded to another, as in Genesis we
read that Adam " became (was made into, factus est) a living soul"
(ii. 7) . Now, the obvious meaning of this is, not that the body of
Adam, which was already created , was converted into a soul, but
that the soul was created and joined to the body. St. Cyril makes
a very pertinent remark on this in his dialogue, " De Incarnatione
Unigeniti." He says : " At si Verbum inquiunt, factum est caro,
jam non amplius mansit Verbum, sed potius desiit esse quod erat.
Atqui hoc merum delirium, et dementia est, nihilque aliud quam
mentis erratæ ludibrium. Censent enim, ut videtur, per hoc,
factum est, necessaria quadam ratione mutationem, alterationemque
significari. Ergo cum psallunt quidam , et factus est nihilominus in
refugium; et rursus, Domine refugium factus est nobis , quid respon-
debunt ? Anne Deus, qui hic decantatur, desinens esse Deus,
mutatus est in refugium, et translatus est naturaliter in aliud , quod
ab initio non erat? Cum itaque Dei mentio fit, si ab alio dicatur
illud factus est, quo pacto non absurdum, atque adeo vehementer
absurdum existimare mutationem aliquam per id significari , et non
potius conari id aliqua ratione intelligere, pudenterque ad id quod
Deo maxime convenit accommodari ?" St. Augustin also explains
how the Word was made flesh without any change ( 2 ) : " Neque
(1) St. John Chrys. Hom. 11 , in Joan. (2) St. August. Ser. 187, & al. 77, de Tempore.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 479
enim, quia dictum est, Deus erat Verbum, et Verbum caro factum,
sic Verbum caro factum est, ut esse desineret Deus, quando in ipsa
carne, quod Verbum caro factum est, Emmanuel natum est nobis-
cum Deus. Sicut Verbum, quod corde gestamus, sit vox, cum id
ore proferimus, non tamen illud in hanc commutatur, sed illo inte-
gro, ista in qua procedat, assumitur, ut et intus maneat, quod
intelligatur, et foris sonet, quod audiatur. Hoc idem tamen profer-
tur in sono, quod ante sonuerat in silentio. Atque ita in Verbum ,
cum sit vox, non mutatur in vocem, sed manens in mentis luce,
et assumpta carnis voce procedit ad audientem , ut non deferat
cogitantem."
20. As to the second objection, taken from the words, " he
emptied himself," the answer is very clear, from what we have
said already ; for the Word " emptied himself," not by losing what
he was, but by assuming what he was not, for he, being God, equal
to the Father in his Divine nature, " took the form of a servant,"
thereby making himself less than the Father in his assumed
nature, and humbling himself in it even to the death of the Cross :
" He humbled himself, being made obedient unto death, even to the
death of the Cross ;" but, notwithstanding , he retained his Divinity,
and was, therefore, equal to the Father.
21. It was not, however, the Eutychians, properly speaking, who
made use of these objections, for they did not assert that the
Divine was changed into the human nature, but that the human
was changed into the Divine nature, and they quoted some passages
of the Holy Fathers, which they did not understand in their true
-
sense, in their favour. Firstly. They say that St. Justin , in his
Second Apology , writes, that in the Eucharist the bread is converted
into the body of Christ, as the Word was into flesh . But Catho-
lics answer, that the Saint only wished , by this expression, to say
that the real and true body of Christ is in the Eucharist, just as the
Word in reality assumed and retained human flesh ; and the con-
text, if read, shows that this is the true meaning of the passage.
The argument is this : that as, in the Incarnation , the Word was
made flesh, so , in the Eucharist, the bread is made the body of
Christ ; but if he intended to teach , as the Eutychians assert, that
in the Incarnation of the Word the humanity was absorbed into
the Divinity, he never could have said that in the Eucharist the
true body of our Lord exists.
22. Secondly. They found an objection on that passage of the
Athanasian Creed : " As a rational soul and flesh is one man , so
God and man is one Christ." Hence, they argue the two natures
are but one. To this we reply, that these words denote an unity
of Person, and not of Nature, in Christ, and that is manifest from
the words, " one Christ," for by Christ is properly understood the
Person, and not the Nature.
23. They object, thirdly, that St. Iræneus, Tertullian , St.
480 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
Cyprian, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Augustin, and St. Leo (3) , call
the union of the two natures a mixture or fusion , and compare it
to the mixture of two fluids one with the other. We answer with
St. Augustin ( as quoted) , that these Fathers did not make use of
these expressions, because they believed that the two natures were
confounded, but to explain how close the union was, and that the
Divine was united to the human nature as closely and intimately as
the colouring poured into a liquid unites with every portion of it.
This is St. Augustin's explanation : " Sicut in unitate Personæ
anima unitur corpori, ut homo sit : ita in unitate Personæ Deus
unitur homini, ut Christus sit. In illa ergo persona mixtura est
animæ et corporis ; in hac Persona mixtura est Dei et hominis : si
tamen recedat auditor a consuetudine corporum, qua solent duo
liquores ita commisceri, ut neuter servet integritatem , suam ,
quamquam et in ipsis corporibus aeri lux incorrupta misceatur."
Tertullian previously gave the same explanation .
24. They object, fourthly, the authority of Pope Julius in his
Epistle to Dionisius , Bishop of Corinth , in which he blames those
who believed that there were two natures in Christ, and also one
expression of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, quoted by Photius, who
says that there are not two Persons, nor two natures, for then we
should be adoring four . But we answer, with Leontius (4 ) , that
these Epistles are falsely attributed to these Holy Fathers, for the
Epistle attributed to Julius in supposed to have been the produc-
tion of Apollinares, since St. Gregory of Nyssa quotes several
passages from it, as written by Apollinares, and refutes them. We
have the same reply to make to the quotation from St. Gregory
Thaumaturgus, for it is universally supposed to have been written
by the Apollinarists , or Eutychians.
They object, fifthly, that St. Gregory of Nyssa says, in his
Fourth Oration against Eunomius , that human nature was united
with the Divine Word ; but we answer, that notwithstanding this
union , each nature retained its own properties, as St. Gregory
himself says: " Nihilominus in utraque, quod cuique proprium est,
intuetur." Finally, they say, if there were two natures in Christ,
there would be also two Persons ; but we have already disposed of
that objection in our Refutation of Nestorianism ( Ref. vii. n . 16 ) ,
in which we have shown that there is nothing repugnant in the
existence of two natures, distinct and unmixed , in the sole Person
of Christ.
(3) St. Iren. l. 2, ad. Hær. c. 21 ; Tertull. Apol. c. 21 ; St. Cyprian, de Van. Idol ;
St. Greg. Nyss. Catech. c. 25 ; St. Augus. Ep. 137 , al. 3, ad Volusian.; St. Leo, Ser. 3 ,
in die Natal. (4) Leon. de Sect. art. 4.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 481
REFUTATION IX.
1. THOSE heretics who believe that there is only one will in Christ
are called Monothelites , and the name is derived from two Greek
words, Monos, one, and Thelema, will, and on that account many
of the Arians, who asserted that Christ had no soul, but that the
Word took the place of it, can be called Monothelites, as may , in
like manner, many Apollinarists, who admitted that Christ had a
soul, but without mind, and consequently, without will. The true
Monothelites, however, formed themselves into a sect, in the reign
of the Emperor Heraclius, about the year 626. The chief author
of this sect was Athanasius, Patriarch of the Jacobites, as remarked
in the History ( Chap. vii. n. 4) , and his first followers were the
Patriarchs who succeeded him, Sergius , Cirus, Macarius, Pirrus,
and Paul. These admitted two natures in Christ, the Divine and
the human , but denied the two wills, and the two operations be-
longing to each nature, asserting that he had but one will, that is,
the Divine will, and one operation, the Divine one also ; this they
called Theandric, or belonging to the Man-God, but not in the
Catholic sense, in which the operations of Christ in his humanity
are called Theandric, as being the operation of the Man- God, and
are attributed to the Person of the Word, which sustains and is the
term of this humanity, but in a heretical sense, for they believed
that the Divine will alone moved the faculties of his human nature ,
and used them as a mere passive and inanimate instrument. Some
of the Monothelites called this operation Deodecibilem, or fitted to
God, and this expression gives more clearly the peculiar meaning
of their heretical tenets. It was a debated question among the
ancients, whether the Monothelites, by the word " will," meant the
faculty of wishing, or the act of volition itself. Patavius thinks it
most probable ( 1 ) that they understood by it, not the act of volition
itself, but the power of wishing at all, which they say the humanity
of Christ did not possess . The Catholic dogma, however, rejects
it in both senses, and teaches that as in Christ there were two
natures, so there were Divine will and volition with the Divine
operation, and human will and volition with the human operation .
SEC. I. IT IS PROVED THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT WILLS IN CHRIST, DIVINE
AND HUMAN, ACCORDING ΤΟ THE TWO NATURES, AND TWO OPERATIONS ,
ACCORDING TO THE TWO WILLS.
that there must be a human will, for he who has no will can neither
obey nor be commanded. It is most certain that the Divine will
cannot be commanded , as it recognizes no will superior to itself.
The obedience of Christ, therefore, to his Father, proves that he
must have had a human will : " Qua," says Pope Agatho , " a lumine
veritatis se adeo separavit, ut audeat dicere, Dominum nostrum
Jesum Christum voluntate suæ Divinitatis Patri obedisse, cui est
æqualis in omnibus, et vult ipse quoque in omnibus, quod Pater?"
5. We pass over other Scripture arguments, and come to Tradi-
tion, and first of all, we shall see what the Fathers who lived before
the rise ofthe heresy said on the subject. St. Ambrose says (2) : " Quod
autem ait : Non mea voluntas, sed tua fiat, suam, ad hominem
retulit ; Patris, ad Divinitatem : voluntas enim hominis, temporalis ;
voluntas Divinitatis, æterna." St. Leo , in his Epistle 24 (a . 10 , c. 4 ) ,
to St. Flavian, against Eutyches, thus writes : " Qui verus est Deus,
idem verus est homo ; et nullam est in hac unitate mendacium ,
dum invicem sunt, et humilitas hominis, et altitudo Deitatis .....
Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium
est ; Verbo scilicet operante, quod Verbi est, et carne exequente ,
quod carnis est." I omit many other authorities from St. Chrysos-
tom , St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Jerome , and others referred to by
Petavius (3) . Sophronius compiled two whole books of them against
Sergius, as we find from the petition of Stephen Duresius to the
Council of Lateran, under Martin I., in 649. It is proved also by
the Creeds, in which it is professed that Christ is at the same time
true God and true man , perfect in both natures. If Christ had not
human will , one of the natural faculties of the soul , he would not
be a perfect man, no more than he would be perfect God, if he had
not Divine will. The Councils whose Decrees we have already
quoted against Nestorius, have defined that there are two natures
in Christ, distinct and perfect in all their properties, and that could
not be the fact, unless each of the two natures had its proper natural
will and natural operation . A Portuguese writer, Hippolitus, in
his Fragments against Vero, from the distinction of the different
operations in Christ, argued that there was a distinction of the two
natures, because if there was but one will and one operation in
Christ, there would be but one nature : " Quæ sunt inter se ejusdem
operationis, et cognitionis, et omnino idem patiuntur, nullam naturæ
differentiam recipiunt."
6. All these things being taken into consideration , in the Third
General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Agatho, it was
thought proper to condemn, in one Decree (Act. 18 ) , all the
heresies against the incarnation condemned in the five preceding
General Councils. Here is the Decree, in the very words : " Asse-
quti quoque sancta quinque universalia Concilia, et sanctos atque
probabiles Patres, consonanterque confiteri definientes, D. N. Jesum
(2) St. Ambros. l. 20, in Luc. n. 59 & 60. (3) Petav. 1. 3, de Incarn. c. 8 & 9.
484 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
seu Deivirilem operationem expressit in vita ;" that is, that in the
God made man there is one Theandric or human-divine operation.
We answer, with Sophronius, that this passage was corrupted by
the Monothelites, by changing the word, " novam quandam" into
66
unam quandam, ” or a new sort of Theandric operation , into some
one Theandric operation. This was noticed in the Third Council
of Lateran, in which St. Martin commanded the Notary Paschasias
to read the Greek copy that was preserved , and the words were
found to be novam quandam, &c. , and not unam, &c. , and this was
in no wise opposed to the Catholic doctrine, and can be explained
two ways in an orthodox sense . First. -As St. John of Damascus
says, every operation ( 1 ) performed by Christ by the Divine and
human nature is Theandric, or human-divine, because it is the
operation of a Man-God , and is attributed to the Person of Christ,
the term, at the same time , of both the Divine and human nature.
The second sense, as Sophronius and St. Maximus lay down , is this,
that the new Theandric operation St. Dionisius speaks of should be
restricted to those operations of Christ alone, in which the Divine
and human natures concur , and , therefore, there are three distinct
operations to be noted in him : first, those which peculiarly belong
to human nature alone, as walking, eating, sitting, and so forth ;
secondly, those which belong purely to the Divine nature, as re-
mitting sins, working miracles, and the like ; and, thirdly, those
which proceed from both natures, as healing the sick by touching
them , raising the dead by calling them, &c.; and it is of operations
of this sort that the passage of St. Dionisius is to be explained.
9. Secondly. - They object that St. Athanasius (2 ) admits the
Divine Will only, " voluntatem Deitatis tantum ;" but we answer
that this does not exclude human will , but only that opposing will
which springs from sin, as the context proves. Thirdly. -They
object that St. Gregory of Nazianzen (3) says that the will of
66
Christ was not opposed to God , as it was totally Deified : “ Christi
velle non fuisse Deo contrarium , utpote Deificatum totum." We
answer, with St. Maximus and St. Agatho, that there is not the
least doubt but that St. Gregory admitted two wills, and the whole
meaning of this expression is that the human will of Christ was
never opposed to the Divine will . They object, fourthly , that St.
Gregory of Nyssa, writing against Eunomius, says, that the Deity
worked out the salvation of man ; the suffering, he says, was of
the flesh, but the operation was of God : " Operatur vere Deitas
per corpus, quod circa ipsam est omnium salutem, ut sit carnis
quidem passio, Dei autem operatio. " This objection was answered
in the Sixth Council , for the Saint having said that the humanity
of Christ suffered , admitted by that that Christ operated by the
(1) St. Jo. Damas. 1. 3, de Fide Orthodox. c. 19. (2) St. Athanas. in 7. de Adv.
Chri. (8) St. Greg. Naz. Orat. 2 de Filio.
486 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
REFUTATION X.
(5) St. Joan. Dames Orat. de 2 Christ. Volent. ( 1 ) Mosh. His. t. 3 , Cent. IX. c. 3, p. 1175 .
488 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist was not established , and
that, therefore, Pascasius Radbertus laid down in a book he wrote .
two principal points concerning it ; first, that after the consecration
nothing remained of the substance of the bread and wine ; and,
secondly, that in the consecrated Host is the very body of Jesus
Christ, which was born of Mary, died on the cross, and arose from
the sepulchre, and this , he said, is " what the whole world believes
and professes." This work was opposed by Retramn, and perhaps
others, and hence Mosheim concludes that the dogma was not then
established. In this, however, he is astray, for, as Selvaggi writes
(note 79 , vol. iii. ) , there was no controversy at all about the dogma,
in which Retramn was agreed with Radbert ; he only attacked some
expressions in his work. The truth of the Real Presence of Christ
in the Sacrament of the Altar has been always established and
universally embraced by the whole Church , as Vincent of Lerins
says, in 434 : " Mos iste semper in Ecclesia viguit, ut quo quisque
forte religiosior, eo promtius novellis adinventionibus contrairet."
Up to the ninth century the Sacrament of the Eucharist never was
impugned, till John Scotus Erigena, an Irishman , first published
to the world the unheard-of heresy that the body and blood of
Christ were not in reality in the Holy Eucharist , which , he said ,
was only a figure of Jesus Christ.
2. Berengarius, or Berenger, taught the same heresy in the year
1050, taking his opinions from the works of Scotus Erigena, and in
the twelfth century we find the Petrobrussians and Henricians, who
said that the Eucharist was only a mere sign of the body and blood
of our Lord. The Albigenses held the same error in the thirteenth
century, and finally, in the sixteenth century the modern Reformers
all joined in attacking this holy Sacrament. Zuingle and Carlostad
said that the Eucharist was a signification of the body and blood of
Jesus Christ, and Ecolampadius joined them afterwards, and Bucer,
also, partially. Luther admitted the Real Presence of Christ in
the Eucharist, but said that the substance of the bread remained
there also. Calvin several times changed his opinion on the
matter ; he said, in order to deceive the Catholics, that the Eu-
charist was not a mere sign, or naked figure of Christ , but was
filled with his Divine Virtue, and sometimes he even admitted
that the very substance of the body of Christ was there, but his
general opinion was that the presence of Christ was not real but
figurative, by the power placed there by our Lord . Hence Bos-
suet says in his " Variations," he never wished to admit that the
sinner, in communicating, receives the body of Christ, for then he
should admit the Real Presence. The Council of Trent (Sess. xiii.
c. 1 ) teaches, " that Jesus Christ, God and man, is really, truly,
and substantially contained under the appearance of those sensible
things in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, after the consecration of
the bread and wine."
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 489
SEC. I.- OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST
IN THE EUCHARIST.
(2) St. Cyril, Hieros. Cath. Mystagog. 4. (3) Calvin. Instit. 7. 4, c. 17, s. 1.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 491
derstood it, as the Council of Trent, which ( Cap . 2 , Sess. xiii . and
Cap. 1 , Sess. xxii . ) quotes several passages from that chapter to con-
firm the Real Presence ; and the Second Council of Nice (Act. 6)
quotes the 54th verse of the same chapter : " Unless you eat the
flesh of the Son of Man, " &c . , to prove that the true body of Christ
is offered up in the sacrifice of the Mass. It is in this chapter, also,
that our Saviour promises to give to the faithful, at a future time, his
own flesh as food : " The bread that I will give is my flesh, for the
life of the world" ( ver. 52) , and here he sets totally aside the false
explanation of the sectarians, who say that he only speaks of the
spiritual manducation by means of faith , in believing the Incarna-
tion of the Word ; for if that was our Lord's meaning, he would not
say: " The bread which • will give ," but " the bread which I have
given," for the Word was already incarnate, and his disciples might
then spiritually feed on Jesus Christ ; therefore he said: " I will
give," for he had not as yet instituted the Sacrament, but only pro-
mised to do so, and as St. Thomas (4) remarks, he says, " the bread
which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world ;" he did not
say, it means my flesh (as the Zuinglians afterwards explained it),
but it is my flesh , because it is truly the body of Christ which is
received . Our Lord next says : " My flesh is meat indeed , and my
blood is drink indeed" (John , vi. 56 ) ; and, therefore , St. Hilary (5)
says he leaves us no room to doubt of the truth of his body and
blood. In fact, if the real body and blood of Christ were not in the
Eucharist, this passage would be a downright falsehood . We should
not forget, also, that the distinction between meat and drink can
only be understood as referring to the eating of the true body , and
drinking the true blood of Christ, and not of spiritual eating by
faith, as the Reformers assert ; for, as that is totally internal, the
meat and the drink would be only one and the same thing, and not
two distinct things.
7. We have another strong proof in the same chapter of St.
John (chap. vi.) ; for the people of Caphernaum , hearing Christ
speak thus, said : " How can this man give us his flesh to eat ?"
(ver. 53) ; and they even thought it so unreasonable, that " after
this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with
him" ( ver. 67) . Now, if the flesh of Christ was not really in the
Eucharist, he could remove the scandal from them at once, by
saying that it was only spiritually they were called on to eat his
flesh by faith ; but, instead of that, he only confirmed more strongly
what he said before, for he said : " Except you eat the flesh of
the Son of Man, and drink his blood , you shall not have life in
you" ( ver. 54) . And he then turned to the twelve disciples, who
remained with him, and said : " Will you also go away ? And
(4) St. Thoin. Lec. 9, in Joan. (5) St. Hilar. l. 8, de Trin. n. 13.
492 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(6) St. Ignat. Ep. ad Smirn. ap. Theodor. Dial. 3. (7) St. Iræn. l. ad Hær. c. 18,
al 34. (8) Idem, l. 4, c. 34. (9) St. Justin. Apol. 2. (10) Tertul. . Resur.
c. 8. (11) Orig. Hom. 5, in divers. (12) St. Amb. l. 4, de Sacram. c. 4. (13) St.
Chrys. Hom. ad Pop. Antioch. (14) Apud. Antoin. de Euch. Theol. Univer. c. 4, 1 .
(15) St. Aug. l. 2, con. adver. legis. c. 9. (16) St. Remig. in Ep. ad Cor. c. 10.
(17) St. Greg. Hom. 22, in Evang. (18) St. Joan. Damas. 7. 4, Orthodox. c. 14.
494 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
we learn from St. Paul ( 1 Cor. xi . 26) : " For as often as you shall
eat this bread, and drink this chalice, you shall show the death of
the Lord until he come ;" but still we assert, that in the Eucharist
there is the true body of Christ, and there is, at the same time, a
figure, commemorative of his death ; and this is St. Augustin's
meaning, for he never doubted that the body and blood of Christ
were in the Eucharist really and truly, as he elsewhere expresses
it (20) : " Panis quem videtis in Altari , sanctificatus per verbum .
Dei, Corpus est Christi."
14. There is, I should say, no necessity of refuting Calvin's
opinions on the Real Presence, for he constantly refutes himself,
changing his opinion a thousand times, and always cloaking it in
ambiguous terms. Bossuet and Du Hamel (21 ) may be consulted
on this point. They treat the subject extensively, and quote
Calvin's opinion , who says, at one time, that the true substance of
the body of Christ is in the Eucharist, and then again ( 22 ) , that
Christ is united to us by Faith ; so that, by the presence of Christ,
he understands a presence of power or virtue in the Sacrament ; and
this is confirmed by him in another part of his works, where he says
that Christ is just as much present to us in the Eucharist as he is
in baptism. At one time he says the Sacrament of the Altar is a
miracle, and then again ( 23), the whole miracle, he says , consists in
this, that the faithful are vivified by the flesh of Christ , since a
virtue so powerful descends from heaven on earth. Again, he says,
that even the unworthy receive in the Supper the body of Christ,
and then, in another place (24) , he says that he is received by the
elect alone. In fine, we see Calvin struggling, in the explanation
of this dogma, not to appear a heretic with the Zuinglians, nor a
Catholic with the Roman Catholics. Here is the Profession of
Faith which the Calvinist ministers presented to the prelates, at the
Conference of Poissy, as Bossuet gives it (25) : " We believe that
the body and blood are really united to the bread and wine, but in
a sacramental manner- that is, not according to the natural position
of bodies, but inasmuch as they signify that God gives his body and
blood to those who truly receive him by Faith." It was remarkable
in that Conference , that Theodore Beza, the first disciple of Calvin,
and who had hardly time to have imbibed all his errors, said pub-
licly, as De Thou (26 ) relates, " that Jesus Christ was as far from
the Supper as the heavens were from the earth ." The French
prelates then drew up a true Confession of Faith, totally opposed
to the Calvinists : " We believe ," said they, " that in the Sacrament
of the Altar there is really and transubstantially the true body and
blood of Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine, by
the power of the Divine Word pronounced by the priest," &c .
(20) St. Aug. Ser. 83, de Div. n. 27. (21) Bossuet, His. des Variat. t. 2, l. 9 ;
Du Hamel, Theol. de Euch. (22) Calvin, Inst. l. 4, c. 11. (28) Idem.
(24) Idem. (25) Bossuet, t. 2, l. 9. (26) Thuan . 7. 28, c. 48.
496 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
15. THEY object, first, the words of Christ : " It is the Spirit
that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. These words that I
have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John, vi. 64) . See there,
they say, the words which you make use of to prove the Real Pre-
sence of Christ in the Eucharist are figurative expressions, which
signify the celestial food of life, which we receive by faith. We
answer, with St. John Chrysostom ( 1 ) , that when Christ says the
flesh profiteth nothing, he spoke not of his own flesh, God forbid !
but of those who carnally receive it, as the Apostle says : " The
sensual man perceiveth not those things that are of the Spirit of
God" (1 Cor. ii. 14 ) , and those who carnally speak of the Divine
Mysteries ; and to this St. John refers when he says : " The words
I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John , vi . 64 ) , mean-
ing that these words refer not to carnal and perishable things , but
to spiritual things and to eternal life. But even supposing these
words to refer to the flesh of Christ itself, they only mean, as St.
Athanasius and St. Augustin explain them, that the flesh of Christ ,
given to us as food, sanctifies us by the Spirit , or the Divinity
united to it, but that the flesh alone would be of no avail. These
are St. Augustin's words ( 2 ) : " Non prodest quidquam (caro) , sed
quomodo ; illi intellexerunt, carnem quippe sic intellexerunt, quo-
modo in cadavere dilaniatur , aut in macello venditur, non quomodo
spiritu vegetatur. Caro non prodest quidquam, sed sola caro ; accedat
spiritus ad carnem, et prodest plurimum."
16. They object, secondly, that when Jesus Christ said : " This
is my body," the word this in the sentence has reference to the bread
alone, which he then held in his hand , but bread is only a figure of
the body of Christ, but not the body itself. We answer that if we
do not consider the proposition " This is my body" as complete in
itself, that might be the case if he said, for example, this is, and
did not say any more, then the word this would have reference to
the bread alone, which he held in his hand ; but taking the whole
sentence together, there can be no doubt but that the word this
refers to the body of Christ. When our Lord changed water into
wine , if he had said , this is wine, every one would understand that
the word this referred not to the water but to the wine, and in the
same way in the Eucharist the word this , in the complete sense of
the sentence, refers to the body, because the change is made when
the whole sentence is completed. In fact the word this in the sen
tence has no meaning at all, till the latter part is pronounced, is my
body-then alone the sense is complete.
17. They object, thirdly, that the sentence, " This is my body,"
is just as figurative as other passages in the Scriptures, as for example ,
(1) St. John Chrysos. Hom. in Joan. (2) St. Aug. Tract, 27 in Joan.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 497
shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord" (ver. 29) .
Secondly, we reply, with St. Fulgentius (3 ), who supposes that
Christ took two chalices, one the Paschal chalice, according to the
Jewish rite, the other according to the Sacramental rite. Our
Lord then, he says, when using the words they found the objection
on, spoke ofthe first chalice, and not ofthe second , and that he did
so is clear from the words of another of the Evangelists, St. Luke
(xxii . 17) , who says that " having taken the chalice, he gave
thanks, and said : Take and divide it among you. For I say to
you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom
of God come." Now, if we read on to the 20th verse of the same
chapter, we find that Jesus took the chalice of wine and consecrated
it: "In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying :
This is the chalice, the New Testament, in my blood which shall
be shed for you." Hence it is manifest that the words, " I will not
drink of the fruit of the vine," were expressed by our Redeemer
previous to the consecration of the chalice.
21. They object, seventhly, that the doctrine of the Real Pre-
sence cannot be true, for it is opposed to all our senses. But to
this we reply, with the Apostle, that matters of faith are not mani-
fest to the senses, for " Faith .... is the evidence of things that
appear not" (Heb. xi . 1 ) . And we have another text, also, which
disposes of this feeble argument : " The sensual man perceiveth
not the things that are of the Spirit of God, for it is foolishness to
him" (1 Cor. ii. 14) . All this will be answered more extensively
farther on (sec. 3).
substance of the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood
of Christ. It issued a decree to that effect (Cap. 4, Sess. xiii .) , and
says, that the Church most aptly calls this change Transubstantia-
tion. Here are the words of the Second Can.: " Si quis dixerit in
sacrosancto Eucharistiæ sacramento remanere substantiam panis et
vini una cum corpore et sanguine D. N. J. C. , negaveritque mira-
bilem illam , et singularem conversionem totius substantiæ panis in
corpus, et totius substantiæ vini in sanguinem, manentibus dum-
taxat speciebus panis et vini , quam quidem conversionem Catholica
Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem appellat, anathema sit."
Remark the words , mirabilem illum, et singularem conversionem
totius substantiæ, the wonderful and singular conversion of the
whole substance . It is called wonderful, for it is a mystery hidden
from us, and which we never can comprehend . It is singular,
because in all nature there is not another case of a similar change ;
and it is called a conversion, because it is not a simple union with
the body of Christ, such as was the hypostatic union by which the
Divine and human natures were united in the sole person of Christ.
Such is not the case , then , in the Eucharist, for the substance of
the bread and wine is not united with, but is totally changed and
converted into, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. We say a
conversion of the whole substance, to distinguish it from other con-
versions or changes, such as the change of food into the body of
the person who partakes of it, or the change of water into wine by
our Redeemer at Cana, and the change of the rod of Moses into a
serpent, for in all these changes the substance remained , and it was
the form alone that was changed ; but in the Eucharist the matter
and form of the bread and wine is changed, and the species alone
remain , that is, the appearance alone, as the Council explains it,
"remanentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini ."
24. The general opinion is, that this conversion is not performed
bythe creation of the body of Christ, for creation is the production
of a thing out ofnothing ; but this is the conversion of the substance
of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ. It does not
take place either by the annihilation of the matter of the bread
and wine, because annihilation means the total destruction of a
thing, and the body of Christ, then, would be changed , we may
say, from nothing ; but in the Eucharist the substance ofthe bread
passes into the substance of Christ, so that it is not from nothing.
Neither does it take place by the transmutation of the form alone
(as a certain author endeavours to prove) , the same matter still
remaining, as happened when the water was changed into wine,
and the rod into a serpent. Scotus says that Transubstantiation
is an act adducing the body of Christ into the Eucharist (actio
adductiva) ; but this opinion is not followed by others, for adduction
does not mean conversion by the passage of one substance into
the other. It cannot be called , either, a unitive action , for that
500 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(2) St. Thom. p. 3, qu. 75, art. 7. (3) St. Cyril, Hieros. Cath. Mystagog. (4) St.
reg. Nyssa. Orat. Cath. c. 37.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 501
28. THE Lutherans say, first, that the body of Christ is locally
in the bread as in a vessel, and, as we say, showing a bottle in
which wine is contained , " This is the wine," so , say they, Christ,
showing the bread , said : " This is my body ;" and hence, both the
body of Christ and the bread are, at the same time , present in the
Eucharist. We answer, that, according to the common mode of
speech, a bottle is a fit and proper thing to show that wine is there ,
because wine is usually kept in bottles, but it is not the case with
bread, which is not a fit and proper thing to designate or point out
a human body, for it is only by a miracle that a human body could
be contained in bread.
29. Just to confound one heresy by another, we will quote the
argument of the Zuinglians ( 1 ) against the Impanation or Consub-
stantiation of the bread and the body of Christ, invented by the
Lutherans. If, say they, the words " This is my body " are to be
taken in a literal sense , as Luther says they are, then the Transub-
stantiation of the Catholics is true. And this is certainly the case.
(5) St. Ambrose de Initiand. c. 9. (6) St. Jo. Damas. 7. 4, Orthod. Fidci, c. 14.
(7) Tertul. contra Marcion, l. 4, c. 4 ; Chrysos. Hom. 4, in una cor. St. Hil. l. 8, de
Trinit. (1) Bossuet. Variat. t. 1, l. 2, n. 31 ; Ospinian. ann. 1527 , p. 49.
502 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
Christ did not say, this bread is my body, or here is my body, but
this thing is my body. Hence, say they, when Luther rejects the
figurative meaning, that it is only the signification of the body of
Christ, as they hold, and wishes to explain the words " this is my
body " after his own fashion , that is, this bread is really my body,
and not the frame of my body, this doctrine falls to the ground of
itself, for if our Saviour intended to teach us that the bread was his
body, and that the bread was there still, it would be a contradic-
tion in itself. The true sense of the words " This is my body,"
however, is that the word this is to be thus understood : this, which
I hold in my hands, is my body. Hence the Zuinglians concluded
that the conversion of the substance of the bread into the substance
of the body of Christ should be taken either totally figuratively or
totally in substance, and this was Beza's opinion in the Conference
of Monbeliard, held with the Lutherans. Here, then , is, accord-
ing to the true dogma, the conclusion we should come to in opposi-
tion to Luther. When our Lord says, " This is my body," he in-
tended that of that bread should be formed either the substance, or
the figure of his body ; if the substance of the bread , therefore, be
not the mere simple figure of Christ's body, as Luther says, then it
must become the whole substance of the body of Jesus Christ.
30. They object, secondly, that in the Scripture the Eucharist is
called bread, even after the consecration : " One body .... who all
partake of one bread" ( 1 Cor. x. 17) ; " Whosoever shall eat this
bread, or drink the Chalice of the Lord unworthily," &c. , (1 Cor.
xi. 27) ; the bread, therefore, remains. Such , however, is not the
case ; it is called bread, not because it retains the substance of
bread, but because the body of Christ is made from the bread. In
the Scriptures we find that those things which are miraculously
changed into other things are still called by the name of the thing
from which they were changed, as the water which was changed
into wine, by St. John , at the marriage of Cana in Galilee, was still
called water , even after the change : " When the chief stewart
had tasted the water made wine " (John, ii. 9) ; and in Exodus also
we read that the rod of Moses changed into a serpent was still
called a rod : " Aaron's rod devoured their rods " (Exod . vii . 12).
In like manner, then , the Eucharist is called bread after the conse-
cration, because it was bread before, and still retains the appearance
of bread. Besides, as the Eucharist is the food of the soul, it may
be justly called bread, as the Manna made by the angels is called
bread, that is, spiritual bread : " Man eat the bread of angels "
(Psalms , lxxvii . 25) . The sectarians, however, say, the body of
Christ cannot be broken, it is the bread alone that is broken, and
still St. Paul says : " And the bread which we break is it not the
partaking of the body of the Lord ?" (1 Cor. x. 16. ) We answer,
that the breaking is understood to refer to the species of the bread
which remain , but not to the body of the Lord , which, being
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 503
SEC. III. OF THE MANNER IN WHICH JESUS CHRIST IS IN THE EUCHARIST. THE
PHILOSOPHICAL OBJECTIONS OF THE SACRAMENTARIANS ANSWERED.
as he did in the case of Daniel and his companions, who were un-
harined in the furnace. Thus , in like manner, though God cannot
make a body to exist without extension and quantity, still he can
make it, so that it will not occupy space, and that it will be entire
in every part of the sensible species which contain it as a substance ;
the body of Christ, therefore, into which the substance of the bread
is changed, does not occupy place, and is whole and entire in every
part of the species . Here is how St. Thomas explains it (1) :
" Tota substantia corporis Christi continetur in hoc Sacramento
post consecrationem, sicut ante consecrationem continebatur ibi
tota substantia panis. Propria autem totalitas substantiæ continetur
indifferenter in pauca vel magna quantitate , unde et tota substantia
corporis et sanguinis Christi continetur in hoc sacramento."
35. That being the case, it is not the fact that the body of
Christ in the Eucharist exists without quantity ; the whole quan-
tity is there, but in a supernatural not a natural manner . It does
not exist, then, circumscriptive, that is, according to the measure of
the proper quantity corresponding to the quantity of space ; but it
exists sacramentaliter-sacramentally, after the manner of a sub-
stance. Hence it is that Jesus Christ, in the Sacrament, does not
exercise any action dependent on the senses ; and although he
exercises the acts of the intellect and of the will, he does not exer-
cise the corporal acts of the sensitive life , which require a certain
sensible and external extension in the organs of the body.
36. Neither is it true that Jesus Christ exists in the Sacrament
without extension. His body is there, and it has extension ; but
this extension is not external , or sensible and local, but internal,
in ordine ad se, so that although all the parts are in the same place,
still one part is not confused with the other. Thus Jesus Christ
exists in the Sacrament with internal extension ; but as to external
and local extension , he is inextended , and indivisible , and whole,
and entire, in each particle of the Host , as a substance , as has been
already said, without occupying space. Hence it is, that as the
body of our Lord does not occupy space , it cannot be moved from one
place to another, but is moved only per accidens , when the species
are moved under which it is contained, just as happens to ourselves ,
that when our bodies are moved from one place to another, our
souls are also moved , per accidens, though the soul is incapable of
occupying any space. In fine, the Eucharist is a Sacrament of
Faith, mysterium Fidei, and as we cannot comprehend all the
matters of Faith , so we should not pretend to understand all that
Faith , through the Church, teaches us concerning this Sacrament.
37. But how, say they, can the accidents of bread and wine
exist without their substance, or subject, as it is called ? We
-
answer the question whether accidents are distinct from matter
has been already mooted ; the most general opinion is in the affir-
mative ; the Councils of Lateran, Florence, and Trent, however,
keeping clear of the controversy altogether, call the accidents
species. In the ordinary course of things these accidents , or species,
cannot exist without the subject, but they can in a supernatural
and extraordinary manner. In the ordinary course ofthings , hu-
manity cannot exist without its proper subsistence (subsistentia) ;
but notwithstanding, Faith teaches us that the humanity of Christ
had not human, but Divine subsistence, that is, the Person of the
Word. As the humanity of Christ, therefore, united to the Word
hypostatically, subsists without the human person , so, in the
Eucharist, the species can exist without the subject , that is, with-
out the substance of bread, because their substance is changed into
the body of Christ. These species, therefore, have nothing of
reality, but by Divine power they represent their former subject,
and appear still to retain the substance of bread and wine, and may
even become corrupted , and worms may be generated in them, but,
then, it is from a new matter, created by the Almighty, that these
worms spring, and Jesus Christ is no longer present, as St. Thomas
teaches (2) . As far as the sensations of our organs go, the body of
Christ in the Eucharist is neither seen nor touched by us imme-
diately in itself, but only through the medium of those species under
which it is contained , and it is thus we should understand the
words of St. John Chrysostom (3) : " Ecce eum vides, Ipsum tangis ,
Ipsum manducas."
38. It is, then, an article of faith , that Jesus Christ is perma-
nently in the Eucharist, and not alone in the use of the commu-
nion, as the Lutherans say, and this is the doctrine of the Council
of Trent, which also assigns the reason : " In Eucharistia ipse auctor
ante usum est, nondum enim Eucharistiam de manu Domini Apos-
toli susceperant, cum vere tamen ipse affirmavit corpus suum esse,
quod præbebat" (Sess. xiii. Cap. 3) . And as Jesus Christ is present
before the use of the Sacrament, so he is also present after it, as
the Fourth Canon expresses it : " Si quis dixerit......in Hostiis,
seu particulus consecratis, quæ post communionem reservantur, vel
supersunt, non remanere verum corpus Domini ; anathema sit."
39. This is proved , not alone by reason and authority, but by
the ancient practice of the Church, likewise ; for in the early ages,
on account of the persecution, the Holy Communion was given in
private houses and in caverns, as Tertullian testifies (4) : " Non
sciet Maritus, quid secreto ante omnem cibum gustes : et si sciverit
panem, non illum esse credat, qui dicitur." St. Cyprian (5) tells us,
that in his time the faithful used to bring home the Eucharist to
their houses , to communicate at the proper time. St. Basil ( 6) ,
(2) St. Thom. 3, p. qu. 76, a. 5, ad. 3. (3) St. Chrysost. Hom. 60, ad Pap.
(4) Tertul. l. 2, ad Uxor. c. 5. (5) St. Cypri. Tract. de Lapsis. (6) St. Basil, Ep.
289 ad Cesar. Patriciam.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 507
writing to the Patrician Cesaria, exhorts her, that as she could not,
on account of the persecution , attend the public communion , she
should carry it along with her, to communicate in case of danger.
St. Justin, Martyr (7), mentions that the deacons used to carry the
communion to the absent. St. Iræneus ( 8 ) laments to Pope Victor,
that having omitted to celebrate the Pasch, he deprived several
priests of the communion on that account, who could not come to
the public meetings, and he therefore sent the Eucharist in sign of
peace to those who were prevented from attending : " Cum tamen
qui te præcesserunt, Presbyteris, quamvis id minime observarent,
Eucharistiam transmiserunt ." St. Gregory of Nazianzen ( 9 ) relates
that her sister Orgonia, standing with great faith nigh to the
Sacrament, which was concealed, was freed from a disease under
which she was labouring ; and St. Ambrose ( 10) tells us that St.
Satirus, having the Eucharist suspended round his neck, escaped
shipwreck .
40. Father Agnus Cirillo, in his work entitled " Ragguagli Teo-
logici" (p. 353), adduces several other examples to the same effect,
and proves that an anonymous author, who lately taught that it was
not lawful to give communion with particles previously consecrat-
ed, and preserved in the tabernacle, is totally wrong. The learned
Mabillon ( 11 ) shows that the practice of giving communion when
Mass was not celebrated had its origin in the Church of Jerusalem ,
and existed in the days of St. Cyril, as it was not possible to say
Mass each time that the numerous pilgrims frequenting the Holy
City required communion. From the Eastern this custom was in-
troduced into the Western Church, and Gregory XIII ., in 1584,
laid down in his Ritual the mode to be observed by the priest in
the administration of the holy communion, when Mass was not said.
This Ritual was confirmed , subsequently, by Paul V. , in 1614, and
in the chapter de Sac. Eucharis., it is ordered that " Sacerdos
curare debet, ut perpetuo aliquot particulæ consecratæ eo numero,
quæ usui infirmorum, et aliorum (mark this) Fidelium communioni
satis esse possint, conserventur in pixide." Benedict XIV. , in his
Encyclical Letter of the 12th November, 1742, approves of giving
communion when Mass is not celebrated : " De eodem Sacrificio
participant, præter eos quibus a sacerdote celebrante tribuitur in
ipsa Missa portio Victimæ a se oblatæ, ii etiam quibus sacerdos
Eucharistiam præservari solitam ministrat.”
41. We may as well remark here, that a certain decree of the
Congregation of Rites, dated 2nd September, 1741 , was circulated,
by which it was prohibited to give communion to the people at the
Masses for the dead, with pre-consecrated particles, and taking the
pixis from the tabernacle, because the usual benediction cannot be
(7) St. Justin. Apol. 2, p. 97. (8 ) St. Iren. Ep. ad Vic. Pon. (9) St. Greg.
Nazian. Orat. 11. (10) St. Ambr. Orat. de obitu fratris Satyri. (11) Mabill.
Liturg. Gallic. l. 2, c. 9, n. 26.
508 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
it would appear from this, also, that the words, " This is my blood,"
were said after the sumption of the chalice ; but the context of all
the Evangelists shows that both " This is my body," and " This is
my blood," was said by our Lord before he gave them the species
of bread and wine.
SEC. IV. THE MATTER AND FORM OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST.
(3) St. Thom. 3, p. q. 73, art. 2. (4) Petr. de Marca Diss. posthuma de Sacrif. Missa.
(5) Luther, 7 de Abrog. Missa. (6) Calvin, Inst. 4, c. 17, sec. 39. (7) Arcud.
3, c. 28. (8) Durand. l. 4, de Div. Offic. c. 41, n. 13. (9) Innoc. III. l. 4,
Myst. c. 6. (10) Ap. Tournelly Comp. de Euch. qu. 4, a. 6, p. 184. (11) Gotti,
Theol. de Euch. qu. 2, sec. 1 , n. 2. (12) St. Thom. 3, p. q. 78, a. 1. (13 ) St. Thom.
loc. cit. a. 5. ( 14) Le Brun, t. 3, rer. Liturg. p. 212. (15) St. Thom. 3,
p. q. 78, a. 5.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 511
(20) St. Justin Apol. 2. (21 ) St. Iren. l. 4, c. 24, & l. 3, c. 2. (22) St. Aug.
Serm. 28, de Verb. Do. (23) Idem, de Trinit . c. 4. (24) Bellar. 7. 4, de Euchar.
c. 19. (25) Salmeron. t. 9, trac. 13, p. 88 ; Tournell. de Euchar. 9, 4, a. 6, vers.
Quær. (26) Tournell. loc. cit. p. 191, v. Dices. 1. (27) St. Thom. 3, p. 9, 78,
a. 1 , ad 4.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 513
(28) Liguor. Theol. Moral. t. 2, dub. 6 , de Euch., &c. (29) St. Thom. in 4 Dist. 8,
q. 2, ar. 2, q. 2.
2 K
514 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
REFUTATION XI .
5. Man having lost his free will , the sectarians say that it is im-
possible for him to observe the precepts of the Decalogue, and
especially the first and tenth commandments. Speaking of the tenth
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 517
commandment, " Thou shalt not covet," &c. , non concupisces , they
say it is quite impossible to observe it, and they found the impossi-
bility on a fallacy. Concupiscence, they say, is itself a sin , and
hence, they assert that not alone motions of concupiscence, in
actu secundo, which precede consent, are sinful, but also move-
ments in actu primo, which precede reason , or advertence itself.
Catholics, however, teach, that movements of concupiscence , in actu
primo, which precede advertence, are neither mortal nor venial sins,
but only natural defects proceeding from our corrupt nature, and
for which God will not blame us. The movements which precede
consent are at most only venial sins, when we are careless about
banishing them from our minds after we perceive them, as Gerson
and the Salmanticenses, following St. Thomas , teach , for in that
case the danger of consenting to the evil desired, by not positively
resisting and banishing that motion of concupiscence, is only remote,
and not proximate . Doctors, however, usually except movements
of carnal delectation , for then it is not enough to remain passive ,
negative se habere, as theologians say, but we should make a posi-
tive resistance, for, otherwise, if they are any way violent, there is
great danger of consenting to them. Speaking of other matters,
however, the consenting alone ( as we have said) to the desire of
a grievous evil is a mortal sin. Now, taking the commandment in
this sense, no one can deny that with the assistance of Divine grace,
which never fails us, it is impossible to observe it. If one adver-
tently consents to a wicked desire, or takes morose delectation in
thinking on it, he is then guilty of a grievous, or, at all events, of
a light fault, for our Lord himself says : " Follow not in thy strength
the desires of thy heart" (Eccl. v. 2) ; " Go not after thy lusts"
(Eccl. xviii . 30) ; " Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal
body, so as to obey the lusts thereof" ( Rom. vi. 12) . I have used
the expression a light fault, because the delectation of a bad object
is one thing; the thought of a bad object another : this delectation
of thought is not mortally sinful in itself, but only venially so ; and
even if there be a just cause, it is no sin at all. This, however,
must be understood to be the case only when we abominate the
evil object, and besides, that the consideration of it should be of
some utility to us, and that the consideration of it should not lead
us to take pleasure in the evil object, because if there was a proxi-
mate danger ofthis, the delectation would , in that case, be grievously
sinful . When then , on the other hand, concupiscence assaults us
against our will , then there is no sin , for God only obliges us to do
what is in our power. Man is composed of the flesh and the spirit,
which are always naturally at war with each other ; and hence, it
is not in our power not to feel many times movements opposed to
reason. Would not that master be a tyrant who would command
his servant not to feel thirst or cold ? In the law of Moses punish-
ment was imposed only on actual external crimes, and hence the
518 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(1) St. Aug. 1. de Sp. & Lit. c. 1 , & l. de Perf. just. Resp. (2 ) St. Thom. 2, 2 qu. 44,
art. 8, ad 2. (3) Calvin in Antid. Con. Trid. Sess. vi. c. 12.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 519
SEC. III. THAT GOOD WORKS ARE NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, AND THAT FAITH
ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT.
13. LUTHER said that, not alone the works of infidels and sinners
(4) St. Thom. 1, 2 , qu. 96, art. 5. (5) Ap. St. Aug. de Corrept. et Grat. t. 10, c. 4 ,
n. 6, in fine. (6) St. Aug. ibid. c. 5, n. 7.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 521
were of no use, but that even works performed by the just are
mere sins, or, at all events, vitiated by sin. Here are his words :
" In omni opere bono justus peccat ( 1 ) . Opus bonum, optime
factum, est mortale peccatum secundum judicium Dei ( 2 ) . Justus
in bono opere peccat mortaliter" (3) . Becanus ( 4) says that Calvin
taught the same, that the works of the just are nothing but iniquity.
O, my God, how blind is the human understanding, when it loses
the light of Faith ! This blasphemy of Luther and Calvin was
properly condemned by the Council of Trent ( Sess. vi. Can. 22) :
" Si quis in quodlibet bono opere justum saltem venialiter peccare
dixerit, aut quod intolerabilius est, mortaliter, atque ideo pœnas
æternas mereri ; tantumque ob id non damnari, quia Deus ea opera
non imputet ad damnationem ; anathema sit." They quote Isaias,
however, who says (lxiv. 6) : " And we have all become as one
unclean, and all our justices," &c. But, as St. Cyril explains this
text, the Prophet here is not speaking of the works of the just, but
of the iniquity of the Jews of that day. How could good works
possibly be sinful, when Christ exhorts us to perform them : " Let
your light shine before men , that they may see your good works"
(Matt. v. 16 ) . They are not sins ; but, on the contrary, God de-
lights in them, and without them we cannot obtain salvation.
Nothing can be clearer than the Scripture on this point : " Not
every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord , shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven ; but he that doth the will of my Father"
(Matt. vii. 21 ) . To do the will of God is to do good works : " If
thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" ( Matt. xix . 17) .
When God shall condemn the wicked, he shall say to them : "Go
from me, ye accursed ." And why ? " For I was hungry, and you
gave me not to eat ; I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink"
(Matt. xxv. 42 ). " Patience is necessary for you : that, doing the
will of God, you may receive the promise" (Heb. x. 36) . " What
shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith , but hath
not works ? Shall Faith be able to save him ?" (James, ii . 14 ) .
Here it is proved that works are necessary for salvation , and that
Faith is not alone sufficient. We will treat this subject more
extensively by-and-by.
14. Our adversaries object, that St. Paul, writing to Titus (iii.
5-7), says : " Not by the works of justice, which we have done,
but according to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regene-
ration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost. Whom he hath poured
forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: That
being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of
life everlasting." Therefore, they say that no work of ours, though
a work ofjustice, is available to salvation ; but that we should rest
(1) Luther, in Assert. art. 31. (2) Idem. art. 33. (3) Idem. art. 36
(4) Becan. Man. contr. l. 1 , c. 18, ex Calv. Inst. l. 2, t. 1, sec. 9, &c.
522 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
all our hopes of grace and salvation in Jesus Christ, who, by his
merits, has obtained both grace and salvation for us. To answer
this argument clearly , we must make several distinctions. We can
deserve grace and eternal salvation in two ways - de condigno
and de congruo. To deserve it de condigno, it is necessary that the
remunerator should be obliged to reward us, as a debt of justice ;
but to deserve it, de congruo, the remunerator has no obligation to
reward us- it is fit that he should do so , but it is totally an act of
liberality on his part. Now, as far as human merit is with God as
a matter ofjustice, several conditions are requisite. The act itself
must be good ; it is requisite that he who performs it be in a state .
of grace, and, on the part of the Almighty it is necessary that he
should have promised to reward us, for he, as man's supreme Lord,
might require all service from him, without any reward at all. To
make it a debt of justice, therefore, it is necessary that a gratuitous
Divine promise should have been already given, by which God
himself gratuitously makes himself a debtor for the reward pro-
mised. It is after this manner that St. Paul could say that he ex-
pected , in justice, eternal life , as the reward of his good works : “ I
have fought the good fight ; I have finished my course ; I have
kept the Faith. As to the next, there is laid up for me a crown
of justice, which the Lord, the just judge, will render to me in
that day" (2 Tim. iv. 7 , 8 ). And here St. Augustin (5 ) says :
" Debitorem Dominus ipse se fecit, non accipiendo, sed promit-
tendo . Non ei dicimus : Redde quod accepisti , sed redde quod
promisisti."
15. Here, then, is what the Catholic Church teaches. No man
can merit actual justifying grace de condigno, but only de congruo,
and Melancthon stated a falsehood in his Apology of the Confession
of Augsburg (p. 137) , when he asserted that we believe we can
merit justification by our works. The Council of Trent has de-
clared, and this is our faith, and no other, that sinners are justified
gratuitously by God, and that no work of theirs preceding their
justification can deserve it. But the Council has also said that
man justified, although he cannot de condigno merit final perseve-
rance ( Sess. vi. c. 13 ) , still can merit de condigno , by the good
works he does, assisted by Divine grace, and the merits of Christ,
the augmentation of grace and eternal life. The Council fulmi-
nates its anathema against all who deny this doctrine , in the Sixth
Session (Can . 33) : " Si quis dixerit hominis justificati bona opera
ita esse dona Dei, ut non sint etiam bona ipsius justificati merita ;
aut ipsum justificatum bonis operibus, quæ ab eo per Dei gratiam ,
et per Jesu Christi meritum, cujus vivum membrum est, fiunt, non
vere mereri augmentum gratiæ, vitam æternam, et ipsius vitæ
æternæ (si tamen in gratia decesserit) consecutionem, atque etiam
prove that the merit of the just man is a merit of justice, de con-
digno.
18. The Holy Fathers prove the same doctrines. St. Cyprian
says (6) : " Justitiæ opus ..... ut accipiant merita nostra mercedem."
St. John Chrysostom, in a long passage which I abridge , says (7) :
" Nunquam profecto, cum justus sit Deus, bonos hic cruciatibus
affici sinerit, si non in futuro seculo mercedem pro meritis parasset .”
St. Augustin says ( 8) : " Non est injustus Deus, qui justos fraudet
mercede justitiæ." And again ( 9) : " Nullane sunt merita justorum ?
sunt plane, sed ut justi fierent ; merita non fuerunt ;" as they are
not just by their own merits, but by the Divine Grace. Again, the
same Saint says : " Deus cum coronat nostra merita , quid aliud
coronat quam sua dona ?" The Fathers of the Second Council of
Oranges decided that, " Debetur merces bonis operibus, si fiant ;
sed gratiæ Dei, quæ non debetur, præcedit ut fiant." In conclusion ,
therefore, all our merits depend on the assistance of grace, without
which we cannot have any, and the reward of salvation due to our
good works is founded in the promise gratuitously made to us by
God through the merits of Jesus Christ."
19. They object that text of St. Paul (Rom. vi . 23) : “ The
grace of God life everlasting in Christ Jesus our Lord." Eternal
life, therefore, say they, is a grace of the Divine Mercy, and not a
reward due to our good works. We reply, that eternal life is justly
to be attributed to the mercy of God, for he, by his mercy, has
promised it to our good works. The Apostle, therefore, with good
reason, calls eternal life a grace, since it is by the grace of God
alone that he has constituted himself a debtor of eternal life to all
who perform good works.
20. They object, secondly, that eternal life is called an inheri-
tance, " Knowing that you shall receive of the Lord the reward of
inheritance" (Col. iii. 24) . Inheritance, they say, then, is not the
right of Christians, as being children of God by merit, but solely on
account of his gratuitous adoption . We answer, that to infants
glory is given, solely on the title of inheritance ; but adults obtain
it as an inheritance, as they are the adopted children of God, and
also as a reward for their good works, since God has promised them
the inheritance if they observe the law ; so that this inheritance is,
at the same time, a gift and a retribution due to them for their
merits, and this is what the Apostle means when he says : " You
shall receive of the Lord the reward of inheritance ."
21. They object, thirdly, that our Lord wishes that no matter
how carefully we fulfil the commandments, we should call ourselves
unprofitable servants : " So you also, when you shall have done all
these things that are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable ser-
(6) St. Cyprian de Unit. (7) St. Chrysos. t. 5, l. 1, de Prav. (8) St. Aug. 1. de
Nat. et Grat. c. 2. (9) Idem. Epis. 165.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 525
vants, we have done that which we ought to do" (Luke, xvii . 10) .
If then, say they, we are unprofitable servants, how can we merit
eternal life by our works? We answer, that our works of them-
selves, without grace, have no merit, but being performed with
grace, they, with justice , merit eternal life, in regard of the promise
made by God to those who perform them.
22. They object, fourthly, that our works are due to God by
obedience, as our supreme Lord , and , hence, they cannot merit
eternal life, as justly due to them. We answer, however, that God,
through his goodness, laying on one side every other title by which
he might justly require all the services we can pay him, has bound
himself by a promise to give us eternal glory , as the reward of our
good works. But they still say, when every good work is from
God, what reward can we expect ? We answer, every good work
is all from God, but not totally from God, in the same manner as
every good work is all our own, but not totally our own, because
God works with us, and we with him, and it is to this co-operation
of ours that it has pleased God to promise, gratuitously, the reward
of eternal life.
23. They object, fifthly , that although the good work might be
deserving of glory, still there should be some proportion between
the labour and the reward ; but what proportion , say they, can be
found between our works and eternal glory ? " The sufferings of
this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come
that shall be revealed in us" (Rom. viii . 18) . We answer, that our
works in themselves, and unconnected with Divine grace , are, with-
out doubt, unworthy of eternal glory , but rendered valuable by
grace, they are worthy of it, and a proportion then exists between
them, as the same Apostle says : " For that which is at present
momentary and light of our tribulation , worketh for us above
measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor. iv. 17) .
24. They object, sixthly, that St. Paul says : " For by grace you
are saved through faith, and not of yourselves, for it is the gift of
God, not of works, that no man may glory" (Ephes. ii . 8 , 9 ). Here,
then, say they, it is clear that it is grace that saves us, by means of
faith in Jesus Christ. The Apostle, however, is not here speaking
of eternal life, but of grace itself, which , undoubtedly , we never
can merit by our works ; but, as we have already proved, God
wishes that those who fulfil his precepts should, on account of the
promise made by him, acquire eternal glory . Then , they reply,
if our works are necessary for salvation, the merits of Christ alone
are not sufficient to save us. No, in truth they are not enough, but
our works are also requisite, for the benefit of Jesus Christ is, that
he obtained for us the power of applying his merits with our own
works. Neither is there anything in that out of which we can pride
ourselves, because whatever power we have to merit heaven, we
have solely through the merits of Christ ; and , therefore , all the
526 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
glory is his, as when the vine branches produce fruit, the whole is
due to the vine which sends sap to the branches . When the just
man, then, obtains eternal life he does not glory in his own works,
but in the Divine grace which, by the merits of Christ , gave him
the power of meriting it. According to the doctrine of our adver-
saries, however, almost every means of salvation is taken from us,
for if our works are of no avail to us for salvation , and God does
everything, then it is no matter whether our morals are good or
bad, we need no preparation to receive the sacraments ; and prayer
inculcated in so many passages of the Scripture, is totally useless to
us . What worse doctrine than this could the devil himself invent
to lead souls to perdition ?
25. This leads us on to another point, following from the former
one-that Faith alone is sufficient to save us , as Luther and Calvin ·
said, who, on this anchor alone, trusted their eternal salvation , and
therefore despised all law and judgment , cared nothing for righteous-
ness, prayers, or sacraments, and considered all things, no matter
how wicked, lawful. They asserted that the Faith by which we
firmly believe that God will save us by the merits of Jesus Christ
and the promises made by him, is alone sufficient, without works ,
to obtain salvation for us from God, and this faith they called
Fiducia, confidence , it being a hope founded on the promise of Jesus
Christ. They quote Scripture, too, in favour of this opinion ;
" Who believes in the Son, hath eternal life" (John , iii. 36) ; " That
he himself may be just , and the justifier of him who is of the Faith
of Jesus Christ" (Romans, iii. 26) ; " In him every one that believeth
is justified" (Acts, xiii . 39) ; " Whoever believeth in him shall not
be confounded" (Rom. x. 11 ) ; " The just manliveth by Faith"
(Gal. iii . 11 ) ; " The justice of God, by Faith of Jesus Christ, unto
all, and upon all them that believe in him" (Rom. iii . 22) .
26. If Faith alone, however, justifies us, how is that the very
same Scriptures declare, that it is of no use without works ? " What
shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith but hath not
works ? Shall faith be able to save him ?" (James, ii . 14) ; and im-
mediately after he says (ver. 17) : " So Faith also , if it have not
works, is dead in itself." Luther, to be sure, says, that this Epistle
is not canonical , but we believe rather the authority of the Church,
which includes it in her Canon . But there are numberless other
passages to prove that Faith alone is not sufficient to save us, but
that it is necessary also that we fulfil the commandments. St. Paul
says : " If I should have all faith, so that I could remove moun-
tains, and have not charity, I am nothing" ( 1 Cor. xiii . 2) . Jesus
Christ commanded his disciples : " Go teach all nations .... to
observe all things whatever I commanded you" (Mark , xxviii.19,20).
And he said to the young man : 66 If thou wilt enter into eternal
life, observe the commandments" (Matt. xix. 17) , and there are
many other texts of a like nature. The texts, therefore, adduced
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 527
(10) St. Aug. 1. 15 de Trin. c. 18. (11) Pich. Theol. Pol. par. post. ar 6.
(12) Bossuet, Variat. l. 8, n. 30 in fine.
528 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
remained in the soul as far as the fault was concerned should not God
impute them to us ? God judges according to truth : " For we know
the judgment of God is according to truth" ( Rom . ii . 2 ) ; but how
could God judge according to the truth, judging that man not to be
culpable, who is in reality culpable ? These are truly some of Cal-
vin's mysteries which surpass our comprehension. The Scripture
says, "To God the wicked and his wickedness are equal alike"
(Wisdom, xiv. 9) . If God hates the sinner on account of the sin
that reigns in him, how can he love him as a child , because he is
covered with the justice of Christ, while he is still a sinner all the
while ? Sin, by its very nature, is contrary to God , so it is impos-
sible that God should not hate it as long as it is not taken away,
and he must also hate the sinner as long as he retains it . David
says : " Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed
sin." We understand by this not that God does not impute sin by
leaving sin in the soul, and not pretending to see it , but that he
does not impute it because he cancels and remits it, and hence
David says, in the very same passage , " Blessed are they whose
iniquities are forgiven." The sins that are forgiven to us are not
imputed to us.
32. They say, in the second place, that in the justification of a
sinner intrinsic justice is not infused into him, but the justice of
Christ alone is imputed to him, so that the wicked man does not
become just, but remains wicked still, and is reputed just alone by
the intrinsic justice of Christ which is imputed to him. This is,
however, an evident error, for the sinner cannot become a friend of
God if he does not receive justice of his own , which will renovate
him internally, and change him from being a sinner to become one
of the just, and as he was previously hateful in the eyes of God,
now having acquired this justice, he is agreeable to him. Hence
St. Paul exhorts the Ephesians to become renewed in spirit, “ And
be renewed in the spirit of your mind" (Eph. iv . 23) . And hence
the Council of Trent says that by the merits of Christ internal
justice is communicated to us : " Qua renovamur spiritus mentis
nostræ, et non modo reputamur, sed vere etiam justi nominamur, et
sumus" (Sess. vi. cap. 7) . The Apostle says in another place, that
the sinner, by justification , " is renewed unto knowledge according
to the image of him who created him" (Col. iii. 10 ) ; so that the
sinner, by the merits of Christ , returns back to that state from
which he fell by sin , and becomes sanctified as a temple in which
God dwells, and hence the Apostle, admonishing his disciples , says :
" Fly fornication ...... know you not that your members are the
temple of the Holy Ghost" ( 1 Cor. vi. 18 , 19) . What is more sur-
prising than all is, that Calvin himself knew that man never can be
reconciled with God unless internal and inherent justice is given to
him : "Nunquam reconciliamur Deo, quin simul donemur inhærente
2L
530 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
justitia" ( 1 ). These are his own words, and how can he afterwards
say that through faith alone we are justified with the imputative
justice of Christ, which is not ours, nor is in us, neither does it
belong to us, and is totally extern to us, and is merely intrinsically
imputed to us, so that it does not make us just, only to be reputed
just ? This has been justly condemned by the Council of Trent
(Sess. v. Can. 10) : " Si quis dixerit , homines sine Christi justitia,
per quam nobis meruit, justificari ; aut per eam ipsam formaliter
justos esse ; anathema sit." (Can. 11 ) : " Si quis dixerit homines.
justificari vel sola imputatione justitiæ Christi , vel sola peccatorum
remissione, exclusa gratia, et caritate, quæ in illis inhæreat .....
anathema sit."
33. They object, first, the text (Rom. iv. 5) : " But to him that
worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his
faith is reputed to justice." We answer, briefly, that here the
Apostle says that faith should be imputed to justice, to teach us that
the sinner is justified , not by his own works, but by his faith in the
merits of Christ ; but he does not say, that in virtue of this faith
the justice of Christ is intrinsically imputed to the sinner who , with-
out being just, is reputed so.
34. They object, secondly, that St. Paul says to Titus : " Not by
the works of justice which we have done, but according to his
mercy, he saved us by the labour of regeneration and renovation of
the Holy Ghost, whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly,
through Jesus Christ our Saviour" (Tit. iii. 5 , 6). Therefore, they
say, God justifies us by his mercy, and not by the works which,
we allege, are necessary for justification. We reply, that our works,
as hope, charity, and repentance, with a purpose of amendment , are
necessary to render us disposed to receive grace from God ; but
when the Almighty gives it to us, he does so not for our works , but
through his mercy alone, and the merits ofJesus Christ. Let
them particularly remark the words " renovation ofthe Holy Ghost,
whom he hath poured forth abundantly upon us, through Jesus
Christ our Saviour ;" so that when God justifies us, he infuses upon
us, not away from us, the Holy Ghost, who renews us, changing us
from sinners unto saints.
35. They object, thirdly, another text of St. Paul : " But of him
are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom , and
justice, and sanctification , and redemption" ( 1 Cor. i . 30 ) . Behold,
they exclaim, how Jesus Christ is made our justice . We do not
deny that the justice of Jesus Christ is the cause of our justice ; but
we deny that the justice of Christ is our justice itself, no more than
we can say that our wisdom is the wisdom of Christ ; and as we do
not become wise because of the wisdom of Christ imputed to us,
were forgiven him, and hence he says ( 1 ) : " Believe firmly that
you are absolved, and you will be so, no matter what contrition you
may have ;" and he props up this opinion by a text of St. Paul :
" Try your ownselves if you be in the faith : prove ye yourselves.
Know you not your ownselves, that Christ Jesus is in you , unless
perhaps you be reprobated ?" ( 2 Cor. xiii. 6 ) . From this text Luther
deduces that a man may be certain of his Faith , and hence he con-
cludes, that being certain of his Faith, he is also certain of the re-
mission of sins. But what sort of conclusion is this ? A man is
certain of his Faith ; but when he knows, at the same time, that he
is a sinner, how can he be certain of pardon , unless he is also cer-
tain of contrition. Luther himself had previously said ( 2 ) : " No
one can be sure of the truth of his contrition , and much less of par-
don." This is the way with all heretics ; they are continually con-
tradicting themselves. Besides, in this passage the Apostle is not
speaking ofjustification , but of the miracles which the Corinthians
should believe were wrought by God.
38. The Council of Trent (Sess . vi. cap. 9), teaches, that although
every one ought to be certain of the Divine Mercy, of the merits
of Christ, and of the power of the sacraments, still no one can be
certain of the remission of his sins as a matter of Faith , and in the
13th Canon condemns all who assert the contrary : " Si quis dixerit,
omni homini ad remissionem peccatorum assequendam necessarium
esse, ut credat certo, et absque ulla hæsitatione propriæ infirmitatis,
et indispositionis peccata sibi esse remissa : anathema sit." And
this is proved by the Scriptures likewise : " Man knoweth not
whether he be worthy of love or hatred , but all things are kept
uncertain for the time to come" (Eccles. ix. 1 , 2) . Calvin ( 3) ob-
jects that this text does not allude to the state of a soul in grace or
anger with God, but to the prosperous or adverse circumstances
which happen in this life, as by those temporal accidents we cannot
know whether God loves or hates us, since prosperity and adversity
are the portions of good and bad alike ; but, on the other hand, he
says man can very well know whether he is just or unjust, if he
knows that he has or has not faith . But we answer, that this text
does not speak of temporal things, but of the love or hatred with
which God looks on the state of the soul, and, therefore, it says,
" all things are kept uncertain for the time to come." If, therefore,
in this life all things are " kept uncertain," then what our adver-
saries say cannot be the fact, that man , by the knowledge of his
faith, can be certain that he is in a state of grace.
39. God , besides, admonishes us that we should be afraid even
ofthe sin forgiven already : " Be not without fear about sin forgiven"
( Eccles. v. 5) . The innovators quote the Greek text here, which
(1) Luther, Serm. de Indulg. t. 1, p. 59. (2) Luther Serm. de Indulg. t. 1, p. 30.
3) Calvin, Instit. l. 3, c. 2 , s. 38.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 533
says not forgiven, but forgiveness, and that, they say, means that we
should not presume that the sins not yet committed will be forgiven.
This interpretation , however, is false, because the Greek expression
comprehends both past and future sins, and the Greek text is ex-
plained in the Latin translation by past sins. St. Paul surely had
a knowledge of his Faith, and although he did not feel his con-
science laden with any sin, and saw himself favoured by God with
revelations and extraordinary gifts , still he did not consider himself
with certainty justified . God alone, he says, knew in truth whether
he was or not : " I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet I
am not hereby justified , but he that judgeth me is the Lord" (1 Cor.
iv. 4).
40. Our adversaries object, that the Apostle says : " The Spirit
himself giveth testimony of our Spirit, that we are the sons of
God" (Rom. viii. 16 ) . Hence Calvin concludes that it is Faith
which assures us of being the children of God . We answer that,
although the testimony of the Holy Ghost is infallible in itself, still
as far as we are concerned , and know anything about it, we can only
have a conjectural certainty of being in a state of grace , but never
can be infallibly certain of it, unless by a special revelation from
God. And, moreover, as far as our knowledge goes, we cannot
know if that Spirit be surely from God , for many times the angel
of darkness transforms himself into an angel of light, to deceive us.
41. Luther said , that a faithful man, by means of justifying
Faith, though he may be in sin at the time, ought to believe, with
an infallible certainty, that he is justified by reason of the justice.
of Christ, imputed to him ; but he afterwards said that this justice
might be lost by any new sin. Calvin (4) , on the contrary, made
an addition to this heresy, for he insisted on the inadmissibility of
this imputative justice. If we could suppose Luther's false prin-
ciple of justifying Faith to be true, we should admit that Calvin
had more reason at his side than he . He said , if any one of the
Faithful is sure of his justification, when he prays for it, and
believes with confidence that God, by the merits of Christ, justifies
him, this petition then, and this certainty of Faith , regard no less
the remission of sins committed, than the future perseverance in
grace, and, consequently, eternal salvation . Calvin adds ( 5 ) , that
when the faithful man relapses into sin , though his justifying
Faith is oppressed by it , it is not, however, lost, for the soul always
would have retained possession of it. Such were the specious
doctrines of Calvin, and this was the doctrine professed by the
Elector Count Palatine, in his Confession of Faith : " I believe,"
said he, " that I am a living member of the Catholic Church for
evermore, since God, appeased by the satisfaction of Jesus Christ,
will not remember either the past, or future sins of my life " (6) .
(4) Bossuet, Var. t. 3, l. 14 , n. 16. (5) Calv. Ant. ad Con. Trid. s. 6, c. 13.
(6) Recuil. de Genevre, part 2, p. 169.
534 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES,
42. The whole gist of the matter is this, that the principle of
Luther, as we have already seen , is false , in the first place, for, in
order to obtain justification , it is not enough to have Faith alone
that we are justified by the merits of Christ ; but it is necessary,
also, that the sinner should have contrition for his faults, so as to
dispose himself to receive the remission which God grants him, ac-
cording to the promise he has made , to pardon those who repent,
through the merits of Jesus Christ. Hence, if the justified man
relapses into sin, he again loses grace.
43. If the doctrine of Luther, regarding the certainty of justifi-
cation , is false, the doctrine of Calvin , regarding the certainty of
perseverance and eternal salvation, is equally so. St. Paul tells
us : " Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand , let him take
heed lest he fall" ( 1 Cor. x. 12). And, again, he tells us : " With
fear and trembling, work out your salvation" (Phil. ii. 12. ) How,
then, can Calvin say that it is a temptation of the devil, to have
any fear about our perseverance ? When St. Paul, then , tells us to
live in fear, does he mean that we should second the temptations of
the devil ? But, say they, what is the use of this fear ? If what
Calvin asserts was true, that having once received justice and the
Holy Ghost, we can never lose them, because, according to him,
justifying Faith is never lost, and to him who has Faith, God does
not impute his sins-if all this , I say, were true , then , indeed , it
would be useless to dread the loss of Divine grace. But can any
one imagine that God will give his friendship and eternal glory to
one who tramples on the Divine law, and commits all sorts of
wickedness ; and all this because he believes, forsooth, that through
the merits of Jesus Christ, the crimes he commits will not be im-
puted to him ? Such , then, is the gratitude these Reformers show
to Jesus Christ. They avail themselves for the death he suffered
for love of us, to involve themselves more and more in crime ,
trusting that, through his merits, God will not impute their sins to
them. So Jesus Christ, then , has died , that men may have leave
to do whatever they please, without fear of punishment . If such ,
however, was the fact, why did God promulgate his laws - make
so many promises to those who observe them- and threaten those
who violate them? God, however, never deceives us when he
speaks to us ; he wishes that the commandments he imposes on uş
should be exactly observed-" Thou hast comminanded thy com-
mandments to be kept most diligently " (Psalm cxviii . 4)-and
condemns those who offend against his laws-" Thou hast despised
all those that fall off from thy judgments (Psalm exviii . 118 ) . It is
thus that fear is useful : the fear of losing the Divine grace, which
makes us cautiously avoid the occasions of sin, and adopt the means
of perseverance in a good life, such as frequenting the sacraments,
and praying continually.
44. Calvin says that, according to St. Paul, the gifts of God are
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 535
46. Leave Calvin aside, and hear what the Council of Trent
teaches, concerning perseverance and predestination . Speaking of
perseverance, it says : " Si quis magnum illud usque in finem
perseverantiæ donum se certo habiturum, absoluta et infallibili
certitudine dixerit, nisi hoc ex speciali revelatione didicerit :
anathema sit" (Sess. vi. Can. 16) . And, regarding predestination :
" Si quis dixerit , hominem renatum , et justificatum teneri ex fide
ad credendum , se certo esse in numero prædestinatorum : anathema
sit" (Sess. vi. Can. 15) . Behold , then, how clearly and distinctly
the Council defines all the dogmas of Faith, opposed to the errors
of modern innovators. I make this remark for the instruction of
those who assert that the Council gave only ambiguous decisions
in their controversies, and that it only increased disputes, instead
of putting an end to them. The Fathers of the Council said over
and over, that it was never their intention to give any decision
regarding the questions debated in Catholic schools, but solely to
define matters of Faith, and condemn the errors of the pretended
Reformers, who were endeavouring, not to reform morals, but to
subvert the ancient and true doctrines of the Catholic Church.
The Council, therefore, speaks ambiguously of scholastic questions,
and gives no decision on them ; but in matters of Faith , contested
by Protestants, it always speaks with the greatest clearness , and
without any ambiguity. Those alone find the definitions of the
Council doubtful who refuse to yield obedience to them. Το
come back to the subject. The Council teaches that no one can
be sure that he is predestined ; and, in fact, how can any one be
sure of predestination, when he is not sure that he will persevere
in goodness. But, says Calvin, St. John teaches that " You have
eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God"
(1 John, v. 13 ) . Therefore , says he, whoever has faith in Jesus
Christ has eternal life. We answer, he who believes in Jesus
Christ with true Faith , enlivened by charity, has eternal life , not
in possession, but in hope, as St. Paul says : " For we are saved by
hope" ( Rom. viii . 24 ). Perseverance is necessary to obtain eternal
life-" He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved" ( Matt.
x. 22)-but as long as we are uncertain of perseverance, we are
never sure of eternal life.
47. The sectarians object that the uncertainty of eternal salvation
makes us doubt of the Divine promises, to be saved by the merits
of Jesus Christ. We answer that the Divine promises never can
fail, so, on God's part, we never can doubt that he will be wanting,
by denying what he promised us. The doubt and fear is on our
side, for we may be found wanting, by transgressing his Divine
commandments, and thus losing his grace. God in that case is not
obliged to fulfil the promises made to us, but rather punish our
infidelity ; and, therefore, St. Paul exhorts us to work out our
salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. ii. 12 ). We are, therefore,
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 537
(2) Idem, ibid. sec. 39. (3) Idem, l. 3, c. 4 , sec. 3. (4) Calvin, Inst. l. 1 , c. 18,
sec. 4. (5) Idem , l. 1, c. 17, sec. 5. (6) Zuing. Serm. de Provid. c. 6. (7) Calv.
l. 1, c. 1 , sec. 3.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 539
necessarily sin. Here they are in error, however, when they say
necessarily; he will infallibly sin, because God has foreseen it, and
cannot err in his foresight ; but he will not necessarily sin , because ,
if he wishes to sin , he will do so of his own free will, by his own
malice, and God will permit him to do so , solely not to deprive him
of that free will which he gave him.
50. We shall now see how many absurd consequences proceed
from this sectarian doctrine. First absurdity. -They say that God,
for his own just ends, ordains and wills the sins committed by man-
kind. But nothing can be clearer than the Scriptures on this
point, which tell us that God not only does not wish sins, but
looks on them with horror, and wishes nothing so much as our
sanctification : " Thou art not a God that willest iniquity" (Psalm ,
v. 5) ; " To God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike"
(Wisdom, xiv. 9 ) ; " Thy eyes are too pure to behold evil , and
thou canst not look on iniquity" (Habak . i . 13 ) . Now, when God
protests that he does not wish sin, but hates and prohibits it, how
can the sectarians say, that, contradicting himself, he wishes it and
predestines it? Calvin himself ( 8 ) takes notice of this difficulty :
66
Objiciunt," he says, " si nihil eveniat, nisi volente Deo, duas
esse in eo contrarias voluntates, quia occulto consilio decernat, quæ
lege sua palam vetuit, facile diluitur." How does he get out of
the difficulty ? merely by saying, " We cannot understand it."
The true answer, however, is, that his supposition is totally false ,
for God can never wish that which he hates and forbids . Me-
lancthon, even in the Augsburg Confession , says : " Causa peccati
est voluntas impiorum, quæ avertit se a Deo." The will of the
wicked turned away from God is the cause of sin.
51. The second absurdity is this.-God , they say, incites the
devil to tempt us, and he himself even tempts man, and drives
him on to sin. How can that be, however, when God prohibits
us from following our evil inclinations : " Go not after thy lusts"
(Eccles. xviii . 30) ; and to fly from sin as from a serpent : " Flee
from sin as from the face of a serpent" (Eccles . xxi . 2 ) ? St. Paul
tells us to clothe ourselves with the armour of God , that is prayer,
against temptations : " Put on the armour of God, that you may be
able to stand against the deceits of the devil" (Ephes. vi. 11 ) . St.
Stephen reproaches the Jews, that they resisted the Holy Ghost ;
but if it were true that God moved them to sin , they might answer,
we do not resist the Holy Ghost, by any means, but do what he
inspires us, and on that account we stone you. Jesus Christ
teaches us to pray to God not to permit us to be tempted by those
dangerous occasions, which may lead to our fall : " Lead us not
into temptation." Now, if God urges on the devil to tempt us, and
even tempts us himself, and moves us to sin, and decrees that we
sin, how can he command us to fly from sin and resist it, and to
pray that we may be free from temptations. If God has decreed
that Peter, for example, should have a certain temptation, and
succumb to it, how can he command this same Peter to pray that
he may free him from this temptation , and change his own decree ?
God never urges the devil to tempt us, but merely permits him to
do so to prove us. When the devil tempts us, he commits a wick-
edness, and God cannot command him to do this : " He hath com-
manded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man license
to sin" (Eccles. xv. 21 ) . Our Lord himself promises, even , that
whenever we are tempted he will assist us, and give us sufficient
grace to resist, and declares that he will never allow us to be
tempted beyond our strength : " God is faithful , who will not suffer
you to be tempted above that which you are able " ( 1 .Cor . x. 13 ) .
But they still insist God, as we read in the Scriptures, several
times tempted man : " God hath tried them" (Wisdom, iii . 5) .
" After these things God tempted Abraham" ( Gen. xxii. 1 ) . We
must here draw a distinction : the devil tempts men to make them
fall into sin, but God tempts them solely to prove their fidelity, as
he did in Abraham's case, and does continually, with his faithful
servants : " God hath tried them , and found them worthy of himself"
(Wisdom, iii . 5 ) ; but he never tempts man to fall into sin, as the
devil does : " For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no
man" (James, i . 13).
52. The third absurdity is this.- God says : " Believe not every
spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God" (1 John , iv. 1 ) . Hence ,
we Catholics are bound to examine the resolutions we take, as well
as the counsels we receive from others, even when at first they
appear good and holy, because frequently what we believe to be an
inspiration from God is nothing but a snare of the devil. Accord-
ing to Calvin's doctrine, however, we are not obliged to make
this examination , and see whether the spirit is good or bad , because
whether it be one or the other, it is all from God, who wills that
we should put in practice whatever he inspires us to do, whether it
be good or bad. According to this, then , the reformer's own maxim
-of understanding the Scriptures, according to our private judg
ment-falls to the ground, for no matter what we do, or what
erroneous or heretical interpretation we may give to the Holy Writ,
it is all an inspiration from God.
53. The fourth absurdity. The whole Scriptures teach us that
God leans much more to mercy and pardon than to justice and
punishment : " All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth"
(Psalm, xxiv. 10) ; " The earth is full of the mercy of the Lord.
His tender mercies are above all his works" ( Psalm , cxliv. 9) ;
66
Mercy exalteth itself above judgment" (James, ii. 13) . The
Almighty, therefore, superabounds in mercy, not alone to the just,
but to sinners. The great desire he has to make us live well, and
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 541
(9) Calvin, Inst. . 1 , c. 18, s. 1. (10) Zuing. Serm. de Provident. c. 5. (11) Calv.
1. 3, c. 23, s. 2.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 543
texts distinguish between the will of God and his permission . God,
for his own just ends, permits that man may deceive or sin , either
for the punishment of the wicked or for the advantage of the just,
but he neither wishes nor operates sin . Tertullian ( 12 ) says , God
is not the author nor the actor of sin, though he undoubtedly per-
mits it. St. Ambrose ( 13) says he does what is good , but not what
is evil, and St. Augustin ( 14 ) writes : He (God) knows how to con-
demn iniquity, but not to do it.
SEC. VII.- GOD NEVER PREDESTINED ANY ONE TO ETERNAL DAMNATION WITHOUT
REGARD TO HIS SINS.
(12) Tertull. le cont. Hermog. (13) St. Ambr. i. de Par. c. 15. (14) St. Augus.
7. 105, ad Sixtum. (1) Calvin, Inst. l. 1, c. 21 , sec. 5. (5) Calvin, Inst. 7. 1 ,
c. 21 , s. 5 .
544 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(3) St. Prosper. resp. ad 2. Object. Vin. (4) St. Chrysos. in 1 Tim. 2, Hom. 7.
(5) St. Joan. Damas. 1. 2, de Fide Orthod. c. 2.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 545
Lord God, I desire not the death of the wicked , but that the wicked
turn from his evil way, and live" ( Ezech . xxxiii . 11) ,
61. Now, taking into account so many Scripture proofs, by
which God tells us that he wishes to save all mankind, it is, as the
learned Petavius says, an insult to the Divine Mercy, and a mock-
ery of the Faith , to say that God does not wish that it should be
so: " Quod si ista Scripturæ loca, quibus hanc suam voluntatem
tam illustribus, ac sæpe repetitis sententiis, imo lacrymis, ac jureju-
rando testatus est Deus, calumniari licet, et in contrarium detor-
quere sensum, ut præter paucos genus humanum omne perdere
statuerit, nec eorum servandorum voluntatem habuerit, quid est adeo
disertum in Fidei decretis, quod simili ab injuria, et cavillatione
tutum esse possit" (7) . Cardinal Sfrondati adds, that to assert the
contrary, that God wishes only some few to be saved, and has ab-
solutely decreed that all the rest should be damned , when he has
so often manifested that he wishes all to be saved, is only mak-
ing him an actor, who says one thing, and wishes and performs
another : " Plane qui aliter sentiunt, nescio an ex Deo vero Deum
scenicum faciant" (8 ) . All the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, are
agreed in this, that God sincerely wishes that all should be saved.
Petavius cites St. Justin, St. Basil , St. Gregory, St. Cyril, St. Chry-
sostom , and St. Methodius, on the subject. Hear what the Latin
Fathers say- St. Jerome : " Vult ( Deus ) salvare omnes, sed quia
nullus absque propria voluntate salvatur, vult nos bonum velle, ut
cum voluerimus, velit in nobis et Ipse suum implere consilium" (9) .
St. Hilary says ( 10) : " Omnes homines Deus salvos fieri vult, et
non eos tantum qui ad Sanctorum numerum pertinebunt, sed omnes
omnino, ut nullus habeat exceptionem." St. Paulinus ( 11 ) thus
writes : " Omnibus dicit Christus, venite ad me, &c., omnem enim
29
quantum in ipso est, hominem salvum fieri vult, qui fecit omnes."
St. Ambrose says ( 12) : " Etiam circa impios suam ostendere debuit
voluntatem, et ideo nec proditorem debuit præterire, ut adverterent
omnes, quod in electione etiam proditoris sui salvandorum omnium
prætendit ..... et quod in Deo fuit, ostendit omnibus, quod omnes
voluit liberare." I omit all other proofs from the Fathers, as they
are too numerous, but as Petrocoresius well remarks, the Divine
precept of hope assures us that God truly on his part wishes all to
be saved ; for if we were not certain that God wishes all to be saved ,
our hope would not be secure and firm, as St. Paul tells us, 66 an
anchor of the soul sure and firm" ( Heb. vi . 18, 19) , but weak and
doubtful: " Qua fiducia," he says, " Divinam misericordiam sperare
poterunt homines, si certum non sit quod Deus salutem omnium
eorum velit" ( 13) . I have expounded this argument in my Work
on Prayer ( 14) .
(7) Petav. Theol. t. 1, l. 10, c. 15, n. 5. (8) Nodus Præd. Par. 1. (9) St. Hier.
Comment. in c. 1 , ad Ephesios. (10 ) St. Hilar. Ep. ad Aug. (11) St. Paulin. Ep.
24, ad Sever. n. 9. (12 ) St. Ambr. de Libro Parad. c. 8. (13) Petrocor. Theol. t. 1 ,
c. 3, q. 4. (14) Mezzo della Preghiera Par. 2, c. 4.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 547
62. Calvin, however, says that, by the sin of Adam , the whole
human race became a 66 condemned mass ;" and hence God does no
injury to mankind, if he only saves a few, and allows the rest to be
damned, if not for their own sins, at all events for the sin of Adam.
But we answer, that it is this very " condemned mass" itself, that
Jesus Christ came to save by his death : " For the Son of Man is
come to save that which was lost" ( Matt. xviii. 11 ) . He offered up
his death, not alone for those who were to be saved, but for all,
without exception : " He gave himself a redemption for all”
(1 Tim. ii. 6) ; " Christ died for all" ( 1 Cor. v. 15 ) ; " We hope in
the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of the
faithful" (1 Tim. iv. 10) . And even St. Paul, to show that we were
all dead by sin, says that Christ died for all : " The charity of
...... if one died for all, then all were dead"
Christ presseth us ...
(2 Cor. v. 14) . Hence, St. Thomas says, Christ is the mediator,
not of some, but of all : " Christus Jesus est mediator Dei , et homi-
num, non quorundam, sed inter Deum et omnes homines et hoc
non esset, nisi vellet omnes salvare” ( 15 ) .
63. If, God, however, wishes that all should be saved, and Christ
died for all, how then is it, St. Chrysostom asks, that all are not
saved ? He answers the question himself: Because all will not act
in conformity with the will of God, who wishes that all should be
saved, but, at the same time, will not force any one's will : " Cur
igitur non omnes salvi fiunt, si vult ( Deus) omnes salvos esse ? quo-
niam non omnium voluntas Illius voluntatem sequitur, porro ipse
neminem cogit ( 16 ) . And St. Augustin ( 17) says : " Bonus est
Deus, justus est Deus ; potest aliquos sine bonis meritis liberare,
quia bonus est, non potest quenquam sine malis meritis damnare,
quia justus est." Even the Lutheran Centuriators of Magdeburg,
speaking of the reprobate, confess that the Holy Fathers have taught
that God does not predestine sinners to hell, but condemns them ,
on account of the foreknowledge he has of their sins : " Patres nec
prædestinationem ineo Dei, sed præscientiam solumadmiserunt" (18) .
But, says Calvin, God , although he predestines many to eternal
death, still does not insist on the punishment until after they
have sinned ; and therefore, he first predestines the reprobates to
sin, that he may, in justice, condemn them afterwards . But if it
would be an act of injustice to send the innocent to hell, would it
not be much more so to predestine them first to sin, that they may
be subsequently damned. " Major vero injustitia," says St. Ful-
gentius, " si lapso Deus retribuit pœnam , quam stantem prædestinasse
dicitur ad ruinam" ( 19) .
64. The truth is, that those who are lost are so through their
(15 ) St. Thom. ad 1 Tim. ii. lect. 1. ( 16 ) St. Chrysos. Hom . 43, de Longitud.
prem . (17) St. Augus. 1. 3, contra Julian, c. 18. (18) Centuriat . 102, c. 4.
(19) St. Fulgent. l. 1 , ad Monim. c. 24.
548 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
own negligence, since , as St. Thomas writes, our Lord gives to all
the necessary grace for salvation : " Hoc ad Divinam providentiam
pertinet, ut cuilibet provideat de necessariis ad salutem" (20).
And in another place, explaining the text of St. Paul, that God
wishes all men to be saved, he says : 66 Et ideo gratia nulli deest,
sed omnibus ( quantam in se est) se communicat" ( 21 ). God
himself has said the self- same thing, by the mouth of the Prophet
Osee, that, if we are lost, it is altogether through our own fault,
for he gives us sufficient assistance to work out our salvation :
" Destruction is thine own, O Israel ; thy help is only in me"
(Osee, xiii. 9 ) ; and, therefore, it is that the Apostle says, that God
will not allow us to be tempted beyond our strength : " God is
faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which
you are able" ( 1 Cor. x. 13 ). It would , indeed , be both wicked
and cruel of God, as St. Thomas and St. Augustin say, if he, as
Calvin teaches, obliged men to observe commandments which he
knew they could not : " Peccati reum," says St. Augustin, " tenere
quenquam, quia non fecit quod facere non potuit, summa iniquitas
est" ( 22). And St. Thomas says : " Homini imputatur ad crude-
litatem, si obliget aliquem per præceptum ad id quod implere non
possit ; ergo de Deo nullatenus est æstimandum" (23 ) . It is quite
otherwise, however, the Saint says, when the sinner, on account of
his own negligence, has not grace to observe the command-
ments (24 ). This negligence is carelessness in availing ourselves
of, at least, the remote grace of prayer, by which we may obtain
proximate grace to observe the commandments, as the Council of
Trent teaches : " Deus impossibilia non jubet, sed jubendo monet ,
et facere quod possis, et petere quod non possis et adjuvat ut possis"
(Sess. vi. c . 13 ) .
65. Hence, we conclude, with St. Ambrose, our Saviour has
manifested to us most clearly that, although all men are infirm
and guilty, still he has provided a sufficient remedy for their
salvation : " Omnibus opem sanitatis detulit.......ut Christi mani-
festa in omnes prædicetur misericordia qui omnes homines vult
salvos fieri" (25) . What greater felicity can a sick man have, says
St. Augustin, than to have his life in his own hands, having always
a remedy to heal himself whenever he pleases ? " Quid enim te
beatius quam ut tanquam in manu tua vitam , sic in voluntate tua
sanitatem habeas" (26 ) ? Hence , St. Ambrose again says, that he
who is lost is guilty of his own death , since he will not make use
of the remedy prepared for him: " Quicumque perierit mortis suæ
causam sibi adscribat qui curari noluit cum remedium haberet."
For, as St. Augustin says, our Lord heals all, and heals them
(20) St. Thom. quæst. 14, de Verit. art. 11, ad 1. (21) Idem in Epist. ad Hebr.
c. 12, lect. 8. (22) St. Aug. de Anima, l. 2, c. 12, n. 17. (23) St. Thom. in 2,
Sent. Dist. 28, qu. 1, a. 3. (24) Idem, ques. 24, de Verit. a. 14, ad 2. (25) Ambro.
1. 2, de Abel. c. 3. (26) St. Augus. trac. 12, in Joan, cir. fin.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 549
(31) St. Augus. Ep. 194, ad Sixtum. (32 ) St. Aug. 1. de Corrept. et Grat. c. 5 &
6 , ad 1. (33) St. Fulgen. l. 1 , ad Monim. c. 15. (34) Calvin, l. 3, c. 21 , sec. 7.
(35) St. Prosp. in libell. ad Capit. Gallor. c. 6.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 551
tion is thy own, O Israel : thy help is only in me" ( Osee , xiii . 9) ;
" Is it my will that a sinner should die , saith the Lord God , and
not that he should be converted from his ways, and live" (Ezech .
xviii . 23) . And in another place our Lord even swears that he does
not wish the death , but the life of the sinner : " As I live, saith the
Lord God, I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked
turn from his way and live" (Ezech . xxxiii. 11 ) ; " For the Son of
man is come to save that which was lost" (Matt. xviii . 11 ) ; " Who
wishes all men to be saved" ( 1 Tim . ii . 4) ; " Who gave himself a
redemption for all” ( ver. 6) .
69. Now, when our Lord declares in so many places that he
wishes the salvation of all , and even of the wicked , how can it be
said, that by a positive decree he excludes many from glory , not
because of their crimes, but merely for his own pleasure , when this
positive exclusion necessarily involves, at least necessitate conse-
quentiæ, positive damnation ; for, according to the order established
by God, there is no medium between exclusion from eternal life and
condemnation to everlasting death. Neither will it serve to say,
that all men, by original sin, have become a condemned mass ; and
God, therefore, determines that some should remain in their perdi-
tion, and others be saved ; for although we know that all are born
children of wrath , still we are also aware that God, by an antece-
dent will, really wishes that all should , through means of Jesus
Christ , be saved. Those who are baptized, and in a state of grace,
have even a greater claim, for in them, as St. Paul says, there is
found nothing worthy of damnation : " There is now, therefore, no
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. viii . 1. ) And
the Council of Trent teaches, that in such God finds nothing to
hate : " In renatis enim nihil odit Deus" (Sess. V. , Decret. de Pec.
Orig. n. 5). Those who die , then, after baptism, free from actual
sin, go at once to the joys of heaven : " Nihil prorsus eos ab
ingressu cœli removetur" (Ibid.) Now, if God entirely remits
original sin to those who are baptized , how can it be asserted , that,
on account of it, he afterwards excludes some of them from eternal
life ? That God, however, may wish to free from eternal and
deserved damnation some of those who voluntarily have lost their
baptismal grace by mortal sin, and leave others to their fate, is a
matter which entirely depends on his own will , and his just judg-
ments. But even of these, St. Peter says God does not wish , as
long as they are in this life, that one should perish, but should re-
pent of his wickedness, and be saved : " He dealeth patiently for
your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should
return to penance" (2 Peter, iii . 9) . Finally , St. Prosper says, that
those who die in sin are not necessarily lost, because they are not
predestined ; but they were not predestined, inasmuch as God
foresaw that they wished to die obstinately in sin : " Quod hujus-
modi in hæc prolapsi mala, sine correctione pœnitentiæ defecerunt,
non ex eo necessitatem habuerunt, quia prædestinati non sunt, sed
552 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
the Church, because although in the beginning it was the true one,
still, through the fault of those who governed it, the doctrine
preached by Jesus Christ became corrupted, for he , as we have
seen, has promised that the gates of hell should never prevail
against the Church he founded. Neither will it avail them to say
that it was only the visible, and not the invisible Church that
failed, on account of the wickedness of the shepherds, for it is
necessary that there should always be a visible and infallible judge,
in the Church , to decide all doubts, that disputes may be quashed,
and the dogmas of Faith be secure and certain . I wish every Pro-
testant would consider this , and see how he can be certain then, of
his salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church.
73. THERE can be only one Faith, for as Faith and truth are
indivisibly united, and as truth is one, so Faith must be one like-
wise. Hence , we conclude, as we have already shown , that in all
controversies regarding the dogmas of Faith, it has always been ,
and is always necessary to have, an infallible judge, whose decisions
all should obey. The reason of this is manifest, for if the judgment
of every one of the faithful was to be taken on this matter, as the
sectaries expect, it would not be alone opposed to the Scriptures,
as we shall see, but to reason itself, for it would be quite impossible
to unite the opinions of all the faithful, and give from them a dis-
tinct and definitive judgment in dogmas of Faith, and there would
be endless disputes, and, instead of unity of Faith, there would be
as many creeds as persons. Neither is the Scripture alone sufficient
to assure us of the truth of what we should believe , for several pas-
sages of it can be interpreted in different senses, both true and false,
so that the Bible will be, for those who take it in a perverse sense,
not a rule of Faith , but a fountain of errors ; the Gospel, as St.
Jerome says, will become, not the Gospel of Christ, but the Gospel
of man, or of the devil : " Non putemus in verbis Scripturarum esse
Evangelium sed in sensu, interpretatione enim perversa de Evan-
gelio Christi fit hominis Evangelium aut diaboli ." Where, in fact,
can we look for the true sense of the Scriptures, only in the judg-
ment of the Church, the pillar and the ground of truth , as the
Apostle calls it?
74. That the Roman Catholic Church is the only true one, and
that the others who have separated from it are false, is manifest
from what we have already seen ; for , as the sectaries themselves
admit, the Roman Catholic Church has been certainly first founded
by Jesus Christ. He promised to assist it to the end of time, and
the gates of hell, that is, as St. Epiphanius explains it , heretics and
founders of heresies, will never prevail against it, as was promised
to St. Peter. Hence, in all doubts of Faith, we should bow to the
decisions of this Church, subjecting our judgment to her judgment,
554 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(1) Luther, lib. de Concil. ar. 28, 29. (2) Joan Vysembogard. Ep. ad Lud. Colin.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 555
ever," clearly shows that the Holy Ghost continually abides in the
Church, to teach the truths of the Faith, not alone to the Apostles,
who, being mortal, could not remain always with us, but to the
bishops, their successors . Unless, then, in this congregation of
bishops, we do not know where the Holy Ghost teaches these
truths.
77. It is proved , also, from the promises made by our Saviour
always to assist his Church, that it may not err : " Behold , I am
with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt.
xxviii . 20) ; " And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it" (Matt. xvi. 18) . A General Council, as has been said
already, and as the eighth Synod (Act 5 ) declared , represents the
universal Church ; and, hence, this interrogatory was put to all
suspected of heresy in the Council of Constance : " An non credunt
Concilium Generale universam Ecclesiam repræsentare ?" And
St. Athanasius , St. Epiphanius, St. Cyprian, St. Augustin, and St.
Gregory, teach the same thing (3) . If, therefore, the Church, as
it has been proved , cannot err, neither can the Council which re-
presents the Church fall into error. It is proved, besides , from
those texts, in which the faithful are commanded to obey the
prelates of the Church : " Obey your prelates , and be subject
to them" (Heb. xiii . 17) ; " Who hears you, hears me" (Luke, x.
16) ; " Go, therefore, teach all nations" (Matt . xxviii . 19 ). These
prelates, separately, may fall into error, and frequently disagree
with each other on controverted points, and, therefore , we should
receive what they tell us as infallible, and as coming from Christ
himself, when they are united in Council. On this account the
Holy Fathers have always considered as heretics those who con-
tradicted the dogmas defined by General Councils, as the reader
may see, by consulting St. Gregory of Nazianzen, St. Basil , St.
Cyril, St. Ambrose , St. Athanasius, St. Augustin , and St. Leo(4 ) .
78. Besides all these proofs, there is another, that if General
Councils could err, there would be no established tribunal in the
Church, to terminate disputes about points of dogma, and to pre-
serve the unity of the Faith, and if they were not infallible in their
judgments, no heresy could be condemned, nor could we say it was
a heresy at all. We could not be certain either of the canonicity
of several books of the Scripture, as the Epistle of St. Paul to the
Hebrews, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the Third Epistle of St.
John, the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, and the Apocalypse
of St. John ; for, although the Calvinists receive all these, still they
(3) St. Athanas. Ep. de Synod. Arim. St. Epiphan. An. at. in fin.; St. Cyprian. l. 4,
Ep. 9 ; St. Augus. l. 1 contra at. c. 18, St. Greg. Ep. 24 ad Patriarch. (4) St. Greg.
Nazian. Ep. ad Cledon.; St. Basil, Ep. 78 ; St. Cyril. de Trinit.; St. Ambr. Ep. 32 ;
St. Athan. Ep. ad Episc. Afric.; St. Aug. . 1, de Bapt. c. 18 ; St. Leo, Ep. 77, ad
Anatol.
556 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(5) Calv. Inst. l. 4, c. 9, sec. 3. (6) St. Aug. de Unit. Eccl. c. 11. (7) Calvin,
loc. cit. sec. 4.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 557
(8) St. Augus. l. 32, contra Faust, c. 13 ; St. Hier. Ep. ad Aug. quæ est 11 inter
Epist. August. (9) St. Aug. loc. cit. (10) Ruffin. Histor. l. 10, c. 32.
3
558 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
swer that the Word of God, both written and unwritten, or Scrip-
ture and Tradition , is certainly to be preferred to any Council ; but
Councils do not make the Word of God, but merely declare what
true Scripture is, and true Tradition is, and what is their true
sense ; they do not, therefore , give themselves the authority of infalli-
bility , but merely declare that which they already possess, deducing
it from the Scripture itself, and thus they define the dogmas the
faithful should believe. It was thus the Council of Nice declared
that the Word was God, and not a creature, and the Council of
Trent, that the real body of Christ, and not the figure, was in the
Eucharist.
86. But then, the heretics say, the Church is not composed of
Bishops alone, but of all the faithful, both Clergy and laity, and
why,then, are Councils held by the Bishops alone ? Therefore, says
Luther, all Christians, no matter of what degree, should be judges
in the Councils. The Protestants maintained this doctrine in the
time of the Council of Trent, and sought to have a decisive voice
in decreeing the dogmas of the Faith . This they required, when
they were invited to attend the Council, to explain themselves on
all controverted points, and when a safe conduct was given them,
promising them security while in Trent , perfect liberty of conferring,
as often as they pleased , with the Fathers, and no hindrance to
leave whenever they wished to go. Their ambassadors came, and at
first said that they did not consider the safeguard sufficient, since
the Council of Constance said that no faith was to be kept with
public heretics. The Fathers of Trent, however, replied, that the
safe conduct from the Council of Constance to Huss was not given
by the Council itself, but by the Emperor Sigismund , so that the
Council had then full jurisdiction over him. Besides, as we have
already explained in Chap. X. , art . v. n. 43, of this History, the
safe conduct given to Huss was for other crimes with which he
was charged, but not for errors against Faith, and, when Huss was
charged with this, he knew not what defence to make. The
Tridentine Fathers , at all events , explained to those delegates that
the safe conduct given by them was as secure as the Council could
make it, and different from that given by the Council of Constance
to Huss . The delegates then made three requisitions, in case the
Lutheran Doctors came to Trent, none of which could be agreed
to ( 15) : First. That questions of Faith should be decided by the
Scriptures alone. This could not be granted , since the Council
had already decreed in the Fourth Session, that the same venera-
tion was to be paid to traditions preserved in the Catholic Church
as to the Scriptures. Secondly.- They required that all Articles
already decided on by the Council should be debated over again ;
but this could not be granted , because it would be just the same
thing as to declare that the Council was not infallible when it had
made the Decrees, and that would be to give a triumph to the
Protestants, even before the battle commenced . Thirdly . They
demanded that their Doctors should have a seat in the Council as
judges, for the decision of dogmatical points, just as the Bishops
had.
87. We answer, that the Church is a body, as St. Paul writes,
in which our Lord has assigned the duties and obligations of each
individual : " Now you are the body of Christ, and members of
member. And God indeed hath set some in the Church : first,
apostles ; secondly, prophets ; thirdly , doctors" (1 Cor. xii. 27 , 28 ).
And in another place he says : " And other same pastors and
doctors" (Ephes. iv. 11 ). And he adds, afterwards : " Are all
doctors" (1 Cor. xii. 29). God, therefore, has appointed some
pastors in his Church to govern the flock ; others, doctors, to teach
the true doctrine, and he charges others, again , not to allow them-
selves to be led astray by new doctrines : " Be not led away with
various and strange doctrines" ( Heb. xiii. 9) ; but to be obedient
and submissive to the masters appointed to them : " Obey your
prelates, and be subject to them, for they watch, as being to render
an account of your souls" ( Heb. xiii. 17 ) . Who, then , are these
masters whom our Lord has promised to assist to the end of time ?
They were, in the first place, the Apostles, to whom he said :
" Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of
the world" (Matt. xxviii. 20) . He promised them the Holy Ghost,
who would remain always with them, to teach them all truth : " I
will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that
he may abide with you for ever" (John, xiv. 6) . And when he ,
the " Spirit of Truth , is come, he will teach you all truth" (John ,
xvi. 13). The Apostles, however, being mortal, should soon leave
this world, and how, then, could we understand the promise that
the Holy Ghost would perpetually remain with them , to instruct
them in all truth, that they might afterwards communicate it to
others? It must be understood, therefore, that they would have
successors, who, with the Divine assistance, would teach the faithful
people, and the Bishops are exactly these successors , appointed by
God to govern the flock of Christ, as the Apostle says : " Take
heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy
Ghost hath placed you bishops to rule the Church of God , which
he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts, xx . 28) . Estius ( 16) ,
commenting on this passage, says : " Illud, in quo vos Spiritus
Sanctus posuit, &c ..... .de iis qui proprii Episcopi sunt,
intellexit." And, hence, the Council of Trent (Sess. xxiii . Cap. 4)
declared : " Delarat præter ceteros Ecclesiasticos gradus , Episcopus,
qui in Apostolorum locum successerunt. ..positos a Spiritu
(17) St. Cypr. Ep. ad Papinum. ( 18) St. Ignat. Ep. ad Trallian. (19) Tom. 4,
Conc. p. 111. (20) St. Cypr. Ep. ad Jubajan ; St. Hilar. de Synod.; St. Ambr. Ep.
22 ; St Hieron. Apol. 2 contra Ruffin. , Osius ap. St. Athanas. Ep. ad Solit.; St. Leo
Magnus Ep. 16.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 563
REFUTATION XII.
St. Augustine, who, as they suppose, taught that the state of pure
nature was an impossibility. This supposition of theirs, however,
is totally unfounded , for the majority of theologians assert, that the
Holy Doctor in many places teaches the contrary, especially in his
writings against the Manicheans ( 3) , and distinguishes four modes
in which God might create the souls of men blameless, and, among
them , the second mode would be, if, previously to any sin being
committed, these created souls were infused into their bodies sub-
ject to ignorance , concupiscence, and all the miseries of this life ; by
this mode, the possibility of pure nature is certainly established.
Consult Tournelly ( 4) on this point, where he answers all objections,
and you will see also how Jansenius treats it.
9. They say, likewise, that the propositions of Baius were not
condemned in the Bull of St. Pius in the sense the author under-
stood them. The words of the Bull are : "Quas quidem sententias
stricto coram nobis examine ponderatas, quanquam nonnullæ aliquo
pacto sustineri possent, in rigore, et proprio verborum sensu ab
assertoribus intento hæreticas, erroneas, temerarias, &c., respective
damnamus," &c . They then say that between the word possent,
and the following ones, in rigore, et proprio verborum sensu , there
was no comma, but that it was placed after the words ab assertori-
bus intento ; so that the sentence being read thus : " quanquam
nonnullæ aliquo pacto sustineri possent in rigore et proprio verborum
sensu ab assertoribus intento," the proposition could be sustained
in this proper and intended sense , as the Bull declares . According
to this interpretation , however, the Bull would contradict itself,
condemning opinions which , in their proper sense, and that intend-
ed by the author, could be sustained. If they could be sustained
in the proper sense , why were they condemned, and why was Baius
expressly called on to retract them ? It would be a grievous injus-
tice to condemn these propositions, and oblige the author to retract
them, if in the proper and plain sense they could be defended .
Besides, though in the Bull of St. Pius the comma may be wanted
after the word possent, still no one has ever denied or doubted but
that it was inserted in the subsequent Bulls of Gregory XIII . and
Urban VIII. There cannot be the least doubt that the opinions of
Baius were condemned by these Pontifical Bulls .
10. They say, thirdly, that the propositions were condemned,
having regard to the Divine Omnipotence, according to which the
state of pure nature was possible. but not in regard to the wisdom
and goodness of God. The theologians already quoted answer,
that in that case the Apostolic See has condemned not a real, but
only an apparent, error, since, in reality, the doctrine of Baius, in
regard to the wisdom and goodness of God, is not condemnable.
It is false, however, to suppose that the state of pure nature is only
(5) St. Anselm, l. 1 , Cum Deus homo, c. 1. (6) St. August. 7. 3, de lib. arb. c. 20, 22, 23.
574 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
dering the right of the creature alone, and this is precisely the
doctrine of the Prince of Schoolmen , St. Thomas. He teaches (7),
that man might be created without consideration to the Beatific
Vision. He says : " Carentia Divino visionis competeret ei qui in
solis naturalibus esset etiam absque peccato ." He likewise , in
another passage (8), teaches that man might be created with that
concupiscence which rebels against reason : " Illa subjectio inferio-
rum virium ad rationem non erat naturalis." Several theologians ,
therefore, admit the possibility of the state of pure nature, as Estius,
Ferrarensis, the Salmanticenses, Vega, and several others. Bellar-
min ( 9), especially, says he does not know how any one can doubt
of this opinion.
13. We have now to answer the objections of our adversaries.
The first objection is on the score of " Beatitude." St. Augustin,
according to Jansenius, teaches in several places that God could
not, without injustice, deny eternal glory to man in a state of
innocence : " Qua justitia quæso a Regno Dei alienatur imago Dei
in nullo transgressu legem Dei." These are St Augustin's words ( 10)
We answer that the Holy Father in this passage was opposing the
Pelagians, according to man's present state, that is, supposing the
gratuitous ordination of man to a supernatural end : according to
that supposition, he said that it would be unjust to deprive man of
the kingdom of God if he had not sinned. Neither is it of any
consequence that St. Thomas (11 ) says that man's desires can find
no rest except in the vision of God : " Non quiescit naturale de-
siderium in ipsis, nisi etiam ipsius Dei substantiam videant ;" and
as this appetite is naturally implanted in man, he could not have
been created unless in order to this end. We answer, that St.
Thomas ( 12), in several places, and especially in his book of
Disputed Questions, teaches that by nature we are not inclined in
particular to the vision of God, but only to beatitude in general :
Homini inditus est appetitus ultimi sui finis in communi, ut
scilicet appetat se esse completum in bonitate ; sed in quo ista
completio consistat non est determinatum a natura." Therefore,
according to the Holy Doctor, there is not in man an innate
tendency to the beatific vision, but only to beatitude in general.
He confirms this in another place (13) : " Quamvis ex naturali
inclinatione voluntas habeat, ut in beatitudinem feratur, tamen
quod feratur in beatitudinem talem, vel talem, hoc non est ex
inclinatione naturæ." But they will still say that it is only in the
vision of God that man can have perfect happiness, as David says
(Psalm, xvi. 15) : " I shall be satisfied when thy glory shall appear."
To this we reply, that this refers to man in his present state, since
(7) St. Thom. qu. 4, de Malo . a. 1. (8) Idem in Summa. 1, p. q. 95, art 1.
(9) Bellarm. Z de Grat. primi. hom. cap. 5. (10) St. August. l. 3, contra. Julian,
cap. 12. (11) St. Thom. 1. 4, contra Gentes, c. 50. (12) St. Thom. q. 22, de Verit.
(13) Idem, 4, Sent. Dist. 49, q. 1, art. 3.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 575
REFUTATION XIII.
and follow grace, but when his will was weakened by sin , and in-
clined to forbidden pleasures, it then could not , with sufficient
grace alone, do what is right, but required that assistance called,
theologically, Quo - that is, efficacious grace (which is his conquer-
ing delectation, in relation to the superiority of degrees) , which
pushes him on, and determines him to perform what is good, other-
wise he never could resist the opposing carnal delectation : " Gratia
sanæ voluntatis in ejus libero relinquebatur arbitrio , ut eam, si
vellet desereret ; aut si vellet uteretur ; gratia vero lapsæ ægrotæque
voluntatis nullo modo in ejus relinquitur arbitrio, ut eam deserat,
et arripiat si voluerit" ( 2) . During the period that the carnal delec-
tation predominates, then, says Jansenius, it is impossible that
virtue should prevail : " Vigente delectatione carnali , impossibile
est, ut virtutis et honestatis consideratio prævaleat" (3) . He says ,
besides, that this superior delectation has such power over the will,
that it obliges it necessarily either to wish or reject, according as it
moves it : " Delectatio , seu delectabilis objecti complacentia , est id
quod tantam in liberum arbitrium potestatem habet, ut eum faciat
velle vel nolle, seu ut ea præsente actus volendi sit reipsa in ejus
potestate, absente non sit" (4).
3. In another passage he says, that if the celestial delectation is
less than the terrestrial one, it will only give rise to some ineffica-
cious and impotent desires in the soul , but will never lead us on to
embrace what is good : " Delectatio victrix, quæ Augustino est
efficax adjutorium, relativa est ; tunc enim est victrix, quando
alteram superat. Quod si contingat alteram ardentiorem esse, in
solis inefficacibus desideriis hærebit animus, nec efficaciter unquam
volet, quod volendum est" (5) . Again, he says that as the faculty
of vision not only causes us to see, but gives us the power of seeing,
so the predominant delectation not only causes us to act, but gives
us the power of acting : " Tantæ necessitatis est, ut sine illa effectus
fieri non possit ...... dat enim simul et posse, et operari" (6) . He
says, besides, that it is just as impossible to resist this superior delec-
tation, as for a blind man to see, a deaf one to hear, or a bird
deprived of its wings to fly ( 7). Finally, he concludes that this
delectation , " delectatio victrix ," be it heavenly or earthly, so binds
down our free will, that it loses all power when opposed to it :
" Justitiæ vel peccati delectatio est illud vinculum, quo liberum
arbitrium ita firmiter ligatur, ut quamdiu isto stabiliter constringi-
tur, actus, oppositus sit extra ejus potestatem" (8 ). These passages
alone, I think, are quite sufficient to show how false is Jansenius's
system of relative conquering delectation , to which the will is
always obliged, of necessity , to yield obedience.
(2) Jansen. de lib. arb. l. 2, c. 4. (3) Jansen. 7. 7 , de Grat. Chr. c. 3, vide etiam ,
c. 50. (4) Idem. eod. tit. l. 7, c. 3. (5) Idem. eod. tit. l. 8, c. 2. (6) Jansen.
1. 2 , c. 4. (7) Jans. de Grat. Christ. l. 4, c. 7, & l. 7, c. 5. (8) Ibid. l. 7, c. 5.
20
578 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
of this first proposition of his is, that some precepts are impossible
even to the just, on account of the strength of earthly delectations,
for then they want that grace by which these commandments could
be observed. He says : " Secundum præsentes quas habent vires ;"
by which he understands that these precepts, as to observance, are
not absolutely impossible, but only relatively so, according to that
stronger grace, which would be necessary for them, and which they
then want to enable them to observe them.
6. This proposition, then, as we have already remarked, was con-
demned, first , as "
" rash," since it is opposed to Scripture : " This
commandment ...... is not above thee" (Deut. xxx. 11 ) ; 66 My
yoke is easy and my burthen light" (Matt . xi. 30) . The Council
of Trent had already branded this same proposition as rash
(Sess. vi. c . 11 ) , when it was previously taught by Luther and Cal-
vin : " Nemo temeraria illa, et a Patribus sub anathemate prohibita
voce uti, Dei præcepta homini justificato ad observandum esse
impossibilia." It was also condemned in the fifty-fourth proposi-
tion of Baius : " Definitiva hæc sententia : Deum homini nihil im-
possibile præcepisse, falso tribuitur Augustino, cum Pelagii sit."
Secondly, it was condemned as " impious ;" for it makes of God
an unjust tyrant, who obliges men to impossibilities and then con-
demns them for not performing them. Jansenius prides himself in
having adopted all the doctrines of St. Augustin, and did not
blush to entitle his book " Augustinus," though Anti-Augustinus
would have been a more appropriate name, since the Saint, in his
works, expressly opposes his impious opinions. St. Augustin
taught (11 ) that God does not desert those once justified by his
grace, unless previously deserted by them ; and Jansenius held up
the Almighty void of all pity, since he says : " He deprives the
just of grace without which they cannot escape sin, and so abandons
them before they abandon him ." Besides, St. Augustin writes, in
opposition to this sentiment ofJansenius : " Quis non clamet stultum
esse præcepta dare ei, cui liberum non est quod præcipitur facere ?
et iniquam esse eum damnare, cui non fuit potestas jussa com-
plere" (12) ; and , above all, we have that celebrated Decree of the
Council of Trent (Sess . vi. c. 11 ) : " Deus impossibilia non jubet ,
sed jubendo monet et facere quod possis, et petere quod non possis,
et adjuvat ut possis" ( 13). Thirdly, it was condemned as " blas-
phemous ;" for it makes out God to be without either faith or truth ,
since he has promised that he will not allow us to be tempted beyond
our strength " God is faithful who will not suffer you to be
tempted above that which you are able" (1 Cor. x. 13)-and after-
wards commands us to do what is not in our power. St. Augus-
tin himself, from whom Jansenius falsely asserted he had learned.
(11) St. August. lib. de Nat. et Grat. c. 26. (12) Idem. de Fide contra Manich.
7. 10. (13) St. August. lib. de Nat. et Grat. c. 43.
580 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES,
(24) St. Aug. 1. 2 de Peccator. merit. c. 17. (25) Idem de Prædest. Ss. c. 3 in Ep.
227 ad Vital. n. 9. (26) Jansen. l. 3 de Grat. Christ. c. 21. (27) Chap. 4, art. 1,
n. 16.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 583
men, especially of the faithful" (iv. 10) ; and St. John says that he
" is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for
those of the world" ( 1 John, ii . 2 ) . When I see the Scripture
speak thus so plainly, I do not know how any one can say that
Jesus Christ, by his death, has only prepared a sufficient price for
the redemption of all, but has not offered it to the Father for the
redemption of all. Taken in that sense, we might say that Christ
shed his blood even for the devils themselves, for there is no doubt
but that this sacred blood would have been a price sufficient even
to save them .
14. This opinion is most clearly opposed , likewise, by many of
the Holy Fathers, who say that Christ has not alone prepared the
ransom, but, likewise, offered it to his Father for the salvation of
all. St. Ambrose says : " Si quis autem non credit in Christum,
generali beneficio ipse se fraudat ; ut si quis clausis fenestris solis
radios excludat, non ideo sol non est ortus omnibus" ( 29) . The
sun not alone prepares light for all, but offers its light likewise to
all, if they wish to avail themselves of it, and do not close their
windows against it ; and, in another place, the same Saint says , in
the clearest manner : " Ipse pro omnibus mortem suam obtulit" ( 30) .
St. Jerome says just the same : 66 Christus pro nobis mortuus est,
solus inventus est, qui pro omnibus, qui erant in peccatis mortui,
offerretur" (31 ). St. Prosper says : " Salvator noster......dedit.
pro mundo sanguinem suum (remark dedit, he gave, not paravit),
et mundus redimi noluit, quia lucem tenebræ non receperunt" (32 ) .
St. Anselm says : " Dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus,
nullum excipiens, qui vellet redimi ad salvandum......et ideo qui
non salvantur, non de Deo, vel Mediatore possent conqueri, sed de
seipsis, qui redemptionem quam Mediator dedit, noluerunt acci-
pere" ( 33) . And St. Augustin, explaining these words of St. John ,
" God sent not his Son into the world to judge the world , but that
the world should be saved by him" (John, iii. 17), says : " Ergo,
quantum in Medico est, sanare venit ægrotum. Ipse se interimit,
qui præcepta Medici servare non vult. Sanat omnino Ille, sed
non sanat invitum" ( 34 ) . Remark the words, " quantum in Medico
est, sanare venit ægrotum ;" this shows that he did not alone come
to prepare the price as the remedy of our evils , but that he offers
it to every one sick, and willing to be healed.
15. Then (perhaps those who hold the contrary opinion will say)
God gives to the infidels who do not believe in him at all , the same
sufficient grace which he gives to the faithful. I do not mean to
say that he gives them the same grace ; but I hold , with St. Prosper,
that he gives them at all events a lesser grace ;-call it a remote
grace ; and if they correspond to this they will be exalted by the
(29) St. Ambrose, in Ps. 118 , t. 1, p . 1077. (30 ) Idem, l. de Joseph, c. 7. ( 31 ) St.
Hier. in Ep. 2, ad Cor. c. 5. (32) St. Prosp. ad object. 9 , Gallor. (33) St. Anselm.
in c. 2 , Ep. 1 , ad Tim. (34) St. Aug. Tract. 12, in Joan. circa fin.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 585
his blood for his salvation ( 38) . The Council of Valence ( Can . 4)
had previously published the same doctrine : " Fideliter tenendum
juxta Evangelicam, et Apostolicam veritatem, quod pro illis hoc
datum pretium (sanguinis Christi ) teneamus, de quibus Dominus
noster dicit ...... Ita exaltari oportet Filium hominis, ut omnis,
qui credit in ipsum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam æternam" ( 39) .
The Church of Lyons, also, in its Book of the Truth of the Scrip-
ture, says : "Fides Catholica tenet, et Scripturæ sanctæ veritas docet,
quod pro omnibus credentibus, et regeneratis vere Salvator noster
sit passus" (40 ) . Antoine in his Scholastic and Dogmatic Theo-
logy ( 41 ) says : "Est Fidei Dogma Christum mortuum esse pro salute
æterna omnium omnino Fidelium ." Tournelly (42 ) teaches the
same, and quotes the Body of Doctrine, published by Cardinal de
Noailles, in 1720, and signed by ninety bishops, which says, " that
every one of the faithful is bound by firm faith to believe that Jesus
Christ shed his whole blood for his salvation ." And the Assembly
of the Gallican clergy , in 1714 , declared that all the faithful, both
just and sinners , are bound to believe that Jesus Christ has died for
their salvation.
17. Now, when the Jansenists held that our Redeemer did not
die for all the faithful, but only for the elect, they say, then, he
had no love for us. One of the principal motives which induces us
to love our Saviour and his Eternal Father, who has given him to
us, is the great work of redemption , by which we know that for
love of us the Son of God sacrificed himself on the Cross : " He
loved us, and delivered himself up for us" (Ephes . v. 2). It was
this same love that inclined the Eternal Father to give up his only
begotten Son: " God so loved the world as to give up his only be-
gotten Son" (John , iii. 16 ) . This was the chief incentive St.
Augustin made use of to inflame Christians with the love of Jesus :
" Ipsum dilige ; qui ad hoc descendit, ut pro tua salute sufferet" (43).
When the Jansenists, then, believe that Christ solely died for the
elect, how can they have for him an ardent affection , as having
died for love of them, when they cannot be sure that they are
among the number of the predestined ? They must, consequently,
be in doubt that Christ died for love of them.
18. This belief of theirs, that Christ did not die for all the faith-
ful, is also totally destructive of Christian hope. Christian hope,
as St. Thomas defines it, is an expected certainty of eternal life:
66
Spes est expectatio certa beatitudinis" (44) . We are , therefore,
bound to hope that God will surely save us, trusting to the promises
of salvation, through the merits of Jesus Christ, who died to save
us, if we correspond to his grace. This is what Bossuet states, also,
(38) Bossuet, lib. Justisic. des Reflex. &c. sec. 16, p. 100. (39) Syn. Valent. com.
Concil. p. 136. (40) Eccl . Lugdun. 7. de ten. ver. &c. c. 5. (41) Antoine Theol.
univers. t. 2, de Grat. c. 1, a. 6, ad Prop. 6. (42) Tourn. Theol. t. 1 , 2,q.q.8, 18,
art.a.10,
Concl. 2. (43) St. August. Tract. 2, in Ep. 1, Jo. (44) St. Thom. 2, 4.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 587
Christ, but still let us never cease to fear and tremble, as the Apostle
says: " With fear and trembling work out your salvation" (Phil.
ii. 12) . Notwithstanding the death of Christ, we may be lost
through our own fault. Thus, during our whole lives, we should
fear and hope, but hope should predominate, for we have stronger
reasons to hope in God than to fear him.
23. Some people give themselves a great deal of trouble by
seeking to penetrate the order of God's Divine judgments, and the
great mystery of Predestination . These mysterious secrets of the
Most High our weak intellects can never arrive at. Let us then
leave these secrets which God keeps to himself, since we have so
many things to learn which he has revealed for our instruction.
First, he wishes us to know that he ardently desires that all should
be saved, and that none should perish : " Who will have all men to
be saved" (1 Tim. ii. 4 ) ; " Not willing that any should perish , but
that all should return to penance" ( 2 Pet. iii. 9 ). Secondly,
he wishes us to know that Jesus Christ died for all : " Christ
died for all, that they also who live may not now live to
themselves but unto him who died for them, and rose again" ( 2 Cor.
v. 15). Thirdly, he wishes us to know that he who is lost is so
through his own fault, since he provides all the requisite means
for his salvation : " Destruction is thy own, O Israel, thy help is
only in me" (Osee , xiii . 9). It will not avail sinners in the day of
judgment to excuse themselves by saying that they could not resist
temptation, for the Apostle teaches that God is faithful, and will
suffer no one to be tempted beyond his strength : " God is faithful ,
who will not suffer you to be tempted beyond what you are able"
(1 Cor. x. 13) . If we require more strength to resist we have only
to ask the Almighty, and he will give it to us, for with his assist-
ance we can subdue all carnal and infernal temptations : " Ask and
it shall be given unto you" (Matt. vii. 7) ; " Every one that asketh
receiveth" (Luke , ii . 10) . St. Paul shows that he is most bountiful
to those who invoke him: " Rich unto all that call upon him, for
whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"
(Rom. x. 12 , 13).
24. Behold, then, the sure means of obtaining salvation . We
should pray to God for light and strength to accomplish his will,
but we should also pray with humility, confidence, and persever-
ance, which are the three requisites for prayer to be heard. We
should labour to co-operate to our salvation as much as we can,
without waiting for God to do everything while we do nothing.
Let the order of predestination be as it will, and let heretics say
what they like, one thing is certain, that if we are to be saved , it is
our good works that will save us, and if we are to be damned it is
our own sins that will damn us. Let us place, however, all our
hopes of salvation, not in our own works, but in the Divine mercy,
and in the merits of Jesus Christ, and we shall be surely saved.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 591
REFUTATION XIV .
(1) St. Thomas, 2, 2 , q. 180, a. 8, ad 2. (2) St. Aug. Conf. l. 10, c. 40.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 593
(4) St. August. Z. 5, de Civ. c. 20. (5) St. Bern. Serm . 49, de Modo bene viv. ar. 7.
596 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
prevails over the devil, and St. Chrysostom, that nothing is more
powerful than the prayer of a man.
11. In his forty-fifth proposition Molinos says that St. Paul suf-
fered violence in his body from the devil, for the Saint says : " The
good I will, I do not ; but the evil which I will not, that I do."
But we reply, that by the words " that I do," the Apostle only in-
tends to say that he could not avoid involuntary motions of concu-
piscence ; and, therefore, he says again : " Now that is no more I
that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" (Rom . viii . 17 ) . In his
forty- ninth proposition , also, he adduces the example of Job : " Job
ex violentia Dæmonis se propriis manibus polluebat eodem tempore,
quo mundas habebat ad Deum preces." What a shocking perver-
sion of the Scripture ! Job says (chap . xvi.) : " These things I have
suffered without the iniquity of my hand, when I offered pure
prayers to God." Now, is there any allusion to indecency in this
text ? In the Hebrew, and the version of the Septuagint, as Du
Hamel informs us, the text is : " I have not neglected God nor in-
jured any one." Therefore, by the words " these things I have
suffered without the iniquity of my hand," Job meant to say that
he never injured his neighbour ; as Menochius explains it : " I
raised up my hands to God, unstained by plunder or by any other
crime." In his fifty-first proposition , also, he quotes in his defence
the example of Sampson : " In sacra Scriptura multa sunt exempla
violentiarum ad actus externos peccaminosos, ut illud Sampsonis,
qui per violentiam seipsum occidit, cum Philistæi," &c. We reply,
however, with St. Augustin, that this self-destruction of Sampson
was accomplished by the pure inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and
that is proved by the restoration to him, at the time, of his mira-
culous strength by the Almighty, who employed him as an instru-
ment for the chastisement of the Philistines ; for he having re-
pented of his sins before he grasped the pillar which supported the
building, prayed to the Lord to restore him his original strength :
"But he called upon the Lord, saying : O Lord God, remember me,
and restore me now to my former strength." And hence, St. Paul
places him among the Saints : " Sampson , Jeptha, David , Samuel,
and the Prophets , who, by Faith, conquered kingdoms , wrought jus-
tice," &c. (Heb. xi. 32 , 33) . Behold , then, the impiety of the system
of this filthy impostor. He had good reason to thank the Almighty
for his mercies, in giving him grace to die repentant, after his
imprisonment of several years (Hist. c. 13, ar . 5 , n. 32) .
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 597
REFUTATION XIV .
BERRUYER'S ERRORS.
SEC. I.- BERRUYER SAYS THAT JESUS CHRIST WAS MADE IN TIME, BY AN OPERA-
TION ad extra, THE NATURAL SON OF GOD, ONE SUBSISTING IN THREE PERSONS, WHO
UNITED THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST WITH A DIVINE PERSON.
natural Son of God was the only begotten Son, begotten from the
substance of the Father ; and hence, the Son that Berruyer speaks
of, produced from the three Persons, is Son in name only. It is
not repugnant, he says, to God to become a Father in time, and to
be the Father of a true and natural Son , and he always explains
this of God, subsisting in three Divine Persons.
6. Berruyer adopted this error from his master, John Hardouin,
whose Commentary on the New Testament was condemned by
Benedict XIV. , on the 28th of July , 1743. He it was who first
promulgated the proposition, that Jesus Christ was not the Son of
God as the Word, but only as man, united to the Person of the
Word. Commenting on that passage of St. John, " In the begin-
ning was the Word," he says : "Aliud esse Verbum, aliud esse
Filium Dei , intelligi voluit Evangelista Joannes. Verbum est
secunda Ss . Trinitatis Persona ; Filius Dei , ipsa per se quidem, sed
tamen ut eidem Verbo hypostatice unita Christi humanitas." Har-
douin, therefore, says that the Person of the Word was united to
the humanity of Christ, but that Jesus Christ then became the Son
of God, when the humanity was hypostatically united to the Word ;
and, on this account, he says, he is called the Word , in the Gospel
of St. John, up to the time of the Incarnation , but, after that , he is
no longer called the Word , only the Only-begotten , and the Son of
God: " Quamobrem in hoc Joannis Evangelio Verbum appellatur
usque ad Incarnationem. Postquam autem caro factum est , non
tam Verbum, sed Unigenitus, et Filius Dei est."
7. Nothing can be more false than this, however, since all the
Fathers , Councils, and even the Scriptures, as we shall presently
see, clearly declare that the Word himself was the only- begotten
Son of God, who became incarnate. Hear what St. Paul says :
" For let this mind be in you , which was also in Christ Jesus, who ,
being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil . ii.
5 , &c. ) So that the Apostle says, that Christ, being equal to God,
emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. The Divine Person,
which was united with Christ, and was equal to God , could not be
the only-begotten Son of God , according to Hardouin , but must be
understood to be the Word himself, for, otherwise , it would not be
the fact that He who was equal to God emptied himself, taking the
form of a servant. St. John, besides, in his First Epistle (v . 20),
says : "We know that the Son of God is come." He says , is
come ;" it is not, therefore, true that this Son of God became the
Son , only when he came, for we see he was the Son of God before
he came. The Council of Chalcedon (Act. v. ) says , speaking of
Jesus Christ : " Ante sæcula quidem de Patre genitum secundum
Deitatem, et in novissimis autem diebus propter nos et propter
nostram salutem ex Maria Virgine Dei Genitrice secundum humani-
tatem ..... non in duas personas partitum , sed unum eundemque
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 601
opinion which shocked St. Fulgentius ( 15) , who says that our
Saviour, according to the flesh, might be called the work of the
Trinity ; but, according to his birth, both eternal and in time, is the
Son of God the Father alone: " Quis unquam tantæ reperiri possit
insaniæ , qui auderet Jesum Christum totius Trinitatis Filium præ-
dicare ? ......Jesus Christus secundum carnem quidem opus est
totius Trinitatis ; secundum vero utramque Nativitatem solus Dei
Patris est Filius." But Berruyer's partisans may say that he does
not teach that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Trinity ; but granting
that he allows two filiations-one eternal, the filiation of the Word,
and the other in time , when Christ was made the Son of God, sub-
sisting in three Persons--he must then , of necessity , admit that this
Son made in time was the Son of the Trinity. He will not have
Jesus Christ to be the Word, that is, the Son generated from the
Father, the first Person of the Trinity from all eternity. If he is
not the Son of the Father, whose Son is he if not the Son of the
Trinity ? Had he any Father at all ? There is no use in wasting
words on the matter, for every one knows that in substance it is just
the same to say the Son of one God subsisting in three Persons, as
to say the Son of the Trinity. This, however, is what never can
be admitted ; for if we said Christ was the Son of the three Persons,
it would be the same, as we shall prove, as to say that he was a
mere creature ; but when we say he is the Son , we mean that he
was produced from the substance of the Father, or that he was of
the same substance as the Father, as St. Athanasius teaches (16) :
"Omnis filius ejusdem essentiæ est proprii parentis, alioquin im-
possibile est, ipsum verum esse filium." St. Augustin says that
Christ cannot be called the Son of the Holy Ghost, though it was
by the operation of the Holy Spirit the Incarnation took place.
How, then, can he be the Son of the three Persons ? St. Tho-
mas ( 17 ) teaches that Christ cannot be called the Son of God , unless
by the eternal generation, as he has been generated by the Father
alone ; but Berruyer wants us to believe that he is not the Son,
generated by the Father, but made by one God , subsisting in three
Persons.
12. To carry out this proposition , if he understands that Jesus
Christ is the Son, consubstantial to the Father, who subsists in three
Persons, he must admit four Persons in God, that is, three in which
God subsists, and the fourth Jesus Christ, made the Son of the most
Holy Trinity ; or, in other words, of God subsisting in three Per-
sons. If, on the other hand , he considers the Father of Jesus Christ
as one Person alone, then he falls into Sabellianism, recognizing in
God not three distinct Persons, but one alone under three different
names. He is accused of Arianism by others, and , in my opinion ,
his error leads to Nestorianism. He lays down as a principle, that
( 15) St. Fulgent. Fragm. 32, l. 9. (16) St. Athan. Epist. 2, ad Serapion. (17) St.
Thom. 3. p. qu. 32, art. 3.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 605
there are two generations in God- one eternal , the other in time-
one of necessity, ad intra- the other voluntary, ad extra . In all this
he is quite correct ; but then , speaking of the generation in time, he
says that Jesus Christ was not the natural Son of God the Father, as
the first Person of the Trinity, but the Son of God, as subsisting in
three Persons.
13. Admitting this, then, to be the case, it follows that Jesus
Christ had two Fathers, and that in Jesus Christ there are two
Sons-one the Son of God, as the Father, the First Person of the
Trinity, who generated him from all eternity-the other , the Son
made in time by God, but by God subsisting in three Persons , who ,
uniting the humanity of Jesus Christ (or, as Berruyer says, uniting
that man, hominem illum) to the Divine Word , made him his natural
Son. If we admit this , however, then we must say that Jesus Christ
is not true God, but only a creature, and that for two reasons , first-
because Faith teaches us that there are only two internal operations
(ad intra) in God, the generation of the Word and the spiration of
the Holy Ghost ; every other operation in God is external (ad
extra) , and external operations produce only creatures , and not a
Divine Person . The second reason is- because if Jesus Christ
were the natural Son of God, subsisting in three Persons, he would
be the Son of the Trinity, as we have already stated, and that would
lead us to admit two grievous absurdities-first, the Trinity, that
is, the three Divine Persons, would produce a Son of God ; but as
we have already shown , the Trinity, with the exception of the pro-
duction of the Word and the Holy Ghost, ad intra, only produces
creatures, and not Sons of God. The second absurdity is, that if
Jesus Christ was made the natural Son of God by the Trinity, he
would generate or produce himself (unless we exclude the Son from
the Trinity altogether) , and this would be a most irrational error,
such as Tertullian charged Praxeas with : " Ipse se Filium sibi
fecit" ( 18) . Therefore we see, according to Berruyer's system, that
Jesus Christ, for all these reasons, would not be true God, but a
mere creature, and the Blessed Virgin would be , as Nestorius
asserted, only the Mother of Christ, and not, as the Council de-
cided, and Faith teaches, the Mother of God , for Jesus Christ is true
God, seeing that his humanity had only the Person of the Word
alone to terminate it, for it was the Word alone which sustained the
two natures, human and Divine.
14. Berruyer's friend , however, says that he does not admit the
existence of two natural Sons-one from eternity, the other in time.
But then, I say, if he does not admit it, where is the use of tortur-
ing his mind by trying to make out this second filiation of Jesus
Christ, made in time the natural Son of God, subsisting in three
Persons. He ought to say, as the Church teaches, and all Catholics
believe, that it is the same Word who was from all eternity the
natural Son of God, generated from the substance of the Father,
who assumed human nature , and thus redeemed mankind . But
Berruyer wished to enlighten the Church with the knowledge of
this new natural Son of God , about whom we know nothing before,
telling us that this Son was made in time, not from the Father, but
by all the three Divine Persons, because he was united to , or, as he
expressed it, had the honour ofthe Consortium of the Word, who
was the Son ofGod from all eternity. We knew nothing of all this
till Berruyer and his master, Hardouin , came to enlighten us.
15. Berruyer, however, was grievously astray in asserting that
Jesus Christ was the natural Son of one God, subsisting in three
Persons . In this he has all Theologians, Catechisms, Fathers,
Councils, and Scripture, opposed to him. We do not deny that the
Incarnation of the Word was the work of the three Divine Persons ;
but neither can it be denied that the Person who became incarnate
was the only Son, the second Person of the Trinity, who was, without
doubt, the Word himself, generated from all eternity by the Father,
who, assuming human nature, and uniting it to himself in unity of
Person, wished by this means to redeem the human race. Hear
what the Catechisms and the Symbols of the Church say ; they
teach that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God made in time by the
Trinity, as Berruyer imagines, but the eternal Word, born of the
Father, the principal and first Person of the Most Holy Trinity.
This is what the Roman Catechism teaches : " Filium Dei esse
(Jesum) et verum Deum, sicut Pater est, qui eum ab æterno ge-
nuit” ( 19 ) . And again ( N. 9) , Berruyer's opinion is directly im-
pugned : " Et quamquam duplicem ejus nativitatem agnoscamus,
unum tamen Filium esse credimus ; una enim Persona est, in quam
Divina et humana natura convenit." The Athanasian Creed says
that the Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created , but
begotten ; and speaking of Jesus Christ, it says that he is God, of
the substance of the Father, begotten before all ages, and man, of
the substance of his Mother, born in time, who, though he is God
and man, still is not two, but one Christ- one , not by the conversion
of the Divinity into flesh , but by the assumption of the humanity
into God. As Jesus Christ, therefore, received his humanity from
the substance of his Mother alone , so he had his Divinity from the
substance of his Father alone.
16. In the Apostles' Creed we say : " I believe in God , the Father
Almighty ...... and in Jesus Christ, his only Son .....born ofthe
Virgin Mary, suffered," &c. Remark, Jesus Christ, his Son , ofthe
Father, the first Person, who is first named , not of the three Per-
sons ; and his only Son, that is one Son , not two. In the Symbol
of the Council of Florence, which is said at Mass, and which com-
flesh : " And the Word was made flesh." Being made flesh does
not mean that the Word was united to the human person of Jesus
Christ, already existing, but it shows that the Word assumed
humanity in the very instant in which it was created , so that from
that very instant the soul ofJesus Christ and his human flesh became
his own proper soul and his own proper flesh , sustained and governed
by one sole Divine Person alone , which is the Word, which termi-
nates and sustains the two natures, Divine and human , and it is
thus the Word was made man. Just pause for a moment ! St. John
affirms that the Word, the Son , generated from the Father from all
eternity, is made man , and Berruyer says that this man is not the
Word, the Son of the eternal God, but another Son of God , made
in time by all the three Divine Persons. When , however, the
Evangelist has said : " The Word was made flesh," if you say and
understand that the Word is not made flesh, are you not doing just
what the Sacramentarians did , explaining the Eucharistic words,
" This is my body," that the body of Jesus Christ was not his body,
but only the figure, sign, or virtue of his body ? This is what the
Council of Trent reprobates so much in the heretics, distorting the
words of Scripture to their own meaning. To return, however, to
the Gospel of St. John . The Evangelist says, he dwelt among us.
It was the eternal Word, then, which was made man, and worked
out man's redemption , and, therefore, the Gospel again says : "The
Word was made flesh ....... and we saw his glory, as it were the
glory of the only-begotten of the Father." This Word, then, who
was made man in time, is the only-begotten, and, consequently,
the only natural Son of God, generated by the Father from all
eternity. St. John (1 Epis. iv. 9) , again repeats it : " By this has
the charity of God appeared towards us, because God hath sent his
only-begotten Son into the world, that we may live by him." In
this text we must remark that the Apostle uses the word " hath
sent." Berruyer then asserts what is false, in saying that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God, made in time , for St. John says that he
existed before he " was sent," for in fact it was the eternal Son of
the Father that was sent by God, who came down from heaven,
and brought salvation to the world . We should also recollect that
St. Thomas says ( 20) , that speaking of God , whenever one Person
is said to be sent by another, he is said to be sent, inasmuch as he
proceeds from the other, and therefore the Son is said to be sent by
the Father to take human flesh, inasmuch as he proceeds from the
Person of the Father alone . Christ himself declared this in the re-
surrection of Lazarus, for though he could have raised him himself,
still he prayed to his Father that they might know he was his true
Son, " That they may believe that thou hast sent me” (John, xi. 42) ;
and hence St. Hilary says ( 21 ) : " Non prece eguit, pro nobis oravit,
ne Filius ignoraretur ."
19. Along with all this we have the tradition of the Fathers
generally opposed to Berruyer's system. St. Gregory of Nazian-
zen (22) says : " Id quod non erat assumpsit, non duo factus, sed
unum ex duobus fieri subsistens ; Deus enim ambo sunt, id quod
assumpsit, et quod est assumptum, naturæ duæ in unum concurren-
tes, non duo Filii ." St. John Chrysostom (23) writes : " Unum
Filium unigenitum , non dividens eum in Filiorum dualitatem , por-
tantem tamen in semetipso indivisarum duarum naturarum incon-
vertibiliter proprietates ;" and again, " Etsi enim duplex natura,
verumtamen indivisibilis unio in una filiationis confitenda Persona,
et una subsistentia." St. Jerome says ( 24) : " Anima et caro Christi
cum Verbo Dei una Persona est, unus Christus." St. Dionisius of
Alexandria wrote a Synodical Epistle to refute Paul of Samosata ,
who taught a doctrine like Berruyer ; " Duas esse Personas unius,
et solius Christi ; et duos Filios, unum natura Filium Dei, qui fuit
ante sæcula, et unum homonyma Christum Filium David." St. Au-
gustin says (25 ) : " Christus Jesus Dei Filius est Deus et Homo :
Deus quia Dei Verbum : Homo autem, quia in unitatem Personæ
necessit Verbo Anima rationalis et caro." I omit the quotations
from many other Fathers, but those who are curious in the matter
will find them in the Clypeum of Gonet and in the writings of
Petavius, Gotti, and others.
20. Another reflection occurs to my mind . Besides the other
errors published by Berruyer, and which follow from his opinions,
which we will immediately refute, if the reader goes back to N. 9,
he will perceive that the faith of Baptism, as taught by all Christians
and Councils, is jeopardized . According to this system , all passages
in the New Testament in which God is called the Father of Christ,
or the Son is called the Son of God , or where anything is mentioned
about God, as Father of Christ, the Son of God, must be under-
stood to apply to the Son of God made in time, according to the
flesh, and made by that God, subsisting in three Persons. On
the other hand, it is certain that Baptism is administered in the
Church in the name ofthe three Persons, expressly and individually
named, as Jesus Christ commanded his Apostles to do : " Go ye,
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and ofthe Son , and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. xxviii. 19 ) .
But if the general rule laid down by Berruyer, as we have explained
it, should be observed, then the Baptism administered in the
Church would be no longer Baptism in the sense we take it,
because the Father who is named would not be the first Person of
(21 ) St. Hilar. l. 10, de Trin. (22) St. Greg. Nazian. Orat. 31. (23) St. John
Chrysos. Ep. ad Cæsar. et Hom. 3, ad cap. I. (24) St. Hieron. Tract 49, in Jo.
(25) St. August. in Enchirid. cap. 33.
2 Q
610 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
SEC. II.- BERRUYER SAYS THAT JESUS CHRIST, DURING THE THREE DAYS HE WAS IN THE
SEPULCHRE, CEASED TO BE A LIVING MAN, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, WAS NO LONGER
THE SON OF GOD. AND WHEN GOD AGAIN RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD, he once
MORE GENERATED HIM, AND AGAIN MADE HIM THE SON OF GOD.
21. ONE must have a great deal of patience to wade through all
these extravagant falsehoods. Christ, he says, during the three
days he was in the sepulchre, ceased to be the natural Son of God :
"Factum est morte Christi, ut homo Christus Jesus, cum jam
non esset homo vivens, atque adeo pro triduo quo corpus ab Anima
separatum jacuit in sepulchro, fieret Christus incapax illius ap-
pellationis, Filius Dei ( 1 ) ; and he repeats the same thing in
another part of his work, in different words : " Actione Dei unius ,
Filium suum Jesum suscitantis, factum est, ut Jesus qui desierat
esse homo vivens, et consequenter Filius Dei, iterum viveret
deinceps non moriturus." This error springs from that false sup-
position we have already examined , for supposing that Jesus Christ
was the Son of God subsisting in three Persons, that is the Son of
the Trinity by an operation ad extra, he was then a mere man,
and as by death he ceased to be a living man, he also ceased to be
the Son of God subsisting in three Persons ; because if Jesus Christ
were the Son of God, as first Person of the Trinity, then in him
was the Word, which, being hypostatically united to his soul and
(26) St. Greg. Nazian. in Orat. de Fide, post init. (1) Berruyer, t. 8, p. 63.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 611
body, could never be separated from him, even when his soul was
by death separated from his body.
22. Supposing, then, that Jesus Christ, dying, ceased to be the
Son of God, Berruyer must admit that in those three days in which
our Lord's body was separated from his soul, the Divinity was
separated from his body and soul. Let us narrow the proposition.
Christ, he says, was made the Son of God, not because the Word
assumed his humanity , but because the Word was united to his
humanity, and hence, he says, as in the sepulchre he ceased to be
a living man, his soul being separated from his body, he was no
longer the Son of God, and, therefore, the Word ceased to be
united with his humanity. Nothing, however, can be more false
than this, for the Word assumed and hypostatically and inseparably
united to himself in unity of Person the soul and body of Jesus
Christ, and hence when our Lord died, and his most holy body
was laid in the tomb, the Divinity of the Word could not be
separated either from the body or the soul. This truth has been
taught by St. Athanasius (2) : " Cum Deitas neque Corpus in
sepulchro desereret, neque ab Anima in inferno separaretur." St.
Gregory of Nyssa writes (3) : " Deus qui totum hominem per suam
cum illo conjunctionem in naturam Divinam mutaverat, mortis
tempore a neutra illius, quam semel assumpserat, parte recessit ;"
and St. Augustin says (4) : " Cum credimus Dei Filium, qui
sepultus est, profecto Filium Dei dicimus et Carnem , quæ sola
sepulta est."
23. St. John of Damascus tells us the reason the soul of Christ
had not a different subsistence from his body, as it was the one
Person alone which sustained both : " Neque enim unquam aut
Anima, aut Corpus peculiarem atque a Verbi subsistentia diversam
subsistentiam habuit" (5) . On that account, he says, as it was one
Person which sustained the soul and body of Christ, although the
soul was separated from the body, still the Person of the Word
could not be separated from them : " Corpus, et Anima simul ab
initio in Verbi Persona existentiam habuerant, ac licet in morte .
divulsa fuerint, utrumque tamen eorum unam Verbi, qua subsis-
teret, semper habuit." As, therefore, when Jesus descended into
hell, the Word descended , likewise, with his soul , so , while his
body was in the sepulchre, the Word was present, likewise ; and,
therefore, the body of Christ was free from corruption , as David
foretold : " Nor wilt thou give thy holy One to see corruption"
(Psalm, xv. 10) . And St. Peter, as we read in the Acts (ii. 27) ,
shows that this text was applied to our Lord lying in his tomb.
It is true, St. Hilary (6 ) says , that, when Christ died, the Divinity
(1) St. Athanasius, contra Apollinar. l. 1 , n. 15. (3) St. Greg. Nyss. Orat. 1 in
Christ. Resur. (4) St. Aug. Tract. 78, in Joan, n. 2. (5) St. Jo. Damasc. 1. 3, de
Fide, c. 27. (6) St. Hilar. c. 33, in Matth.
612 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
left his body ; but St. Ambrose (7) explains this, and says, that
all the Holy Doctor meant to say was, that, in the Passion , the
Divinity abandoned the humanity of Christ to that great desola-
tion , which caused him to cry out : " My God, my God , why hast
thoy forsaken me ?" (Matt. xxvii . 46 ) . In his death, therefore, the
Word abandoned his body, inasmuch as the Word did not pre-
serve his life, but never ceased to be hypostatically united with
him. Christ never, then, could cease to be the Son of God in the
sepulchre, as Berruyer teaches ; for it is one of the axioms of all Ca-
tholic schools( 10) : " Quod semel Verbum assumpsit, nunquam misit"
-The Word, having once assumed human nature , never gives it
up again. But when Berruyer admits, then, that the Word was
united in the beginning in unity of Person with the body and soul
of Jesus Christ, how can he afterwards say that, when the soul
was separated from the body, the Word was no longer united with
the body ? This is a doctrine which , surely, neither he nor any
one else can understand.
24. When Berruyer says that Jesus Christ, at his death, ceased
to be the natural Son of God, because he was no longer a living
man, he must, consequently, hold that the humanity, previous to
his death, was not sustained by the Person of the Word, but by
its own proper human subsistence , and was a Person distinct from
the Person of the Word. But, then, how can he escape being
considered a Nestorian, admitting two distinct Persons in Jesus
Christ. Both Nestorius and Berruyer are expressly condemned
by the Symbol promulgated in the Council of Constantinople,
which says, that we are bound to believe in one God , the Father
Almighty, and in one only-begotten Son of God, born of the
Father before all ages, and consubstantial to the Father, who, for
our salvation , came down from heaven, and became incarnate of
the Virgin Mary, suffered, was buried, and rose again the third
day. It is, therefore, the only-begotten Son of God the Father,
generated by the Father from all eternity, and who came down
from heaven, that was made man, died , and was buried. But,
how could God die and be buried ? you will say. By assuming
human flesh, as the Council teaches. As another General Council,
the Fourth of Lateran, says (9) , as God could not die, nor suffer,
by becoming man he became mortal and passible : " Qui cum
secundum Divinitatem sit immortalis et impassibilis, idem ipse
secundum humanitatem factus est mortalis et passibilis."
25. As one error is always the parent of another, so Berruyer
having said that Jesus Christ in the sepulchre ceased to be the
natural Son of God, said, likewise, that when God raised Christ-
man again from the dead, he again generated him, and made him
(7) St. Ambrose. 7. 10, in Luc. c. 13. (8) Cont. Tournely, de Incarn. t. 4, part 2,
pag. 487. (9) Cont. Lat. in cap. Fermiter, de Summ. Trin. &c.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 613
SEC. III - BERRUYER SAYS THAT IT WAS THE HUMANITY ALONE OF CHRIST THAT
OBEYED, PRAYED, AND SUFFERED, AND THAT HIS OBLATIONS, PRAYERS, AND
MEDITATIONS, WERE NOT OPERATIONS PROCEEDING FROM THE WORD, AS A PHYSICAL
AND EFFICIENT PRINCIPLE, BUT THAT, IN THIS SENSE, THEY WERE ACTIONS MERELY
OF HIS HUMANITY.
26. BERRUYER says that the operations of Jesus Christ were not
produced by the Word, but merely by his humanity, and that the
hypostatic union in no wise tended to render the human nature of
Christ a complete principle of the actions physically and super-
naturally performed by him. Here are his words : " Non sunt
operationes a Verbo elicitæ ...... . sunt operationes totius humani-
(1) Berruyer, t. 8, p. 53. (2) Idem. p. 22. (3) Idem. p. 18 , 19. (4) Berruyer,
t. 8, p. 20, 21, & 23. (5) Idem. p . 53.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 615
28. Berruyer concludes the passage last quoted , " Humanitas sola
obedivit," &c ., by these words : " Ille (inquam) homo, qui hæc
omnia egit, et passus est libere et sancte, et cujus humanitas in
Verbo subsistebat, objectum est in recto immediatum omnium , quæ
de Christo sunt, narrationem" ( 6) . It was the man, then, in Christ,
99
and not the Word, that operated : " Ille homo qui hæc omnia egit.
Nor is that cleared up by what he says immediately after : " Cujus
humanitas in Verbo subsistebat ;" for he never gives up his system,
but constantly repeats it in his Dissertations, and clothes it in so
many curious and involved expressions, that it would be sufficient
to turn a person's brain to study it. His system, as we have pre-
viously explained it, is, that Christ is not the Eternal Word, the
Son, born of God the Father, but the Son , made in time by one
God, subsisting in three Persons, who made him his Son by uniting
him to the Divine Person ; so that, rigorously speaking, he says he
was formally constituted the Son of God, merely by that action
which united him with the Divine Person : " Rigorose loquendo,
per ipsam formaliter actionem unientem cum Persona Divina." He ,
therefore, says that God, by the action of uniting the humanity of
Christ with the Word, formed the second filiation, and caused
Christ-Man to become the Son of God, so that, according to his
opinion, the union of the Word with the humanity of Christ was,
as it were, a means to make Christ become the Son of God . All
this, however, is false , for when we speak of Jesus Christ, we cannot
say that that man, on account of being united with a Divine Person,
was made by the Trinity the Son of God in time ; but we are
bound to profess that God, the Eternal Word, is the Son, born of
the Father from all eternity, born of the substance of the Father, as
the Athanasian Creed says, " God , of the substance of the Father,
born before all ages," for, otherwise , he never could be called the
natural Son of God. He it is who, uniting to himself humanity in
unity of Person, has always sustained it, and he it is who performed
all operations, who, notwithstanding that he was equal to God,
emptied himself, and humbled himself to die on a cross in that flesh
which he assumed.
29. Berruyer's whole error consists in supposing the humanity
of Christ to be a subject subsisting in itself, to which the Word
was subsequently united . Faith and reason, however, would both
teach him that the humanity of Christ was accessary to the Word
which assumed it, as St. Augustin (7) explains : " Homo autem,
quia in unitatem personæ accessit Verbo Anima et Caro ." Ber-
ruyer, however, on the contrary, says that the Divinity of the
Word was accessary to the humanity ; but he should have known,
as Councils and Fathers teach , that the humanity of Jesus Christ
did not exist until the Word came to take flesh . The Sixth
Council ( Act 11 ) reproved Paul of Samosata , for teaching, with
(6) Berruyer, t. 8, p. 53 & 95. (7) St. Augus. in Euchirid. c. 35.
616 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
that the Word was the principal agent in all operations . But, say
those of the other side : Then, the humanity of Christ performed
no operations ? We answer that the Word did all ; for, though
the humanity might also act, still, as the Word was the sole Per-
son sustaining and completing this humanity, he (the Word) per-
formed every operation both of the soul and body, for both body
and soul, by the unity of Person, became his own. Everything,
then, which Jesus Christ did- his wishes, actions , and sufferings-
all belonged to the Word, for it was he who determined everything,
and his obedient humanity consented and executed it. Hence it is
that every action of Christ was holy and of infinite value, and
capable of procuring every grace, and we are, therefore, bound to
praise him for all .
34. The reader, then, should totally banish from his mind the
false idea which Berruyer (as the author of the " Essay " writes)
wished to give us of Christ, that the humanity was a being, exist-
ing of itself, to whom God united one of his Sons by nature ; for,
as will be seen, by referring back to N. 11 , there must have been,
according to him, two natural Sons- one, generated by the Father
from all eternity; the other, in time, by the whole Trinity ; but,
then, Jesus Christ, as he teaches, was not, properly speaking, the
Word made incarnate, according to St. John-" The Word was
made flesh”—but was the other Son of God , made in time. This ,
however, is not the doctrine of the Holy Fathers ; they unani-
mously teach that it was the Word. St. Jerome writes :
" Anima et Caro Christi cum Verbo Dei una Persona est, unus
Christus" ( 17) . Sr. Ambrose ( 18 ) , showing that Jesus Christ spoke
sometimes according to his Divine, and, at other times, according
to his human nature, says : " Quasi Deus sequitur Divina, quia
Verbum est, quasi homo dicit humana." Pope Leo says : " Idem est
qui mortem subiit, et sempiternus esse non desiit" (19 ) . St. Augustin
says : " Jesus Christus Dei Filius est, et Deus, et homo. Deus
ante omnia secula, homo in nostro seculo. Deus quia Dei Verbum,
Deus enim erat Verbum : homo autem, quia in unitatem personæ
accessit Verbo Anima, et Caro ..... Non duo Filii , Deus, et homo,
sed unus Dei Filius" (20) . And , in another place (cap . 36 ) : Ex
quo homo esse cœpit, non aliud cœpit esse homo, quam Dei Filius,
et hoc unicus, et propter Deum Verbum, quod illo suscepto caro
factum est, utique Deus . . . . . ut sit Christus una persona , Verbum
et homo." The rest of the Fathers speak the same sentiments ;
but it would render the Work too diffuse to quote any more.
35. The Holy See, then, had very good reasons for so rigorously
and so frequently condemning Berruyer's Book ; for it not alone
contains many errors, in opposition to the doctrines of the Church ,
(17) St. Hieron. Tract. 49, in Joan. (18) St. Ambr. ap. St. Leon, in Ep. 134.
(19) St. Leo, Serm. 66. (20) St. Augu. in Euchirid. c. 35.
620 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
the union with the Word , that alone it was which suffered, and
was subjected to death. Let him keep these opinions to himself,
however, for every faithful Catholic will say, with Saint Paul : " I
live in the faith of the Son of God , who loved me , and delivered
himself for me" ( Gal. ii . 20) . And we will praise and love with all
our hearts that God who, being God , made himself man, to suffer
and die for every one of us.
36. It is painful to witness the distortion of Scripture which
Berruyer has recourse to in every part of his work, but more espe-
cially in his Dissertations, to accommodate it to his false system ,
that Jesus Christ was the Son of one God , subsisting in three Per-
sons. We have already (N. 7) quoted that text of St. Paul (Phil.
ii. 5, &c.) : " Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ
Jesus, who, being in the form of God , thought it not robbery to be
equal with God , but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,”
&c. Here is conclusive evidence to prove that the Word, equal to
the Father, emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, in
becoming man. Berruyer says, on the contrary, that it was not the
Word, not the Divine nature, which humbled itself, but the human ,
conjoined with the Divine nature : " Humiliat sese natura humana
naturæ Divinæ physice conjuncta." To consider the Word humbled
to become incarnate, and die on the cross, would, he says, be
degrading the Divinity ; it should, therefore , he says, be only under-
stood according to the communication of the idioms, and, conse-
quently, as referring to the actions of Christ after the hypostatic
union, and, therefore, he says it was his humanity that was humbled.
But in that case we may well remark, what is there wonderful in
the humiliation of humanity before God ? That prodigy of love
and mercy which God exhibited in his Incarnation , and which
astonished both heaven and earth, was when the Word, the only-
begotten Son of God , equal to the Father, emptied himself (exina-
nivit) , in becoming man, and, from God, became the servant of
God, according to the flesh. It is thus all Fathers and Catholic
Doctors understand it, with the exception of Berruyer and Har-
douin ; and it is thus the Council of Chalcedon , also ( Act. V. ) ,
declared that the Son of God, born of the Father, before all ages,
became incarnate in these latter days (novissimis diebus), and
suffered for our salvation.
37. We will take a review of some other texts. St. Paul (Heb.
i. 2) says, that God " in these days hath spoken to us by his Son
...by whom he also made the world." All the Fathers under-
stand this, as referring to the Word, by whom all things were
created, and who was afterwards made man ; but Berruyer explains
the passage, " By whom he also made the world," thus : In consi-
deration of whom God made the world . He explains the text of
St. John, " By him all things were made," in like manner, that in
regard of him all things were made, so that he does not even admit
622 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
the Word to be the Creator. But hear St. Paul on the contrary.
God, speaking to his Son, says : " Thy throne, O God, is for ever
and ever ...... In the beginning, O Lord, didst thou found the
earth, and the works of thy hands are the heavens" ( Heb. i . 8 , 10) .
Here God does not say that he created the heavens and the earth
in consideration or in regard of his Son , but that the Son himself
created them ; and hence St. Chrysostom remarks : " Nunquam
profecto id asserturus, nisi conditorem Filium, non ministrum arbi-
traretur, ac Patri et Filio pares esse intelligeret dignitates."
38. David says: " The Lord hath said to me, thou art my Son ;
this day have I begotten thee" (Psalm , ii. 7). Berruyer says that
the expression, " This day have I begotten thee," has no reference
to the eternal generation, as all understand it, but to the generation
in time, of which he is the inventor, when Jesus Christ was made
in time the Son of one God , subsisting in three Persons. He thus
explains the text, " This day have I begotten thee :" I will be your
Father, and you will be my Son-that is, according to the second
filiation , made by the one God in three Persons, as he imagines.
39. St. Luke says : " And, therefore, also the Holy which shall
be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" ( Luke, i. 35) . Ber-
ruyer says that these words do not refer to Jesus Christ, as the
Word, but as man ; for the expression " Holy" is not adapted to
the Word, but rather to humanity. All Doctors, however, under-
stand by the Holy One, the Word, the Son of God, born before all
ages. Bossuet sagaciously remarks, that the expression , " Holy,"
when it is only an adjective, properly speaking, is adapted to the
creature ; but when, as in the present case, it is a substantive, it
means holiness essentially, which belongs to God alone.
40. St. Matthew (xxviii. 19) tells us that Christ said to his dis-
ciples : " Going, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Ber-
ruyer says, then, that by the name of Father, the first Person
of the Trinity is not meant, but the God of the Jews-that is, one
God subsisting in three Persons ; by the name of the Son, the
Word is not understood, but Christ, as man, made the Son of God,
by the act by which God united him to the Word. He says nothing
at all about the Holy Ghost. Now, by this doctrine the sacrament
of Baptism is not alone deranged, but totally abolished I may say ;
because, according to him , we would not be baptized at first in the
name of the Father, but in the name ofthe Trinity, and Baptism,
administered after this form , as all theologians hold , with St. Thomas,
would be null and void ( 21 ) . In the second place , we would not
be baptized in the name of the real Son of God—that is, the Word
who became incarnate, but in the name of that Son invented by
Berruyer, made in time by the Trinity-a Son which never did nor
ever can exist, because there never was, nor ever will be, any other
natural Son of God , unless that only-begotten one, generated from
all eternity from the substance ofthe Father, the principle, and first
Person of the Trinity. The second generation, made in time, or,
to speak more exactly, the Incarnation ofthe Word , did not make
Christ the Son ofGod, but united him in one Person with the true
Son of God ; that did not give him a Father but merely a Mother,
who begot him from her own substance . Rigorously speaking this
cannot be called generation , for the generation of the Son of God
is that alone which was from eternity . The humanity of Christ
was not generated by God, but was created, and was begotten solely
by the Virgin Mary. Berruyer says that the Blessed Virgin is the
Mother ofGod by two titles-first, by begetting the Word, and
secondly, by giving Christ his humanity, since, as he says, the union
established between this humanity and the Word has caused Jesus
Christ to be made the Son of God. Both reasons, however, are
false, for first we cannot say that the Blessed Virgin begot the
Word, for the Word had no Mother, but only a Father, that is God.
Mary merely begot the Man, who was united in one Person with
the Word, and it is on that account that she, the Mother of Man, is
justly called the true Mother of God . His second reason is equally
false, that the Blessed Virgin has contributed, with her substance,
to make Jesus Christ become the Son of God, one subsisting in three
Persons, for, as we have proved , this supposition is totally false, so
that, by attributing thus two maternities to the Blessed Virgin, he
does away with it altogether, for one destroys the other. Berruyer
mangles several other texts, but I omit them not to weary the reader
with such folly any longer.
SEC. IV. THE MIRACLES WROUGHT BY JESUS CHRIST WERE NOT PERFORMED BY HIS
OWN POWERS, BUT OBTAINED FROM HIS FATHER BY HIS PRAYERS.
41. BERRUYER says that Jesus Christ wrought his miracles in this
sense alone, that he operated, with a beseeching power, by means
of his prayers : " Miracula Christus efficit, non precatio.......prece
tamen et postulatione. . . .. . .eo unice sensu dicitur Christus miracu-
lorum effector." In another place he says that Christ, as the Son
of God (but the Son in his sense-that is, of one God subsisting in
three Persons), had a right, by his divinity, that his prayers should
be heard. Remark the expression, " his prayers." Therefore,
according to Berruyer, our Saviour did not work miracles by his
own power, but obtained them from God by his prayers like any
other holy man. This doctrine, however, once admitted, we should
hold with Nestorius, that Christ was a mere human person, distinct
from the Person of the Word, who, being God, equal to the Father,
had no necessity of begging the Father to grant him power to work
miracles, since he had all power himself. This error springs from
624 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
the former capital ones we have refuted —that is, that Christ is not
the Word, but is that Son of God existing only in his imagination,
his Son merely in name, made in time by God, subsisting in three
Persons, and also that in Christ it was not the Word that operated,
but his humanity alone : " Sola humanitas obedivit, sola passa
est," &c.
42. He was just as much astray in this proposition that Christ
wrought miracles merely by prayer and supplication as he was in
his previous statements. St. Thomas, the prince of theologians,
teaches " that Christ wrought miracles by his own power, and not
by prayer, as others did" (1 ) . And St. Cyril says that he proved,
by the very miracles he wrought, that he was the true Son of God,
since he performed them not by the power of another, but by his
own : "Non accipiebat alienam virtutem." Only once, says St.
Thomas (2) , did he show that he obtained from his Father the
power to work miracles, that was in the resurrection of Lazarus,
when imploring the power of his Father, he said : " I know that
thou hearest me always, but because of the people who stand about
have I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me" (John,
xi. 42 ) . But, as the holy Doctor remarks, he did this for our in-
struction, to show us that in our necessities we should have recourse
to God as he had. St. Ambrose then tells us not to imagine , from
this fact of Lazarus , that our Saviour prayed to his Father for power
to perform the miracle, as if he had not power to work it himself;
that prayer, he says, was intended for our instruction : " Noli insi-
diatrices aperire aures, ut putes Filium, Dei quasi infirmum rogare,
ut impetret quod implere non possit.......ad præcepta virtutis
suæ nos informat exemplo" (3) . St. Hilary says just the same ;
but he also assigns another reason : Christ , he says, did not require
to pray, but he did so to make us believe that he was in reality
the Son of God: " Non prece eguit, pro nobis, oravit, ne Filius
ignoraretur" (4).
43. St. Ambrose (5) remarks, that when Jesus Christ wished, he
did not pray, but commanded, and all creatures obeyed—the sea,
the winds, and diseases. He commanded the sea to be at rest, and
it obeyed : " Peace, be still" (Mark, iv. 39) . He commanded that
disease should leave the sick, and they were made whole : " Virtue
went out from him, and healed all" ( Luke , vi. 19 ) . He himself
tells us that he could do , and did, everything equal to his Divine
Father: " For whatsoever things he (the Father) doth , these the
Son also doth in like manner.......For as the Father raiseth up
the dead, and giveth life, so the Son also giveth life to whom he
will" (John, v. 19 , 21 ) . St. Thomas says (6) that the miracles alone
which Christ wrought were sufficient to make manifest the Divine
(1) St. Thomas, 3, p. q. 44, art. 4. (2) Idem, ibid. qu. 21 , art. 1 , ad. 1. (3) St.
Ambros. in Luc. (4) St. Hilar. l. 10, de Trinit. (5) St. Ambros. l. 3, de Fide,
c. 4. (6) St. Thom. 3, p. q. 43, art. 4.
AND THEIR REFUTATION. 625
SEC. V. THE HOLY GHOST WAS NOT SENT TO THE APOSTLES BY JESUS CHRIST, BUT
BY THE FATHER ALONE, AT THE PRAYER OF CHRIST.
44. BERRUYER says that the Holy Ghost was not sent to the
Apostles by Jesus Christ, but by the Father, at his prayer : " Ad
orationem Jesu Christi, quæ voluntatis ejus efficacis signum erit ,
mittet Pater Spiritum Sanctum. Quæ quasi raptim delibavimus de
Jesu Christo missuro Spiritum Sanctum, quatenus homo Deus est
Patrem rogaturus."
45. This error is also a necessary consequence ofthe former ones ;
that is, Jesus Christ, the Word, did not operate, but the humanity
alone, or the Man made the Son of one God subsisting in three
Persons, by reason of the union of the Person of the Word with the
humanity ; and from this false supposition he deduces this present
falsehood, that the Holy Ghost was not sent by Jesus Christ, but
by the Father, at the prayer of Jesus Christ. If he said that the
Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Word , but from the Father
alone, he would fall into the Greek heresy already refuted (Ref. iv .) ;
but he rather leans to the heresy of Nestorius, who, admitting two
Persons in Christ, a Divine and a human Person, said, consequently,
that the Divine Person dwelling in Jesus Christ, together with the
Father, sent the Holy Ghost ; and the human Person in Christ ob-
tained from the Father, by his prayers, that the Holy Spirit should
be sent. Berruyer does not expressly say this ; but when he asserts
that the Holy Ghost was not sent by Jesus Christ, only by his
prayer alone, he appears to believe, either that there is no Divine
Person in Christ at all, or that there are two Persons -one Divine,
which sends, of himself, the Holy Ghost ; the other human , which
obtains, by his prayers, that he may be sent. He shows that that
is his opinion, when he says that in Jesus Christ it was the humanity
alone that acted and suffered, that is, the Man alone made in time
the Son ofGod by the whole three Persons . This was not, certainly,
the Word who was born of the Father alone before all ages. But
the word, he says, was already united to the humanity of Christ in
unity of Person ; but then we should remember, that according to
2R
626 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
his opinion the Word had nothing to do , for it was only the
humanity that acted in Christ. That being the case, of what
service was the union of the Word in unity of Person with the
humanity ? Merely, as he said , that by means of the hypostatic
union Christ might be made the Son of God, of the three Divine
Persons ; and hence, he says, the operations of Christ were not
elicited by the Word , but merely by his humanity, and the hypos-
tatic union gave no value to his actions : " in ratione principii
agentis ..... unio hypostatica nihil omnino contulit."
46. With what face could Berruyer assert that the Holy Ghost
was not sent by Jesus Christ, when he himself several times said he
was, and promised his Apostles that he would send them the Para-
clete : " But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you
from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the
Father" (John , xv. 26 ) ; " For if I go not, the Paraclete will not
come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you" (John , xvi . 7) .
Listen to this ! Christ says that he sent the Holy Ghost ; and
Berruyer says that the Holy Ghost was not sent by him, but only
at his prayer. Perhaps he will argue that Christ himself said : " I
will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete"
(John, xiv. 16) . But we answer with St. Augustin , that Christ
then spoke as man ; but when he spoke as God, he said not once,
but several times, " whom I will send to you ." And again he says :
"The Paraclete , the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in
my name, he will teach you all things" (John , xiv. 26 ) . St. Cyril ,
explaining this text, says, " in my name," that is, by me, because
he proceeds from me. It is certain the Holy Ghost could not be
sent unless by the Divine Persons alone, who were his Principle,
the Father and the Son. If, then, he was sent by Jesus Christ,
there can be no doubt that he was sent by the Word, who operated
in Jesus Christ, and the Word being equal to the Father, and with
the Father, co-principle of the Holy Ghost, had no necessity to pray
to the Father (as Berruyer says) that he might be sent ; for as the
Father sent him, so did he likewise.
(1) St. Aug. 7. 18 de C. D. c. 47. (2) St. Aug. de Nat. et Grat. p. 149.
628 THE HISTORY OF HERESIES ,
(3) St. Ang. de Nupt. et Concup. l. 2, p. 113. (4) Seneca, Epist. 73. (5) Idem.
de Constantia Sap. c. 8. (6) Idem. Epist. 53. (7) Cicero de Nat. Deor. p. 253.
AND THEIR REFUTATION . 629
he was the first-born among men ; and as the Son of God, he was
bound, according to the rigour of justice, to sacrifice himself to
God for his glory, and the salvation of mankind : " Debitum con-
traxerat in rigore justitiæ fundatum, qui natus erat Filius hominis,
homo Primogenitus simul Dei Unigenitus, ut se Pontifex idem, et
hostia ad gloriam Dei restituendam , salutemque hominum redimen-
dam Deo Patri suo exhiberet." Hence, he says that Christ, by a
natural precept, was bound, ex condigno, to satisfy the Divine Justice
by his Passion : " Offerre Se tamen ad satisfaciendum Deo ex con-
digno, et ad expiandum hominis peccatum, quo satis erat passione
sua, Jesus Christus Filius hominis , et Filius Dei præcepto naturali
obligabatur." Christ, therefore , he says, as the Son of Man, and
the first-born of man, contracted a debt, obliging him, in rigorous
justice, to atone to God, by his Passion, for the sins of mankind .
We answer, that our Saviour could not, either as the Son of Man,
or first born of man, contract this strict obligation to make satis-
faction for mankind . He could not be obliged, as the Son of Man,
for it would be blasphemous to assert that he incurred original sin :
66
Accepit enim hominem," says St. Thomas (12) , " absque peccato ."
Neither could he be obliged to it, as the first-born among men. It
is true, St. Paul calls him the first-born among many brethren ;
but we must understand in what sense the Apostle applies this
term . The text says : " For whom he foreknew he also predes-
tinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son , that he
might be the first-born among many brethren" (Rom. viii. 29).
The Apostle here instructs us, that those whom God has foreseen
will be saved, he has predestined to be made like unto Jesus Christ,
in holiness and patience, poor , despised, and persecuted like him
on earth.
56. Berruyer, however, asserts, that according to strict justice
Christ could not be the mediator of all mankind, if he was not at
the same time Man-God, and the Son of God, and thus make full
satisfaction for the sins of man. But St. Thomas says ( 13) that
God could be satisfied in two ways in regard to man's sin, per-
fectly and imperfectly-perfectly, by the satisfaction given him by
a Divine Person, such as was given him by Jesus Christ ; imper-
fectly, by accepting the satisfaction which man himself could make,
and which would be sufficient, if God wished to accept it. St.
Augustin says those are fools who teach that God could save
mankind in no other manner, unless by becoming man himself, and
suffering all he did . He could do so if he wished, says the Saint ;
but then their folly would not be satisfied : " Sunt stulti qui di-
•
cunt: Non poterat aliter sapientia Dei homines liberare , nisi susci-
peret hominem, et a peccatoribus omnia illa pateretur. Quibus
First-born, the curious opinion concerning, Henry VIII. , his early days, 328 .
631 . becomes enamoured of Anna
Fisher takes the Oath of Supremacy, condi- Boleyn, 329.
tionally, 332. marries her, 330.
put to death, 334. writes against Luther, 277.
Five Propositions of Jansenius, 366. Death of, 339.
Flagellants, history of, 242. Hermengild, St., 93.
Flavian, St., held a Synod against Eutychi- Hernhutters, 381 .
anism , 137. Holy Ghost, Descent of, Berruyer's Error
Martyrdom of, 146. regarding, 625.
Florence, Council of, 219. Divinity of, proved, 421.
Proceedings of, 439. Honorius, Pope, not a Monothelite, 181.
Folmar, 232. Huguenots, 304, 310.
Formula signed by Gallican Clergy, 369. Human nature, three states of, according to
Formula of Sirmium, signed by Liberius, 77. Baius, 568.
Francis de Sales, St., visits Beza, 308. Humanity of Christ, Berruyer's Errors re-
Franciscan Friars, 200 imprisoned by Henry garding, 613.
VIII., 333. Hunneric, 90.
Frankfort, Council of, 200. his horrible Death, 91.
Fratricelli, 242. Huss, John, 250.
condemned by John XXII., 243. translates Wickliffe's works, 251 .
Frederic, Elector, protects Luther, 266. his Errors, 251 .
his Death, 270. comes to the Council of Constance, 253.
Free Will denied by Calvin, 320. dies at the stake, 254.
existence of, proved, 514. Hypsisteri, 100.
two sorts of, 514.
Iconoclasts, 188.
Geneva, establishment of Calvinism in, 326. Ignatius, St. , of Constantinople, 201.
Genseric persecutes the Catholics, 87. dreadful persecution endured by,
Gentilis, Valentine, 351. 204.
his Doctrine, 352. appeals to the Pope, 205 .
Punishment and Death, forced to sign his own deposition,
353. 206.
George, Duke of Saxony, his opinion of the Ignorants, 169.
Reformation, 282. Incorruptibilists, 170.
German Catholics, 389 . " In eminenti," Bull of, 571.
Germanus, St. , 189. Infidels, Doctrine of the Church concerning,
Gilbert de la Poree, 231. 456.
his Errors, 231 . Interim, the, of Charles V., 271.
Gnostics, 37.
Godeschalcus, his Errors and Death, 117, Jacobites, 169.
118 . James I., 316.
Opinions ofAuthors concerning Jansenius, Bishop of Ghent, 365.
his Doctrine, 118. Bishop of Ipres, 365.
Gomarists, 326. Errors of, refuted, 576.
Grace and Free Will, Pelagian Doctrine of, Jarnac, Battle of, 311.
110. Jeane, Queen of Navarre, a Calvinist, 310.
necessity of, 443. Jerome of Prague, 255.
gratuity of, 446 . put to death, 255.
Greek Church, curious custom regarding the Joachim, Abbot, 232.
Eucharist, 508. John, St., Pope, 92.
Greek Heresy refuted, 433. | John, St., of Damascus, 193.
Greeks, objections of, answered, 440. Jovian, Emperor, 84.
Gregory III. , Letter of, to Leo the Iconoclast, Jovinian, a Monk, his Heresy, 105.
192. denied the Virginity of the Blessed
Grey, Lady Jane, 342. Virgin, 105.
Guion, Madam, 379. this Error refuted, 106.
Julian the Apostate, 82.
Henoticon of Zeno, 163. his Death, 83.
Henricians, 227.
Henry IV., his reasons for leaving the Cal- Kant, his system of religion, 380.
vinists, 635. Knox, John, 313.
640 GENERAL INDEX.
5 SE 57
THE END.
OF
LIGUORI'S SPIRIT,
Royal 32mo, fancy cloth, 1s.
LIGUORI'S VISITS TO THE BLESSED SACRAMENT ;
new edition, with additions, royal 32mo, cloth, beautifully
printed on fine paper, 1s.