Imatges de pÓgina
PDF
EPUB

Chap. 3. Time will come, when Chriftians will do this in Queft 17 a more wicked Manner, not only in regard of Meats, but even of Marriage, and of all fuch Things.

Theodoret fays on the fame Text: (40) They call both Marriage, and many forts of Meats DETESTABLE, to affront the Creator. TheophylaEtus understands the Words of S. Paul in the fame Manner.

S. Auguftin tells the Manichæans: (41) When the Apostle bad faid, 1 Tim. iv. v. 3. to abstain from Meats, &c. be adds, v. 4. for every Creature of God is good.THIS YOU DENÝ. With this Intention, this Will, under this Perfuafion, you abstain from fuch Meats, that they are evil, and unclean BY NATURE. In which doubtlefs you blafpheme their Creator. It is this, that belongs to THE DOCTRINE OF DEVILS! Do not wonder then, that this was prophecy'd of you fo long fince by the H. Spirit.

And in another Treatife: S. Paul, fays(42) he, evidently meant the Manichæans, when he faid,

(40) Μυσαρὸν γὰρ καὶ τὸν γάμον, καὶ τῶν βρωμάτων τὰ πλῶτα ἀποκάλεσιν, ἵνα τῶν τοιύτων δμνοργὸν ἐνυβρίσωσε Theod. in 1 Tim. iv. v. 3. (41) Cum Apoftolus dixiffet, abstinentes a cibis, &c. fecutus ait, quoniam omnis Creatura Dei bona eft, Hæc funt quæ nes gatis. Hoc animo, hac voluntate, bac opinione, ab Efcis hujufmodi temperatis, quod natura malæ & immunde Lint. Qua in re Creatorem earum fine dubio blafphematis. Hoc eft quod pertinet ad Do&trinam Dæmoniorum. Nolite ergo mirari, hoc de vobis tanto ante a Spiritu Santo prophes tatum. Lib. xxx. con. Faus. Cap. v. (42) Apertiffime iftos [Manichæos] fignificavit, cum dicit; in nos viffimis temporibus, futuros quofdam, prohibentes nubere, abstinentes à cibis, quas Deus creavit. Lib. con. Adi mantum. Cap. xiv.

faid, that in the latter Times there will Chap. 3. be fome forbidding to marry, and abftaining Queft17 from Meats, which God has created. Thus S. Auguftin.

Hence S. Leo (43) Abstinence, says he, indeed is profitable, which being us'd to a spare Diet, curbs the Defire of Delicacy. But wo be to the Doctrine of thofe [the Manichæans] who fin even by fafting. For by condemning the Nature of Creatures, they affront the Creator; and Jay, that Men are defil'd by the Use of those Things, which they fuppofe to have been made by the Devil, not by God. But you, the holy Offspring of your Catholick Mother, whom the H. Spirit has inftructed in the School of Truth, ufe your Liberty with due Moderation, knowing that it is good to abstain even from lawful Things; and when you ought to live in a more mortyfy'd manner, fo to distinguish betwixt Meats, that their USE MAY BE REMOV'D, not their Na, TURE CONDEMN'd,

VIII. If the Apoftles had commanded the first Christians, Acts xv. v. 28, 29. to abstain from eating Blood and ftrangled Meats, by way of Mortification; their Precept muft, or at T 4 leaft

(43) Utilis quidem est abftinentia, quæ parco affueta villui, deliciarum cohibet Appetitum. Sed ve illorum dogmati, apud quos etiam jejunando peccatur. Damnant enim creaturarum naturam in Creatoris injuriam ; & contaminari afferunt iis, quorum non Deum, fed Diabolum conditorem effe definiunt. Vos autem Catholica Matris Janda generatio, quos in fchola veritatis Spiritus San&us erudivit, libertatem veftram congrua ratione moderamini, fcientes quia bonum eft etiam a licitis abftinere ; & cum caftigatius vivendum eft, ita difcernere cibos, ut eorum fubmoveatur ufus, non natura damnetur. S. Leo Serm. iv. do Jejun. Quadrag. Cap. 1v.

As it

Chap. 3. leaft might, ftill have been in Force. Queft17 was obferv'd in many Parts of the Catholick Church, long after the first Centuries. But it is more probable, that the whole Intention and End of that Injunction was only to make it more eafy for converted Jews to enter into the fame Society with converted Gentiles. And as the general End of this Precept expir'd after the firft Ages; fo the Obligation of it ceas'd. For all human Laws, as fuch, are fubject to this Rule. And fince the present State of the Gentile Church is fuch, says S. (44) Auguftin, that no carnal Ifraelite appears in it: what Chriftian is now fo nice, that he will not touch Thrushes, or smaller Birds; unless their Blood be fpilt? Or will not eat à Hare [or Rabbet] if kill'd by a Stroke of a Hand on the back of the Neck, without a bloody Wound? And thofe few Chriftians, perhaps,who are still afraid to touch thefe Things, are laugh'd at by the rest.

IX. But when did the Practice and Precept of abftaining from Flefb on certain Days, begin in the Catholick Church? Of this every one is at Liberty to think as he pleases. The Practice might be, or was from (45) the Beginning. But it is probable, that the Precept was not every where receiv'd, till after the fifth Century.

Eighteenth

(44) At ubi Ecclefia Gentium talis effecta est, ut in ea nullus Ifraelita carnalis appareat: quis jam hoc Chriftianus obfervat, ut turdos vel minutiores aviculas non attingat, nifi quarum fanguis effufus est ? aut leporem non edat, fi manu a cervice percuffus, nullo cruento vulnere occifus eft ? Et qui forte pauci adhuc tangere ifta formidant, cæteris irridentur. S. Aug. Lib. xxxii. con. Fauftum. Cap. xiii. (45) Nat. Alexandre, in Sæc. ii. Differt. iv. Art. ii.

Eighteenth QUESTION. Chap. 3.

Queft 18

Is the Church in Communion with the Bishop and
See of Rome, the Catholick Church?

ANSWER,

Firft. That is the Catholick Church, from which all Chriftian Sects have been cut off in their respective Times. But all Sects which are, or ever were in Chriftendom, have, in their respectibe Times, been cut off from the Church in Communion with the Bishop and See of Rome, which S. [1] Cyprian calls the principal See, from whence the Unity of Priestbood is rifen.

OR this there are chiefly Two
Arguments.

FOR

In the first and second Century, befides Philetus, [2] who deny'd the Refurrection, and [3] Hymenæus and Alexander, whom S. Paul deliver'd to Satan, that they might learn not to blafpheme; the Difciples of Simon the Sorcerer, of Menander, the Gnosticks, the Cerinthians, the Nazaraans, the Ebionites, the Nicolaites, the Cainites, the Elcefaites, the Difciples of Saturninus, of Bafilides, of Carpocrates, of Valentinus, of Marcion, of Tatian, the Ophites, the [4] Montanists, and the Adamites were cut off from her.

U

In

[1] Petri Cathedram, atq; Ecclefiam principalem, unde unitas facerdotalis exorta est. S. Cypr. Ep. lv. [2] 2 Tim. ii. v. 17. 18. [3] 1 Tim. 1. v. 19. 20.

[4] But did not Pope Eleutherius, or rather Pope Victor favour the Montanifts in the Beginning? By Mifinformation he did. But when Praxeas had given bim a true Account of their Doctrine, he cut them off from

his

Chap. 3. In the third and fourth Century, the Theo Queft18 dotians, who held that Chrift was only a Man, the Novatians, the Sabellians, the Manichæans, the Hieracites, the Donatifts, the [5] Arians, the Macedonians, whom the second General Council calls [6] Semi-Arians, the Apolinarians, the Messalians, and the Prifcilianifts were cut off from her.

In the fifth Century, the Pelagians, the Neftorians, and the Eutychians were cut off from her. And the two laft Sects continued separated from her in the fixth, and are not yet extinct.

In the seventh and eighth Century, the [7] Monotheletes,fo call'd because they believ'd on

ly.

But

his Communion, as a wicked Sect. Tillem. Mem. Ec-
cles. Tom. 2. pag, 713. col. 2. [5] Did not Pape
Liberius an. 357, condemn S. Athanafius, communicate
with the Arians, and fign their Creed? He did very ill,
of which fee Monfr. Tillemont, Tom. 6. pag. 419.
ift. In the Creed, which he fign'd, to regain his See, after
Be had been two Years banish'd from it, (which Creed was
the first at Sirmium, an. 351.) the Arian Error was
not express'd. 2ly. The Bishops, with whom he communi-
eated, did not profefs it in fuch Terms, as could not poffibly
bear a Catholick Interpretation. For even the 2d. Creed
at Sirmium, how wickedly foever intended, was capable
of this Senfe. 3ly. He condemn'd the Perfon, not the
Dodrine of S. Athanafius. 4ly. When in a peaceable
Poffeffion of his See, he foon repented of what he had
done, made Profeffion of the Nicene Creed, and
reconcil'd himfelf to S. Athanafius, fays Monfr. Du
Pin, Vol. 2. pag. 63, of the English Translation of his
Bibliotheque. [6] Καὶ τὴν τῶν ἡμιαρειανῶν, ἦγεν πνευ-
Marouaxar. Can. 1. p. 946 E. Tom. 2. Conc. Labb.
[7] Did not Pope Honorius favour the Monotheletes?
He did. But the Catholick Church had not then condemn'd,
or examin'd their Error: Nor were they, at that Time,
a Separate Selt,

« AnteriorContinua »