Hardouin Vindicated:
Evidence for the Falsification of World History
December 23, 2023
G.D.O'Bradovich III
Page 1
Preface
THE
PROLEGOMENA
OF
JEAN HARDOUIN
TRANSLATED BY
EDWIN JOHNSON, M.A.
SYDNEY ANGUS AND ROBERTSON, Ltd.
CASTLEREAGH STREET
1909
AUSTRALIAN K OK COMPANY.
Bl, WARWICK LANC.
LONDON. EG.
Printed by
Webedale, Shooamith Ltd., 117 Olarenoe St, Sydney
for
Angus and Robertson, Ltd., Sydney
London: The Australian Book Company
21 Warwick Uni, ELC.
PREFACE
“Let truth and error grapple.”— Areopagitica
PROLEGOMENA
OF
JEAN HARDOUIN
TRANSLATED BY
EDWIN JOHNSON, M.A.
SYDNEY ANGUS AND ROBERTSON, Ltd.
CASTLEREAGH STREET
1909
AUSTRALIAN K OK COMPANY.
Bl, WARWICK LANC.
LONDON. EG.
Printed by
Webedale, Shooamith Ltd., 117 Olarenoe St, Sydney
for
Angus and Robertson, Ltd., Sydney
London: The Australian Book Company
21 Warwick Uni, ELC.
PREFACE
“Let truth and error grapple.”— Areopagitica
As enquiries have been made for the long–suppressed “Prolegomena” of Father Hardouin—a work on the authorship and authenticity of the works of the “Fathers” and “Doctors” of the Church, and of other ancient writings, which Hardouin two centuries ago characterized as “forgeries” and “atheistic writings” of “an impious crew,”—this translation by the late Edwin Johnson, M.A., Lond., is now published.*
*Edwin Johnson (1842–1901) was an English historian, best known for his radical criticisms of Christian historiography. Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins, 1887; The Pauline Epistles: Re-studied and Explained, 1894; and The Prolegomena of Jean Hardouin, translator, 1909.
Hardouin, in his sweeping assertions (see especially chaps. VII, XII, XIII, and XV), carefully excepted the Sacred or Canonical books; his Church, he argued, was founded upon them and upon Tradition alone:
“Religion stood for thirteen centuries apart from written tradition, safe and inviolate, such as now the Roman Church and, with her, the Catholic World, holds and professes. Christians through 1300 years either wrote no books or only pious books, which were worn out and easily perished, even as the Jews through 1500 years were content with their sacred books alone and tradition. Tradition ... is the Rule of Faith.” (Chap. IX, secs. 24–25.) u The literary craftsmen ... I repudiate, and how few they were, compared with the multitude of the Faithful!... The Catholic Faith flourished in the Holy Apostolic See, in Bishops, Monks, Clerics, who wrote nothing.” x (Chap. X, sec. 11.)
Johnson, going farther than Hardouin, after serious study and much hesitation came to the decision that
the whole of the so–called “Apostolic” and “Early Christian” writings were of similar and proleptic character; and, in his Rise of Christendom , traced Christianity and Judaism to the Mosque.
We, reading the clay tablets of lost civilizations, can now trace many of our religious beliefs, and much of
our religious teaching, back through Arabia and Persia to Assyrians, Babylonians, and other earlier dwellers in Mesopotamia. Down through the ages attentive listeners can hear the solemn music, the odes and hymns, the chants and psalms, and, as it comes nearer, the slow and continuous march of the Priestly Orders—the Hebrews one of the later links in a long unbroken chain.
Believers in the Divine evolution and continuity of religious teaching need scarcely be reminded that Religion and Literature are not identical. The imagery and mythology of the “Old” Testament comes down to us through literary channels. What of that literature is historical (in other words, annalistic or genealogical) belonged to more ancient peoples than the Hebrews. The more recent literature of the “Apostles,” “Fathers,” and “Doctors”—mostly disputatious—are but themes and dissertations of rival debating schools of the Renaissance period, when Oriental influence was permeating European thought.
How, then, could the belief have grown up that fugitive writings, circulating under assumed names, were ancient? Hardouin denies their antiquity, and asserts: “‘Almost immediately after they were conficted, Wyclif and his party abused them; afterwards Luther and Calvin.” (Chap. XIII, sec. 19.)
Hardouin also points out the fact that there is ‘‘not the slightest vestige of a change in the language during an alleged period of 1500 years.” (Chap. VII, sec. 15.)
When one scholar of the Anglican Church (Dr. Hatch) admits that ‘‘many institutions and elements of institutions which have sometimes been thought to belong to primitive Christianity belong, in fact, to the Middle Ages”—a second (Dr. Bigg) points out that Augustine’s ‘‘Confessions” is similar in style to that of the “Imitation of Christ” of the fourteenth or fifteenth century, and a third (Dr. Westcott) that Jerome writes like “a sixteenth–century scholar”— is it not tantamount to saying that it is all of comparatively recent origin?* Neither institutions nor language could remain stable for a thousand years— style and language alter materially even in a century with a printing press to stereotype it.
*William Wynn Westcott (December 17, 1848 – July 30,1925) was a coroner, ceremonial magician, theosophist, Freemason, and co-founder of the Golden Dawn.
We may dismiss the charge of forgery. There is a simpler and, I think, a satisfactory explanation— error in our chronology. The tale of a chronological system invented by Dionysius Exiguus, six hundred years after the beginning of the Era and eight hundred years before the system came into use, is merely a tale. Our chronological chart was not constructed before it was required; and some “ Little Denis ” made it towards the end of the fifteenth century. Elsewhere (Introduction to Johnson’s Rise of English Culture) I have drawn attention to a few anomalies of the system; so I will only note here that, assuming for the moment the Era of Christ to be correct, the period between the Age of Alexander the Great and our own is roughly 2300 years. We have here, so to speak, a tape measure of twenty–three inches, too long by seven or eight inches; for between the Age of Alexander and our own we have no authentic historical material in Europe for more than fourteen or fifteen centuries. There is a hiatus of more than seven hundred years. When we apply our twenty–three inch tape measure to the histories of Egypt, Persia, and India—wherein the conquests of Alexander also mark a well–known period—we find the same result. It is too long and there are parallel and corresponding gulfs of darkness more than seven hundred years in length, which cannot be bridged by a scrap of authentic historical material. Similar fabulous periods occur in British and Scandinavian history (so–called); Welsh literature goes back only to the “twelfth” century.*
*The evidence that Scaliger’s opinion regarding chronology is incorrect is the “gulfs of darkness more than seven hundred years in length.”
Looking backward, we find no authentic Papal records older than the “twelfth” century. That is also the time of the commencement of cathedral–building in Italy, France, and England. On the Continent ecclesiastical buildings succeed the Roman temples without a break. In Rome, the Eternal City, the historians Gregorovius, Freeman, and Bryce see no monuments to mark an intermediate Age between the days of the Caesars and the later days of her Pontiffs.* Mr. Bryce asks “Where is the Rome of the Middle Ages?” a question to which he himself replies, “There is no answer.”
*Ferdinand Gregorovius, 1821–1891, was was a German historian who specialized in the medieval history of Rome; Edward Augustus Freeman, 1823 – 1892, was an English historian, architectural artist;
James Bryce, 1838–1922, was a British academic, jurist, and historian.
James Bryce, 1838–1922, was a British academic, jurist, and historian.
There appears to the present writer to be no other satisfactory explanation for the errors of antedating, and charges of forgery, than this of chronological blundering. There was invention of heresies and heresiiarchs and Councils and Ecclesiastical history— literary work by “Augustines,’’ “Lactantii,” “Tertullians,” “Eusebii,” “Isidorians,” “Procopii ”— besides literature of controversy and debate in great abundance. The dating must be attributed to the chronologers who, not much more than four hundred years ago, estimated and approximately fixed the date of "Creation” as only so many generations, or four thousand years, before Christ, and gave us much too liberal an allowance of fifteen hundred years after Christ.
To work out this suggestion : If we assume that "Little Denis ” put the clock on 750, or say 753 years, and we deduct that time from our Christian Chronology, we are only in A.D. 1156, which (still upon assumption) corresponds with the year of Rome (A.U.C.) 1909. Adopting this reckoning, the dates of the last 900 or 1000 years would remain as at present, though not as A.D., but as A.U.C.
Edward A. Petherick.
Melbourne, 30th April, A.U.C., 1909.
Edward Augustus Petherick, 1847–1917, was a prominent Australian bookseller, book collector, bibliographer, publisher and archivist, whose collection became the basis of the Australiana section of the National Library of Australia.
Petherick states that our chronology is extended by 753 years. According to tradition, the city of Rome was founded in 753 BC and the history of Rome serves as the backbone of Scaliger’s chronology. It is interesting that 753 years is the difference between the founding of Rome and the birth of Jesus. It should be noted that a pious tradition in the Orthodox Church is that Christ was born in AM 6000 [Anno Mundi], which is the year AD 492. This tradition has no knowledge of Scaliger’s early ecclesiastical history. Of course, the accepted year of Jesus in the Anno Domini system could be wrong by 1150 or 1153 years. The founding of Rome could be incorrectly dated back 2,143 years. Three major dates of Christian history are the east west schism of 1054, the sack of Constantinople in 1204, and the fall of Constianitple in 1453. Depending on when the new year commences, March 1, March 25, Easter, September 1, or December 25, these events could be separated by 150 years and 250 years. In conclusion to this part, the occurrence of important dates in Scaliger’s chronology ending in 53 or 54 is not coincidental: the founding of Rome, 753 BC, the east west schism, 1054; the sack of and the fall of Constantinople in 1204 and 1453 respectively.
Petherick spends the final four paragraphs explaining Scaliger's erroneous chronology. However, he does not address the charge of atheism or impiety in the writings of the “Church Fathers.” The reader should conclude that Petherick did not examine a solitary writing of the Fathers, as their inappropriate comments, if not their atheistic implications, become manifest to the earnest seeker.
Petherick states that our chronology is extended by 753 years. According to tradition, the city of Rome was founded in 753 BC and the history of Rome serves as the backbone of Scaliger’s chronology. It is interesting that 753 years is the difference between the founding of Rome and the birth of Jesus. It should be noted that a pious tradition in the Orthodox Church is that Christ was born in AM 6000 [Anno Mundi], which is the year AD 492. This tradition has no knowledge of Scaliger’s early ecclesiastical history. Of course, the accepted year of Jesus in the Anno Domini system could be wrong by 1150 or 1153 years. The founding of Rome could be incorrectly dated back 2,143 years. Three major dates of Christian history are the east west schism of 1054, the sack of Constantinople in 1204, and the fall of Constianitple in 1453. Depending on when the new year commences, March 1, March 25, Easter, September 1, or December 25, these events could be separated by 150 years and 250 years. In conclusion to this part, the occurrence of important dates in Scaliger’s chronology ending in 53 or 54 is not coincidental: the founding of Rome, 753 BC, the east west schism, 1054; the sack of and the fall of Constantinople in 1204 and 1453 respectively.
Petherick spends the final four paragraphs explaining Scaliger's erroneous chronology. However, he does not address the charge of atheism or impiety in the writings of the “Church Fathers.” The reader should conclude that Petherick did not examine a solitary writing of the Fathers, as their inappropriate comments, if not their atheistic implications, become manifest to the earnest seeker.
Introduction
Jean Hardouin was born at Quimper in Bretagne, December 23rd, 1646. The son of a printer–bookseller,
he may be said to have lived from his cradle to the end of his long life among books. He entered on his
novitiate in the Society of Jesus, September 25th, 1660. He taught Belles–Lettres, Rhetoric, and Positive Theology for fifteen years, and afterwards became Librarian at the College de Paris, where he died, September 3rd, 1729.
An exhaustive account of the great scholar’s writings will be found in the new edition (1893) of the
Bibliothlque de la Compagnie de Jesus, edited by Father C. Sommervogel, pp. 84–111. I propose to give
only such particulars as may serve to illustrate Hardouin’s opinions on the matter of History.*
*the Bibliothlque de la Compagnie de Jesus wherein Hardouin is mentioned:
1018. Lettres d'un théologien sur les Jésuites. 1766. Voir Hardouin, IV, 111.
Damnat et no Icgatur prohibet opus gallico sermone conscriptinn et in plures tomos distributum cui titulus : Histoire du peuple de Dieu, troisième partie, ou Paraphrase littérale des Epîlres dea Apôtres, d'après le commentaire latin du P. Hardouiu... Par le P. Isaac-Joseph Berruyer, S. J.1. Traité de l'ancienne Pâque, 1692. Voir Hardouin, IV, 88, 19. — Réflexions sur le système du P. Hardouin, 1693.
Lettre au P. Hardouin sur les notes de son Pline, 1697. Voir Hardouin J., IV, 85, 8. — Lettres
de Möns, sur le Pline du P. Hardouin, 1725-7. Ibid.,
IV, 100, 64. — Lettre de M. Huet sur les notes du P. Hardouin. Ibid.
a) Lettre d'un professeur de l'Université de Paris à Monsieur... sur le Pline du P. Hardouin.
A Paris, chez Chaubert, Quay des Augustins, 1725. In-12, 56 pp.
b) 11^ Lettre d'im professeur de... Paris à Monsieur... sur le Pline dvi R. P. Hardouin. Ibid., 1726, 83 pp.
c) Xn^ Lettre d"un professeur... 1727. Ibid., 96 pp.
d) Lettre d'un professeur de l'Université d'Angers à un professeiir de l'Université de Paris, au
sujet d'une correction du P. Hardouin sur Pline, liv. 2, ch. 13, et de la note XVI du même auteur siu' cet endroit ; dans Mémoires de littérature et d'histoire, par le P. Desmölets, t. I, p. 199-206, 1749.
3. Dissertation sur l'ouvrage du P. Hardouin, jésuite, intitulé : De nummis Herodiadum (169.).
Bibl. S^^- Geneviève, 2505, f. 1. (Cf. le n" 22, infra).
4. Observations de M. Galland sur l'expUcation d uue médaille de Caracalle, 1701. Voir Hardouin, IV, 90, 26.
5. Sur les explications de médailles de Tetricus, 1701. Voir Hardouin, IV, 90, 23.
6. De ostracisme litterario, 1701. Voir Hardouin, IV. 110, Y.
7. Dissertatio philologica. . . de schola libertinorum, 1706. Voir Hardouin, IV, 91, 27.
8. Dissertations historiques sur divers sujets, 1707. Voir Hardouin. IV, 93, 46. — Réponse aux
Sentiments d'im doctexir de Sorbonne, 1707. --
9. Déclaration du P. Provincial... toucljant une édition des œuvres du P. Hardouin, 1709. Voir
Hardouin, IV, 95, 48. — Réponse d'un libraire de Hollande, 1709. Ibid. — Strictura theologica in
Hardijini opera, 1710.
10. H. Norisii Paraenesis ad Joan. Harduimim, 1709. Voir Hardouin, IV, 88, 15. — Ad Europee antiquarios. Ibid.
11. Explication d'une médaille d'Auguste, 1711. Voir Hardouin, IV, 91, 28.
12. Préface d'une Nouvelle Bibl. des auteurs ecclés. (Contre le P. Hardouin). Voir Hardouin, TV, 87, 13. — De corpore Domini... ad confutationem Harduini, 1712. Ibid. — Vindiciae Chrysostomi, 1712. Ibid. — (Même titre), 1714.
13. Réflexions sur les règles de la critique, 17 ISSO. Voir Hardouin, IV, 99, 59. — Dissertation... sur l'inscription de la S*^ Face de Montreuil, 1718. Ibid.
14. L'athéisme découvert, 1715. Voir Hardouin, IV, 105, 94. — Discours de M. la Croze. Ibid.
15. Avis des censeurs nommés par la Cour du Parlement de Paris ppur l'examen de la nouvelle collection des conciles, faite par les soins du P. Jean Hardouin, jésuite (13 août 1722), avec les arrêts du Parlement qui autorisent ledit avis (1715-22) et l'arrêt du Conseil qui en a empêché la publication (Versailles, 21 avril 1725). Utrecht, Le Febvre, 1730. In-4o, xvi-200pp. à 2 colonnes. — Bibl. Nat., FF 22090, 35.
c) Arrest du Conseil d'Estat du Roy... ordonnant l'impression d'un volume de supplément à la collection des Conciles du P. Hardouin. Versailles, 21 avril 1725. Fol., 4 pp. Bibl. Nat., FF 22077, 54.
d) Censure de la Collection des Conciles du P. Hardouin, documents imprimés et manuscrits, Bibl. Nat., Coll. Joly de Fleury, 1684-6.
16. Homère défendu contre le P. Hardouin, 1716. Voir Hardouin, IV, 99, 59.
17. Dissertation sur le jour de Noël, 1717 Voir Hardouin, IV, 86, 11.
18. Extrait d'une explication de l'Epitaphe de Poissy, 1726. Voir Hardouin, IV, 102, 71.
19. Lettre d'un théologien au R. P. Le Courayer sur les visions du P, Hardouin et des... écrivains
qui ont attaqué la validité des ordinations anglaises. Paris, 20 janv. 1726. Bibl. S^^- Geneviève, 1965, f. 73.
a) Sur cette question, voir Hardouin, IV, 101, 69; 103, 78.
21. Sur la protestation des Jésuites à l'occasion dos Œuvres du P. Hardouin, 1733. Ibid., 110, Y.
26. Sur l'âge du Dante, 1749. Ibid., 104, 81.
a) Short remarks on the Doubts of P. Hardouin,
27. Mandement et instruction pastorale de Mgr l'évêque de Soissons portant condamnation
des PP. Hardouin, Berruyer, etc. A Paris, Dessaint, 1760, in- 12, 363 pp.
28. L'Harduinisme, 1761. Voir Hardouin, IV, 111. — Lettres de Cuper à la Croze, 1708. Ibid.
https://ia802207.us.archive.org/16/items/bibliothquedelac11back/bibliothquedelac11back_djvu.txt
[1690] In the year 1690 the learned public were shocked by a Dissertation from the pen of the distinguished Jesuit, who had long enjoyed high repute as a scholar, in which it was asserted that certain monkish writings under the names of “Facundus Hermianensis, Liberatus, Marius Mercator, Victor of Tunis, Cassiodarus” (the greater part); also some ascribed to “St. Isidore” and “St. Justin Martyr,” were not by those authors, but by certain impostors who flourished long afterwards. All these writers belong,
it should be remarked, to that great system of Benedictine writers, that “legion’’ of impostors, against whom Hardouin continued to wage unrelenting war. In the same Dissertation he attacked a treatise “on the Body and Blood of the Lord,” alleged to be from the pen of a monk of the Benedictine Abbey of Corbey (Ratramnus or Bertram). Hardouin maintained that this was not a mediaeval, but a modern, work, and that in it was to be found the invention and defence of the Calvinist heresy.
It is important to note that Hardouin was led by theological motives to suspect the writings of the Monks. He had a very keen scent for heresy; and it gradually broke upon him that Writings which were hot–beds of Jansenist, or Lutheran, or Calvinist doctrine, were in fact composed in secret in the monasteries, and published under the disguise of fictitious names of authors, at a very late period.
So again, Hardouin was moved to attack an alleged “Epistle of Chrysostom to a monk Caesarius.” In
reply, a Professor named Muhins endeavoured to show, first, that the Epistle was genuine, and secondly, that it absolutely overthrows the Catholic dogma, of Transubstantiation.
[1690–3] Hardouin himself relates, in the treatise here translated, how in the years 1690–93 he detected the heresies in the writings ascribed to “Augustine” and other monastic writings relied on as those of “Fathers and Doctors” by the Protestant world.
[1697] In 1697 were published two works on Chronology by Hardouin. In one of these—that on the Chronology of the Old Testament—he gave to the world, in brief, what is commonly called his “system” or theory. He had come to the conclusion that all writings which had hitherto passed for “ancient” had been fabricated in the 13th century—with the exception of the works of Cicero, the Natural History of Pliny, the Georgics of Virgil, the Satires and Epistles of Horace, etc. It will be seen that he somewhat vacillated in his opinions on this head; but his fault was not in changing his mind on re–consideration of evidence, but in the rash or over–confident manner in which he stated opinions so extraordinary, without giving his reasons for them.*
*Since the reasons are not provided, the curious reader is forced to find evidence confirming Hardouin’s idea.
Hardouin had become an expert in the study of Coins and Medals; and had from this source of information become persuaded that a great mass of the coins were forgeries, and that such as might be considered genuine did not support the credit of the literary histories. His scepticism was deepened the more he studied; and there is no evidence that he ever “looked back.”
On the contrary, his mind seems from his mature age to have become set in the frame of historical scepticism, if the phrase be permissible. In a fragment which has been preserved to us he points out that the dates of early Popes and of other Figures in Church literature, such as St. Martin of France, who are important for chronological purposes, have not been ascertained.* He shows, with a quiet irony reminding one of Pascal and of Gibbon, that the date of the death of St. Benedict himself, or of his ascension to heaven, cannot be ascertained.† With brief effectiveness, he hints that writers who pretend to tell the truth “as it is in Jesus,” or to write of nothing save what they had seen and heard, were flagrant liars. He did not go so far as to say that St. Benedict and St. Martin were merely ideal persons, the creation of monkish artists; but he must have known that this was the case. This fragment may be read in the Memoire d’une Societe Celibre by P. Grosier, of the Society of Jesus.
*Martin of Tours, 316–397, Candes, Gaul [France]; patron saint of France, father of monasticism in Gaul, and the first great leader of Western monasticism.
†Benedict of Nursia , 480–547.
†Benedict of Nursia , 480–547.
In consequence, as it appears, of attacks made upon Hardouin’s opinions by a scholar named La Croze, Hardouin was led to retract them in 1708. But that he did so only in a formal manner clearly appears from the evidence of his last work, the Prolegomena. The Opera Selecta were first published at Amsterdam in 1709, and the Jesuits of Paris had discovered and condemned the notorious critic, and obliged him to give a retractation in 1708.
[1714–15] In 1714–15 appeared Hardouin’s Edition of the Councils, which was printed at the expense of the King, and for which the editor received a pension; but it was almost immediately suppressed on the report of three doctors of the Sorbonne, as containing maxims contrary to the liberties of the Gallican church. Other charges of false editing were brought against him. It is about the edition of the Councils that a well–known story is told. He was asked on one occasion how a writer of his avowed scepticism in reference to all Councils prior to that of Trent could undertake to write the history of them. His reply was, “God and I only know.”
[1723] In 1723 appeared his edition of Pliny’s Natural History, which gained for him great applause, yet at the same time provoked some controversy by the novel and paradoxical opinions expressed in the Notes.
[1733, 1739] The Opera Varia of Hardouin were published at Amsterdam in 1733, and were placed on the Index in 1739.
E. J. Hampstead,
London, N.W., 1894.*
*No information concerning E. J. Hampstead could be discovered.
forward
PROLEGOMENA
TO A
CENSURE
OF OLD WRITERS
BY
JEAN HARDOUIN, Jesuit
FROM HIS AUTOGRAPH
LONDON
AT THE EXPENSE OF P. VAILLANT
1766
TO THE READER
(Preface stated to have been written by W. Bowyer)*
*William Bowyer, 1699–1777, was an English printer known as "the learned printer."
TO A
CENSURE
OF OLD WRITERS
BY
JEAN HARDOUIN, Jesuit
FROM HIS AUTOGRAPH
LONDON
AT THE EXPENSE OF P. VAILLANT
1766
TO THE READER
(Preface stated to have been written by W. Bowyer)*
*William Bowyer, 1699–1777, was an English printer known as "the learned printer."
The opinion which Jean Hardouin held of the greater part of our alleged Old Writers has long been known
from his works. In his edition of Pliny, A.D. 1685, he appears so struck with admiration of that author that nearly all others were held in contempt compared with him, and that presently nothing was to be believed of genuine antiquity unless traces of it could be found in Pliny. This was his test of the good faith, and also of the style and eloquence, of early times. “The impious crew had,” he says, “fit craftsmen in every style. But the Latinity in all differs from the Plinian, and other similar old Latin.”*
He tells us, in this little book, by what degrees this disease of his mind increased:
“In the month of August, 1690, I began to scent a fraud in Augustine and his equals; m the month of November I suspected it in all of them; I detected the whole in the month of May, in the year 1692, after I had written down long extracts from particular Greek and Latin writers.’’
About that time, therefore, as if he had been caught into the third heaven, he cautiously and under a mask
brings forward an extraordinary, an incredible in¬ formant.
“I will adduce,” he says, “in this place the conjecture of one who is not ever idly given to conjecture, but who is now possibly more suspicious than he should be, and indulges his bent of mind too much. Let each reader take it as he will. The critic I refer to has found out, as he lately whispered in my ear, that a certain band of fellows existed, I know not how many years ago, who had undertaken the task of concocting ancient history, as we now have it, there being at the time none in existence; that he well knew their period and their workshop, and that for their affair they had as aids the works of Tully, Pliny, the Georgics of Virgil, the Satires and Epistles of Horace. These alone, the critic considers—as I fear he will not persuade any other to believe—to be genuine monuments out of the whole of Latin antiquity, besides a very few Inscriptions.”*
*See the Latin work, “Chronology restored from old Coins. Prolusion on the coins of the Herodiads, in notes under the year LI. Permission given, 1692.”
Finally, he says that this large crop of fictions sprang up in the 14th century.†
†Prolegomena, p. 12 et seq.
This new dogma was not the suspicious raving of an old man, but the product of a ripe age. Hardouin was not yet fifty; and there were many who strove to prove, by many arguments, that some of the followers of Loyola had nourished this monstrosity. Some years later, Dom. La Croze, of the Order of St. Benedict, publicly bore witness that the Author was held in highest honour by his brethren, who were so secure of his fame and .their own that they entrusted to him the task of a new edition of the Councils; that the whole
Society of Jesus had at heart to depreciate the alleged old monuments, and to render uncertain what had been held certain; that in this design, perhaps, the Jesuit Father Germon had attacked the book of the Benedictine Mabillon On Diplomatics (De Be Diplomatica), a book received with the highest praise by all, which Father Constant, also a Benedictine, defended. This contest is here renewed by Hardouin.
Such is the brotherly love of the Orders among themselves! Had our countryman Middleton considered these things, he would scarce, I think, have so confidently maintained against Chapman that the opinions of Hardouin were the dreams merely of one aged Jesuit, scoffed at, and justly so, by all.
However that may be, the remonstrances of Dom. La Croze, published in A.D. 1707, led to this result, that in the same year Hardouin retracted the opinions —by the command of his Superiors—which by their
permission he had published. But that he concealed, rather than changed his opinions, is abundantly clear and patent from the present work, in which, as before, he teaches that Six only of the old writers have survived in the vast flood of time. “Antiquity preserved only, of the Latins, Plautus, Pliny, the Eclogues of
Virgil (nine), with the Georgies, the Satires and Epistles of Horace; of the Greeks, Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, and nine Books of Herodotus.’’*
*Prolegomena, p. 139.
You perceive, reader, that this little index expurgatorius differs somewhat from the former. The number of Latin writers agrees, with the change of one person. In this matter you might deplore the inconstancy and
infirmity of our writer, if it were not that trickery and sophistry were apparent, which excite anger rather than demand pardon. Among various new attempts, he, in his love for the name and fame of his Pliny, denied that he was of Verona, because that author often mentioning the years of “our City,” means Rome.*
*“Chronology of Old Test.” under the year of the City, 608.
To this La Croze objected the saying of Cicero: “I, by Hercules, think that he and all municipals have two fatherlands, the one of Nature, the other of civity: as the great Cato, though born at Tusculum, became a member of the civity of the Roman people.”†
†De Legg., book ii., beginning ; La Crose, Vindicia, etc., agst. Hardouin, Rotterdam, 1708, p. 149.
Again: Hardouin denied that the Julian family descended from Venus, and from Aeneas. La Croze replied that C. Julius Caesar is expressly said to be the descendant of Venus in Cicero’s Epistle ad Fam. viii. 15. What has Hardouin to say? By what is called a sextumviral judgment he puts Cicero out of court, and stealthily puts Plautus in his place, so that he may not be out–voted.‡
‡“Chronology of O.T.” A. D. 14.
Although at first he attacks profane writers, his main object seems to be to banish and exile the Fathers and Versions of the Sacred Scriptures, except the Latin Vulgate. No wonder therefore if, in his critical and religious insanity, he never forsook his first design. He proclaims a sacred vow, and proceeds to cast down the old monuments, that he may establish the temple and empire of Rome on the foundation of tradition.
Even as in his '‘Various Works*’ (Latin) published at Amsterdam, 1733, he made adverse criticism of Virgil’s AEneid and Horace’s Odes, so in these Prolegomena he declares that he had tested certain of the Ecclesiastical Writers: “Augustine, Bernard, Thomas Aquinas, many Councils, etc.”
These Prolegomena appear to have been written as part of his critical enterprise, as we learn from the last Addendum. The whole work has perished in the shipwreck of their fortunes, recently suffered by the whole Society of Jesus; or, I know not where in the world it lies hidden. But this fragment, as if snatched from the waters, came into the hands of the bookseller, P. Vaillant, who grudged not to give it to the literary world. For Hardouin’s paradoxes delight by their novelty in themselves; and still more so when adorned by his art. So well does he understand how to illuminate obscurities, how to cast what is lucid into the shade, how to give probability to fiction, and to everything a certain beauty and grace, at his will. This fragment, then, such as it is, Vaillant had carefully printed, and consecrated the autograph to posterity, placing it, like a votive tablet, in the British Museum.
These few remarks, which I have made in slight preface, should be taken as referring to a learned colloquy, with which the Rev. Caesar de Missy* favoured me. If I have said anything thoughtlessly, it should be set down to my ignorance; if anything not displeasing, to his credit, who will soon, as I hope, give to the public more information on this matter.
*A Protestant clergyman in London. A Latin reply to Hardouin is extant under his name.
EPITAPH
Hardouin, born at Oorisopitum (Quimper) in Bretagne, A.D. 1646, died at Paris, September 2nd, 1729. With felicity, M. de Boze has expressed him to the life in this epitaph:
IN EXPECTATION OF THE JUDGMENT
HERE LIES
THE MOST PARADOXICAL OF MEN,
BY NATURE A FRENCHMAN, BY RELIGION A ROMAN,
THE PORTENT OF THE LITERARY WORLD,
THE WORSHIPPER AND THE DESTROYER OF VENERABLE
ANTIQUITY.
FEVERED WITH LEARNING,
HE WOKE TO PUBLISH DREAMS AND THOUGHTS
UNHEARD OF.
HE WAS PIOUS IN HIS SCEPTICISM,
A CHILD IN CREDULITY, A YOUTH IN RASHNESS, AN OLD
MAN IN MADNESS.
https://archive.org/details/johnson–edwin–1909–the–prolegomena–of–jean–hardouin
prologue
“The Merovingian descendants have always been behind all heresies, from Arianism, through the Cathars and the Templars, to Freemasonry. At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Cardinal Mazarin, in July 1659, had their chateau of Barberie, dating from the twelfth century, destroyed. For the house and family in question, all through the centuries, had spawned nothing but secret agitators against the Church.” Holy Blood, Holy Grail
“One cannot say that the Church is ignorant of the line of the Razes, but it must be remembered that all its descendants, since Dagobert, have been secret agitators against both the royal line of France and against the Church and that they have been the source of all heresies.” Holy Blood, Holy Grail
“In plain English, a gigantic literary fraud had to be perpetrated, and “holy scriptures” had to be concocted—and so, with the utmost hierarchical pomp, and days of penance and much lamentation over the long days of “sin” now ended, they were duly published.” Antichrist, Sec. 26, Nietzsche
“Later on the church even falsified the history of man in order to make it a prologue to Christianity....”
Antichrist, Sec. 42, Nietzsche
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=db02c5fcc2ec771d94f5add81d8197df5c38b01a
“One cannot say that the Church is ignorant of the line of the Razes, but it must be remembered that all its descendants, since Dagobert, have been secret agitators against both the royal line of France and against the Church and that they have been the source of all heresies.” Holy Blood, Holy Grail
“In plain English, a gigantic literary fraud had to be perpetrated, and “holy scriptures” had to be concocted—and so, with the utmost hierarchical pomp, and days of penance and much lamentation over the long days of “sin” now ended, they were duly published.” Antichrist, Sec. 26, Nietzsche
“Later on the church even falsified the history of man in order to make it a prologue to Christianity....”
Antichrist, Sec. 42, Nietzsche
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=db02c5fcc2ec771d94f5add81d8197df5c38b01a
Prologue 2023
Although a scanned PDF version of the Prolegomena is available at the Internet Archive, we have long felt that a version in clear typeface of the Prolegomena in English would be beneficial. To that end, footnotes have been added, modern spelling incorporated, appropriate replacements of Roman numerals with Arabic numbers, an attempt at consistent punctuation, and occurrences of “that is” are replaced by “i.e.”
Words in ⟨angled brackets⟩ can be ignored for a simplified reading of the sentence, while words in [square brackets] are added for further clarification.
Additionally, we offer our select commentary on certain passages. The section numbers have been retained for ease of reference and, on occasion, larger paragraphs are divided into subdivided sections. Hardouin’s work is written in Latin and Johnson’s English translation is problematic, however, since the text is not of a technical nature, we are confident in the fidelity of the English version. Caution was exercised to not radically change the text, lest we substitute our folly for Johnson’s ability.
As Petherick noted in the preface, the reader should be aware of the linguist connection between Dionysius Exiguus and Denis Pétau. Exiguus [“little”; Latin] and the French equivalent of “little” is “petit”. The Latinized form of the French “petite” is “Petavius”. Therefore, the meaning of the name Dionysius Exiguus is identical to Denis Pétau, also known as Dionysius Petavius.
Modern chronology is properly described as “Scaliger’s chronology,” although Petavius continued to work on correcting history several decades after Scaliger’s demise. Since Petavius was a fellow Jesuit and Saclaiger was a Calvinist “religious leader,” the commentaries refer to “Scaliger’s chronology.”
All dates are Anno Domini [AD], unless otherwise indicated. Biblical quotes are from the King James Bible version, unless otherwise noted.
The lifetimes of individuals and dates of events before the age of printing are alleged dates only and, in large part, likely fictitious, even as late as the year 1650.
When mentioning the “Fathers” in the commentary, quotes are not utilized, although it should be understood that on all occurrences these Fathers are alleged.
The quality of Hardouin’s citations range from the specific, page numbers of named books, to the ambiguous, nondescript names of codices. This is not a flaw of the work, but an indispensable aspect, as it forces independent research by the reader to attempt verification of Hardouin’s thesis.
The Appendix includes brief biographical notes of the individuals mentioned, historical events, Biblical passages, and various synonyms for the hoaxers.
G.D.O’Bradovich III
Terre Haute, Indiana
October, 2023
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Joannis_Harduini_Jesuit%C3%A6_Ad_censuram_sc/FllXAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
Although a scanned PDF version of the Prolegomena is available at the Internet Archive, we have long felt that a version in clear typeface of the Prolegomena in English would be beneficial. To that end, footnotes have been added, modern spelling incorporated, appropriate replacements of Roman numerals with Arabic numbers, an attempt at consistent punctuation, and occurrences of “that is” are replaced by “i.e.”
Words in ⟨angled brackets⟩ can be ignored for a simplified reading of the sentence, while words in [square brackets] are added for further clarification.
Additionally, we offer our select commentary on certain passages. The section numbers have been retained for ease of reference and, on occasion, larger paragraphs are divided into subdivided sections. Hardouin’s work is written in Latin and Johnson’s English translation is problematic, however, since the text is not of a technical nature, we are confident in the fidelity of the English version. Caution was exercised to not radically change the text, lest we substitute our folly for Johnson’s ability.
As Petherick noted in the preface, the reader should be aware of the linguist connection between Dionysius Exiguus and Denis Pétau. Exiguus [“little”; Latin] and the French equivalent of “little” is “petit”. The Latinized form of the French “petite” is “Petavius”. Therefore, the meaning of the name Dionysius Exiguus is identical to Denis Pétau, also known as Dionysius Petavius.
Modern chronology is properly described as “Scaliger’s chronology,” although Petavius continued to work on correcting history several decades after Scaliger’s demise. Since Petavius was a fellow Jesuit and Saclaiger was a Calvinist “religious leader,” the commentaries refer to “Scaliger’s chronology.”
All dates are Anno Domini [AD], unless otherwise indicated. Biblical quotes are from the King James Bible version, unless otherwise noted.
The lifetimes of individuals and dates of events before the age of printing are alleged dates only and, in large part, likely fictitious, even as late as the year 1650.
When mentioning the “Fathers” in the commentary, quotes are not utilized, although it should be understood that on all occurrences these Fathers are alleged.
The quality of Hardouin’s citations range from the specific, page numbers of named books, to the ambiguous, nondescript names of codices. This is not a flaw of the work, but an indispensable aspect, as it forces independent research by the reader to attempt verification of Hardouin’s thesis.
The Appendix includes brief biographical notes of the individuals mentioned, historical events, Biblical passages, and various synonyms for the hoaxers.
G.D.O’Bradovich III
Terre Haute, Indiana
October, 2023
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Joannis_Harduini_Jesuit%C3%A6_Ad_censuram_sc/FllXAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
chapter 1
Hardouin attacks the mass of alleged old writers. He defends his conduct in so doing on the ground that they were Atheists. He explains why they have hitherto escaped censure. It was necessary that a Jesuit should undertake the task, because the older Religious Orders have, all of them, forged writings to defend: but especially the Benedictines. He briefly tells how he discovered the frauds in the years 1690–1692.
1.01 I HERE enter upon a very important, but a very invidious undertaking.* It is my intention, with the assistance of God, as long as He grants me life, to show that all writings which are commonly thought to be old are, in fact, with certain exceptions to be presently named, supposititious and the fabrication of an unprincipled crew of literary men.†
*invidious: (of an action or situation) likely to arouse or incur resentment or anger in others.
†“all writings”: Besides a handful of works named by Hardouin, which vary over time, all ancient writings, whether ecclesiastical or secular, are creations of the hoaxers.
†“all writings”: Besides a handful of works named by Hardouin, which vary over time, all ancient writings, whether ecclesiastical or secular, are creations of the hoaxers.
1.01a The exceptions are the Books held by the Church to be sacred and canonical and six Profane Writers, four Latin, two Greek. Meanwhile, I do not declare war upon other writers, unless upon the enemies of the Almighty, of Christ, of the supreme Pontiff, and of the Royal authority.*†
*Books granted by the Church to be “sacred” and “canonical” are not disputed. Hardouin is against writers who are enemies of God, of Christ, of the Pope, and of Royal authority.
†Hardouin is a supporter of Royal authority and Roman Catholic authority and this position is not surprising, considering his notable positions vis à vis these parties.
†Hardouin is a supporter of Royal authority and Roman Catholic authority and this position is not surprising, considering his notable positions vis à vis these parties.
1.01b Surely we may be as rigid in our criticism and repudiation of false monuments from which in the slightest degree our holy Religion suffers injury, as are judges in a court when they test and reject documents which are concerned with men’s fortunes and estates, if any note of falsity appears in them.* Now, if there be ⟨but⟩ one faulty notation of time in any instrument, [then] a Court will decisively, and with great and just indignation. reject and repudiate the instrument. How much more vehemently should we vociferate, and how much more justly, when our holy Religion is assailed and undermined!†
*The “monuments” mentioned throughout the Prolegomena are all the writings crafted by the hoaxers: parchments, scrolls, codices, and books.
†vociferate: shout, complain, or argue loudly or vehemently.
The inference is that the Roman Church must defend its religion against concerted attacks and the subsequent lessening of its power, yet the Master states that “ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” [John 8:32].
†vociferate: shout, complain, or argue loudly or vehemently.
The inference is that the Roman Church must defend its religion against concerted attacks and the subsequent lessening of its power, yet the Master states that “ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” [John 8:32].
1.02 Religion itself and Christian Piety demand that we should deliver them at some lesser risk from a greater peril. The danger is less, if the falsehood of certain facts or allegations which have hitherto obtained credit is acknowledged, but a greater, nay, by far the greatest danger is if those alleged facts are left unquestioned and so our faith is gradually injured and overthrown.*
*Hardouin is concerned that “an acceptance” of “a statement” which is considered or “commonly believed” as “true” is gradually overthrown.
When I was a child, I spake as a child. I understood as a child. I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things. 1 Cor. 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child. I understood as a child. I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things. 1 Cor. 13:11
1.03 Let men, if they will, call the opinions I advance [here] as ravings. I care not, so long as I can discredit the doctrines which I denounce as impious and heretical in those writings.* I care not what men may think of me, so long as I can warn and teach my readers to abhor them. I care only to preserve the faith concerning the true God, concerning Christ, concerning every head and chapter of our holy faith, sound and whole.†
*Hardouin is not concerned with various opinions of his work, provided he can “discredit” and “denounce” the “doctrines” in the writings of the hoaxers.
†Hardouin’s concern is preserving the faith of “the true God.” The impression is that man needs to involve himself in these disputes, lest the faith should fail.
†Hardouin’s concern is preserving the faith of “the true God.” The impression is that man needs to involve himself in these disputes, lest the faith should fail.
1.04 What matters ⟨it, I pray you,⟩ that no one before my time has said what I have just said and that I adduce no authority or witness from the ancients in my support?* Supposing that I had had a forerunner, would that affect the question of truth?† Or because he had long passed away, would that render him worthier of support? I pray you not to believe in men, but in sound arguments.‡
*Hardouin’s ideas are his alone, as he cannot appeal to ancient authorities in support of his findings and conclusions.
†forerunner: a person or thing that precedes the coming or development of someone or something else. John the Baptist was the forerunner to Jesus Christ.
Yea, so have I [Paul, 1:1] strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: Rom. 15:20
‡Hardouin wants the reader to believe in sound arguments, not the authority of men nor appeals to authority.
†forerunner: a person or thing that precedes the coming or development of someone or something else. John the Baptist was the forerunner to Jesus Christ.
Yea, so have I [Paul, 1:1] strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: Rom. 15:20
‡Hardouin wants the reader to believe in sound arguments, not the authority of men nor appeals to authority.
1.05 If I had an equal genius to any of those old writers, if a desire came into my mind to print something under the feigned name of any one of those authors whose works are believed to have perished, if I were to write it on parchment with ink specially prepared for the purpose of making the writing appear in the course of a few years some 600 or 800 years old, if I were to transfer into that work certain excerpts from old writers who are commonly supposed to be genuine and sincere, with a view to induce belief in my work and its great age; tell me, would it not be right for anyone to try and find out and detect any hidden fraud and impiety that he might suspect?* Certainly he would be justified in doing so and certainly one who is first and foremost a Catholic and a Theologian must be thought at liberty to do the like in reference to all writings which have not yet undergone such censure.†
*“commonly supposed”: The reality of well known suppositions is found throughout the Prolegomena.
†Catholics who are theologians must be free to detect and censure “hidden fraud and impiety.”
†Catholics who are theologians must be free to detect and censure “hidden fraud and impiety.”
1.05a Petavius,* for example, was the first to deny that certain works had been written by Athanasius, which the Benedictines ascribe to his authorship (tom. 2. P. 49, and elsewhere) and he was in the right and they were also justified who revised the works ascribed to Augustine and Bernard and who cut them down by one half, which they repudiated.† They had the acumen to discern that they were not all of the same style and vein. Tell me, am not I to enjoy the same license when I use arguments none the less certain, nay, more convincing? The Apostle says to all, Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.‡
*Petau, the noted Jesuit Chronologer.§
†Athanasius c. 296–373.
‡Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thes. 5:21
§Joseph Justus Scaliger, 1540–1609, and Dionysius Petavius, 1583–1652, created and modified the global chronology, to approximately the year 1650. Generally speaking, history after the year 1650 is the consensus of historians. Although it is not incorrect to describe Petau as a “noted Jesuit Chronologer,” this description underplays Petau’s contributions to the chronology of the world as it is understood to the present age. If Petavius and Exiguus are the same individual, then the insertion of Exiguus into the chronological account of the sixth century occurred after Petaviuv’s death. In 2008, Dionysius Exiguus was recognized as an Orthodox Saint in the Romanian Church. Anyone who asserts that Petavius and Exiguus are identical would be accused of attempting to overthrow Roman history, English history, as the Venerable Bede quotes from Exiguus, and the Orthodox faith. “If any dared this [accusation of fraud], he would… be exposed to the censure of desiring to destroy all tradition” [3.03].
‡Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thes. 5:21
§Joseph Justus Scaliger, 1540–1609, and Dionysius Petavius, 1583–1652, created and modified the global chronology, to approximately the year 1650. Generally speaking, history after the year 1650 is the consensus of historians. Although it is not incorrect to describe Petau as a “noted Jesuit Chronologer,” this description underplays Petau’s contributions to the chronology of the world as it is understood to the present age. If Petavius and Exiguus are the same individual, then the insertion of Exiguus into the chronological account of the sixth century occurred after Petaviuv’s death. In 2008, Dionysius Exiguus was recognized as an Orthodox Saint in the Romanian Church. Anyone who asserts that Petavius and Exiguus are identical would be accused of attempting to overthrow Roman history, English history, as the Venerable Bede quotes from Exiguus, and the Orthodox faith. “If any dared this [accusation of fraud], he would… be exposed to the censure of desiring to destroy all tradition” [3.03].
1.06 It may be asked, “How could it be that the ἀθεοότης, the Atheism which I profess to have clearly discovered in these writings, escaped the notice of the Scholastic Theologians of former ages?”* But I ask in turn: “How it could come to pass that in this very age, when we have more theologians, and not less gifted, this iniquity escapes them, especially considering how much clearer our books are owing to the art of Printing?” Doubtless in part the cause of this has been that when the Theologians joined hands against the Heretics, they perused only those heads of Doctrine in the alleged monuments of the “Fathers'' on which debate had arisen.† They did not arrive at the fountain–head of these Dogmata. All were intent upon the object of making the testimonies opposed to them tell in favor of their own respective parties; for example, on the Eucharist, on Penitence, on the efficacy of Grace, and other controverted heads.‡
*From the contextual usage in the Prolegomena, “ages” can be interpreted as centuries.
†The Fathers have not been censured by scholastics, as these no “less gifted” theologians only read the chapter headings; not the text.
‡The theologians who have read the sections, did so with the express purpose of discovering texts that support their views on specific topics. This method of selecting agreeable potions is the preferred method of Protestants, not only with the books of the Fathers, but with their Bible.
†The Fathers have not been censured by scholastics, as these no “less gifted” theologians only read the chapter headings; not the text.
‡The theologians who have read the sections, did so with the express purpose of discovering texts that support their views on specific topics. This method of selecting agreeable potions is the preferred method of Protestants, not only with the books of the Fathers, but with their Bible.
1.06a In this conflict, each thought himself successful in proportion to his ingenuity. But if they [the theologians] had weighed the whole literature with ⟨the like⟩ care, had they put their fingers on the sources, had they perceived that Atheism was taught by these false “Fathers,” [then] doubtless they would have recognised the whole fraud.* They would have seen that from Atheism nothing sound, nothing but what is most alien from the Catholic Faith, in the Eucharist and other heads, could follow. They would have understood that writings which they had treated with great reverence, because they believed them to have come from the “Fathers,” were indeed detestable.†
*Since the fraud was not detected, the reason can be attributed to either the sublime skill of the hoaxers or the inattentiveness of the no “less gifted” readers.
†‘believed them to have come from the “Fathers”’: The attribution of authorship is “commonly supposed.”
†‘believed them to have come from the “Fathers”’: The attribution of authorship is “commonly supposed.”
1.07 It is no wonder that so many impious writings were not, in former times, suspected of impiety. They lay hid on the shelves of libraries. They were brought out in a furtive and secret manner and by degrees.* Very few men knew anything of them.† But now in our day, when a great number of similarly impious writings are in the hands of all, not only in France, but also in Belgium, Germany, England, and elsewhere, shall no one censure them? Can you wonder at the stupor of former ages—from the fourteenth, in which I think these writings were framed—and not wonder at the stupor of our contemporaries?‡§ Can you wonder that the Church has not pronounced upon the matter, seeing that the writings in question have never been brought before the tribunal of the Church? Neither the Church—that is the supreme Pontiff— nor a Council gives judgment upon books, unless there has been a proper judicial interpellation.‖¶
*furtive: attempting to avoid notice or attention, typically because of guilt or a belief that discovery would lead to trouble.
†Only a few individuals knew of the plan of the hoaxers to hide fraudulent books in monastic libraries.
‡“from the fourteenth”: Scaliger's chronology.
§stupor: a state of near-unconsciousness or insensibility. It is used twice in this sentence and nowhere else.
‖Hardouin clarifies that “the Church” is “the supreme Pontiff.”
¶In philosophy, interpellation is the act of identification.
†Only a few individuals knew of the plan of the hoaxers to hide fraudulent books in monastic libraries.
‡“from the fourteenth”: Scaliger's chronology.
§stupor: a state of near-unconsciousness or insensibility. It is used twice in this sentence and nowhere else.
‖Hardouin clarifies that “the Church” is “the supreme Pontiff.”
¶In philosophy, interpellation is the act of identification.
1.08 I say that before the present time, the vast fraud could not be detected. No one could persuade himself, or make others believe, that all monuments were false and supposititious that had been believed to have been written in some fifteen former ages, unless he had studied them with sedulous attention.*† The whole system of the impious crew, of which each student took up his own part, could not be understood, except by the diligent consideration of each and every part of it.‡ But it is only in our own time that nearly all the writings have been brought forth from the Libraries.§ There are still some lying hid, but they are few. They are of the same kind with those extant, as will be readily understood by any one who is convinced of the falsity of those in our hands.
*“fifteen former ages”: Scaliger's chronology.
†sedulous: (of a person or action) showing dedication and diligence.
‡The hoaxes delegated the project to many individuals. The work was “compartmentalized” so that the individual workers would not have been aware of what subject matter was written by the other authors. It is possible that a solitary writer at a given monastery was unaware that other writers were involved.
§There is a contradiction between “nearly all the writings have been brought forth” and ”Numberless Codices still lie hid in the Libraries” [16.05].
†sedulous: (of a person or action) showing dedication and diligence.
‡The hoaxes delegated the project to many individuals. The work was “compartmentalized” so that the individual workers would not have been aware of what subject matter was written by the other authors. It is possible that a solitary writer at a given monastery was unaware that other writers were involved.
§There is a contradiction between “nearly all the writings have been brought forth” and ”Numberless Codices still lie hid in the Libraries” [16.05].
1.09 The Catholics ⟨, then,⟩ could not readily recognise the impiety in these writings, nor could the Heretics lay open what they had discovered.* Both acknowledge the alleged “Fathers.” The Catholics were not at liberty ⟨altogether⟩ to repudiate them and they sought to ply and bend them to their own opinions, that their Sons might not be said to depart from the “Fathers.” Nor did it occur to the Heretics to cast off writers who supported, as they knew, their own impious hypothesis.† Moreover, their object was to show that they were not of recent origin, that they were not the fancies of new doctrines, and they needed the suffrages of these alleged witnesses.‡
*One expects to read that the heretics could not openly present “what they had created,” not “what they had discovered.” Hardouin makes it clear that the hoaxers created the atheistic Fathers, but it is uncertain what the heretics themselves discovered.
†The heretics did not “cast off” authors who supported their impious hypothesis. Hardouin writes that all authors are suppositious, except “four Latin, [and] two Greek” authors, so the conclusion is that these six “profane” authors also support the impious hypothesis. It is not evident why Hardouin would expect the hoaxers to dispense with factual writers who are in agreement with them. For a quote from Pliny regarding his alleged atheism, see 19.05, footnote §.
‡suffrages: archaic, votes given in assent to a proposal.
†The heretics did not “cast off” authors who supported their impious hypothesis. Hardouin writes that all authors are suppositious, except “four Latin, [and] two Greek” authors, so the conclusion is that these six “profane” authors also support the impious hypothesis. It is not evident why Hardouin would expect the hoaxers to dispense with factual writers who are in agreement with them. For a quote from Pliny regarding his alleged atheism, see 19.05, footnote §.
‡suffrages: archaic, votes given in assent to a proposal.
1.10 Surely Catholic prelates ought to permit me, or any better man, to detect the mystery of iniquity and bring it into the open light of day.* Otherwise, they may well fear, lest some impious adversary come forward and publish the wicked doctrines in the monuments of the alleged “Fathers” and find support among men who do not wish to toil, as they toiled in getting up Editions, nor to acquire the ill repute connected with evil and impious doctrine, whether it be not understood, or which is worse, championed and defended. Soon, unless God avert the ill, the whole Christian world will become atheist against its will.†‡
*For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way and then shall that Wicked be revealed… 2 Thes. 2:7-8.
†The fruition of the creeping subtle atheism that Hardouin feared is found in surveys of American Roman Catholics, where the majority do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist.
‡The “whole Christian world” is Roman Catholicism and does not include the schismatic Orthodox or the heretical Protestants. The atheism that concerns Hardouin is not explicit atheism, which can be confronted as it is encountered. His fear is that with the increasing reliance upon the Fathers that, in time, Roman Catholics, while attending to the external rituals, will no longer believe in the necessity of God’s intervention in the eucharist or confession, as the benefits of these acts are accomplish by pious thought in the mind of the believer. People who no longer believe that Santa Claus brings gifts or do not accept that inspired men fly to heaven on a winged horse cannot believe again, regardless of the length of their prayers or the intensity of their supplications.
†The fruition of the creeping subtle atheism that Hardouin feared is found in surveys of American Roman Catholics, where the majority do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist.
‡The “whole Christian world” is Roman Catholicism and does not include the schismatic Orthodox or the heretical Protestants. The atheism that concerns Hardouin is not explicit atheism, which can be confronted as it is encountered. His fear is that with the increasing reliance upon the Fathers that, in time, Roman Catholics, while attending to the external rituals, will no longer believe in the necessity of God’s intervention in the eucharist or confession, as the benefits of these acts are accomplish by pious thought in the mind of the believer. People who no longer believe that Santa Claus brings gifts or do not accept that inspired men fly to heaven on a winged horse cannot believe again, regardless of the length of their prayers or the intensity of their supplications.
1.11 Assuredly, it is all but necessary that a member of the Society of Jesus should detect this wicked craft and malice, for there is scarce another Family of the Priesthood which has not been deceived by some notable book offered to it under the name of some distinguished man in that Family; which book it has forthwith decreed by all means and arts to defend.* Thus, the Dominicans have “Thomas Aquinas”, “Vincent of Beauvais”, “Moneta”, “Reiner”, and others.† The Franciscans have “Bonaventura, Alensis, Scotus.”‡ The Carmelites have “Thomas Walden’'.§ Other families have other names.
*The hoaxers operated during and beyond the sixteenth century, yet none of the Fathers write as members of the Society of Jesus, as its creation is too recent to benefit the hoaxers, being founded in 1540. Hardouin states that it is necessary that a Jesuit would expose the fraud, as they have no sentimental attachments to a given Church Father.
†Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274; Vincent of Beauvais, c. 1184/1194–c. 1264; Moneta, d. 1240; Reiner [Raneiro Sacchoni], c.d. 1263.
‡Bonaventura, 1221–1274; Alensis, c. 1185–1245; Scotus, c. 1265/66 –1308.
§Thomas Walden, c. 1375–1430.
†Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274; Vincent of Beauvais, c. 1184/1194–c. 1264; Moneta, d. 1240; Reiner [Raneiro Sacchoni], c.d. 1263.
‡Bonaventura, 1221–1274; Alensis, c. 1185–1245; Scotus, c. 1265/66 –1308.
§Thomas Walden, c. 1375–1430.
1.11a But the Benedictines have a whole legion of them.*
*Because of the “legion” of Fathers from the Benedictine religious family, Hardouin concludes that the hoaxers were Benedictines or, more likely, the hoaxers influenced the abbots of the Benedictine monasteries. The hoaxers were careful to write secular and religious histories, Latin and Greek histories, and to coordinate their world encompassing fraud over many decades, if not centuries; yet, they did not equally distribute the writings of the Fathers among the various religious orders. This oversight suggests that the hoaxers, who desired to honor their religious family, were Benedictines.
1.12 Therefore, if at any time the holy Apostolic See would pronounce a judgment on my censure against ‘‘Augustine”, “Bernard”, and ‘‘Thomas” (these three writers, by the help of God, I have despatched; also most of the Councils. I am going to deal with other matters in like manner, while life lasts), [then] I say when that day, greatly desired by me, shall come, let not the Holy See admit to consultation members of any Regular Family, which thinks it has produced from its bosom any of those old writers and which desires to preserve them at any price.*† Let the Holy See employ Secular Theologians or men of incorrupt integrity out of those very Families, who will look after the good of Religion alone.‡ Let them desire to preserve her alone, though all else perish.
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Bernard of Clairvaux 1090–1153; Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274.
†”despatched; also most of the Councils”: Hardouin wrote the history of the Ecumenical Councils previous to his discovery of the hoaxers. Conciliorum collectio regia maxima is “one of the notable works of scholarship of the period, it transformed the study of canon law and was basic to all later work in the field. It was published in 12 volumes at Paris (1714–15) but was withheld for several years by the French government because of the Ultramontanism (an emphasis on papal authority and centralization of the church) displayed in the notes.” https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jean-Hardouin
Hardouin’s notes on the text, not the body of the text itself, was unacceptable to the French government.
‡It is incumbent on men of “incorrupt integrity” to “look after the good of Religion,” precisely as Christ promised to “build up” the powers of his Church [8.08].
†”despatched; also most of the Councils”: Hardouin wrote the history of the Ecumenical Councils previous to his discovery of the hoaxers. Conciliorum collectio regia maxima is “one of the notable works of scholarship of the period, it transformed the study of canon law and was basic to all later work in the field. It was published in 12 volumes at Paris (1714–15) but was withheld for several years by the French government because of the Ultramontanism (an emphasis on papal authority and centralization of the church) displayed in the notes.” https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jean-Hardouin
Hardouin’s notes on the text, not the body of the text itself, was unacceptable to the French government.
‡It is incumbent on men of “incorrupt integrity” to “look after the good of Religion,” precisely as Christ promised to “build up” the powers of his Church [8.08].
1.13 The providence of God has hitherto permitted quarrels of Theologians on the opinions of Augustine, Thomas, etc. God cares little about controversies of that kind, so long as the faith continues sound and whole: the faith which is necessary for all to salvation. In this faith, neither can He suffer the Roman Church, nor has He suffered the Catholic Theologians to err. Meanwhile, not one of those works has been approved by the Apostolic See ex cathedra,—i.e., after examination instituted and the hearing of advocates on either side on the question of the falsity or sincerity of those works.* [It is] Enough for the Roman Church [to have] her own faith, her own tradition, without the help of “Augustine” or any other private person whatever. She derives her authority and her magisterial power from none, except Christ and the Holy Spirit promised to her.† She should be taught by none. She should teach all, as Mother and Mistress. Nothing ⟨so strongly⟩ proves the authority of the Roman Church and the providence of God in conserving the true faith through the Holy Apostolic See, as the fact that she has never been corrupted and will never suffer herself to be corrupted by so many great names of distinguished writers, whether Greek or Latin.‡
*The first Vatican Council, 1870, decreed that the Pope, when he speaks ex cathedra, is infallible. Only one ex cathedra statement has been promulgated: the Assumption of Mary in 1950.
By “the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” Munificentissimus Deus, Sec. 44.
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html
In former times, the belief in the assumption of Mary could be held as a personal pious belief, now “if anyone…should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.” ibid. Sec.45
†The Roman Church “derives her authority and her magisterial power from…Christ and the Holy Spirit.”
‡The Roman Church has not, is not, nor can be corrupted by “distinguished writers.” However, historically speaking, the corruption does not originate from the words of writers, but from the actions of Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and priests.
By “the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” Munificentissimus Deus, Sec. 44.
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html
In former times, the belief in the assumption of Mary could be held as a personal pious belief, now “if anyone…should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.” ibid. Sec.45
†The Roman Church “derives her authority and her magisterial power from…Christ and the Holy Spirit.”
‡The Roman Church has not, is not, nor can be corrupted by “distinguished writers.” However, historically speaking, the corruption does not originate from the words of writers, but from the actions of Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and priests.
1.14 Thirty–six years ago, in the year 1693, and afterwards on more than one occasion I declared that the νοθεία or [the] spuriousness of the “old writers” had become most plain and obvious to me.*† Then certain Catholics, good and well–meaning men, but of no large views, raised a cry against me.‡ They did not observe that the Calvinists in Holland or Germany vociferated much more loudly.§ They, forsooth, well knew that if “Augustine” were snatched from them—if he were convicted of atheism— [then] their famous phrase “All Augustine is ours” would bear this sense: “A scoundrel and a foe of the true Deity is all for us.” In point of fact, the fellow who assumed and bears the name of “Augustine” teaches absolute atheism under the guise of Christian language.‖
*Hardouin is writing in the year of his death [1693+36=1729].
†νοθεία, “fraud”; Google Translate.
‡“of no large views”: The polite and indirect manner of stating that an individual has limited experiences.
§Hardouin’s detractors did not notice that the uproar among Calvinists was louder than from the Catholics. One would expect more outrage from Roman Catholics when Hardouin questions writings accepted by Roman Catholics. The indignation from Calvinist quarters indicates the amount of their reliance upon the Fathers.
‖Hardouin is explicit in this sentence. The statements, arguments, and commentaries of Augustine, when properly understood, teach atheism.
†νοθεία, “fraud”; Google Translate.
‡“of no large views”: The polite and indirect manner of stating that an individual has limited experiences.
§Hardouin’s detractors did not notice that the uproar among Calvinists was louder than from the Catholics. One would expect more outrage from Roman Catholics when Hardouin questions writings accepted by Roman Catholics. The indignation from Calvinist quarters indicates the amount of their reliance upon the Fathers.
‖Hardouin is explicit in this sentence. The statements, arguments, and commentaries of Augustine, when properly understood, teach atheism.
1.15 Someone may say, “Are you then wiser than so many men of genius who read the old writings, and did not observe that they were impious?” I will answer in the words of one of that wicked crew itself, in those forsooth, of Lactantius, Book 2, chapter 8:
“Above all, in a matter that is vital it behooves each man to consult himself and to rely on his own judgment and proper senses for the purpose of considering and investigating the truth, rather than to be deceived by the errors of others, as if [he] himself [is] devoid of reason. God gave to all a measure of wisdom, that they might investigate unheard–of things, and perpend things heard. Because you have had predecessors in time, it does not follow that they have exceeded you in wisdom, which, if it is given equally to all, cannot be wholly enjoyed by those who went before. To be wise, i.e., to seek the truth, is innate in all; and therefore they cease to be wise who, without any judgment, approve what our ancestors invented, and are led like cattle by others. They are deceived in this, that under the influence of the name of “elders and ancestors” they do not think that they can be wiser, because they are later, or that the others can be foolish, having the name of ‘elders.’ What hinders that we should take example from themselves; so that even as those who made false inventions handed them down to posterity, so we who find the truth should hand down better things to our posterity?”*†‡
To listen to this, nothing assuredly incites us but the desire of seeing the truth, which is contained in the one most holy Catholic Religion.
*forsooth: indeed (often used ironically or to express surprise or indignation).
†Lactantius, Book 2: “On the Origin of Error”. Justin Martyr, c. 100–c. 165.
‡Justin Martyr advocates that the reader utilize his“own judgment and proper senses for the purpose of considering and investigating the truth, rather than to be deceived by the errors of others, as if [he] himself [is] devoid of reason.”
It is obvious why the author of Justin Martyr is described by Hardouin as “one of that wicked crew,” as he advocates personal consideration and investigation, so as to not be misled by “errors of others” and, thus, to appear bereft of reason.
†Lactantius, Book 2: “On the Origin of Error”. Justin Martyr, c. 100–c. 165.
‡Justin Martyr advocates that the reader utilize his“own judgment and proper senses for the purpose of considering and investigating the truth, rather than to be deceived by the errors of others, as if [he] himself [is] devoid of reason.”
It is obvious why the author of Justin Martyr is described by Hardouin as “one of that wicked crew,” as he advocates personal consideration and investigation, so as to not be misled by “errors of others” and, thus, to appear bereft of reason.
1.16 But, it will be asked, “Why are so many literary monuments attacked which have been received in good faith by so many ages?”* Is there so much good in those errors, or is so much evil feared, if the truth should be laid open, as there is in the fact that Books should be in the hands and before the eyes of all, which have been written by a gang of men, enemies to Catholic truth—and written with no other design than to remove God entirely from the world and to overthrow the whole of the doctrines of the Christian faith?† These books foster, and will foster, endless and interminable quarrels in the Church, until their nature and quality is recognised.‡ If one should make clearer than the light of noon that the rise and birth of them fell within the last 400 years—i.e., in the fourteenth century—would this be a light boon to Christendom?* Should it not be preferred to any other gain, if any other there could be?
*“so many ages,”“the last 400 years,” and “in the fourteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
†The goal of the hoaxers is to entirely remove the belief that God intervenes in the sacraments of the Roman Church. Once this occurs, the “world will become atheist against its will” [1.10].
‡These books foster endless quarrels until their impious nature and atheistic purpose is recognised and censured.
†The goal of the hoaxers is to entirely remove the belief that God intervenes in the sacraments of the Roman Church. Once this occurs, the “world will become atheist against its will” [1.10].
‡These books foster endless quarrels until their impious nature and atheistic purpose is recognised and censured.
1.17 Why did God so long delay the exposure of this fraud? The answer is: He ⟨suffered⟩ [allowed] it to be committed that He might one day triumph over it and He delayed to show it to Catholics until, as I have said, all the books, or at least the greater part, and the most important of the books had been brought out of the Libraries, had been fairly edited and could be conveniently read and understood and tested by the marginal references.* This has come to pass in our own time; hardly before. How helpful are these aids to students: students well know. I judge them to be so important that, before they were afforded, I do not believe the designs of the wicked crew could have been detected.†‡
*Marginal references are notes and references in the sides of the bottom of a page that assist the reader’s understanding. Hardouin seems to suggest that the marginal reference can be utilized to test the writings of the Fathers, which will demonstrate their fraudulent nature. Neither the exact process nor the underlying concept for this testing is explained. However, if the marginal notes heavily rely upon the works of other Fathers, either as quotations or allusions, then Hardouin may be correct that their mutual consent demonstrates the fraud [3.19, 4.05].
†afford: provide or supply (an opportunity or facility).
‡The existence of the hoaxers could not be discovered until after their works were published through mass printing and available to a wide audience. The hoaxers were relying upon the invention of the printing press to widely circulate the writings of the Fathers. Hardouin believes that the hoaxers began in the 1300s, yet, at that time, there was no indication that the technology for the movable-type printing press was possible. Until that time of movable-type printing, their efforts could not reach fruition, as the books would remain in the monasteries. Thus, it appears that the hoaxers worked with one theological virtue: hope. Of course, it is postulated that the hoaxers were influential and wealthy, so it is possible that they provided the technology to Procopius Waldfogel “to help…move things along” to insure that the Fathers would be published and widely circulated [Catfish And The Bottlemen, Longshot].
.
Waldfogel arrived in Avignon in 1444 and disappeared from the historical record after 1446.
Procopius Waldvogel, Wikipedia
Waldvogel (from German: Wald "forest" plus Vogel "bird", thus literally "bird of the forest") and its Ashkenazic variant Waldfogel is a Swiss German surname from a nickname.
Waldvogel, Wikipedia
1.17a By the providence of God, meantime, most of the Scholastics neglected the reading of those “Fathers.” The more firmly did they adhere to Tradition alone and constantly defend it.*
*The obstinance of the Scholars is interpreted as “the providence of God.”
1.18 It was in the month of August, 1690, that I began to scent fraud in Augustine and his contemporaries. In the month of November, I suspected the same in all and I detected the whole in the month of May, 1692, after I had written down long extracts from particular Greek and Latin writers.*† In this labor, I toiled almost to the point of disgust and weariness, though I had often moments of great delight in the discovery of the truth.‡§
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
†Hardouin omits naming these “particular Greek and Latin writers.”
‡And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32
§The Fathers are “fearfully tedious” to read and after “disgust and weariness,” Hardouin experienced a dopamine release with his discovery of the truth.
†Hardouin omits naming these “particular Greek and Latin writers.”
‡And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32
§The Fathers are “fearfully tedious” to read and after “disgust and weariness,” Hardouin experienced a dopamine release with his discovery of the truth.
1.19 On the question of the good faith of “Cyril, Theodore, Augustine, Jerome,” and others, special treatises have been published and the strife is not yet at an end.* If one were to make clear that the authors of such strife emerged from the infernal regions into the world about 400 years ago to pursue their ill design of publishing their impious writings under the names of Saints and others—ought you not to thank such a man, if he proves the point by perspicuous arguments?†‡§ For who would undertake the advocacy of impious writings?
*Cyril of Alexandria, c. 376–444; Theodore, c. 350–428; Augustine, 354–430; Jerome, 347–419/420.
†“about 400 years ago”: Scaliger's chronology.
‡perspicuous: (of an account or representation) clearly expressed and easily understood; lucid.
§Depending upon the context, publish can either be interpreted as “to be made public” or “to print.”
‖The atheism in the writings of the Fathers is the answer to this rhetorical question, however, this answer is a conclusion of the Prolegomena that has, at this point, not been demonstrated.
†“about 400 years ago”: Scaliger's chronology.
‡perspicuous: (of an account or representation) clearly expressed and easily understood; lucid.
§Depending upon the context, publish can either be interpreted as “to be made public” or “to print.”
‖The atheism in the writings of the Fathers is the answer to this rhetorical question, however, this answer is a conclusion of the Prolegomena that has, at this point, not been demonstrated.
chapter 2
The charge of Atheism against the early Ecclesiastical writers repeated and Hardouin pretends that for the first thirteen centuries Catholic orthodoxy had prevailed, in the absence of literature—He expounds the nature of that orthodoxy, especially in reference to the Trinity and the Body of Christ. The form of Religion in the alleged Fathers is mere Paganism.
2.01 I SAY that all these writers were θεομαχοι, “fighters against God,” whose works were circulated until the rise of Printing and, after that invention, a great number in like manner came from the same gang under false names.* God have they none, except the “Nature of things” others call it mere “Ens” or "Essence”, τὸ ὄν, or formal Reality, Unity, and Truth of essences, and their Permanence in that unity and truth; the most simple essence, apart from any metaphysical composition. Thence, they founded a metaphysical system of religion, dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Eucharist, and the other Sacraments—of Grace, Justification, and other capital points of religion, as far as men could do so who had no true God.†
*“the rise of Printing.” The printing press was invented around 1439 by Johannes Gutenberg. Hardouin provides a hint by stating that the “same gang” operated before and after the rise of printing. Hardouin repeatedly states that the conspiracy started in the fourteenth century. The hoaxers were diligent in their efforts for at least a century and likely continued contributing to their impiety as late as the seventeenth century. When the amount of time, money, and continued coordination among different ages and various countries is considered, it seems unlikely that impiety alone is the primary motivating factor for generations of hoaxers.
†metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
†metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
2.02 They were the first Heresiarchs in the Christian world and took their rise in the fourteenth century.*† They were crafty and too successful in the propagation of their impiety. How were they to scatter their errors among the vulgar?‡ Were they to adduce Tradition on their behalf? But for thirteen centuries the worship of the true God and of Christ had existed among the nations.§
*heresiarch: the founder of a heresy or the leader of a heretical sect.
†“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‡Judging by the results of various readability indices, the “vulgar” are not the intended audience of the writings of the Fathers.
§“for thirteen centuries”: Scaliger’s chronology.
†“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‡Judging by the results of various readability indices, the “vulgar” are not the intended audience of the writings of the Fathers.
§“for thirteen centuries”: Scaliger’s chronology.
2.02a Were they to allege the writings of men old?* None were in existence. They were bound, therefore, to forge writings, not under their own, but under other and great names and so to pass off their errors upon men of their own and following ages, especially of the studious class.†‡ They desired it to be believed that there was no God but Nature; who was the framer of the Universe by necessary and [by the] immutable laws of motion, and also the ruler of minds by natural light—the light of Truth, as they call it.
*allege: suppose or affirm to be the case.
†“especially of the studious class”: otherwise said, “young men who like to think,” not the “vulgar.”
‡With the possible exceptions of Augustine, Origen, and Tertullian, all the Fathers are “great names” universally recognized as saints.
†“especially of the studious class”: otherwise said, “young men who like to think,” not the “vulgar.”
‡With the possible exceptions of Augustine, Origen, and Tertullian, all the Fathers are “great names” universally recognized as saints.
2.2b They conceived the hope that, owing to the reverence for the Saints, whatever appeared under their names would seem probable to posterity; in particular, this capital principle, which entirely undermines Religion: that God is either τὸ πᾶν, “the All”, or the necessary rectitude of “the All”, according to the rules of Mechanics, Geometry, Prudence, and Truth, so that they might be reckoned Christians who cultivated and preached Truth.*†‡
*The hoaxers engaged in a calculated gamble that the books written under the names of Saints would be preserved until their removal from the monasteries.
†Future readers were to be deceived by the belief that the Christian Saints “cultivated and preached” not only Truth, but the “All” according to rules of Mechanics and Geometry.
‡According “to the rules of Prudence and Truth” is a strange expression, as Mechanics and Geometry have “understood regulations or principles governing conduct,” but Prudence and Truth do not have formal rules.
†Future readers were to be deceived by the belief that the Christian Saints “cultivated and preached” not only Truth, but the “All” according to rules of Mechanics and Geometry.
‡According “to the rules of Prudence and Truth” is a strange expression, as Mechanics and Geometry have “understood regulations or principles governing conduct,” but Prudence and Truth do not have formal rules.
2.03 The Christian Religion is the religion of the true God. It ought, therefore, in all its doctrines show the characters of a religion which worships the true God. In other words, it ought to exhibit the idea of the true God in all those dogmata. Still more plainly: All dogmata which the Christian Religion hands down as taught by Christ ought to be such that you may understand and collect from them that some true God exists.* They ought not to be such as they would be if there were no true God at all; if there were but Nature instead of God, or the natural Light of Reason or of Truth.†
*Is it possible to interpret historical Christian dogmas in such a way to not “collect from them that some true God exists?” Still more plainly: Is it possible that the dogmas, doctrine, Scripture, and the conduct of services conflict in such a manner to question the existence of God or to suggest that there is no God and every experience has a natural explanation?
†si solo pro Deo Natura esset, vel lumen rationis seu veritatis naturale [p.19].
if Nature alone were for God, or the natural light of reason or truth. Google Translate.
This phrase is possibly to be understood as “the natural Light of Reason or the natural Light of Truth.”
†si solo pro Deo Natura esset, vel lumen rationis seu veritatis naturale [p.19].
if Nature alone were for God, or the natural light of reason or truth. Google Translate.
This phrase is possibly to be understood as “the natural Light of Reason or the natural Light of Truth.”
2.03a For example: We believe Christ to be in the Eucharist, the substance of the Bread being destroyed. Thence. we understand that the true God is the effector of this miracle.* Assuredly, Nature cannot do this.† But the impious Sect to whom I have referred teaches that this transmutation takes place in the mind of believers by pious thought, which they call the “operation of the Holy Spirit.” And why? Because these sectarians do not believe there is any God!‡
*thence: from a place or source previously mentioned.
†Transubstantiation, as a miracle, must be supernatural or beyond nature, since the result is a change of identity. Previously, A [bread] = A [bread]; but A [bread] becomes B [Christ], so that A [bread] ≠ B [Christ]. Nature must abide by the rules of mechanics and laws of the cosmos; God has no such limitations.
‡sectarians; denoting or concerning a sect or sects.
From the context, the “impious Sect” consists of the atheistic hoaxers.
†Transubstantiation, as a miracle, must be supernatural or beyond nature, since the result is a change of identity. Previously, A [bread] = A [bread]; but A [bread] becomes B [Christ], so that A [bread] ≠ B [Christ]. Nature must abide by the rules of mechanics and laws of the cosmos; God has no such limitations.
‡sectarians; denoting or concerning a sect or sects.
From the context, the “impious Sect” consists of the atheistic hoaxers.
2.03b And so with all the doctrines of the Christian Religion. There are only two explanations ⟨of them⟩. One is the Catholic, which always supposes that there is some true God. The other is the Atheistic, which is contained in written books down to the invention of Printing and which so expounds the dogmata of our faith, as each of them might be, even if there were no true God.*†‡ A truly admirable, a truly divine principle, pertinent to all the dogmata of the faith, is this.
*“the invention of Printing”: c.1450. Johannes Gutenberg, d.1468.
†Hardouin discusses the three religions [atheism, Catholicism, Polytheism, 2.04] and he states that only two explanations exist to describe “all the doctrines of the Christian Religion.” One explanation is Roman Catholic and the other is the Atheistic explanation.
‡Hardouin maintains that the writings of the hoaxers explain the Christian doctrines without necessitating the true God. This conclusion explains the proliferating nature of protestantism, as Divine involvement is superfluous.
†Hardouin discusses the three religions [atheism, Catholicism, Polytheism, 2.04] and he states that only two explanations exist to describe “all the doctrines of the Christian Religion.” One explanation is Roman Catholic and the other is the Atheistic explanation.
‡Hardouin maintains that the writings of the hoaxers explain the Christian doctrines without necessitating the true God. This conclusion explains the proliferating nature of protestantism, as Divine involvement is superfluous.
2.03c The Eucharist, in the written books of which I speak, is simply a convivium, a social repast at which
men of the same opinions congratulate one another on their fellowship, as signified in the loaf made out of many grains and on the hope given to them of resurrection like that which befell the Christ.* Now they
may be believed and carried out, even if there is no true God, but the Resurrection is to occur according
to the laws of Nature—or (as they call it) ἀποκατάστᾰσις or Restitution into the former state of
the whole universe or of the sublunary world.†
*convivium: from the Latin word convīvium which means "a feast".
†Ἀποκατάστασις: The King James Bible version translates Strong's G605, apokatastasis, as: restitution (once).
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution G605 of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Acts 3:21
†Ἀποκατάστασις: The King James Bible version translates Strong's G605, apokatastasis, as: restitution (once).
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution G605 of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Acts 3:21
2.03d If the Sacraments justify ex opere operato, “from the work operated,” if the voice of the priest baptizing or absolving is of this effect, then there must be some true God who has given such power to men.* But if Repentance and Faith alone justify and Absolution is simply restitution to the congregation of the faithful and the society of the Saints, whence any had fallen away by sin, then such a discipline as this could be founded by any society whatever apart from God.*†
*The existence of the priest baptizing catechumens or remitting sins is itself an indication of a belief in the God of the ancient Church. However, personal repentance, that is, personal regret or personal remorse, and personal faith does not depend upon a belief in the God of historical Christianity or in any deity whatsoever, as regret, remorse, and faith are not dependent upon God. One might have certain views of God that conflict with the ancient Church or profess opinions that are inherently contradictory, such as acknowledging the existence of evil, while claiming that God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. Such a person could, without any difficulty, readily join a protestant community.
†“any society whatever apart from God”: a political society.
†“any society whatever apart from God”: a political society.
2.03e And so it is in those “old writings” and among the Calvinists, Lutherans, Jansenists, who were anticipated by those writings.* Their religion is wholly external and human, all of such a kind that you cannot understand the true God to be worshiped by them. Catholics alone are the lot of the Lord, his People, the lot of his inheritance: Deut. 32:9.† The rest know not God: He will say to them, I know you not!‡
*The Benedictines were commonly suspected of Jansenism by the Jesuits; Giry, Traité de Diplomatique, 1894.
†”For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.” Deut. 32:9
By omitting the subject “Jacob,” Hardouin changes the meaning of the text and interprets it allegorically to pertain to Roman Catholics.
‡Not every one that saith unto me, “Lord! Lord!” shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, “Lord! Lord! Have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many G4183 wonderful works G1411?” And then will I profess unto them, “I never knew you. Depart from me, ye that work iniquity. G458” King James Bible, Matt. 7:21–23
Therefore, in some circumstances “wonderful works” are an “iniquity.”
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G4183, polys, as: many (210), much (73), great (59), miscellaneous (23).
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G1411, dynamis, as: power (77), mighty work (11), strength (7), miracle (7), might (4), virtue (3), mighty (2), miscellaneous (9).
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G458, anomia, as: iniquity (12), unrighteousness (1), transgress the law (with G4160) (1), transgression of the law (1).
In Matthew 7:22, “that day” “is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness” Zep. 1:15.
Dies irae dies illa, dies tribulationis et angustiae, dies calamitatis et miseriae, dies tenebrarum et caliginis, dies nebulae et turbinis. Soph. 1:15
†”For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.” Deut. 32:9
By omitting the subject “Jacob,” Hardouin changes the meaning of the text and interprets it allegorically to pertain to Roman Catholics.
‡Not every one that saith unto me, “Lord! Lord!” shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, “Lord! Lord! Have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many G4183 wonderful works G1411?” And then will I profess unto them, “I never knew you. Depart from me, ye that work iniquity. G458” King James Bible, Matt. 7:21–23
Therefore, in some circumstances “wonderful works” are an “iniquity.”
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G4183, polys, as: many (210), much (73), great (59), miscellaneous (23).
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G1411, dynamis, as: power (77), mighty work (11), strength (7), miracle (7), might (4), virtue (3), mighty (2), miscellaneous (9).
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G458, anomia, as: iniquity (12), unrighteousness (1), transgress the law (with G4160) (1), transgression of the law (1).
In Matthew 7:22, “that day” “is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness” Zep. 1:15.
Dies irae dies illa, dies tribulationis et angustiae, dies calamitatis et miseriae, dies tenebrarum et caliginis, dies nebulae et turbinis. Soph. 1:15
2.04 In ⟨very⟩ truth, there are in the world only three forms of Religion. The first and the only true one is that which worships the true God. The other two are false and opposed to that true form; one by defect, Atheism (αθεότης) [sic], which worships no true God; the other by excess, Polytheism (πολυθεΐα) which worships many false gods. To Atheism pertain all the sects, “fighters against God,” which I have just reviewed and which rely upon those “old writings.”* To Polytheism pertains Idolatry, which is manifold. To true religion, Catholics alone pertain; they in the worship of the true God and, much more perfectly, have succeeded to the Jews.†‡
*“fighters against God” [2.1].
†Roman Catholicism is the successor to the nation of Israel.
“Behold, the days come,” saith the Lord, “that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake…” Jer. 31:31-32
According to the Lord, the covenant made on the day of the Exodus from Egypt has been broken by Israel.
‡There are three religions in the world. Firstly, atheists worship “no true God” and this statement implies they worship a false God, rather than stating they do hold to the idea of deity, generally, or the God of the Bible, specifically. Secondly, the true God, as held by Roman Catholics, having neither defect nor excess, and, finally, Polytheism, the worship of many false Gods.
†Roman Catholicism is the successor to the nation of Israel.
“Behold, the days come,” saith the Lord, “that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake…” Jer. 31:31-32
According to the Lord, the covenant made on the day of the Exodus from Egypt has been broken by Israel.
‡There are three religions in the world. Firstly, atheists worship “no true God” and this statement implies they worship a false God, rather than stating they do hold to the idea of deity, generally, or the God of the Bible, specifically. Secondly, the true God, as held by Roman Catholics, having neither defect nor excess, and, finally, Polytheism, the worship of many false Gods.
2.05 Vain or slight must be the doubts of any whether of many forms of religion, which acknowledge the worship of the true God, any understands better the word of God, or thinks more rightly of God and of his revelations.* For no form of religion acknowledges and worships the true God, except the Catholic. To no society but the Catholic, i.e., the Church, does God reveal his mysteries.† “Who announces His word to Jacob, His justices and judgments to Israel. Be did not the like to any nation and his judgments he did not manifest to them.”‡
*“of God and of his revelations”: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are divinely revealed religions.
†Hardouin states that God reveals his mysteries to the Catholic Church and then quotes a passage concerning God’s “justices and judgments to Israel.” Of course, he previously wrote that the Church “succeeded to the Jews” [2.4].
‡He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord. Psalm 147:19–20.
Qui annuntiat verbum suum Jacob, justitias et judicia sua Israel. Non fecit taliter omni nationi et judicia sua non manifestavit eis. Alleluja. Vulgate Bible, Psalm 147:8-9
The alliteration of Iacob, iustitias, iudicia, and Israel in Latin recalls the fourfold alliteration, again in Latin, from John 14:6 when Jesus spoke:
Jesus saith unto him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6
dicit ei Iesus ego sum via et veritas et vita nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me. Vulgate, John 14:6
†Hardouin states that God reveals his mysteries to the Catholic Church and then quotes a passage concerning God’s “justices and judgments to Israel.” Of course, he previously wrote that the Church “succeeded to the Jews” [2.4].
‡He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord. Psalm 147:19–20.
Qui annuntiat verbum suum Jacob, justitias et judicia sua Israel. Non fecit taliter omni nationi et judicia sua non manifestavit eis. Alleluja. Vulgate Bible, Psalm 147:8-9
The alliteration of Iacob, iustitias, iudicia, and Israel in Latin recalls the fourfold alliteration, again in Latin, from John 14:6 when Jesus spoke:
Jesus saith unto him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6
dicit ei Iesus ego sum via et veritas et vita nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me. Vulgate, John 14:6
2.06 If there is some true God—and assuredly there is— [then] we must necessarily believe all that the Catholic Religion teaches to have been revealed by God: the Three Persons in God, the Body of Christ on the Altar; or on the other hand, we must say—what is absurd and blasphemous—that God cares naught what that Society believes, which alone under heaven acknowledge and worships Him and invokes Him with all the heart. For they who ⟨now⟩ deny these mysteries, the same that follow those “old writers,” deny that He is the true God whom Catholics acknowledge, revere, love, and fear.†
*If there is a God, then one must “believe all that the Catholic Religion teaches.” This statement relies upon two prepositions that lack convincing evidence. The existence of God has not been demonstrated and, if it is accomplished, then one needs to objectively determine the reasons that the Roman religion should be followed to the exclusion of other beliefs and practices.
†“revealed by God”: Islam has been “revealed by God.” Muslims understand Jesus as a Prophet of God and as a man, without divinity. Isaiah 53:10 states that the man whose soul is “an offering for sin” will live to see his children:
“Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him [righteous servant, v.11]. He [the Lord] hath put him [righteous servant] to grief. When thou [the Lord] shalt make his [righteous servant] soul an offering for sin, he [righteous servant] shall see his [righteous servant] seed, he [the Lord] shall prolong his [righteous servant] days and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his [righteous servant] hand.”
It is clear that the righteous servant whose “soul” is “an offering for sin” will live to see his children.
†“revealed by God”: Islam has been “revealed by God.” Muslims understand Jesus as a Prophet of God and as a man, without divinity. Isaiah 53:10 states that the man whose soul is “an offering for sin” will live to see his children:
“Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him [righteous servant, v.11]. He [the Lord] hath put him [righteous servant] to grief. When thou [the Lord] shalt make his [righteous servant] soul an offering for sin, he [righteous servant] shall see his [righteous servant] seed, he [the Lord] shall prolong his [righteous servant] days and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his [righteous servant] hand.”
It is clear that the righteous servant whose “soul” is “an offering for sin” will live to see his children.
2.07 “This is life eternal, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.”* The double ⟨or twin⟩ knowledge of God and of Christ leads to life. Of God as the only true God; that God may not be thought to be either Reality and Truth, whether of essences or of eternal truths, as the false “Augustine” with the “Fathers,” falsely so called, opines, or Essence of Essences, which amounts to the same, and which Christ foresaw would be substituted by atheists for God; and of Christ, as He only was sent by God as Lawgiver and Redeemer to the human race. The Confession of Peter comprehends both these heads, Thou art Christy the Son of the living God: Matt 16:16 Hence he deserved to hear from Christ: Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.† But if the Church stands upon this double Confession, [then] the Gates of Hell are aptly understood to be the endeavors of Daemons in bringing in Atheism, or in propagating it; by which both of those dogmas of the Christian faith are assailed. Too truly has this been proved by the event.
*And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3.
Haec est autem vita aeterna: ut cognoscant te, solum Deum verum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum.
John 17:3.
†And I say also unto thee, “That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt. 16:18.
Et ego dico tibi, quia “Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam.” Matt. 16:18.
Haec est autem vita aeterna: ut cognoscant te, solum Deum verum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum.
John 17:3.
†And I say also unto thee, “That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt. 16:18.
Et ego dico tibi, quia “Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam.” Matt. 16:18.
2.08 The form of Religion brought in by that most wicked crew, and by Thomassin first clearly explained and taken up, is mere Gentilism or paganism.* “O God, the Gentiles have come into Thine inheritance. They have polluted Thy holy temple,” —which is the Catholic Church.† In this age, you have no need to seek Pagans afar; we live among Pagans in the very leading city of the most Christian empire, there are very many Pagans who, under the habits of Christian priests and religions, are truly Bonzes, Brahmans, Druids. If you look at their faith, it has been drawn from writings which bear the names of the “Fathers” on their front. Who, whether Bonzes, or Brahman, or Druid, would not subscribe to the extracts from the false “Augustine”, which Jansenius and which Ambrosius Victor collected—to the effect that concerning the nature of God, inquiry should not go beyond the Truth of all Essences and eternal truths?‡ Tell me—are not they who, like the aforenamed and many others in this age, take great trouble in published books to demonstrate that the existence of God seems—because all things have been aptly and truly formed—to be in accordance with necessary laws of motions and numbers and that these laws are and should be called God.§ Are they not really pagans and atheists? Do they not cast out the true God from men’s minds?
* Thomassin, 1619–1695.
†O god, the heathen are come into thine inheritance. Thy holy temple have they defiled.
They have laid Jerusalem on heaps. Psalm 79:1
Deus, venerunt gentes in haereditatem tuam. Polluerunt templum sanctum tuum.
Posuerunt Jerusalem in pomorum custodiam. Vulgate, Psalm 78:1
The holy temple of the Psalm is allegorically interpreted by Hardouin as the Catholic Church.
‡Cornelius Jansenius, 1585–1638; Ambrosius Victor [André Martin], 1621–1695.
§Many apologetics in the modern “age, take great trouble in published books to demonstrate” “the existence of God.”
†O god, the heathen are come into thine inheritance. Thy holy temple have they defiled.
They have laid Jerusalem on heaps. Psalm 79:1
Deus, venerunt gentes in haereditatem tuam. Polluerunt templum sanctum tuum.
Posuerunt Jerusalem in pomorum custodiam. Vulgate, Psalm 78:1
The holy temple of the Psalm is allegorically interpreted by Hardouin as the Catholic Church.
‡Cornelius Jansenius, 1585–1638; Ambrosius Victor [André Martin], 1621–1695.
§Many apologetics in the modern “age, take great trouble in published books to demonstrate” “the existence of God.”
2.09 The Royal Psalmist, singing “The Heavens do tell” etc., and the Wise Man, chap. 13. 3–5, and Paul, and others in sacred books, prove that God exists from His admirable works, i.e, they teach of a Workman distinct from His works and that by a real distinction, the greatest conceivable —no distinction alone, but real separability.*† He existed infinite ages before the world that he made and He can will forever to annihilate the same.‡ None of those writers, none of those falsely–named “Fathers,” proved the existence of God by this argument—that all things hold together by the Truth by which they are formally true, or from this argument, that there is a certain universal Reason, the Light of rational minds. But such was the New Gospel of the false “Fathers.”
*The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Psalm 19:1.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei et opera manuum ejus annuntiat firmamentum. Psalm 18:1
†The “Wise Man” presumably refers to the author of the book of Proverbs, Solomon [Proverbs 1:1, 10:1, and 25:1].
He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life, but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction. The soul of the sluggard desireth and hath nothing, but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat. A righteous man hateth lying, but a wicked man is loathsome and cometh to shame. Proverbs 13:3-5
Qui custodit os suum custodit animam suam; qui autem inconsideratus est ad loquendum, sentiet mala.
Vult et non vult piger; anima autem operantium impinguabitur. Verbum mendax justus detestabitur; impius autem confundit et confundetur. Proverbs 13:3-5
‡It is a strange expression to declare that God can “forever to annihilate the same” world. Of course, God could, after “that day,” annihilate all those damned souls in Hell.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei et opera manuum ejus annuntiat firmamentum. Psalm 18:1
†The “Wise Man” presumably refers to the author of the book of Proverbs, Solomon [Proverbs 1:1, 10:1, and 25:1].
He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life, but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction. The soul of the sluggard desireth and hath nothing, but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat. A righteous man hateth lying, but a wicked man is loathsome and cometh to shame. Proverbs 13:3-5
Qui custodit os suum custodit animam suam; qui autem inconsideratus est ad loquendum, sentiet mala.
Vult et non vult piger; anima autem operantium impinguabitur. Verbum mendax justus detestabitur; impius autem confundit et confundetur. Proverbs 13:3-5
‡It is a strange expression to declare that God can “forever to annihilate the same” world. Of course, God could, after “that day,” annihilate all those damned souls in Hell.
2.10 By the great Providence of God, it came to pass that they whom the Lord Christ desired to be the first Doctors of the Church were common men, plebeians, men of the lowest vulgar herd.* For, if he had chosen out Philosophers, or other men of the highest ability, [then] there would now be the greatest temptation in the Church and occasion of suspicion—whether what ought to be understood by the name of God is not that rather which is expounded in the writings of the false “Fathers” and is greedily taken out of them—the Essence of Essences, and το ευ ειναι, as the new philosophers and the Jansenists say—rather than what we Catholics worship.†
*The first teachers of the Church were “the lowest vulgar herd.” Hardouin does not write “the herd” nor “the vulgar herd,” but “the lowest vulgar herd.” One wonders what aspects of the Church that those “plebeians” found appealing. The adherence of this class with “no large views” to Christianity may be a compelling reason people neither entertain the thought of Christianity nor identify as Christians. The attractions to Christianity by the lowest class may be the reason why thoughtful individuals avoid modern Christianity, rather than the alleged machinations by the Devil.
†The King James Bible version translates Strong's G3588, ho, as: which (413), who (79), the things (11), the son (8), miscellaneous (32).
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G2095, eu, as: well (3), well done (2), good (1).
*The King James Bible version translates Strong's G1511, einai, as: to be (33), be (28), was (15), is (14), am (7), are (6), were (4), not translated (11), miscellaneous (8).
†The King James Bible version translates Strong's G3588, ho, as: which (413), who (79), the things (11), the son (8), miscellaneous (32).
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G2095, eu, as: well (3), well done (2), good (1).
*The King James Bible version translates Strong's G1511, einai, as: to be (33), be (28), was (15), is (14), am (7), are (6), were (4), not translated (11), miscellaneous (8).
2.11 God provided against this evil [the choosing of men of the highest ability]. First, he sent Moses to teach the true God as the creator of all Nature. Afterwards, he sent Christ who, as a greater prophet, should teach greater things of God.* He taught that the true God could do many things above Nature, much greater things than he did in the creation; that he subsisted in a sublimer manner than he who was known to the Jews.†‡ God made nothing in vain. It was necessary that Christ should teach us of the Three Persons in God, that he should make known and require belief in the miracle of the Eucharist.§‖ Otherwise, credence would readily be given to the falsely called “Fathers” and new atheists that there was no other God than theirs; if there be nothing in the world that does not appear to have been made according to the laws of motion and mechanics— immutable laws which nature follows, as they reason.
*“as a greater prophet”: The word “prophet” is not utilized as an absolute, so must be various degrees when “a person [is] regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.”
†“God could do many things above Nature”: The actions of God are “above Nature” or supernatural.
‡Marcion preached that God had sent Jesus Christ [was] distinct from the "vengeful" God [Demiurge] who had created the world. Marcion, Wikipedia
Otherwise said, the God associated with Christ and his teachings was more sublime than the God “who was known to the Jews.”
§“Three Persons in God”: It is uncertain which Biblical passage Hardouin is referencing. All verses that Jesus mentions the Holy Spirit: Matt. 12:31–32, 28:19; Mark 3:29, 13:11; Luke 11:13, 12:10, John 14:26, 20:22; Acts 1:8.
‖All verses in the three Gospels where Jesus mentions his body and blood:
Take, eat; this is my body. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:26, 28
Take, eat: this is my body. This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Mark 14:22, 24
This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Luke 22:19–20
†“God could do many things above Nature”: The actions of God are “above Nature” or supernatural.
‡Marcion preached that God had sent Jesus Christ [was] distinct from the "vengeful" God [Demiurge] who had created the world. Marcion, Wikipedia
Otherwise said, the God associated with Christ and his teachings was more sublime than the God “who was known to the Jews.”
§“Three Persons in God”: It is uncertain which Biblical passage Hardouin is referencing. All verses that Jesus mentions the Holy Spirit: Matt. 12:31–32, 28:19; Mark 3:29, 13:11; Luke 11:13, 12:10, John 14:26, 20:22; Acts 1:8.
‖All verses in the three Gospels where Jesus mentions his body and blood:
Take, eat; this is my body. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:26, 28
Take, eat: this is my body. This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Mark 14:22, 24
This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Luke 22:19–20
2.11a But in reply to this it must be said that Atheists cannot fit to their Nature or Essence of Essences, or Laws of Motion, the Ternary number of Persons who are really distinct from one another, because of the double vital operation of intellect and will. The Miracle in the perpetual and continuous reproduction of the Body of Christ under the species of Bread, the former substance being destroyed, infers that God must be other than the Nature of Things, the Essence of Essences, and Truth or formal Reality of Things. Both these propositions had to be laid before the faithful that they might understand that the deity proposed for worship by the faithful was not the object of worship which they themselves had learned from Moses, and Christ, and the Apostles, and their own ancestors and elders. For Nature and Truth can do nothing but what the human mind can conceive; cannot subsist in any manner beyond our intelligence. That the faith of the true God might be preserved and conserved, it behooved that greater things should be revealed to the Christians concerning Him than to the Jews. Especially God foresaw what has actually happened, that the Rabbis of the Jews would be, many of them, carried away into that Atheism--deceived by the Cabbalistic books, which the same impious crew confuted in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
“the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries”: Scaliger's chronology.
Confute: prove to be false or invalid, overthrow by evidence or stronger argument.
Confute: prove to be false or invalid, overthrow by evidence or stronger argument.
2.12 Countless books, I might almost say, have been attributed to the “Fathers.” The more there are, the greater the wonder that not one of them hinted once what we believe on the revelation of God, that there is One God in Three Persons, really distinct among one another.* Everywhere they talk of the ὁμοούσιον, since their truth is consubstantial to Unity or Reality of Essences, of whatever kind that substance may be, that is, metaphorically only.† The real distinction of Persons I do not remember to have once read of in writings ascribed to the “Fathers” or others through more than 1,300 years from the Birth of Christ!‡ And yet that Real Distinction of Persons ought to have been duly inculcated on Christians; for this faith discriminates them from Jews. What Jew denies that the Wisdom of God is ὁμοούσιον with God? Did the Catholic dogmata arise after the year of Christ 1300?§ Who thought them out? Who propounded them? Who commanded that they should be believed by the whole world?
*Not one of the Fathers has mentioned the Christians belief regarding “the revelation of God” or the dogma concerning the Trinity. Hardouin expects that in the countless monuments of the Fathers, at least one orthodox statement concerning the Trinity would be found. The omission of an expected topic for discussion is an indication that the author rejects the subject and, if the Trinity is omitted in all the works, then the Fathers have intentionally neglected the Trinity. The exclusion of the Trinity is possibly explained by the fact that it contradicts the law of identity: the Holy Spirit is God, Jesus is God, and the Father is God; however, the Holy Spirit should be Jesus, but it is not. Likewise, Jesus should be the Father, but he is not, as all three are God and all have real distinction of persons.
†Homoousion is a Christian theological term that means "same in being" or "same in essence". It is used in the Nicene Creed to describe the relationship between God the Father and Jesus.
‡“1,300 years from the Birth of Christ”: Scaliger's chronology.
§“after the year of Christ 1300”: Scaliger's chronology.
†Homoousion is a Christian theological term that means "same in being" or "same in essence". It is used in the Nicene Creed to describe the relationship between God the Father and Jesus.
‡“1,300 years from the Birth of Christ”: Scaliger's chronology.
§“after the year of Christ 1300”: Scaliger's chronology.
2.12a If we hearken to the Heretics, they say that our Scholastic Theologians are proud, disputatious, fond of altercation. Therefore, they could not strike out the dogmata that we hold, for proud and disputing men are exposed to envy and emulation. If the Franciscans had invented the ternary number of persons, or the hypostatic union of the Word, or Transubstantiation, [then] the Dominican Inquisitors would have cried out, or the Sorbonnists—formerly, as the tale runs, the enemies of both those Orders.* Therefore, the form of our religion is older than the Schools.† It is before the “Fathers,” by whom it is opposed. Who then made the sons more skilled than the Fathers? Has a fifth Gospel fallen down from Heaven? How in the fourteenth century did the whole world cease to be atheist and become Christian?‡ How did the Church of Christ ⟨then⟩ begin to be of sound mind?
*“hypostatic union of the Word”: Hypostatic union is a Christian theological term that refers to the union of Christ's human and divine natures. Christ is completely human and totally Divine. This teaching is inseparable from theosis, wherein the faithful retain their human bodies and become, through the energies of God, divine. Protestants accept the Chistiological teaching of the hypostatic union of the ancient church as it is necessary for their doctrine of sacrifice, being both God and man. Finally, Protestants often forget that Jesus is the Savior of everyone, as all of humanity will be resurrected.
†Otherwise said, as the Christian religion does not rely upon the existence of books, “the form of our religion is older than” any books. The same cannot be said by Protestants. The “Schools” are interpreted as the various religious orders of the Roman Church.
‡“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
†Otherwise said, as the Christian religion does not rely upon the existence of books, “the form of our religion is older than” any books. The same cannot be said by Protestants. The “Schools” are interpreted as the various religious orders of the Roman Church.
‡“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
chapter 3
The method of the Monkish forgers explained. The necessity of writing a great mass of books in support of their theories and of various kinds, alleged apocryphal books among them. The interest of the forgers in the Academy of Paris. Their Latinity differs from that of Pliny.
3.01 THE forgers to whom I refer did what one of their impious band, “Theodoret, book 1 Fables of Heretics, chap 19,” declares that the Marcionitae did: They wrote a multitude of opinions and falsely– entitled books to frighten fools! *†
*Theodoret of Cyrus, c. 393–c. 458/466.
†”Marcionitae”: followers of Marcion of Sinope, 85–160.
†”Marcionitae”: followers of Marcion of Sinope, 85–160.
3.01a It was a great undertaking. It required great toil which was given unsparingly by the Faction. They had in truth, as they hint, χαλκεντερους φιλονους, Adamantinos, “unwearied, brazen–bowelled’’ scribblers. They were bound to forge almost countless literary monuments that they might oppose an (alleged) written tradition of so many years to the non–written, i.e., the Catholic Tradition. A vast number of volumes was prepared, because the wicked forgers knew that the more there were, the more difficult it would be to unravel the fraud. It was as necessary to forge about as many Greek as Latin books, otherwise it would forthwith be suspected that the fraud was done in the Latin world. Moreover, the consent of the Two Churches must be pretended and shown.* This was the scheme which they carried out. They gave to Greece, among the first, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom; to Cappadocia, Basil and Gregory of Nyssa; to the East, Theodoret, Eusebius; to Egypt, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril; to Italy, Ambrose, Leo, Gregory the Great; to Palestine and Syria, Justin, Cyril the second, Damascenus; to Cyprus, Epiphanius; to Africa, Tertullian, Cyprian, Optatus, Augustine, Fulgentius, etc.—besides almost countless others in various parts of the world.†
*“consent of the Two Churches”: The shared history of the Roman and Orthodox Churches.
†Gregory of Nazianzus, 329–398; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407; Basil the Great, of Caesarea, 330–379; Gregory of Nyssa, c. 335–395; Theodoret of Cyrus, c. 393 – c. 458/466; Eusebius of Caesarea 260/265 –339; Clement c. 35–99; Origen c.185 – c. 253; Athanasius c. 296–373; Cyril of Alexandria, c. 376 – 444; Ambrose of Milan, c. 339–397; Leo, r. 440–461; Gregory the Great, r.590–604; Justin Martyr, c. 100–c. 165; Cyril the second [Cyril of Jerusalem, c. 313–386]; John of Damascus c. 675 or 676–749; Epiphanius of Salamis, c. 310/320–403; Tertullian, c. 155– c. 220; Cyprian of Carthage c. 210–258; Optatus, 4th century; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Fulgentius, 468–533.
†Gregory of Nazianzus, 329–398; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407; Basil the Great, of Caesarea, 330–379; Gregory of Nyssa, c. 335–395; Theodoret of Cyrus, c. 393 – c. 458/466; Eusebius of Caesarea 260/265 –339; Clement c. 35–99; Origen c.185 – c. 253; Athanasius c. 296–373; Cyril of Alexandria, c. 376 – 444; Ambrose of Milan, c. 339–397; Leo, r. 440–461; Gregory the Great, r.590–604; Justin Martyr, c. 100–c. 165; Cyril the second [Cyril of Jerusalem, c. 313–386]; John of Damascus c. 675 or 676–749; Epiphanius of Salamis, c. 310/320–403; Tertullian, c. 155– c. 220; Cyprian of Carthage c. 210–258; Optatus, 4th century; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Fulgentius, 468–533.
3.02 Their design had to be supported by this vast number of volumes, histories, councils, writings of every kind, otherwise, it was ⟨idle⟩ [pointless] to undertake or attempt it at all. Do not wonder ⟨, then,⟩ at the multitude and mass of books! It had also to be set forth by means of polemical tracts and in homilies to the people and in explanations of the Scriptures; in Epistles and in histories of various nations of the Christian world— that the form of Religion was that which they taught and handed down; that their opinions, their interpretations of the Scriptures, their solutions of opposites were not the sense of one man or of one region or age, but of the whole world and of all ages.*
*“explanations of the Scriptures,” “their solutions,” “their interpretations of the Scriptures”: Their interpretation of scriptures are always “allegorically explained” by the Heretics [6.08]. The “solution by opposites” implies a dualist explanation, an “either/or” dichotomy, as found in Gnostic thought.
3.03 ⟨Again,⟩ it was necessary to produce this vast and massive literature, so that no one might dare to withstand the multitude of alleged “witnesses”.* If any dared this [accusation of fraud], he would, at once, be exposed to the censure of desiring to destroy all tradition.† For not one of those volumes, considered separately, can escape condemnation as heretical or atheistic, but when it appears that all the Writers of the Faction agree with each member, even Catholics themselves shrink back. They dare reject none, nay, they feel compelled to admit and embrace the whole.‡
*The “witnesses” and “monuments” are the writings of the Fathers.
†One purpose of the plethora of works is to intimidate anyone from attacking all of written history; from destroying “all tradition.”
‡As an emotional reaction to the denial of written history, Roman Catholics are compelled to accept all the works of the Fathers.
†One purpose of the plethora of works is to intimidate anyone from attacking all of written history; from destroying “all tradition.”
‡As an emotional reaction to the denial of written history, Roman Catholics are compelled to accept all the works of the Fathers.
3.04 Very many “Fathers” had to be forged. If one only or two, or twenty, or if in Latin only, forthwith the fraud would have been discovered and, so in like manner, if only “Fathers” and not also historians, both sacred and profane, had been contrived!* It was necessary also to invent imaginary adversaries: Manicheans, Arians, Donatists, and a host of others.†
*forthwith: immediately; without delay.
†Mani c. 216–274/277; Arius, 256–336.
Donatists argued that Christian clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid. The Cathars, a heretical Christian sect that flourished in western Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries, denied the validity of the Roman sacraments performed by priests while in a state of sin. It is obvious that the hoaxers are repeating the Donatist arguments against the Roman priesthood a thousand years after Mani and Arius.
†Mani c. 216–274/277; Arius, 256–336.
Donatists argued that Christian clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid. The Cathars, a heretical Christian sect that flourished in western Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries, denied the validity of the Roman sacraments performed by priests while in a state of sin. It is obvious that the hoaxers are repeating the Donatist arguments against the Roman priesthood a thousand years after Mani and Arius.
3.05 It was necessary to invent a multitude of questions, decrees, canons, definitions, formula of prayers, histories, controversies, etc., so that whatever difficulty might arise in the matter of Religion, whether pertaining to dogma or to discipline, the point might appear to have been long ago defined and laid down according to the principles of atheism and natural religion and that posterity might not dare to decree otherwise than they read that their ancestors had defined.* Everything had to be most diligently foreseen and cared for.† No scholastic question of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of the Sacraments must escape them. No contention on ecclesiastical discipline must be passed by.
*All potential inquiries into religion were anticipated and answered by “the principles of atheism and natural religion.” It is likely that one of the principles of atheism included logic and proper reasoning.
†The hoaxers were thorough in anticipating all possible issues and complications regarding religion and were competent in the execution of the plot, as judged by undisputed history.
‡In 2.12, Hardouin wrote that none of the Fathers “hinted once what we believe on the revelation of God, that there is One God in Three Persons,” yet, he now states that no “scholastic question of the Trinity… must escape them.”
†The hoaxers were thorough in anticipating all possible issues and complications regarding religion and were competent in the execution of the plot, as judged by undisputed history.
‡In 2.12, Hardouin wrote that none of the Fathers “hinted once what we believe on the revelation of God, that there is One God in Three Persons,” yet, he now states that no “scholastic question of the Trinity… must escape them.”
3.06 It was part of the plan that the writings should be continued through all ages, through each century, lest they should be considered fictions and the artists should be thought to have stuck fast at the point where they had expounded their whole system. They had to cut it into parts and to allot a part to each century. They desired to produce the illusory and false impression that gradually in the course of ages, the faith and sense of the faithful concerning the Mysteries and also their discipline, had grown little by little, and so had arrived at the point at which they were when they devised the whole system.*†
*“arrived at the point”: It is reasonable to believe that when there were no further developments in theology and history and no additional revivals of heresies, the hoaxers wrote to their own time.
†The steering committee of the hoaxers quickly realized that if they assigned all the heresies to Jerusalem immediately after the resurrection, then there would only be enough material for a century or two, at the most. Therefore, the heresies were produced individually and had their centers in various cities around the Mediterranean Sea. The heresies would persist for many generations and, to further extend the timeline, there were many revivals throughout history.
The influences of the Sumerian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, and Roman empires were redistributed so they followed one another; not occurring roughly concurrently. This sequence further extended the historical record.
†The steering committee of the hoaxers quickly realized that if they assigned all the heresies to Jerusalem immediately after the resurrection, then there would only be enough material for a century or two, at the most. Therefore, the heresies were produced individually and had their centers in various cities around the Mediterranean Sea. The heresies would persist for many generations and, to further extend the timeline, there were many revivals throughout history.
The influences of the Sumerian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, and Roman empires were redistributed so they followed one another; not occurring roughly concurrently. This sequence further extended the historical record.
3.07 It was the interest of these rogues to toil without ceasing, to persist in forging false monuments of former times and of their own, to load and overwhelm the world with them so that no others might appear or be read, if possible, except those which were imbued with their own doctrines.
3.08 But these impostors could not, and dared not, propose the whole of their impiety to their own age, unless by word of mouth in colloquies.*† They aimed more at tricking and deluding posterity. The Catholic Tradition being openly opposed to them, yet Religion being [a] matter of Tradition, how could they pervert their contemporaries by the immediate production of so many false testimonies? So ⟨, as I have said,⟩ they had greater hope of deceiving posterity.‡
*The hoaxers did not limit their impiety to their age, but extended it throughout the centuries of their version of history.
†colloquy: a conversation.
At an early stage, the hoaxers discussed with select individuals who demonstrated a promising future in fraudulent planning, the entirety “of their impiety.”
‡The hoaxers did not expect to influence a great number of their contemporaries, as the works were placed in difficult to access monastic libraries, but aimed to deceive posterity.
†colloquy: a conversation.
At an early stage, the hoaxers discussed with select individuals who demonstrated a promising future in fraudulent planning, the entirety “of their impiety.”
‡The hoaxers did not expect to influence a great number of their contemporaries, as the works were placed in difficult to access monastic libraries, but aimed to deceive posterity.
3.09 It was necessary to forge Apocryphal writings, so that the world might believe that they [the Church Fathers] had Critics among them and that, ⟨thus,⟩ other writings might acquire more credit, the fairer or the more severe they seemed to be in noting and denouncing alleged “apocrypha.”* But what was the origin of these fictions? Where were the Apocrypha written? Among the Romans especially—as the Clementines and other writings assigned to Peter and “Hermas” or “the Pastor.”†‡§
*The hoaxers created works criticizing the Fathers so that pious readers would align themselves with the perceived pious Fathers against their critics and any Apocryphal writings.
†“the Clementines”: One “version is called the Clementine Homilies (H), which consists of 20 books and exists in the original Greek; the other is called the Clementine Recognitions (R), for which the original Greek has been lost, but exists in a Latin translation…” Clementine literature, Wikipedia
Large portions of H and R are almost word for word the same, and larger portions also correspond in subject and more or less in treatment. Ibid.
‡“Hermas”: The Shepherd of Hermas is “a Christian literary work of the late first half of the second century, considered a valuable book by many Christians, and considered canonical scripture by some of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus.” The Shepherd of Hermas, Wikipedia
The Shepherd of Hermas “is found in the Codex Sinaiticus.” ibid.
Codex Sinaiticus was found in 1844 in the monastery of Saint Catherine, built between 548 and 565. Catherine of Alexandria, c.287–c.305.
§Pastor is a synonym for shepherd.
†“the Clementines”: One “version is called the Clementine Homilies (H), which consists of 20 books and exists in the original Greek; the other is called the Clementine Recognitions (R), for which the original Greek has been lost, but exists in a Latin translation…” Clementine literature, Wikipedia
Large portions of H and R are almost word for word the same, and larger portions also correspond in subject and more or less in treatment. Ibid.
‡“Hermas”: The Shepherd of Hermas is “a Christian literary work of the late first half of the second century, considered a valuable book by many Christians, and considered canonical scripture by some of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus.” The Shepherd of Hermas, Wikipedia
The Shepherd of Hermas “is found in the Codex Sinaiticus.” ibid.
Codex Sinaiticus was found in 1844 in the monastery of Saint Catherine, built between 548 and 565. Catherine of Alexandria, c.287–c.305.
§Pastor is a synonym for shepherd.
3.09a Men were not to believe that writings of Rome, or by Romans, had formerly been received with so much reverence as writings by others than the Romans; to which last authority was given by the suffrage of all.* Not that those apocryphal writings contain anything pertinent to dogma which they would not have believed, but that they are unwilling to have it believed that doctrines were held to be true, because they came from the Romans.†
*The Bishop of Rome did not receive his authority as a successor to St. Peter from Christ, as tradition maintains, but from the consent derived from “suffrage of all” the churches, as found in the histories.
†As the reputation of Rome would be irreparably harmed by the written history of the hoaxers, all books from that city would be regarded with suspicion by future readers.
†As the reputation of Rome would be irreparably harmed by the written history of the hoaxers, all books from that city would be regarded with suspicion by future readers.
3.10–11 ⟨Designedly also⟩ they produced works which they desired to be considered by many supposititious, at least by the more knowing, and they determined to supply in other writings proofs of the spuriousness of these works.* Their interest was to produce these works, because they would please certain churches or districts. So they were produced, but care was taken to insert at least a part of the poison of their false Doctrine. Such are the books of “Dionysius the Areopagite,” which they knew must be greedily accepted by the Greeks and possibly by the Parisians. Such were the Decretal Epistles of the Popes, which they hoped would be pleasing to the Romans.† So they expected to gain their ends, even by those works which more learned men held to be spurious, so long as they were deemed genuine by ignorant persons. ⟨I say,⟩ the impious crew might hope, if their fraud were not detected in the course of a generation, ⟨that⟩ [then] they would have patrons, partly men like themselves, atheists and supporters of their impiety; partly simpletons, incapable of detecting their craft and their fraud.‡
*It was acceptable if “the more knowing” readers could discern suspicious works, as the hoaxers included “proofs” in some of their writings that were designed to create doubt concerning the genuineness of certain of their other writings. By controlling both sides of the narrative, the hoaxers left nothing to chance.
†Decretals are letters of a pope that formulate decisions in ecclesiastical law of the Catholic Church.
Decretal, Wikipedia
‡Hardouin is explicit when he states that the hoaxers succeeded, as their plan was fool proof: reliance upon “simpletons,” who are “incapable of detecting” the fraud, and “ignorant persons,” along with the goodwill of atheists and supporters of impiety. The hoaxers correctly anticipated that future patrons would consist of supporters of their impiety and simpletons.
†Decretals are letters of a pope that formulate decisions in ecclesiastical law of the Catholic Church.
Decretal, Wikipedia
‡Hardouin is explicit when he states that the hoaxers succeeded, as their plan was fool proof: reliance upon “simpletons,” who are “incapable of detecting” the fraud, and “ignorant persons,” along with the goodwill of atheists and supporters of impiety. The hoaxers correctly anticipated that future patrons would consist of supporters of their impiety and simpletons.
3.12 There is a very large number of works which are now considered to be spurious by the erudite, although they had formerly appeared under the great names of “Athanasius, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine”, and others, and bear those names in manuscripts.* No wonder! The doctrine is the same with that of the others. There is the same turn of thought. They are inspired by the same faction and workshop. Why are they not praised by Ambrose, for example, or by Augustine? Because they were concocted by a literary confederate, in the hope of their appearing under so great a name. But they afterwards appeared to the leading artificer in fiction less worthy of the great name, because they seemed to depart a little from certain of his opinions or they were a little too bold in the expression of opinions which the leading artificer thought should be dissimulated.†
*Athanasius, c. 296–373; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407; Ambrose of Milan, c. 339–397; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
†The writers did not “prattle” without oversight, since they were directed by “the leading artificer.” The works with more explicit opinions were reassigned to the category of spurious works, rather than from the Fathers.
†The writers did not “prattle” without oversight, since they were directed by “the leading artificer.” The works with more explicit opinions were reassigned to the category of spurious works, rather than from the Fathers.
3.13 Now and again, ⟨on the other hand, and not infrequently,⟩ the workman so divided his work that it was handed over to two writers; he pretended that the latter contained the writing of the earlier after his death. But the likeness of the style shows that the workman was one and the same in each part. So Robert de Monte is feigned to have continued Sigebert and there are many other cases of the same device.* Mabillon was forced to point out in his work on Monastic Studies (de Stud. Monasticis, p. 301), that disciples imitated the style of their masters, as “Nicolas of Clairvaux” imitated that of “Bernard of Clairvaux.”† So they multiplied names and so they appeared to augment the number of writers and of false witnesses!‡
*Sigebert [de Gembloux], 1030–1112; Robert de Monte, c. 1110–1186.
de Monte “greatly enhanced his Appendix to Sigebert (a continuation of the chronicle of Sigebert de Gembloux, which had ended in 1112), covering England (and France) under Henry II from 1154 to 1186.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Appendix–to–Sigebert
†Dom Jean Mabillon, 1632–1707, is considered the founder of the disciplines of palaeography and diplomatics. Nicolas of Clairvaux, 12th century; Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090–1153.
‡The Fathers seem to imitate the writing style of other Fathers, as they employ an indistinguishable style of writing, the “same turn of thought,” and similar arguments.
de Monte “greatly enhanced his Appendix to Sigebert (a continuation of the chronicle of Sigebert de Gembloux, which had ended in 1112), covering England (and France) under Henry II from 1154 to 1186.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Appendix–to–Sigebert
†Dom Jean Mabillon, 1632–1707, is considered the founder of the disciplines of palaeography and diplomatics. Nicolas of Clairvaux, 12th century; Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090–1153.
‡The Fathers seem to imitate the writing style of other Fathers, as they employ an indistinguishable style of writing, the “same turn of thought,” and similar arguments.
3.14 Again: They tried to persuade the world that many works had been lost.* There is hardly one of them who does not tell a lying tale about writings of his which are not to be found. So it is for example, that “Theodoret” adduces in his epistles the titles of books, as he alleges, written by him and so in almost countless cases.†‡
*The library of Alexandria is an example of a collection of works that are claimed to be lost:
The Library, or part of its collection, was accidentally burned by Julius Caesar during his civil war in 48 BC, Library of Alexandria, Wikipedia
†Theodoret, 393–457.
‡In his letters, Theodoet alleges he wrote many books. Since these works are not extant, the charitable explanation is that they were lost, not that they are fictitious. To state otherwise would suggest that the Fathers are misleading the reader, and if they attempt to deceive the reader on an insignificant point, such as the titles of books not written, then it is possible they would lead the reader astray regarding important theological issues. Following this line of thought, the reader will arrive at the point of overthrowing all of history and, therefore, the charitable explanation remains.
§adduce: cite as evidence.
The Library, or part of its collection, was accidentally burned by Julius Caesar during his civil war in 48 BC, Library of Alexandria, Wikipedia
†Theodoret, 393–457.
‡In his letters, Theodoet alleges he wrote many books. Since these works are not extant, the charitable explanation is that they were lost, not that they are fictitious. To state otherwise would suggest that the Fathers are misleading the reader, and if they attempt to deceive the reader on an insignificant point, such as the titles of books not written, then it is possible they would lead the reader astray regarding important theological issues. Following this line of thought, the reader will arrive at the point of overthrowing all of history and, therefore, the charitable explanation remains.
§adduce: cite as evidence.
3.15 The work was so divided among them that two or three or more writers undertook to work up the writings of one Age and when two or three wrote on a similar subject or argument, one purposely passed by that which was to be added by the other. For example, “Epiphanius, Theodoret, Augustine’’ and others wrote on “Heresies.”* One touches on certain Heresies, neglected by another. One spoke more openly, the other more darkly of some one heresy.
*Epiphanius of Salamis, c. 310/20–403; Theodoret, 393–457; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
3.16 That posterity might not wonder or suspect conspiracy and fraud, when they saw that all the “Fathers” treated the same arguments ⟨, all of them,⟩ and employed the same reasonings and similitudes so that one often seems to copy another; it was necessary to invent Histories by which it might appear that the same “Heresies” had been scattered in the whole world and must therefore be everywhere assailed.* For that reason, they planted the Arians in Asia, in Egypt, in Greece, in Africa, in the Gauls, in Spain; the Manichaeans everywhere; the Photinians in Gaul; others elsewhere.†
*When it became obvious to the hoaxers or the “leading artificer” that the Fathers employed the same “reasonings” and “the same turn of thought” in “all of” “the same arguments,”so that one seems to copy another, it was decided to invent heresies in various parts of the world and to have renewals of the heresies throughout history.
†The rise and endurance heresies, as they are found in books, are similar to the regeneration of the heads of the mythical Hydra.
†The rise and endurance heresies, as they are found in books, are similar to the regeneration of the heads of the mythical Hydra.
3.17 Someone may say: “Could men take so much pains in framing so many false books?” As ⟨if⟩ when the fact is established, you may doubt ⟨of⟩ the way in which it was done! It is a fact that there were men who wrote these books and it is manifest ⟨, by recent examples of heretics,⟩ that bad men write many more and thicker volumes to defend error than Catholics to defend Truth.* Compare the monstrous loads, rather than volumes, under the names of Luther, Calvin, Brentius, the Magdeburg theologians, the Fratres Polohi and others.† You will understand that the impious faction spared no labor to establish their impiety!‡
*The English translation of Augustine is roughly 5,000,000 words and there are 783,000 words in the King James Bible. Therefore, the volume of Augustine is over six times the size of the King James Bible. For comparison, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992, contains 211,500 words.
†Martin Luther, 1483– 1546; John Calvin, 1509–1564: Johann Brentius, 1499–1570. No information could be located regarding “Fratres Polohi.”
‡The hoaxers spared no expense in their endeavor. Besides the cost of conveying the books to different countries and certain financial incentives, the greatest expense was acquiring the writing materials. The majority of the labor was voluntary, as monastics take vows of poverty, as the hoaxers knew.
†Martin Luther, 1483– 1546; John Calvin, 1509–1564: Johann Brentius, 1499–1570. No information could be located regarding “Fratres Polohi.”
‡The hoaxers spared no expense in their endeavor. Besides the cost of conveying the books to different countries and certain financial incentives, the greatest expense was acquiring the writing materials. The majority of the labor was voluntary, as monastics take vows of poverty, as the hoaxers knew.
3.17a But they also handled the same matter in many ways. You find, for example, the same arguments precisely in “Cyril of Alexandria's” Commentaries on John and in the Thesaurus and in the Seven Dialogues.* The form alone is slightly changed. “Ambrose” does the like and so does “Augustine,” so easy was it to produce many and great volumes in a short time.†‡
*Cyril of Alexandria, c. 376–444; “Seven Dialogues”, Bernardino Ochino, 1487–1564.
†Ambrose of Milan, c. 339–397; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
‡Throughout this work, Hardouin often mentions possible timesaving methods employed by the hoaxers, yet there is no indication that urgency was an essential aspect of the endeavor.
3.18 Of the Greek and Latin “Fathers” there are not more works than were written within fifty years under the names of Luther, Calvin, and their followers.*
*Martin Luther, 1483– 1546; John Calvin, 1509–1564.
†Ambrose of Milan, c. 339–397; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
‡Throughout this work, Hardouin often mentions possible timesaving methods employed by the hoaxers, yet there is no indication that urgency was an essential aspect of the endeavor.
3.18 Of the Greek and Latin “Fathers” there are not more works than were written within fifty years under the names of Luther, Calvin, and their followers.*
*Martin Luther, 1483– 1546; John Calvin, 1509–1564.
3.18a There are not so many works of “Augustine” as there are of “Tostatus” alone, or “Albertus Magnus” alone!* As to Calvin’s works, how much more cultivated is the style and manner!† How much more abundant in every kind of learning are those of “Albertus Magnus!” If you expunge the constant iterations in Augustine, you will take away at least a fourth part of his works.‡ In our own Society of Jesus there are seven writers, Salmeron, Vasquez, Suarez, Bellarmine, Cornelius a Lapide, Theophilus Raynaud, Petavius, whose books surpass in number and mass the so–called “Latin Fathers.”§
*Alonso Tostadoca, 1410–1455; Albertus Magnus, c. 1200–1280.
†John Calvin, 1509–1564.
‡Hardouin states that a fourth of Augustine’s works are repetitions. Once should also consider the extensive quotes of the Fathers from other Fathers as iterations.
§Alfonso Salmerón, 1515–1585: Gabriel Vasquez, 1549–1604; Francisco Suárez, 1548–1617, Robert Bellarmine, 1542–1621; Cornelius a Lapide, 1567–1637; Theophilus Raynaud, 1583–1663; Dionysius Petavius, 1583–1652,
†John Calvin, 1509–1564.
‡Hardouin states that a fourth of Augustine’s works are repetitions. Once should also consider the extensive quotes of the Fathers from other Fathers as iterations.
§Alfonso Salmerón, 1515–1585: Gabriel Vasquez, 1549–1604; Francisco Suárez, 1548–1617, Robert Bellarmine, 1542–1621; Cornelius a Lapide, 1567–1637; Theophilus Raynaud, 1583–1663; Dionysius Petavius, 1583–1652,
3.18b There were in the sixteenth century a great number of men of singular learning in Italy—Bembo, Manutius, Politiano, etc.* If these men had conspired for some one design, [then] how many works could they have put forth in Greek and Latin, in prose and verse, much more elegant and refined than any of those under the names of “Ambrose,” “Augustine,” and others? Of recent writers, some vie with Tully himself, others with Virgil in literary ability.†
*Pietro Bembo, 1470–1547; Aldus Manutius, 1449–1515, Politiano, 1454–1494.
†Ambrose of Milan, c. 339–397; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106–43 BC; Publius Vergilius Maro, 70–19 BC.
3.19 But the truth is that most of those alleged “old writers” are describers, so to speak, rather than independent writers. They are copyists, as “Rufinus” and “Cyril” of “Augustine,” “Ambrose” of “Philo” or “Basil,” or “Hilary” on Ps. 118.* “Justin,” though he is reckoned earlier, copies “Theodoret,” “Theophylact,” “Ecumenius,” and both of them copy “Chrysostom”, etc.†
*Tyrannius Rufinus, 344/345–411; Cyril of Alexandria, c. 376–444; Philo of Alexandria, c. 20 BC–c. 50;
Basil the Great, of Caesarea, 330–379; Hilary of Poitiers, c. 310–c. 367.
†Justin Martyr, c. 100–c. 165; Theodoret of Cyrus, c. 393–c. 458/466; Theophylact of Ohrid, c. 1055–after 1077; John Chystostom, c. 347–407.
Oecumenius is the name under which are transmitted several commentaries in Greek on the New Testament. It now appears that these were not all written by the same person nor in the same period. Oecumenius, Wikipeidia
†Ambrose of Milan, c. 339–397; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106–43 BC; Publius Vergilius Maro, 70–19 BC.
3.19 But the truth is that most of those alleged “old writers” are describers, so to speak, rather than independent writers. They are copyists, as “Rufinus” and “Cyril” of “Augustine,” “Ambrose” of “Philo” or “Basil,” or “Hilary” on Ps. 118.* “Justin,” though he is reckoned earlier, copies “Theodoret,” “Theophylact,” “Ecumenius,” and both of them copy “Chrysostom”, etc.†
*Tyrannius Rufinus, 344/345–411; Cyril of Alexandria, c. 376–444; Philo of Alexandria, c. 20 BC–c. 50;
Basil the Great, of Caesarea, 330–379; Hilary of Poitiers, c. 310–c. 367.
†Justin Martyr, c. 100–c. 165; Theodoret of Cyrus, c. 393–c. 458/466; Theophylact of Ohrid, c. 1055–after 1077; John Chystostom, c. 347–407.
Oecumenius is the name under which are transmitted several commentaries in Greek on the New Testament. It now appears that these were not all written by the same person nor in the same period. Oecumenius, Wikipeidia
3.19a They did not, like our Commentators, search for the true and genuine sense of Letters. This is sometimes painful; ⟨but⟩ [as] they set down whatever allegories came into their heads, very often frigid and senseless, that others might copy them; for nearly all have the same things. It is fearfully tedious, therefore, to read them. And so, almost with running pen, they wrote these works, especially sermons, as they sometimes boast, in the course of one night. Sidonius makes that statement about himself.*
*Sidonius Apollinaris, c. 430–481/490.
3.19b “Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodoret, Justin,” were really possessors of one library.* They praise the same authors. They confute the same stories. And so with others.
*Clement of Alexandria, Titus Flavius Clemens, c. 150–c. 215; Eusebius of Caesarea 260/265–339; Theodoret of Cyrus, c. 393–c. 458/466; Justin Martyr, c. 100–c. 165.
3.20 Amongst these writers, those who desired to be thought the later, more clearly explain controverted points and others not touched by the alleged earlier writers. They so distributed the task of writing that something should be reserved for the alleged later ones, to distinguish them from the alleged earlier. For if you ⟨except⟩ [exclude] the fuller explanations, [then] you will find that the “later” write precisely the same things with the “earlier.” Something new must be added [so] that the “later” might not be held useless. At the same time, it was necessary to repeat what the former had said and so the volume was thickened, which would otherwise have been slight and meager.*
*“repeat what the former had said”: There are many benefits to the time honored technique of directly quoting a source. In the seventh chapter of the first book of The Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius quotes Africanus in full on the topic of the two genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels. If Eusebius did not copy the letter [1,220 words in the English translation], then his contribution to reconciling the contradictions in the Gospels would not “have been slight and meager,” but non-existent. Hardouin is correct that the “later” authors “write precisely the same things” as the “earlier” authors. Eusebius acknowledges the difficulties in the genealogies of Jesus, not from one of many variants, but from one acknowledged source. Before the rise of printing, one definitive and universally recognized handwritten Bible could not exist.
3.20a How came it to pass that from the “Seventh Century” to the “Fifteenth Century” you ⟨scarce⟩ [scarcely] find seven writers in Spain?* Why, the impious gang would persuade you that all the writers of that period flourished, or taught, or learned what they wrote at Paris. Their object was to stir up the Academy of Paris, which (they said) was rising during the same period, to defend their writings.† Hence, they alleged that nearly all Germans, Italians, English, studied or taught at Paris; “Alcuin, Raban, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura,” and countless others.‡
*“Seventh Century” to the “Fifteenth Century.”: Scaliger's chronology.
By artificially extending history, unlikely scenarios are created, such as Spain possessing one notable writer per century over nine hundred years.
†If the rise and fall of Academies can take place entirely on paper, then the same technique could be applied to cities, countries, and empires.
‡Alcuin of York, c. 735–804; Raban [Rabanus Maurus Magnentius], c. 780–856; Peter Lombard, c. 1096–1160; Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274;, Bonaventura, 1221–1274.
By artificially extending history, unlikely scenarios are created, such as Spain possessing one notable writer per century over nine hundred years.
†If the rise and fall of Academies can take place entirely on paper, then the same technique could be applied to cities, countries, and empires.
‡Alcuin of York, c. 735–804; Raban [Rabanus Maurus Magnentius], c. 780–856; Peter Lombard, c. 1096–1160; Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274;, Bonaventura, 1221–1274.
3.20b Those most unprincipled literary craftsmen thought that if they could gain the patronage of the Academy of Paris, [then] the whole of France would follow and France is the best part of Christendom. From England, ⟨I say,⟩ from Italy[,] and [from] Germany, they tell how many writers came, but they are said to have studied or even taught at Paris.*
*When the hoaxers mention writers from the neighboring countries of Enlgand, Germany, Italy, and Spain in their histories, they add to these biographies that these writers studied or taught in Paris. If the hoaxers were biased towards the Benedictines and the Academy of Paris, then these prejudices may serve as indications that may assist in identifying the names of the prominent hoaxers, if not the “leading artificer” during a given time [3.12]. It is unlikely that there would be no indication of bias towards the leaders of this hoax in the historical record, since the favoritism shown to the Academy of Paris and the preference towards the Benedictine order is evident.
3.21 They who are represented as having written in the “Ninth Century” and “Bede” in the “Eighth Century,” simply copy alleged earlier writers; little else.* They had exhausted their plots and arguments, but to keep up appearances and to prevent the earlier writings (which were opposed by the traditions from the eighth or ninth century) from appearing mendacious, they mostly copy or augment only the former writings and they feign new controversies about them.†‡
*The Venerable Bede, 672/3–735.
†mendacious: not telling the truth; lying.
‡ “As philosophers prove, appearance tyrannizes over truth and is lord of happiness, [then] to appearance I must devote myself.” The Republic, Book 2, Plato
†mendacious: not telling the truth; lying.
‡ “As philosophers prove, appearance tyrannizes over truth and is lord of happiness, [then] to appearance I must devote myself.” The Republic, Book 2, Plato
3.21a In the alleged thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, it is remarkable how often ⟨the like or⟩ the same things are copied down on the Holy Spirit, or Unleavened Bread, and other ⟨heads⟩ [topics] of theology, on which the Greeks differ from the Latins.*† The impious gang were deeply interested that no other records of the controversy about the “procession of the Holy Ghost” should appear than their own fictions, that neither God nor the Holy Ghost should seem in those disputes other than they had stated: for they would not acknowledge the true God.‡
*“the alleged thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.”: Scaliger's chronology.
The repeated controversies of the Fathers is similar to the controversies of marriage and of circumcision in the first century among the Jewish converts to Christianity which, inexplicably, reappeared in the sixteenth century between Protestants and Roman Catholics.
I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 1 Cor. 7:8-9
Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 1 Cor. 7:18
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 1 Tim. 4:3
All mentions of Strong’s G1060, gameō, in the Pauline Epistles: 1 Cor. 7:9–10; 1 Cor. 7:28, 33–34, 36, 39; 1 Tim. 4:3; 1 Tim. 5:11, 14.
†To ensure that the most careless readers would understand how “the Greeks differ from the Latins” after the schism, the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries are filled with controversies on the Holy Spirit, Unleavened Bread, and Papal Supremacy “because on matters of that kind dissidences are eternal” [8.10b].
‡The hoaxers “were deeply interested that no other records of the controversy about the “procession of the Holy Ghost” should appear than their own fictions” and, thereby, have a significant and undue influence over any future discussions.
The repeated controversies of the Fathers is similar to the controversies of marriage and of circumcision in the first century among the Jewish converts to Christianity which, inexplicably, reappeared in the sixteenth century between Protestants and Roman Catholics.
I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 1 Cor. 7:8-9
Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 1 Cor. 7:18
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 1 Tim. 4:3
All mentions of Strong’s G1060, gameō, in the Pauline Epistles: 1 Cor. 7:9–10; 1 Cor. 7:28, 33–34, 36, 39; 1 Tim. 4:3; 1 Tim. 5:11, 14.
†To ensure that the most careless readers would understand how “the Greeks differ from the Latins” after the schism, the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries are filled with controversies on the Holy Spirit, Unleavened Bread, and Papal Supremacy “because on matters of that kind dissidences are eternal” [8.10b].
‡The hoaxers “were deeply interested that no other records of the controversy about the “procession of the Holy Ghost” should appear than their own fictions” and, thereby, have a significant and undue influence over any future discussions.
3.22 The faction had artificers skilled in every style, but their Latinity is always different from that of Pliny and other old Latin.* Their Latin is closely alike in all, betraying that all were of the same age.† Nothing but prejudice will suffer you to disbelieve this. Some are nevertheless more accurate and polite than others. All have a bold way of writing.‡ They follow ⟨like⟩ [similar] cadences and ⟨like⟩ [similar] desinences, but they do not equally cultivate elegance and brilliancy (nitor) of composition.§ Most of them give little heed to good writing [as] their object is to write quickly.§ None was delayed in the publication of his work by censors.‖
*“their Latinity is always different”: This may indicate that the Latin of Pliny is the original or true Latin, whereas the Latin familiar to most readers, and the variant utilized by the “Fathers,” is a derivative form or a dialect of Latin.
†Even over a period of a century, living languages demonstrate changes and do not remain constant. The forged documents are presented to be several centuries apart, although the grammar is “closely alike.” Latin has no native speakers, so the hoaxers, by choosing Latin, and ancient Greek, could continue their work for many centuries until their design was accomplished, without the hindrance or pitfall of developments of a living language suggesting the fraud. There was no external necessity for the language to be altered, since the subjects were unchanging, that is, ecclesiastical: papal supremacy, the procession of the Holy Spirit, unleavened bread; and historical: wars, political intrigue, births, and deaths.
‡“a bold way of writing”: Boldness of writing attracts a certain reader and this style is not identical to clear writing explaining the subject.
§In grammar, a desinence is a termination or ending, especially an inflectional ending of a word.
‖“good writing”: Good writing meets the expectations of writing as taught in formal education and learned from reading good books.
†Even over a period of a century, living languages demonstrate changes and do not remain constant. The forged documents are presented to be several centuries apart, although the grammar is “closely alike.” Latin has no native speakers, so the hoaxers, by choosing Latin, and ancient Greek, could continue their work for many centuries until their design was accomplished, without the hindrance or pitfall of developments of a living language suggesting the fraud. There was no external necessity for the language to be altered, since the subjects were unchanging, that is, ecclesiastical: papal supremacy, the procession of the Holy Spirit, unleavened bread; and historical: wars, political intrigue, births, and deaths.
‡“a bold way of writing”: Boldness of writing attracts a certain reader and this style is not identical to clear writing explaining the subject.
§In grammar, a desinence is a termination or ending, especially an inflectional ending of a word.
‖“good writing”: Good writing meets the expectations of writing as taught in formal education and learned from reading good books.
3.23 If all wrote on the same method, the scholastic, for example, [then] there would not have been enough writers for all ages. Their material would have been soon exhausted. Therefore, the alleged earlier writers were bidden to write Apologies. Epistles, Tractates against Heretics, and Homilies. Those who were alleged to be “Middle Age” writers were bidden to write Commentaries and Collectanea from the “Fathers,” i.e., from those who had given earlier lucubration. Lastly, they were bidden to frame Theological Summae and Commentaries on the Summae.*†
*Antoninus of Florence, 1389–1459, author of a Summa theologica printed in 1477.
†”Because a doctor of catholic truth ought not only to teach the proficient, but to him pertains also to instruct beginners. As the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 3:1–2, as to infants in Christ….”
Summa Theologica, Wikipedia
The fifteenth century edition has the chapter and verse– “secundum illud apostoli I ad Corinth. III”– but chapters and verses were not adopted until the sixteenth century:
The Parisian printer Robert Estienne created another numbering in his 1551 edition of the Greek New Testament, which was also used in his 1553 publication of the Bible in French. Estienne's system of division was widely adopted, and it is this system which is found in almost all modern Bibles.
Chapters and verses of the Bible, Wikipedia
While the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas may have existed in the fifteenth century, it could not have chapters and verses included in the printed version until the later half of sixteenth century when these could be added to the Summa Theologica. The Church Fathers allude to an untold number of the Biblical passages, there are few quotes, although we are repeatedly told the Vulgate was in the hands of all. Finally, it is unlikely that scholars studied the Bible for twelve hundred years before realizing a method for easier reference, such as chapters and verses, would be beneficial. The lack of a simple reference system suggests that either the Bible was not subject to sufficient scholarly analysis for over a millennium or that it did not exist.
†”Because a doctor of catholic truth ought not only to teach the proficient, but to him pertains also to instruct beginners. As the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 3:1–2, as to infants in Christ….”
Summa Theologica, Wikipedia
The fifteenth century edition has the chapter and verse– “secundum illud apostoli I ad Corinth. III”– but chapters and verses were not adopted until the sixteenth century:
The Parisian printer Robert Estienne created another numbering in his 1551 edition of the Greek New Testament, which was also used in his 1553 publication of the Bible in French. Estienne's system of division was widely adopted, and it is this system which is found in almost all modern Bibles.
Chapters and verses of the Bible, Wikipedia
While the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas may have existed in the fifteenth century, it could not have chapters and verses included in the printed version until the later half of sixteenth century when these could be added to the Summa Theologica. The Church Fathers allude to an untold number of the Biblical passages, there are few quotes, although we are repeatedly told the Vulgate was in the hands of all. Finally, it is unlikely that scholars studied the Bible for twelve hundred years before realizing a method for easier reference, such as chapters and verses, would be beneficial. The lack of a simple reference system suggests that either the Bible was not subject to sufficient scholarly analysis for over a millennium or that it did not exist.
3.23a Some writings they allege to be of uncertain authorship—the object being that in a following age they should be attributed to some man of great name and so authority might be added to the false opinions of the impious faction.*
*It matters little if the books of anonymous authors are later assigned by scholars to a “great name” or to a lesser author, so long as intellectuals are engaged in studying, preserving, and publishing these works. Since one prerequisite was a “great name,” it can be concluded that the saints were not fictitious, but well established. It was a great insight on behalf of the hoaxers to attribute works under recognizable names to men who did not write during their lifetimes.
chapter 4
The Holy Apostolic See has nothing to do with the question of the genuineness of the books ascribed to “Augustine, Jerome,” and others of the Monkish faction. On the contrary, none must dare to question the authorship of Matthew's Gospel, because of the testimony of the Church and the Holy Spirit in its favor. The like holds of the writings ascribed to “Peter, Paul, Luke or Mark”.
Here Hardouin is a priestly sophist: for those writings are part of the great system of forgery, placed under the names of the “Illustrious Men”. Hardouin pretends that the Saints were real persons, though ignorant and illiterate: which is a quite baseless assumption. He shows that the Protestants have more reason to dread the exposure of the “Fathers” than the Catholics: and maintains the fiction of an oral Apostolic Tradition apart from any writings. He would confine the Church to the Vulgate Bible, and a few other authorities, all of which can be proved to be modern. He continues his attack on Augustine’s writings as the source of all heresies.
4.01 IF the Holy Apostolic See should be consulted as to its opinion on the books of “Augustine, Jerome,” and the rest, the Holy Apostolic See will ⟨, I suppose,⟩ answer most wisely that she has nothing to do with the matter; that she has had no revelation on these matters; whether they are, or are not, of those writers whose names they bear.*† She would say that this had no bearing upon the deposit entrusted to her. Let learned men quarrel upon these matters as they will. Her interest, in the meantime, is this alone: the tenets of the Catholic faith, the principles of Morals, according to the deposit entrusted to her (especially where on these two heads any strife arises among the faithful) she defines and decides, according to the power granted to her by Christ.‡
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Jerome, 347–419/420.
†Hardouin clearly states that the Roman Church has “had no revelation” regarding the alleged writings of the “Fathers.” As always, the Roman Church may, at a later date, have a pertinent revelation.
‡Morals are always associated with religion and oftentimes with faith and belief.
†Hardouin clearly states that the Roman Church has “had no revelation” regarding the alleged writings of the “Fathers.” As always, the Roman Church may, at a later date, have a pertinent revelation.
‡Morals are always associated with religion and oftentimes with faith and belief.
4.02 If I were to say that I had reasons and arguments by which to prove that the gospel of Matthew was not Matthew’s, [then] everyone would forthwith turn from me and execrate me; would absolutely refuse to listen to those reasons; would utterly and immediately close his ears, as to blasphemy.*† Rightly so! and why? Because every Christian understands that this opinion is opposed to the testimony of the Church, yea, and of the Holy Spirit who pronounced the Gospel of Matthew to be Matthew’s.‡ Therefore, on the contrary, when any one is prepared to hear reasons which I may bring before him—and I am justified in adducing what reasons I will—in proof of the allegations that this or that work ascribed to “Augustine, Basil,” or any other is not genuine.§ This is a most certain argument that there is no extant judgment of the Church which asserts that any work, for example, of those in circulation under Augustine’s name is really Augustine’s.‖
*execrate: feel or express great loathing for.
†”everyone would… refuse to listen to those reasons”: “I pray you not to believe in men, but in sound arguments” [1.04]. Either Hardouin knows of no sound arguments questioning the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew or he writes a contradiction.
‡The titles of the Gospels follow the pattern of “The Gospel according to Saint N.” No author is named in the four texts, so the authors are anonymous. The names of Gospel writers are based entirely on a tradition of the Church, that is, “the testimony of the” ancient “Church,” not the modern protestant Bible.
§Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Basil the Great of Caesarea, 330–379.
‖None of the writings of the “Fathers” have been examined to infallibly determine their authorship. It should be noted that this lack of examination also applies to the relics of the saints and to diverse items, such as the wood of Noah’s ark, the foreskin of Jesus, and the splinters of the cross of the crucifixion. When a relic is scrutinized, such as the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, and results do not conform to the expectation of Scaliger’s chronology, then it is declared a forgery and considered a medieval hoax.
†”everyone would… refuse to listen to those reasons”: “I pray you not to believe in men, but in sound arguments” [1.04]. Either Hardouin knows of no sound arguments questioning the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew or he writes a contradiction.
‡The titles of the Gospels follow the pattern of “The Gospel according to Saint N.” No author is named in the four texts, so the authors are anonymous. The names of Gospel writers are based entirely on a tradition of the Church, that is, “the testimony of the” ancient “Church,” not the modern protestant Bible.
§Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Basil the Great of Caesarea, 330–379.
‖None of the writings of the “Fathers” have been examined to infallibly determine their authorship. It should be noted that this lack of examination also applies to the relics of the saints and to diverse items, such as the wood of Noah’s ark, the foreskin of Jesus, and the splinters of the cross of the crucifixion. When a relic is scrutinized, such as the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, and results do not conform to the expectation of Scaliger’s chronology, then it is declared a forgery and considered a medieval hoax.
4.03 The Church never examined the writings of Peter or Paul, because they were the Masters of the whole Church and first disciples of Christ, or first disciples of His disciples—such as Luke and Mark.*†‡ Enough it was for her to know that these writings were Peter’s or Paul’s, Luke’s or Mark’s, so that she might pronounce them, without any examination, free from the slightest error of any kind. In the recognition of this fact, she must not possibly err. Her knowledge, diffused abroad, was necessary and ought to be most certain.§
*The Feast of Saints Peter and Paul is held on June 29 in the Roman Church and these two saints are entwined in Papal pronouncements. The decree on the Assumption of Mary, 1950, sections 44 and 47. wherein the dogma is proclaimed by the authority of the Pope and “the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” Individuals who oppose this dogma will “incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
†1 Peter and 2 Peter are assigned to the same author, although the author of 1 Peter identifies himself as “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ”, while the author of 2 Peter introduces himself as “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ.” The word “Apostle” means a messenger, one who is sent. From that word alone, the reader cannot know who sent either Peter or Simon Peter.
Tradition alone assigns Peter, Simon, and Simon Peter as one person. In Luke 24:12, “Peter” goes to the tomb and looks in, yet, in John 20:6, “Simon Peter” enters the tomb. Although tradition or the common belief conflates Peter and Simon Peter, the authors of Luke and John maintain their separate identities in the resurrection accounts and, by doing so, prevent the contradiction of Peter entering and not entering the tomb. In this instance, tradition and poor reading comprehension are indistinguishable.
‡Hardouin commits a factual error, as Paul was neither among the “first disciples of Christ” nor one of the “first disciples of His disciples.” Paul is clearly states that his Gospel did not come from men:
But I [Paul, v.1] certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:11-12
According to Paul’s Gospel, God will judge men’s secrets by Jesus Christ, the Gospel was a mystery since the world began until its revelation to Saint Paul, and Jesus Christ was raised from the dead.
[God] shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Rom. 2:16
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel… according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, Rom. 16:25
Remember that Jesus Christ… was raised G1453 from the dead according to my gospel: 2 Tim. 2:8
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G1453, egeirō, as: rise (36), raise (28), arise (27), raise up (23), rise up (8), rise again (5), raise again (4), miscellaneous (10).
§The Church knows the names of the authors of the Gospels, The Church's “knowledge” of the authorship question “was necessary and ought to be most certain.” The conditional word “ought” does not inspire confidence, let alone certainty. Protestants, therefore, must rely upon this ancient Church tradition, not upon the pious idea that scripture can explain scripture, at least not concerning the question of the authorship of the Gospels.
†1 Peter and 2 Peter are assigned to the same author, although the author of 1 Peter identifies himself as “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ”, while the author of 2 Peter introduces himself as “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ.” The word “Apostle” means a messenger, one who is sent. From that word alone, the reader cannot know who sent either Peter or Simon Peter.
Tradition alone assigns Peter, Simon, and Simon Peter as one person. In Luke 24:12, “Peter” goes to the tomb and looks in, yet, in John 20:6, “Simon Peter” enters the tomb. Although tradition or the common belief conflates Peter and Simon Peter, the authors of Luke and John maintain their separate identities in the resurrection accounts and, by doing so, prevent the contradiction of Peter entering and not entering the tomb. In this instance, tradition and poor reading comprehension are indistinguishable.
‡Hardouin commits a factual error, as Paul was neither among the “first disciples of Christ” nor one of the “first disciples of His disciples.” Paul is clearly states that his Gospel did not come from men:
But I [Paul, v.1] certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:11-12
According to Paul’s Gospel, God will judge men’s secrets by Jesus Christ, the Gospel was a mystery since the world began until its revelation to Saint Paul, and Jesus Christ was raised from the dead.
[God] shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Rom. 2:16
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel… according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, Rom. 16:25
Remember that Jesus Christ… was raised G1453 from the dead according to my gospel: 2 Tim. 2:8
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G1453, egeirō, as: rise (36), raise (28), arise (27), raise up (23), rise up (8), rise again (5), raise again (4), miscellaneous (10).
§The Church knows the names of the authors of the Gospels, The Church's “knowledge” of the authorship question “was necessary and ought to be most certain.” The conditional word “ought” does not inspire confidence, let alone certainty. Protestants, therefore, must rely upon this ancient Church tradition, not upon the pious idea that scripture can explain scripture, at least not concerning the question of the authorship of the Gospels.
4.03a But it is not enough that certain self–styled learned men should believe or say that something had been written by some bishop, say “Augustine or Chrysostom”.*† The Church will not necessarily confirm this.
*It seems that “certain self–styled learned men'' are protestants who read the Bible and privately interpret passages without the traditional understanding provided by the Church. Individuals who have the appropriate degrees conferred upon them by admitted authorities would not be described as “self–styled learned men.”
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. Simon Peter 1:20
According to Simon Peter, the explanations of scripture are the result of consensus, not the domain of an individual perspective.
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. Simon Peter 1:20
According to Simon Peter, the explanations of scripture are the result of consensus, not the domain of an individual perspective.
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407.
4.03b You may say that Antiquity believed these books of Augustine in our hands to be genuine. Do you not know that Antiquity is a mother full of errors? Four hundred years ago men might write and read and believe falsehoods.* Do you not know that of the very books of those “Fathers” ⟨whom⟩ [who] Antiquity believed to be genuine, very many have been condemned by our own age, with the applause of learned men?†
*“Four hundred years ago”: Scaliger's chronology.
†Hardouin does not present evidence or “sound arguments,” but appeals to the authority of the “learned men” of his time who reject many of the books by the Fathers [1.04].
†Hardouin does not present evidence or “sound arguments,” but appeals to the authority of the “learned men” of his time who reject many of the books by the Fathers [1.04].
4.04 I spoke of the notice of the fact, spread abroad, in reference to the writers of the Sacred Books. I said that it was necessary to the Church and exposed to no error. So in reference to [the] definition of genuine Councils, such as that of Trent, and Constitutions of Popes—I mean the genuine ones—the same notice is both necessary to the Church and, as revelation itself, is most certain and undoubted, or assuredly stands instead of revelation.*
*Council of Trent, held between 1545 and 1563.
“I mean the genuine ones”; the procedure for determining genuine Constitutions from spurious ones is not discussed. Although Hardouin gives Trent as an example of a genuine Council, this is not beneficial for the reader to discern for himself which of the other Councils are legitimate or if they are the works of the hoaxers.
“I mean the genuine ones”; the procedure for determining genuine Constitutions from spurious ones is not discussed. Although Hardouin gives Trent as an example of a genuine Council, this is not beneficial for the reader to discern for himself which of the other Councils are legitimate or if they are the works of the hoaxers.
4.04a Such is the published notice by which we hold that the Constitution Unigenitus was put forth by Clement XI.* Of the same condition is the evidence, by which it was of old agreed among the first Christians that Matthew’s Gospel was Matthew’s, that Paul’s Epistles were Paul’s, and so of the rest.†‡
*The Constitution Unigenitus, 1713; Clement XI, r. 1700–1721.
†“agreed among the first Christians”: An alleged consensus of opinions of long deceased people is poor evidence for establishing valid conclusions.
‡According to early church tradition, originating with Papias of Hierapolis (AD c. 60–130), the gospel was written by Matthew the companion of Jesus…
Gospel of Matthew, Wikipedia
An early Christian tradition deriving from Papias of Hierapolis (ADc. 60–c. 130) attributes authorship of the gospel to Mark, a companion and interpreter of Peter…
Gospel of Mark, Wikipedia
According to a Church tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (AD c. 130 – c. 202), he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the Pauline letters…
Gospel of Luke, Wikipedia
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G3065, loukas, as: Luke (2), Lucas (1).
Luke, G3065 the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you. Col. 4:14
Only Luke G3065 is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee… 2 Tim. 4:11
Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, G3065 my fellow labourers. Phm. 1:24
Strong’s G3065 is inconsistently translated as “Lucas” in Philemon.
Early Christian tradition, first found in Irenaeus (AD c. 130 – c. 202), identified this disciple with John the Apostle… Gospel of John, Wikipedia
Irenaeus provides multiple quotes from the fourth Gospel and repeatedly assigns the name “John” to the author. Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 11)
The names of the authors of the Gospels are found in the writings of Papias of Hierapolis and Irenaeus.
†“agreed among the first Christians”: An alleged consensus of opinions of long deceased people is poor evidence for establishing valid conclusions.
‡According to early church tradition, originating with Papias of Hierapolis (AD c. 60–130), the gospel was written by Matthew the companion of Jesus…
Gospel of Matthew, Wikipedia
An early Christian tradition deriving from Papias of Hierapolis (ADc. 60–c. 130) attributes authorship of the gospel to Mark, a companion and interpreter of Peter…
Gospel of Mark, Wikipedia
According to a Church tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (AD c. 130 – c. 202), he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the Pauline letters…
Gospel of Luke, Wikipedia
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G3065, loukas, as: Luke (2), Lucas (1).
Luke, G3065 the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you. Col. 4:14
Only Luke G3065 is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee… 2 Tim. 4:11
Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, G3065 my fellow labourers. Phm. 1:24
Strong’s G3065 is inconsistently translated as “Lucas” in Philemon.
Early Christian tradition, first found in Irenaeus (AD c. 130 – c. 202), identified this disciple with John the Apostle… Gospel of John, Wikipedia
Irenaeus provides multiple quotes from the fourth Gospel and repeatedly assigns the name “John” to the author. Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 11)
The names of the authors of the Gospels are found in the writings of Papias of Hierapolis and Irenaeus.
4.04b By those first Christians, all Posterity was taught, so that on the foundation of faith there could not be the slightest doubt.*
*There is no certainty that the teaching of “those first Christians” is taught now, as protestants know full well, any more than what is found in books concerning early Christianity written by the Fathers is evidence for what truly transpired.
4.04c Of the writings of the “Fathers,” absolutely nothing of the kind could be said. You cannot make me believe that the Church even knew, or that the Church even proposed to the faithful, that they should certainly believe that this or that work was certainly “Augustine’s” or “Jerome’s.”* If MS Books put forward the name of Augustine or another, yet the contents show heresy or even atheism, I would not believe them to be the product of a Saint or of a Catholic.† No! not though such book bore the name of any Angel from heaven!‡ I would rather believe it to be the work of a daemon transfigured into an angel of light!§
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Jerome, 347–419/420.
One wonders if there are inappropriate episodes, moments of impiety, or subtle atheism in St. Jerome’s most celebrated work.
†Hardouin is clear: if a book contains either heresy or atheism, then the book can not be assigned to a Saint. This is a straightforward conclusion, yet, untold translators, editors, commentators, and scholars have not discovered these aspects in the works of the Fathers.
‡But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. Gal. 1:8
§And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2 Cor. 11:14
One wonders if there are inappropriate episodes, moments of impiety, or subtle atheism in St. Jerome’s most celebrated work.
†Hardouin is clear: if a book contains either heresy or atheism, then the book can not be assigned to a Saint. This is a straightforward conclusion, yet, untold translators, editors, commentators, and scholars have not discovered these aspects in the works of the Fathers.
‡But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. Gal. 1:8
§And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2 Cor. 11:14
4.04d If the writers called “Fathers” are not such [promoting heresy], [then] retain them, embrace them; but if they are of that kind, then abominate and detest them! Show that such is not their quality, if you can.* I tell you that with God’s help, my purpose is to make it clear that all, without exception, are of that quality.† Three of them I have quite done with. All the rest are affected.
*Hardouin challenges the curious reader to examine the Fathers and to demonstrate that the qualities of atheism, impiety, and heresy are not within the books. Hardouin wants the reader to follow Jesus' advice to seek as a prerequisite to discovering the truth [Matt. 7:8, John 8:32].
†All the works of the Fathers are heretical, “without exception.”
†All the works of the Fathers are heretical, “without exception.”
4.05 Necessarily, all the writings which I condemn are supposititious or none of them is.* The latter is not true [i.e., none]; the former, therefore, is most true [i.e., all]. Those forgers so arranged among themselves, and there is so great consent of opinion among them, that if ⟨but⟩ one of the monuments which they have invented falls away, [then] the whole must necessarily collapse in ruin.† They felt this. They knew that the thing would seem strange and incredible to posterity. Yet it is this very fact—their mutual consent—which shows the fraud.‡ The like phenomenon does not occur in books published after the invention of Printing. If one of these books be proved false, [then] it is unnecessary for you forthwith to overthrow all the rest, which were published in the same year and in the same city.
*supposititious: substituted for the real thing; not genuine.
†Hardouin states the works in toto can be demonstrated to be false, since each one refers to, or is mentioned in, or quoted by another work. They are interconnected to such a high degree that if one is found to be a forgery, then all the works of the Fathers become suspect of being fraudulent.
‡“their mutual consent”: The Fathers write alike, make the same arguments, follow similar cadences and desinences, and possess one library [3.19b].
†Hardouin states the works in toto can be demonstrated to be false, since each one refers to, or is mentioned in, or quoted by another work. They are interconnected to such a high degree that if one is found to be a forgery, then all the works of the Fathers become suspect of being fraudulent.
‡“their mutual consent”: The Fathers write alike, make the same arguments, follow similar cadences and desinences, and possess one library [3.19b].
4.06 The second most certain sign of conspiracy and consent is that ⟨scarce⟩ [scarcely] any one of those false “Fathers” can be rightly understood, unless all are read and understood.* So they shed light upon one another. All the doctrines of their impious hypothesis are contained in all their writings.† If, therefore, I condemn some one of them for atheism, for example, which he [a Father] infers in his demonstration of the existence of God, [then] it is vain to oppose to me some other of the same band who thinks the same.‡ This is merely to call a thief like a thief. Are they not both thieves?
*Unlike concise books, whether those that explain one or multiple subjects, a single work of a Father can not be understood by itself. In the Malthusian trap, who had the time to read any of the Fathers, let alone all of those available?
†All the teachings, doctrines, of their impious hypothesis, singular not plural, are found in all of their works. Since all the books have all the teachings of the hoaxers, the initial conclusion is that lessons in all books are the basic rules of logic, hidden in verbiage and obscured by tedium.
‡The demonstrations of the existence of God by the Fathers are always atheistic since they invariably utilize materialistic examples. This method is identical to the attempts of modern protestant apologetics and, in this sense, it can be said that the Fathers’ influence continues. With a reliance upon the physical world to explain the spiritual realm, it is not surprising that certain readers realize that the spiritual cannot be demonstrated by the material and repeated attempts by the same author only reveals that the author has “no large views.” Those individuals who maintain that rainbows and pots of gold prove the existence of leprechauns, as described in books, are either fools, at best, or charlatans, at worst.
The spiritual realm and associated concepts are established and maintained by Credo non per Scio.
†All the teachings, doctrines, of their impious hypothesis, singular not plural, are found in all of their works. Since all the books have all the teachings of the hoaxers, the initial conclusion is that lessons in all books are the basic rules of logic, hidden in verbiage and obscured by tedium.
‡The demonstrations of the existence of God by the Fathers are always atheistic since they invariably utilize materialistic examples. This method is identical to the attempts of modern protestant apologetics and, in this sense, it can be said that the Fathers’ influence continues. With a reliance upon the physical world to explain the spiritual realm, it is not surprising that certain readers realize that the spiritual cannot be demonstrated by the material and repeated attempts by the same author only reveals that the author has “no large views.” Those individuals who maintain that rainbows and pots of gold prove the existence of leprechauns, as described in books, are either fools, at best, or charlatans, at worst.
The spiritual realm and associated concepts are established and maintained by Credo non per Scio.
4.07 He, ⟨indeed,⟩ would deserve severe censure who should say that the holy Fathers, whether the whole or one of them, ‘‘Augustine, Irenaeus,” and the like, either taught atheism or thought otherwise than good Catholics on any article of the faith.* He who so speaks ought to be condemned by the bishops. For it is incredible that the Church paid the worship of saints to those men whose writings, infected by so many and so great errors, were in the hands of all.†‡ In my judgment none could be held saints, except those whose faith was seen and acknowledged, and whose morals were approved.§ But it is quite another thing to say that the name of St. Irenaeus, a thorough Catholic, has been falsely affixed to a heretical and nefarious work; for this is to say that from the beginning the Catholic faith, as it now is, was in the minds of holy men, but the impostors desired it to be believed other than it truly is.‖ If this can be proved by certain arguments and documents, [then] who can deny that this is in the interests of the Catholic faith?
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Irenaeus, c. 130–c. 202.
†“the worship of saints”: The saints are not worshiped but venerated [vide 13.11, 19.14a].
‡“so many and so great errors”: The multitude of glaring errors concerning Christianity found in the Fathers are easily overlooked by the charitable reader.
§Faith and morals are necessary for the recognition of saints and their veneration.
‖nefarious: wicked or criminal.
†“the worship of saints”: The saints are not worshiped but venerated [vide 13.11, 19.14a].
‡“so many and so great errors”: The multitude of glaring errors concerning Christianity found in the Fathers are easily overlooked by the charitable reader.
§Faith and morals are necessary for the recognition of saints and their veneration.
‖nefarious: wicked or criminal.
4.07a Who can deny that this very dictum of the false “Augustine (book xviii., chap, xxxviii.,” of the De Civitate Dei) is rightly laid down: These writings the chastity of the Canon did not receive; not because the authority of those men who were pleasing to God is rejected, but because the writings are not believed to be theirs.* Assuredly, it is far better, with a view to preserve the reverence due to holy bishops and Fathers, to show that impious writings were ascribed to their names, than to profess with Melchior Canus that the Eliberitan Fathers, for example, had spoken impiously in canon xxxvi., or with Launoy to affirm that Augustine was a Predestinarian, or with Ambrosius Catharinus to pronounce, The opinion asserted by St. Augustine and by St. Thomas is cruel, truculent, and impels men to despair. The authority of these Doctors is not held in such esteem that we should be oppressed by it, and embrace with our eyes shut a manifest LIE.†‡
*”If I may recall far more ancient times, our patriarch Noah was certainly even before that great deluge, and I might not undeservedly call him a prophet, forasmuch as the ark he made, in which he escaped with his family, was itself a prophecy of our times. What of Enoch, the seventh from Adam? Does not the canonical epistle of the Apostle Jude declare that he prophesied? [Jude 1:14] But the writings of these men could not be held as authoritative either among the Jews or us, on account of their too great antiquity, which made it seem needful to regard them with suspicion, lest false things should be set forth instead of true. For some writings which are said be theirs are quoted by those who, according to their own humor, loosely believe what they please. But the purity of the canon has not admitted these writings, not because the authority of these men who pleased God is rejected, but because they are not believed to be theirs. Nor ought it to appear strange if writings for which so great antiquity is claimed are held in suspicion, seeing that in the very history of the kings of Judah and Israel containing their acts, which we believe to belong to the canonical Scripture, very many things are mentioned which are not explained there, but are said to be found in other books which the prophets wrote, the very names of these prophets being sometimes given, and yet they are not found in the canon which the people of God received. Now I confess the reason of this is hidden from me; only I think that even those men, to whom certainly the Holy Spirit revealed those things which ought to be held as of religious authority, might write some things as men by historical diligence, and others as prophets by divine inspiration; and these things were so distinct, that it was judged that the former should be ascribed to themselves, but the latter to God speaking through them: and so the one pertained to the abundance of knowledge, the other to the authority of religion. In that authority the canon is guarded. So that, if any writings outside of it are now brought forward under the name of the ancient prophets, they cannot serve even as an aid to knowledge, because it is uncertain whether they are genuine; and on this account they are not trusted, especially those of them in which some things are found that are even contrary to the truth of the canonical books, so that it is quite apparent they do not belong to them.” De Civitate Dei, Book 18, Ch. 38, Augustine [Italic added.]
†Melchior Canus 1509–1560; Jean de Launoy, 1603–1678; Ambrosius Catharinus, 1483–1553.
‡truculent: eager or quick to argue or fight; aggressively defiant.
†Melchior Canus 1509–1560; Jean de Launoy, 1603–1678; Ambrosius Catharinus, 1483–1553.
‡truculent: eager or quick to argue or fight; aggressively defiant.
4.08 The impious men selected ⟨at some time⟩ holy men out of the Religious Families, under whose names they might publish their impious writings. Although the men were celebrated when they lived, not for their knowledge, but for their sanctity. Wherefore, it was necessary to pretend that they had that knowledge and skill in writing divinely infused into them, though they were rude even in Grammar. See in the Roman Breviary the Lections concerning S. Antoninus, for the 10th of May, and S. Laurence Justinianus for the 5th of September.* But neither from their hands nor from that of Thomas Aquinas is a solitary written letter extant, out of so many philosophical and theological works ascribed to them.†‡
*Antoninus of Florence, 1389–May 2, 1459; Lawrence Justinian, 1381–January 8, 1456.
†Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274.
‡Only the finished works of the Fathers have survived; anything else, such as letters to learned men, scribblings, legal notices, is lost. It is clear that the Fathers did not write to contemporaries, but for posterity.
†Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274.
‡Only the finished works of the Fathers have survived; anything else, such as letters to learned men, scribblings, legal notices, is lost. It is clear that the Fathers did not write to contemporaries, but for posterity.
4.09 I know that all Protestants must be stirred up more than others by these arguments, for they take it amiss that the patrons of their error are snatched from them, together with a Tradition founded only on parchments.* If you cannot believe the “Fathers,” they will say, whom are you to believe? Not the “Fathers,” say I, but our Holy Mother, the Roman Church, although I also believe in the Fathers whom she has declared to be truly holy Fathers. I recognise in that quality, because of their power over the Church, as over sheep and sons, all the supreme Pontiffs from Peter to Benedict XIII.† For them each one of the whole of Catholic Christendom says “Our Holy Father” and each one of them is Father of Fathers, Father of the Episcopal Senate, and Papa, i.e., Pastor of Pastors.‡
*“a Tradition founded only on parchments”: In this context, the parchments are the writings of the Fathers, however, this phrase can also be interpreted as a tradition found only upon books or Bibles.
†Benedict XIII, r. 1724–1730.
‡The College of Cardinals was created in 1059 to limit the number of electors for the Papacy and was referred to as a senate in church law until 1983. Otherwise said, the College of Cardinals began as the Roman Senate.
†Benedict XIII, r. 1724–1730.
‡The College of Cardinals was created in 1059 to limit the number of electors for the Papacy and was referred to as a senate in church law until 1983. Otherwise said, the College of Cardinals began as the Roman Senate.
4.09a Catholics do not need any old writings. Even if they had all perished, the unwritten Tradition persevering both in the Holy Roman Church and in all the churches of the world before the rise of Heresies, suffices for them.* But since heretics did afterwards arise, that they may not appear new and fresh, there is need of some witnesses whom they may show to be on their side, whom they may put forward as the true witnesses to the faith of the Church in their time, able interpreters of the Sacred Scripture and favourers none the less of their party by heretical comments.† They take it amiss that these arms are snatched from them.
*“in all the churches of the world”: These churches are the Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Churches,
and the “sui juris” churches in communion with the Roman Church.
†“need of some witnesses”: Protestants need written works to support their theology, as ecclesiastical history is against it. This fact explains their obsession with the alleged inerrancy of their Scripture.
and the “sui juris” churches in communion with the Roman Church.
†“need of some witnesses”: Protestants need written works to support their theology, as ecclesiastical history is against it. This fact explains their obsession with the alleged inerrancy of their Scripture.
4.10 ⟨But,⟩ God forbid that His Church should need or should use false witnesses or testimonies. The Church of God could stand without even any divine Scripture and, so in point of fact, did stand before the Gospel written by Luke.* She relied upon the Apostolic tradition alone, even as she now also stands upon the sole institution of Pastors and communion with the Apostolic See of the great majority of Christian folk.
*The significance of the fact that the Church existed for decades before the creation of the individual books of “Scripture” and evangelized for centuries until their inclusion in one book, the Bible, is lost on all protestants. The subsequent removal of the Apocrypha indicates that an authority above Scripture exists, as this power that can alter Scripture. The certainty of Sola Scriptura remains uncertain, since it is not obvious which version of Scripture should, with absolute surety, be held as divinely revealed, as the destination of immortal souls are involved.
4.10a How much more is she able to stand apart from the writings of those called “Fathers” whose thoughts are so wicked that they are variously received, because of the perplexity of the language, even by the Catholic defenders of them?*
*The difficulty of correctly interpreting the works of the Fathers is due to “the perplexity of the language” employed and not due to the difficulty of the subjects under consideration. The writings with the titles of Fathers are accepted by Catholics, although the readers are perplexed by the language. The inaccessibility of the Fathers to the typical reader should be an indication that the Fathers are not as they are presented.
4.10b When there is proposed to the Church or the Apostolic See any controversy concerning the destruction of the faith, is there any need to consult Books ⟨(I mean the so–called “Fathers”)⟩ that what is to be believed may be defined? If so, [then] it would mean that the Church was previously ignorant of what she should believe.* God forbid that any one should think or say so. He is ignorant of his faith who knows not whether a proposition is contrary to his faith. Therefore, setting aside and neglecting those books, the Church and the Apostolic See can and ought to define controversies of faith and, verily, she does so. Why should the Church enquire, with the object of defining any controversy on the faith, what Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and others thought?† Ought the Church to be taught by them? If those writers were Catholics and Doctors, [then] did they not themselves learn from her?‡ Did she herself forget what she taught them?
*The development that Hardouin suggests is that one or several teachings of the ancient church were recorded by the Fathers, were subsequently forgotten by the church and, at last, recovered from reading the Fathers. This scenario seems unlikely and is additional evidence that the writings of the Fathers are not as they are represented.
†Ambrose of Milan, c. 339–397; Jerome, 347–419/420; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
‡The writings of the Fathers can conform to Church teaching and are, therefore, superfluous, or they can contradict Church teaching and are nefarious. The third possibility is that the Fathers are neutral towards Church teaching.
†Ambrose of Milan, c. 339–397; Jerome, 347–419/420; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
‡The writings of the Fathers can conform to Church teaching and are, therefore, superfluous, or they can contradict Church teaching and are nefarious. The third possibility is that the Fathers are neutral towards Church teaching.
4.l1 Alas! to what a pass has our holy Religion come! No longer do men ask, no longer are Christians satisfied to know what Christ taught, what Peter, John, or Paul thought. They want to know how the alleged Augustine understood the words of Christ or of Peter, John, or Paul.* As if this ought to be the norm and rule; or that among these born of women there had arisen none greater than your “Augustine.”† He must have been more illuminated by God than all sacred writers, than Peter, Paul, and the rest.‡ We must think that they spoke obscurely or less accurately, unless they agree with Augustine, who spoke with greater clearness and fullness! Christ does not please. Paul does not please. They will not have the words of Paul or of Christ, except with the interpretation of Augustine! Here is a new Paul, a new Christ! No longer is the Gospel consulted, but Augustine and his contemporaries!§
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
†Truly I tell you, among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist.
Matt. 11:11
‡The Bible is difficult to interpret, ranging from an incomplete understanding of the Hebrew grammar and its idioms, alien euphemisms, poorly written Greek, and contradictory statements among various books, so it is not surprising that people seek opinions of those writers held to be erudite that will clarify the confusion regarding certain passages.
§Since many people consult the Fathers for their interpretations of the Bible, this is an indication that the Bible neither teaches its precepts unambiguously nor can Scripture be relied upon to interpret Scripture. For example, Scripture cannot answer the question of who wrote the four Gospels. This is not a flaw of Scripture, as some suppose, but a feature of Scripture, otherwise, long ago, Scripture would have been reworded, or be in the process of being reworked to eliminate appeals to authority, ambiguities of expressions, allegories, contradictions, factual errors, inexact repetitions, pseudonyms, rhetorical questions, strange expressions, frequent use of technical language, and principles frequently stated, but silently contradicted by upholding incompatible views.
†Truly I tell you, among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist.
Matt. 11:11
‡The Bible is difficult to interpret, ranging from an incomplete understanding of the Hebrew grammar and its idioms, alien euphemisms, poorly written Greek, and contradictory statements among various books, so it is not surprising that people seek opinions of those writers held to be erudite that will clarify the confusion regarding certain passages.
§Since many people consult the Fathers for their interpretations of the Bible, this is an indication that the Bible neither teaches its precepts unambiguously nor can Scripture be relied upon to interpret Scripture. For example, Scripture cannot answer the question of who wrote the four Gospels. This is not a flaw of Scripture, as some suppose, but a feature of Scripture, otherwise, long ago, Scripture would have been reworded, or be in the process of being reworked to eliminate appeals to authority, ambiguities of expressions, allegories, contradictions, factual errors, inexact repetitions, pseudonyms, rhetorical questions, strange expressions, frequent use of technical language, and principles frequently stated, but silently contradicted by upholding incompatible views.
4.11a The object of all this was to make the unskilled doubt whether the faith of the Church is the same today as in the age of Augustine.*† For the forgers themselves clearly understand that nothing can be said more contrary and adverse to the faith of the Church than the false “Augustine” in all his chapters and now men care less whether they may be Christians than whether they be, and be called, Augustinians! Enough for me to be a Christian!
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
†Those unskilled interpreters of the works of the pedantic prattling Fathers will reasonably conclude that the faith has changed since the time of Augustine.
4.11b Addendum: The illustrious bishop of the church of Vapincum in his published Mandate, 4th March, 1712, justly and Catholically said among other things: “It is important that our clergy should be informed
(a) that the authority of St. Augustine and his opinion on efficacious Grace have been the greatest pretexts that Luther and Calvin made use of to introduce their errors and to elude the decisions of the Church;
(b) that the opinions of St. Augustine on the matters of Grace do not fix belief, except in respect of the points decided by the Popes and by the Church;
(c) that the manner of explaining the efficacy of Grace is not one of the articles on which we are obliged to follow the opinion of St. Augustine;
(d) that the Schools even are not agreed what is the opinion of this holy Doctor on this;
(e) that as little are they agreed which of the Thomist theologians or of their adversaries have best
understood the sense of St. Thomas.”*
*Efficacious grace is another name for irresistible grace, a doctrine in Christian theology. In this doctrine, God's saving grace is applied to those he has chosen to save.† Those who receive grace cannot refuse it.
In Catholicism, the word "efficacious" means "effective". The Roman Church teaches that sacraments are effective because of God's power. Sacraments are actions of the Holy Spirit in the Church and they confer the grace that they signify. Efficacious grace, Generative AI
†For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves, It is the gift of God. Eph. 2:8
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Rom. 9:21
Saint Paul’s rhetorical question implies that God has created some individuals for salvation and others for damnation. It seemings that a third group is those who can choose their fate, otherwise, what would be the purpose of the Gospel? To proclaim to everyone that some are saved, some are damned, some are self determined, combined with no ability to determine the eternal status of a given individual’s immortal soul cannot be construed as Good News.
†Those unskilled interpreters of the works of the pedantic prattling Fathers will reasonably conclude that the faith has changed since the time of Augustine.
4.11b Addendum: The illustrious bishop of the church of Vapincum in his published Mandate, 4th March, 1712, justly and Catholically said among other things: “It is important that our clergy should be informed
(a) that the authority of St. Augustine and his opinion on efficacious Grace have been the greatest pretexts that Luther and Calvin made use of to introduce their errors and to elude the decisions of the Church;
(b) that the opinions of St. Augustine on the matters of Grace do not fix belief, except in respect of the points decided by the Popes and by the Church;
(c) that the manner of explaining the efficacy of Grace is not one of the articles on which we are obliged to follow the opinion of St. Augustine;
(d) that the Schools even are not agreed what is the opinion of this holy Doctor on this;
(e) that as little are they agreed which of the Thomist theologians or of their adversaries have best
understood the sense of St. Thomas.”*
*Efficacious grace is another name for irresistible grace, a doctrine in Christian theology. In this doctrine, God's saving grace is applied to those he has chosen to save.† Those who receive grace cannot refuse it.
In Catholicism, the word "efficacious" means "effective". The Roman Church teaches that sacraments are effective because of God's power. Sacraments are actions of the Holy Spirit in the Church and they confer the grace that they signify. Efficacious grace, Generative AI
†For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves, It is the gift of God. Eph. 2:8
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Rom. 9:21
Saint Paul’s rhetorical question implies that God has created some individuals for salvation and others for damnation. It seemings that a third group is those who can choose their fate, otherwise, what would be the purpose of the Gospel? To proclaim to everyone that some are saved, some are damned, some are self determined, combined with no ability to determine the eternal status of a given individual’s immortal soul cannot be construed as Good News.
4.12 How greatly I could wish that from the Holy Apostolic See, or from the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, a Decree of this kind should proceed:
“Since endless and interminable strifes are stirred up by Theologians about the sayings of the Old Writers; which quarrels, though they seem to be stirred up for the purpose of defending the faith, extinguish in some faith, in others charity; and since there is dispute among many learned men about the genuine or spurious quality of many of those writers; the Holy See prohibits henceforth the citation of those writings, whether from MSS or from printed books commonly called of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church—whether in schools, theological disputations and theses, or in sermons—until the Holy Apostolic See defines and decrees concerning those writings. It prohibits the reading of them, except by Doctors who have received permission from the Bishops and the said Doctors are to be first required by the bishops to make protestation, that they will firmly adhere to the Sacred Vulgate Edition of the Bible by Clement VIII, to the Council of Trent, to the Constitution of the Apostolic See against all heresies and books favoring heresy, from Wycliffe to the books proscribed by Benedict XIII inclusively.*†
*Clement VIII, r. 1595–1602; John Wycliffe, c. 1328–1384; Benedict XIII, r. 1724–1730.
†The Vulgate Bible of Clement VIII was replaced by the Nova Vulgata in 1979, followed by a new edition in 1986.
[No] small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be… held as authentic;
Council of Trent, Sess. 4, Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures
[This Synod] ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible;
Council of Trent, Sess. 4, Decree concerning the edition, and the use, of the Sacred Books
Although the Fathers of the Council of Trent did not identify the exact version of the “said old and vulgate edition” which is approved by the Roman Church though “the lengthened usage of so many years,” it seems that this decree was fulfilled in 1979 and, if not, then in 1986.
†The Vulgate Bible of Clement VIII was replaced by the Nova Vulgata in 1979, followed by a new edition in 1986.
[No] small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be… held as authentic;
Council of Trent, Sess. 4, Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures
[This Synod] ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible;
Council of Trent, Sess. 4, Decree concerning the edition, and the use, of the Sacred Books
Although the Fathers of the Council of Trent did not identify the exact version of the “said old and vulgate edition” which is approved by the Roman Church though “the lengthened usage of so many years,” it seems that this decree was fulfilled in 1979 and, if not, then in 1986.
4.12b “It prohibits the citation, in the same schools, disputations, sermons, books, etc., of any recent writers who defend their affirmations by the authority of any of the aforesaid old writers; or who use other testimony in matters pertaining to Religion than some of the authorities just named, that is to say, the Vulgate Bible, the Council of Trent, the unwritten Tradition, and the constitutions of the supreme Pontiffs just indicated.”*
Ah, what peace would be brought to the Church by so Catholic a Decree and so worthy of the Apostolic See!
*The Vulgate Bible, the Council of Trent, the unwritten Tradition, and the Papal constitutions are the authorities of the Roman Church. “I mean the genuine ones,” that is to say, the constitutions “which are undoubted and genuine” [4.4, 7.6].
4.12c Addendum:—Du Pin said well in his Treatise of Christian Doctrine, 1. 12, p. 285:
“Thus the authority of a single Father, or even of several, is by no means an infallible proof of the truth of a dogma.*† There could be only one occasion on which it could be maintained that we were obliged to yield to the opinions of an author; to wit, in case the Church had approved of his doctrine, and had received it as being of Apostolic Tradition. But it would not suffice for that, that she gave praises to an author, or that she approved in general his writings and his doctrine; it would be necessary that she should mark in particular what is the doctrine that she approves. The general approbation of the doctrine of an author does not carry with it a particular approbation of each article.”
*Louis Ellies du Pin or Dupin, 1657–1719.
†The opinions of the Fathers do not indicate the veracity of a Christian teaching.
†The opinions of the Fathers do not indicate the veracity of a Christian teaching.
4.12d Therefore, Arnauld rashly writes:
“After the decision of the Church we may not believe today without heresy that there can be errors in the works of St. Augustine’’—that is, after the Epistles (as alleged) of Celestine and Hormisdas. Rashly, and with a sense inducing to heresy, the Jansenist taught what Alexander VIII. condemned—prop. 30. “Where any shall find a doctrine clearly founded in Augustine, he may absolutely hold and teach it, without regard to any Pope’s bull.”* More cautiously did the archbishop of Cambray teach, in Letters written as “Dialogues against the Jansenists”, praef. 33, “The text of St. Augustine has no authority but that which the Church gives it, and in the only sense that the Church judges fitting to give it."†‡
*Antoine Arnauld, 1612–1694; Alexander VIII, r. 1689–1691.
†Cornelius Jansenius; 1585–1638; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
‡ “no authority but that which the Church gives it”: This is also a true statement regarding the Orthodox Church, as texts, whether the Fathers or Scripture, have “no authority and no interpretation but that which the Orthodox Church gives it and in the only sense that the Church gives it.”
†Cornelius Jansenius; 1585–1638; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
‡ “no authority but that which the Church gives it”: This is also a true statement regarding the Orthodox Church, as texts, whether the Fathers or Scripture, have “no authority and no interpretation but that which the Orthodox Church gives it and in the only sense that the Church gives it.”
4.13 If Paul in his Epistles has no discussion or mention of “Grace efficacious by itself,” nothing of “predestination before merits foreseen”—which opinions are held in the schools—then Augustine, who taught otherwise, brought a new and other Gospel into the world.* I have shown in my paraphrase of Paul’s Epistles that he did not teach those doctrines. But what does he say of those who suffer themselves to be carried away into another Gospel? It is not only another Gospel— that of the false Augustine—it is a contrary Gospel, a Kakangelion.† I acknowledge the unique and only Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to the four Evangelists and the sacred and divinely inspired Epistles, according to the sense of the holy Roman Church.‡ I do not acknowledge the Gospel of the false Augustine and the like. I call it on the contrary a singular providence of God that he has not permitted hitherto any book of Augustine to be named with approval or commendation by the Holy See, or by any alleged old Councils whether Gallican or German, or Spanish, or other.
*But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal. 1:8
†“Kakangelion” is a Greek word that means “bad news” or “badspel.” It is the opposite of “euangelion,” which is the “good news” or "gospel.”
“What, from that moment onward, was called the “Gospels” was the very reverse of what he had lived: “bad tidings,” a Dysangelium.” Antichrist, 39, Nietzsche
‡Judging by their size alone, the Pauline Epistles are not letters, but books. This is not a pedantic observation, as parchment was expensive, so it was common to write words without spaces and to utilize abbreviations, viz. ΙΗΣ or IHS for “Jesus”; ICXC for “Jesus Christ,” to be as efficient as possible and to not squander expensive material. A famous letter, omitting superfluous details, sent to the Roman Senate read “Veni Vidi Vici.”
†“Kakangelion” is a Greek word that means “bad news” or “badspel.” It is the opposite of “euangelion,” which is the “good news” or "gospel.”
“What, from that moment onward, was called the “Gospels” was the very reverse of what he had lived: “bad tidings,” a Dysangelium.” Antichrist, 39, Nietzsche
‡Judging by their size alone, the Pauline Epistles are not letters, but books. This is not a pedantic observation, as parchment was expensive, so it was common to write words without spaces and to utilize abbreviations, viz. ΙΗΣ or IHS for “Jesus”; ICXC for “Jesus Christ,” to be as efficient as possible and to not squander expensive material. A famous letter, omitting superfluous details, sent to the Roman Senate read “Veni Vidi Vici.”
4.14 As Fathers I own all Bishops, who in the Catholic faith and communion with the holy Apostolic See, have departed this life and especially those whom out of that order the Church has enrolled among the Saints.* These were truly Doctors of the Church, because of themselves or by others. They taught sound doctrine in the Church. This is why in the Office of Confessor Pontiffs it is truly said of all holy Bishops: All the earth is full of his Doctrine. For what are Fathers as Fathers, but Doctors of the Church? The holy Bishops are praised for the doctrine with which they have filled all the earth, i.e., the Church. Nor does the Church enroll any of that or other order in the list of Saints, unless their faith, as well as their morals, have been approved by her.† But the writings of the “Fathers,” which are in circulation, are a scripture against Scripture, an impious against a sacred Scripture. Wherefore those impious tricksters contrived that in the Roman Breviary more should be read from the Fathers, in the Lections, than out of the Sacred Scripture.
*The phrase “I own all Bishops, who… have departed this life.” is a strange expression.
†It seems that faith and morals can be separated; one's faith can be approved, while one’s morals are condemned and, if true, then one’s morals may be approved, yet one’s faith can be met with disdain.
†It seems that faith and morals can be separated; one's faith can be approved, while one’s morals are condemned and, if true, then one’s morals may be approved, yet one’s faith can be met with disdain.
4.15 No heresy has been more pernicious to Christianity, or can be, than that [heresy] which now flourishes.* None that will be more durable, unless care is soon taken to avert so great an evil. That heresy will contend that there is no Tradition of God, of Christ, of the Sacraments, but that contained in the “old books of the Fathers,” as they call them, and also in the Missals, Breviaries, and other Ecclesiastical books.†
*Hardouin does not clarify which heresy is “that” heresy.
†Hardouin states that the most pernicious heresy asserts there is no tradition of God, of Christ, or of the Sacraments. The path of heresy begins with reducing the sacraments from seven to two, as only two are recognized in the protestant Bible, as though Jesus was neither anointed in all four Gospels nor did he mention remitting sins to his disciples [Luke 24:48, John 20:23]. With only submersion in water and a communal meal remaining, no necessity exists for either Christ or God, as the forgoing can be accomplished by anyone. In a social organization apart from God, any idea might be instituted and handed down on such topics as the Eucharist, the Bible, the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection. Protestants would go so far as to teach that the resurrection is past and undermine the Christian faith, that by “those first Christians, all Posterity was taught, so that on the foundation of faith there could not be the slightest doubt” [4.04b].
Hymenaeus and Philetus “who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some” [2 Tim. 2:17–18].
†Hardouin states that the most pernicious heresy asserts there is no tradition of God, of Christ, or of the Sacraments. The path of heresy begins with reducing the sacraments from seven to two, as only two are recognized in the protestant Bible, as though Jesus was neither anointed in all four Gospels nor did he mention remitting sins to his disciples [Luke 24:48, John 20:23]. With only submersion in water and a communal meal remaining, no necessity exists for either Christ or God, as the forgoing can be accomplished by anyone. In a social organization apart from God, any idea might be instituted and handed down on such topics as the Eucharist, the Bible, the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection. Protestants would go so far as to teach that the resurrection is past and undermine the Christian faith, that by “those first Christians, all Posterity was taught, so that on the foundation of faith there could not be the slightest doubt” [4.04b].
Hymenaeus and Philetus “who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some” [2 Tim. 2:17–18].
4.15a Against so great a mischief it should be timely taught that prelates and others might be deceived when they took up such books, so interpolated, as if they would not hurt the orthodox; that the Church meanwhile, so far as matters of faith are concerned, was not deceived, nor could be deceived.* The most evident proof of this is that her belief is widely different from that conveyed by the language of those books and from the sense intended by the author; those excepted which are excerpts from the sacred books of the Vulgate edition and the forms of the sacraments.†*
*interpolate: insert (something of a different nature) into something else.
†Hardouin's argument is that the “evident proof” of the hoax is that the Roman Church's teachings diverge from the opinions found in the books of the Fathers. In large part, this remains true, however, in the two centuries since Hardouin wrote, the Roman Church has been influenced by the writings of the Fathers, while the Orthodox Church remains aloof from any teachings, regardless of the source, that contradict universal tradition.
†Hardouin's argument is that the “evident proof” of the hoax is that the Roman Church's teachings diverge from the opinions found in the books of the Fathers. In large part, this remains true, however, in the two centuries since Hardouin wrote, the Roman Church has been influenced by the writings of the Fathers, while the Orthodox Church remains aloof from any teachings, regardless of the source, that contradict universal tradition.
4.16 Noxious beyond expression has hitherto been erudition and science, commonly so called, to Christianity and now the ignorance of the fraud against Christianity contrived by atheists in days gone by is noxious to her beyond expression.* Therefore, now is the time that true science should aid in promoting and defending Christianity, but the most important part of the work is the laying bare of the fraud which learned men of false name devised with the object of overthrowing religion and the diligent and accurate confutation of that fraud.†‡
*“science, commonly so called.”
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Tim. 6:20
o Timothee depositum custodi devitans profanas vocum novitates et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae
I Timotheum 6:20
†True science should expose the fraud, which learned men of false names devised, and refute it.
‡“the most important part of the work”: For Hardouin, his magnum opus is exposing the fraudulent writings of the Fathers and condemning the hoaxers.
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Tim. 6:20
o Timothee depositum custodi devitans profanas vocum novitates et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae
I Timotheum 6:20
†True science should expose the fraud, which learned men of false names devised, and refute it.
‡“the most important part of the work”: For Hardouin, his magnum opus is exposing the fraudulent writings of the Fathers and condemning the hoaxers.
chapter 5
The analogy between the theories of Rabbins and Monks; to Prophets and Wise Men correspond Fathers and Scholastics. The theory of the Monks ridiculed.
5.01 THEY say that the Jewish Rabbins are wont to declare of the times of Ezra: “So far there were Prophets, afterwards follow the Wise Men.”
5.01a They who forged the writings of the “Fathers” desired that it should be believed that the like had occurred in the Church. “Down to Bernard there were Fathers,” they say; “then the Scholastics down to Thomas” and “after him all were babes.” An evident argument that after Bernard’s times, these rascals began to scheme and build up their system of fraud.*†
*Bernard of Clairvaux 1090–1153; Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274.
†To clarify:
Fathers→Bernard, d. 1153→Scholastics→Thomas Aquinas, d. 1274→Babes
To the time of Bernard, a thousand years were assigned by the hoaxers to the Fathers, but only 120 years were granted for the scholars to the time of Thomas Aquinas. The timeline of the hoaxers seems to rely upon whole decades, as the “Fathers” continued for a century after the east west schism in 1054.
Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican and this order was found on December 22, 1216.
Aquinas’ paternal uncle, Sinibald, was abbot of Monte Cassino, the oldest Benedictine monastery, and his family intended for Thomas to follow his uncle into the abbacy. Thomas Aquinas, Wikipedia
†To clarify:
Fathers→Bernard, d. 1153→Scholastics→Thomas Aquinas, d. 1274→Babes
To the time of Bernard, a thousand years were assigned by the hoaxers to the Fathers, but only 120 years were granted for the scholars to the time of Thomas Aquinas. The timeline of the hoaxers seems to rely upon whole decades, as the “Fathers” continued for a century after the east west schism in 1054.
Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican and this order was found on December 22, 1216.
Aquinas’ paternal uncle, Sinibald, was abbot of Monte Cassino, the oldest Benedictine monastery, and his family intended for Thomas to follow his uncle into the abbacy. Thomas Aquinas, Wikipedia
5.02 Why, prithee, or how did the “Fathers” displease the Church?* You cannot doubt that they did displease the Church, seeing that for more than 500 years she calls none “Fathers”!† By what decree, at what place or time, by what authority was this laid down? I tell you that, in my judgment, the Church had and has in every age Fathers; I mean Bishops conspicuous for learning and holiness.‡ For me one Father is St. Francis Sales, another is St. Charles Borromeo; there are many others.§ Fathers of any other kind the Church never had.
*prithee [archaic]; please (used to convey a polite request).
†“500 years”: Scaliger's chronology.
‡Hardouin defines the Fathers as bishops who attract attention for their learning and holiness.
§Francis Sales, 1567–1622; Charles Borromeo, 1538–1584.
†“500 years”: Scaliger's chronology.
‡Hardouin defines the Fathers as bishops who attract attention for their learning and holiness.
§Francis Sales, 1567–1622; Charles Borromeo, 1538–1584.
5.03 Strange blindness of mankind! In those first times of the Church, they reckon among the Fathers any writer on Religion, a bishop of any obscure town, a presbyter, a monk, a layman; every one of them is to be reverentially adopted. After the “Twelfth Century,” not a Bishop, or Archbishop, not even a Pope, if he ⟨write⟩ [writes] anything, is held to be a “Father.”* Is it not madness!
*“Twelfth Century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
The observation is that any member of the “lowest vulgar herd” can be recognized as Fathers before the twelfth century, but afterwards, no one is granted the title of Church Father [2.10].
The observation is that any member of the “lowest vulgar herd” can be recognized as Fathers before the twelfth century, but afterwards, no one is granted the title of Church Father [2.10].
5.03a I know the cause. Those alleged old writers had the afflatus of the divine Spirit; not so with those who lived “after Bernard”—or there were very few of them!* You may tell me that Augustine had been a Manichean and a vicious young man, that Ambrose had been a Prefect and a layman, that Chrysostom had been a lawyer and a special pleader!† You may tell me that all [of the Fathers], after their conversion, became suddenly men of learning and fit to teach others! You may tell me—more wonderful still!—that all were equally learned, all accomplished in the same matters —the same heresies and controversies— and that they write in a sublime style that can now only be appreciated by men of learning and genius!‡
*afflatus: a divine creative impulse or inspiration.
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Ambrose of Milan, c. 339–397; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407.
‡The elevated reading level required to understand the Fathers indicates that their intended audience is restricted to the elite of the intelligentsia or, more likely, “young men who like to think.” The learning and accomplishments of Augustine, Ambrose and Chrystostom are explained by their possession “of one library” [3.19b].
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Ambrose of Milan, c. 339–397; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407.
‡The elevated reading level required to understand the Fathers indicates that their intended audience is restricted to the elite of the intelligentsia or, more likely, “young men who like to think.” The learning and accomplishments of Augustine, Ambrose and Chrystostom are explained by their possession “of one library” [3.19b].
chapter 6
The depravation of Scripture by the monkish faction. Hardouin's blind adherence to the Vulgate Edition.* The frauds in the Greek Codices. Hardouin vainly attempts to meet the objection that the genuineness of the Vulgate is no more certain than that of the Benedictine diplomata. He dogmatically defends tho books of the New Testament, and denounces the allegorical interpretation of Scripture.
*Hardouin's repeated insistence on the Vulgate Edition is not “blind adherence,” but are persistent hints to the thoughtful reader. The curious readers will research the history of the Vulgate Bible, its constituent two testaments, and reach informed conclusions regarding its origin, or creation, and the earliest age it could be widely distributed, for it to be in the hands of all.
6.01 FIRST and above all, the careful desire of the impious gang was to deprave the Sacred Scripture, because it utterly made an end of their impious principles.* They had to make it agree with them and so their first and chief task was to learn the Sacred Scriptures by heart, to weave Concordances and to make out Commentaries, to corrupt the text, to leave no jot or tittle intact that might be opposed to their principles, to depart as far as possible from the Vulgate Edition and because they could not adulterate that Book, because they knew it was against them, altogether and utterly, they had to feign that it was recent, as compared with the Greek Books (Codices) which they declared to be far more ancient!†‡
*deprave: make (someone) immoral or wicked.
†Concordances of the Bible allow the hoaxers to discover that identical words have different meanings, depending upon the context. Since “eat” in the Hebrew language can be understood as “consume food” or to “engage in intercourse,” commentaries can create doubt regarding the events in the Garden of Eden. Concordances can also be utilized to discover contradictions in large texts concerning individual words, especially among different authors, and such exertions are the proper domain of “linguists and interpreters,” that is, philologists [15.09].
‡“learn the Sacred Scriptures by heart,,, make out Commentaries”: To successfully refute a position, one must thoroughly understand it.
†Concordances of the Bible allow the hoaxers to discover that identical words have different meanings, depending upon the context. Since “eat” in the Hebrew language can be understood as “consume food” or to “engage in intercourse,” commentaries can create doubt regarding the events in the Garden of Eden. Concordances can also be utilized to discover contradictions in large texts concerning individual words, especially among different authors, and such exertions are the proper domain of “linguists and interpreters,” that is, philologists [15.09].
‡“learn the Sacred Scriptures by heart,,, make out Commentaries”: To successfully refute a position, one must thoroughly understand it.
6.02 Of the Vulgate Scripture, I say what the false “Augustine” says of Sacred Books, in 83, question 68: --The Books which the Catholic discipline guards, we by no means think to have been forged.
“God forbid that His Church… should use false witnesses or testimonies” [4.10].
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt. 12:40
The Roman and Orthodox Churches observe the crucifixion during Friday afternoon and celebrate the Resurrection on Saturday night. The ancient oral tradition prevails over the passage of Mark.
“There is no heresy (if you reason rightly) which can rely alone on Sacred Scripture…. Therefore, it is necessary for him to show that in some ages, at least, his interpretation flourished [19.06a].”
Certain protestant communities observe the crucifixion on either Tuesday or Wednesday to arrive at the required three days and three nights in the tomb, as these groups require Jesus to lie in the tomb for seventy two hours [24 hours per day × 3 days= 72 hours].
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt. 12:40
The Roman and Orthodox Churches observe the crucifixion during Friday afternoon and celebrate the Resurrection on Saturday night. The ancient oral tradition prevails over the passage of Mark.
“There is no heresy (if you reason rightly) which can rely alone on Sacred Scripture…. Therefore, it is necessary for him to show that in some ages, at least, his interpretation flourished [19.06a].”
Certain protestant communities observe the crucifixion on either Tuesday or Wednesday to arrive at the required three days and three nights in the tomb, as these groups require Jesus to lie in the tomb for seventy two hours [24 hours per day × 3 days= 72 hours].
6.02a No! and I contend they cannot have been forged. No book of any religion or superstition, after it has once come into the hands of the members of the sect, and has been held sacred, can be adulterated, except by those who would destroy the same form of religion.*†‡ Not even the Koran could be so corrupted!§
*Other than various statements that Roman Catholicism is the true religion, Hardouin provides no guidance on the distinguishing characteristics between religion and superstition.
†Hardouin does not indicate the likely time frame when the Vulgate came “into the hands of the members” of the Roman Church.
‡Hardouin admits that no book of a “religion or superstition,” after it is in the hands of members, can be
“adulterated” except by those intent upon damaging the religion. Therefore, the possibility exists that the sacred Vulgate can be, if it had not already been by Hardouin’s time, adulterated by determined individuals. As with the Fathers, evidence of tampering within the Bible texts would include, but are not limited to, inappropriate stories, unseemly comments, unsuitable imagery, and immoral episodes. Behaviors and actions that fail the highest ethical standards and moral expectations are, when assigned to the Deity, impious, ipso facto.
§The first printed Quran in Arabic was produced in Venice in 1537/1538 by Alessandro Paganini.
Generative AI
The reason that the Koran is less corrupt than the Biblical manuscripts is that the Koran was first printed and then distributed for scribal copying. This printed version served as the basis for all Korans, just as Erasmus’ New Testament of 1516 is the basis of most subsequent editions of the New Testament.
†Hardouin does not indicate the likely time frame when the Vulgate came “into the hands of the members” of the Roman Church.
‡Hardouin admits that no book of a “religion or superstition,” after it is in the hands of members, can be
“adulterated” except by those intent upon damaging the religion. Therefore, the possibility exists that the sacred Vulgate can be, if it had not already been by Hardouin’s time, adulterated by determined individuals. As with the Fathers, evidence of tampering within the Bible texts would include, but are not limited to, inappropriate stories, unseemly comments, unsuitable imagery, and immoral episodes. Behaviors and actions that fail the highest ethical standards and moral expectations are, when assigned to the Deity, impious, ipso facto.
§The first printed Quran in Arabic was produced in Venice in 1537/1538 by Alessandro Paganini.
Generative AI
The reason that the Koran is less corrupt than the Biblical manuscripts is that the Koran was first printed and then distributed for scribal copying. This printed version served as the basis for all Korans, just as Erasmus’ New Testament of 1516 is the basis of most subsequent editions of the New Testament.
6.02b So neither could the Vulgate Edition, from the time it began to be in the use of the faithful, be corrupted; especially seeing that Deity aided the conservation of that Book!*†
*Once again, it is impossible to assign a year, other than 1590, when the first Vulgate Bible was published and “began to be in the use of the faithful.” The Vulgate Edition, from this “time began to be widely used by the faithful,” and could not be corrupted by the hoaxers. The Roman Church has issued three versions of the Vulgate Bible since the Council of Trent; the Sixtine Vulgate, 1590; the Clementine Vulgate, 1592; and the Nova Vulgata, 1979.
The fourth Session of the Council of Trent, 1546, declares “the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church.”
†The claim that the Deity aided in the preservation of the Vulgate Bible cannot be verified.
The fourth Session of the Council of Trent, 1546, declares “the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church.”
†The claim that the Deity aided in the preservation of the Vulgate Bible cannot be verified.
6.02c The impious band, having no hope of corrupting the sacred Latin Books, which were in everybody’s hands, turned their attention to the making of Greek Books and to the adulteration of Hebrew copies, which they wrote in elegant caligraphy.* They also corrupted Latin books which they hid in Libraries; because the old Vulgate could not be snatched from the hands of the whole Christian people, everywhere diffused and the books which they had corrupted could not be scattered among all towns, in all Christian dioceses and parishes. Therefore, they hid those Hebrew copies, and those adulterated Latin books and the Greek books they had made up, in Libraries. Their design being to take them out, ⟨thence,⟩ at suitable times, like weapons from armories, with the object of attacking the Catholic Faith.
*“in everybody’s hands”: Before the age of printing, books were expensive to produce and the property of wealth and privilege. The Last Will and Testament of William Shakespeare, 1564–1616, does not mention any books, but does assign the valuable “second best bed” for his wife.
https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/william–shakespeares–last–will–and–testament–original–copy–including–three#:~:text=I%2C%20William%20Shakespeare%20of%20Stratford,hoping%20and%20assuredly%20believing%20through
https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/william–shakespeares–last–will–and–testament–original–copy–including–three#:~:text=I%2C%20William%20Shakespeare%20of%20Stratford,hoping%20and%20assuredly%20believing%20through
6.03 They also invented various readings in the Greek Codices (or Manuscripts) that they might persuade readers that there had been the like in Latin books in days of yore and that these Various Readings existed in books which they had laid up in Libraries and now any rogue or liar may invent ⟨the like⟩ various readings, as they call them!* I tell you that if I desired to invent a Greek MS and to send from it “various readings” to Oxford—where they are preparing a new edition of the New Testament—I should cry up my MS with a great pomp of words.† I should take care to get a place for ray reading among the rest of the readings and in the first instance a few, and soon many, would appreciate it.
*“various readings in the Greek Codices”: Textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts arise when a copyist makes deliberate or inadvertent alterations to the text that is being reproduced.
Textual variants in the New Testament, Wikipedia
The reason for the valiant may be accidental or deliberate.
In 2005, Bart D. Ehrman reported estimates from 200,000 to 400,000 variants based on 5,700 Greek and 10,000 Latin manuscripts, various other ancient translations, and quotations by the Church Fathers. Ibid.
†“cry up”: promote; from the context.
Textual variants in the New Testament, Wikipedia
The reason for the valiant may be accidental or deliberate.
In 2005, Bart D. Ehrman reported estimates from 200,000 to 400,000 variants based on 5,700 Greek and 10,000 Latin manuscripts, various other ancient translations, and quotations by the Church Fathers. Ibid.
†“cry up”: promote; from the context.
6.03a ⟨But, tell me,⟩ why are the Greek MSS exposed to an injury that does not affect the Vulgate Edition? Because ⟨—this is the answer—⟩ the Vulgate is in the hands of all. Were I to corrupt my MS, I could not wound ⟨, thereby,⟩ another copy either of the same city or of the same House.*† I could not injure the rest of the copies in the Christian world. The fact is that the Greek MSS are turned over by the learned class alone and it is believed that they have not yet been brought out of the Libraries—not all of them.‡
*“I could not wound”: could not damage, impune, or injure.
†“the same House.”: The same publishing house.
‡Although the Gospel of Judas “surfaced during the 1970s near Beni Masar, Egypt”, it is dated to the second century “[given] that it includes late 2nd–century theology.” Gospel of Judas, Wikipedia
†“the same House.”: The same publishing house.
‡Although the Gospel of Judas “surfaced during the 1970s near Beni Masar, Egypt”, it is dated to the second century “[given] that it includes late 2nd–century theology.” Gospel of Judas, Wikipedia
6.04 I say that Scripture was not given by God to be laid up in Libraries.* Sacred Books were not written— before the rise of the impious faction—to be placed there. They were written to be read by the purchasers and, therefore, it was impossible that any of those copies should be corrupted without the instant detection of the fraud.† The wicked faction invented the suspicions against the accuracy and certainty of the Vulgate Edition, intact and sound though it be; hoping that their forged MSS, laid up on the shelves of the Libraries, might obtain authority partly from their alleged antiquity, partly from the testimony of other books. They hoped that credit would be given to their smoky volumes, that posterity would think their copies must be emended by them and that so the Vulgate Edition would, everywhere and at the same time and once for all, lose its authority.‡ But, they only convinced heretics, or the like of themselves, or men of learning, falsely so called. They increased the bulk of their own MSS by adding two Books under the name of Esdras—the third and the fourth—and other matters.§ But they have been repudiated by the Church, because she had not owned them from the beginning and because they were absent from those copies which were in the possession of the whole Christian public.
*Hardouin presumes to speak regarding God’s intentions concerning the usage and storage of Scripture.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ. 1 Cor. 2:16
†The assumption that all readers would be aware of any changes in a large document, such as the Bible, is unfounded.
‡emend: make corrections and improvements to (a text).
§Esdras 5, “considered by most scholars to be Christian in origin”, and Esdras 6, “found in the Latin, but not in the Eastern texts”, now exist. Esdras, Wikipedia
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ. 1 Cor. 2:16
†The assumption that all readers would be aware of any changes in a large document, such as the Bible, is unfounded.
‡emend: make corrections and improvements to (a text).
§Esdras 5, “considered by most scholars to be Christian in origin”, and Esdras 6, “found in the Latin, but not in the Eastern texts”, now exist. Esdras, Wikipedia
6.05 But, if in the sacred books of the Old and New Testament which have been written in Greek, there is manifest corruption, falsation, adulteration, [then] it should be manifest that the falsation was practiced for the purpose of overthrowing Religion; not in those books only, but in all others in which the like indications of falsity appear.* For if their audacity was so great in the case of the sacred books, [then] how much more easily could they carry out their design in volumes falsely placed under the names of Augustine, Ambrose, and other saints!†
*Regretfully, Hardouin provides no example of “manifest corruption, falsation,” and “adulteration” in the Greek versions of the Old and New Testaments.
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Ambrose of Milan, c. 339–397.
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Ambrose of Milan, c. 339–397.
6.06 A certain Benedictine objected to Father Germon that his principles lead to Pyrrhonism.* It was a mad saying, for none could entertain such a suspicion except a man who reasoned thus:
“The incorruptness of the Vulgate Edition is not more certain than are our Diplomata.† Therefore, he who throws doubt on those Diplomata also questions and throws doubt on the antiquity and incorruptness of the Vulgate Edition.”
*Pyrrhonism is best known today through the surviving works of Sextus Empiricus [fl. 2nd century]… . The publication of Sextus' works in the Renaissance ignited a revival of interest in Skepticism and played a major role in Reformation thought and the development of early modern philosophy. Pyrrhonism, Wikipedia
†Papal diplomatics is the scholarly and critical study (diplomatics) of the authentic documents of the papacy, largely to distinguish them from spurious documents. The study emerged in the Middle Ages. Papal diplomatics, Generative AI
†Papal diplomatics is the scholarly and critical study (diplomatics) of the authentic documents of the papacy, largely to distinguish them from spurious documents. The study emerged in the Middle Ages. Papal diplomatics, Generative AI
6.06a The same thing may be said of the writings commonly believed to be of the “Fathers” and of the Benedictine Diplomata.* But let him be held a mad or impious man who says that the Vulgate Edition is not of more certain antiquity than any other writings whatever—and for the reason I have given—the testimony of the Church, first the Roman, then the universal Church throughout the world.
*The wording “Benedictine Diplomata” was only found in versions of the Prolegomena. From the context, these Diplomata are forgeries by the Benedictines.
6.07 The sacred books of the New Testament are, therefore, sacred, as I said, because they were written by the Apostles whom the Lord Christ willed to be teachers and masters of the world or writers of his deeds with Apostolic authority.* But if there is no God but Right Reason, or Natural Light, or the Truth of all eternal truths (for these terms amount to the same thing), [then] there is no cause why these writers should see into Right Reason more than others.†
*Since the Gospels are anonymous, the claim that the books of the New Testament are from the Apostles is founded upon a tradition of the ancient church.
†If there is no God, then the authors of the Biblical books are not more insighful than other writers.
†If there is no God, then the authors of the Biblical books are not more insighful than other writers.
6.07a On this account, a like authority was given by the impious band to Augustine and others called “Fathers” with that given to the Sacred Writers.* Nor would they have it believed that so great authority was acquired by them because they had been chosen for the purpose by Christ or the Apostles, but because of the consent of many Churches which was given in course of time.† Therefore, these false scribes pretended that certain writings of the Apostles, as Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, John’s second and third [epistles], those [epistles] under the names of Jude and James, and the Apocalypse, had long been doubted and called into question.‡§
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
†“consent of many Churches”: These churches range from western Europe, eastern Europe, the middle east, and Africa from the alleged third century to the thirteenth century. The authority for the books assigned to the Fathers was not from “Christ or the Apostles,” but from the consent of the various churches over time. As always, the consent for these books occurs only in works by the hoaxers.
§Although Pauline words and phrases are found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the high ratio of the text to personal pronouns, unlike the undoubted Pauline Epistles, suggests it was not written by Saint Paul. The formula of the ratio is the total words of the epistle divided by the sum of the occurrences of “I, me, my and mine.” The reason for the high ratio in Hebrews is the omission of typical episodes found in the accepted Pauline epistles: overcoming adversities as related from the first person viewpoint. Finally, the author of Herews is not identified in the introduction, unlike the undisputed epistles.
‡Alone among the western New Testament canon, no part of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is read in the daily readings of the Orthodox Church. The conclusion is that the book of Revelation is a recent innovation, either of the Roman Catholic or Protestant Churches, that is, the Orthodox lectionary was established before the addition of Revelation to the western canon and this addition conflicts with the traditional readings of Orthodox Church and is ignored.
Although no date can be assigned to the commencement of the Orthodox lectionary, it was in place before the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the subsequent publication of Revelation.
Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city… Rev. 14:8
Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen… Rev. 18:2
The repetition of “fallen” by the angel suggests that the great city of Constinople has fallen twice, which corresponds to the years 1204 and 1453. Protestants inevitably assign “Babylon” to Rome in Italy, the seat of the Papacy. However, Babylon of Revelation can neither be Rome, Italy nor be located in the desert of Iraq, for in the Babylon of Revelation:
every shipmaster and all the company in ships and sailors and as many as trade by sea stood afar off,,. saying, “What city is like unto this great city!” [and] “Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness!” Rev. 18:17-19
Further evidence for the medieval creation of Revelation is the repetition that “the time” is short [Rev. 1:1, 12:2, 17:10, 22:6]. These repeated statements are true, as Constantinople had fallen and the year AM 7000 is quickly approaching and, with it, the expected return of Christ. The year AM 7000 is the year AD 1492.
†“consent of many Churches”: These churches range from western Europe, eastern Europe, the middle east, and Africa from the alleged third century to the thirteenth century. The authority for the books assigned to the Fathers was not from “Christ or the Apostles,” but from the consent of the various churches over time. As always, the consent for these books occurs only in works by the hoaxers.
§Although Pauline words and phrases are found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the high ratio of the text to personal pronouns, unlike the undoubted Pauline Epistles, suggests it was not written by Saint Paul. The formula of the ratio is the total words of the epistle divided by the sum of the occurrences of “I, me, my and mine.” The reason for the high ratio in Hebrews is the omission of typical episodes found in the accepted Pauline epistles: overcoming adversities as related from the first person viewpoint. Finally, the author of Herews is not identified in the introduction, unlike the undisputed epistles.
‡Alone among the western New Testament canon, no part of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is read in the daily readings of the Orthodox Church. The conclusion is that the book of Revelation is a recent innovation, either of the Roman Catholic or Protestant Churches, that is, the Orthodox lectionary was established before the addition of Revelation to the western canon and this addition conflicts with the traditional readings of Orthodox Church and is ignored.
Although no date can be assigned to the commencement of the Orthodox lectionary, it was in place before the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the subsequent publication of Revelation.
Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city… Rev. 14:8
Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen… Rev. 18:2
The repetition of “fallen” by the angel suggests that the great city of Constinople has fallen twice, which corresponds to the years 1204 and 1453. Protestants inevitably assign “Babylon” to Rome in Italy, the seat of the Papacy. However, Babylon of Revelation can neither be Rome, Italy nor be located in the desert of Iraq, for in the Babylon of Revelation:
every shipmaster and all the company in ships and sailors and as many as trade by sea stood afar off,,. saying, “What city is like unto this great city!” [and] “Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness!” Rev. 18:17-19
Further evidence for the medieval creation of Revelation is the repetition that “the time” is short [Rev. 1:1, 12:2, 17:10, 22:6]. These repeated statements are true, as Constantinople had fallen and the year AM 7000 is quickly approaching and, with it, the expected return of Christ. The year AM 7000 is the year AD 1492.
6.07b In the second place they forged the name of the Apostles themselves, Peter, Andrew, Paul, and others, to writings which they knew must always be repudiated.* Their design was that the Apostolic writings which we possess should not be thought to have been received in the Church because they are Apostolic; but because at length they were adopted by many Churches.† Thus they desired to obtain authority for the third and fourth book of Esdras, but they could not do so against the force of true Tradition. Thirdly and lastly, they desired the world to believe that the books of Wisdom of Solomon, of Ecclesiasticus, of Judith, of Tobias, and of the Maccabees had not yet been received into the Canon in the twelfth century. They made their “Hugo of St. Victor” say this, notwithstanding that these books are read in the Church.‡
*Examples of writings with the names of the Apostles that are acknowledged by modern scholarship to be forgeries: Gospel of Bartholomew, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Nicodemus, Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Bartholomew the Apostle, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, Apocalypse of Paul, and Apocalypse of Peter.
†The hoaxers wanted the lasting impression that the Apostolic writings were accepted because they were recognized by the churches at various locations and over many centuries, not because the authors were Apostles.
‡Hugo of St. Victor, 1096–1151.
William Occham – He states that ‘neither Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Macabees, nor Wisdom nor Ecclesiasticus, are to be received ‘into any such height of honour’ (as compared to Scripture)...
https://christiantruth.com/articles/canon/
WILLIAM OCCAM (†1347) appeals to Jerome and Gregory the Great in asserting that “Judith, Tobias, Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom are not to be accepted to confirm that which pertains to faith.… The Church reads them, but does not receive them among her Canonical Scriptures.”
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/breen/untitled-20.shtml#:~:text=WILLIAM%20OCCAM%20(%E2%80%A01347)%20appeals%20to%20Jerome%20and,Scriptures.%E2%80%9D%20When%20Occam%20testifies%20that%20the%20Church
†The hoaxers wanted the lasting impression that the Apostolic writings were accepted because they were recognized by the churches at various locations and over many centuries, not because the authors were Apostles.
‡Hugo of St. Victor, 1096–1151.
William Occham – He states that ‘neither Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Macabees, nor Wisdom nor Ecclesiasticus, are to be received ‘into any such height of honour’ (as compared to Scripture)...
https://christiantruth.com/articles/canon/
WILLIAM OCCAM (†1347) appeals to Jerome and Gregory the Great in asserting that “Judith, Tobias, Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom are not to be accepted to confirm that which pertains to faith.… The Church reads them, but does not receive them among her Canonical Scriptures.”
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/breen/untitled-20.shtml#:~:text=WILLIAM%20OCCAM%20(%E2%80%A01347)%20appeals%20to%20Jerome%20and,Scriptures.%E2%80%9D%20When%20Occam%20testifies%20that%20the%20Church
6.08 In that impious hypothesis ⟨from which it follows that⟩ the written word of God is nothing but the word of universal Reason. It is necessary that all the precepts of the Law, ceremonial and positive, should be allegorically explained and not they alone, but all historical facts whatever, for universal Reason cannot dictate any but universal and moral precepts. Hence arises the necessity for allegorising the whole of Scripture and this Catholics detest.* But that the practice might not appear strange, the wicked faction forged precepts under the names of Pythagoras and others, which it would be quite absurd to understand in a strictly literal sense. They desired it to be inferred that it would be absurd to understand the Mosaic precepts by the letter alone.* For the same reason they invented fables on similar lines to the most true narratives of Sacred Scripture, so that both should be equally accepted as symbolical facts which Nature everywhere affords and everywhere equally applies for the restraint and teaching of men.† Thus, it was easy to explain allegorically the temporal promises of the Old Testament, but in the historical books it was impossible to explain petitions for temporal goods, and grants of them, or the infliction of temporal punishments by God allegorically and, therefore, they hardly wrote a Commentary on Tobias, Judith, Esther, and Maccabees. These books they would have you believe to be of a second class.‡
*The Scriptures must be allegorized so that these interpretations, oftentimes fanciful, conflict with the literal understanding of Scripture.
†“invented fables on similar lines” to scripture: Such examples are various creation accounts found in the Middle East and Egypt. The twenty plus dying and resurrecting Gods found throughout Europe and the Mediterranean may also be invented stories. Allegories were written for non-Biblical stories and historical events so that it would not seem strange that only Scripture was allegorized by the ancients.
‡The hoaxers intended that Books with few commentaries would be inferred to be inferior to those with more commentaries.
The hoaxers “hardly wrote a Commentary on Tobias, Judith, Esther, and Maccabees. These books they would have you believe to be of a second class” [6.08].
The hoaxers gave the impression that the “Wisdom of Solomon, of Ecclesiasticus, of Judith, of Tobias, and of the Maccabees had not yet been received into the Canon in the twelfth century” [6.07b].
Of the six books mentioned, only three, Tobias, Judith, and Maccabees, are found in both lists.
†“invented fables on similar lines” to scripture: Such examples are various creation accounts found in the Middle East and Egypt. The twenty plus dying and resurrecting Gods found throughout Europe and the Mediterranean may also be invented stories. Allegories were written for non-Biblical stories and historical events so that it would not seem strange that only Scripture was allegorized by the ancients.
‡The hoaxers intended that Books with few commentaries would be inferred to be inferior to those with more commentaries.
The hoaxers “hardly wrote a Commentary on Tobias, Judith, Esther, and Maccabees. These books they would have you believe to be of a second class” [6.08].
The hoaxers gave the impression that the “Wisdom of Solomon, of Ecclesiasticus, of Judith, of Tobias, and of the Maccabees had not yet been received into the Canon in the twelfth century” [6.07b].
Of the six books mentioned, only three, Tobias, Judith, and Maccabees, are found in both lists.
chapter 7
State of Letters about A.D. 1300; no Greek Bible extant. The schism of the Greeks began with the monkish faction. The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone is their invention. Also the Byzantine History. The fiction of "the translation of the Empire” and its design. When did the Greeks depart from the Roman Rite? The mass of Greek MSS are to be found in France and not in the East: whither they appear to have been carried by the Benedictines. Further exposure of the style of the alleged Greek “Fathers.”
7.01 IT is now at last clear to me that before the beginning of the fourteenth century, or at the end of the thirteenth, the Greeks had no Bible but the Latin; no Liturgy but the Latin; even as now in the Indies and the whole of America.*† It is, I say, manifest to me, that they had not the Greek Bible before that time, nor even the Psalter.‡ The Greek Bible in our hands is fearfully corrupt, and ⟨got up⟩ [created] to favor the impious hypothesis, which denies there is any true God.§ It is on that account the Greeks have not yet the Old Testament printed; because they never had one common and certain text, the MS codices differing very greatly from one another.‖ They have not been able to agree upon one certain context, as they say, to be selected, as they did agree in the case of the New Testament, but only from the year 1638.¶
*“fourteenth century, or at the end of the thirteenth”: Scaliger's chronology.
† “no Bible… no Liturgy but the Latin”: If this supposition is true, then the implication would be that Christianity's origin, or at least the period of its most significant development, was Roman, not Greek. Hardouin is consistent when he states the Vulgate Bible was in the “hands of all Christians in the whole world” and “the Vulgate is in the hands of all,” even the Greeks [6.03a, 11.07].
In the twenty second session, held on “the seventeenth day of September, MDLXII.,” the Council of Trent declared that “it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where [sic] celebrated in the vulgar tongue.” It seems unlikely the Greeks had “no Liturgy but the Latin,” while elsewhere in the Roman Catholic jurisdictions of Italy, France, and Germany, it was celebrated in the local languages.
‡If the Greek Church did have the Psalms, then the date of the Septuagint is much nearer to the age of Printing than previously believed.
§The “fearfully corrupt” “Greek Bible” indicates the success of the hoaxers, although, once again, Hardouin provides no examples of this corruption.
‖The Orthodox Church lacks one dogmatic version of the Bible and this fact suggests that the Bible, as a collation of assorted Hebrew texts, the Gospels, the Epistles, and Revelation is a recent invention of either the Roman Church or protestant communities. Erasmus published “The New Teachings” in 1516, with subsequent editions titled “The New Testament” in 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1536. Since a scholar of rank like Erasmus entitled his collation “The New Teachings,” and not the expected “New Testament,” is compelling evidence that the New Testament was not then in existence and is his creation alone.
A New Testament translation by Luther was first published in 1522, three years after Erasmus’ first edition, and the completed Lutheran Bible, containing a translation of the Old and New Testaments with Apocrypha, in 1534. It is not surprising that an innovative book by a heretic from the schismatic Roman Church is unacceptable to the Orthodox Church, as this book is against tradition.
¶The Greek New Testament (1638), translated into the Modern Greek language by Maximos of Gallipoli, d. 1633, and published in Geneva in 1638. The monk Neophytos Vamvas, 1770–1856, attempted to make his translation but, again, it was not made available. The New Testament in modern Greek was finally allowed in 1924. Maximos of Gallipoli, Wikipedia
† “no Bible… no Liturgy but the Latin”: If this supposition is true, then the implication would be that Christianity's origin, or at least the period of its most significant development, was Roman, not Greek. Hardouin is consistent when he states the Vulgate Bible was in the “hands of all Christians in the whole world” and “the Vulgate is in the hands of all,” even the Greeks [6.03a, 11.07].
In the twenty second session, held on “the seventeenth day of September, MDLXII.,” the Council of Trent declared that “it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where [sic] celebrated in the vulgar tongue.” It seems unlikely the Greeks had “no Liturgy but the Latin,” while elsewhere in the Roman Catholic jurisdictions of Italy, France, and Germany, it was celebrated in the local languages.
‡If the Greek Church did have the Psalms, then the date of the Septuagint is much nearer to the age of Printing than previously believed.
§The “fearfully corrupt” “Greek Bible” indicates the success of the hoaxers, although, once again, Hardouin provides no examples of this corruption.
‖The Orthodox Church lacks one dogmatic version of the Bible and this fact suggests that the Bible, as a collation of assorted Hebrew texts, the Gospels, the Epistles, and Revelation is a recent invention of either the Roman Church or protestant communities. Erasmus published “The New Teachings” in 1516, with subsequent editions titled “The New Testament” in 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1536. Since a scholar of rank like Erasmus entitled his collation “The New Teachings,” and not the expected “New Testament,” is compelling evidence that the New Testament was not then in existence and is his creation alone.
A New Testament translation by Luther was first published in 1522, three years after Erasmus’ first edition, and the completed Lutheran Bible, containing a translation of the Old and New Testaments with Apocrypha, in 1534. It is not surprising that an innovative book by a heretic from the schismatic Roman Church is unacceptable to the Orthodox Church, as this book is against tradition.
¶The Greek New Testament (1638), translated into the Modern Greek language by Maximos of Gallipoli, d. 1633, and published in Geneva in 1638. The monk Neophytos Vamvas, 1770–1856, attempted to make his translation but, again, it was not made available. The New Testament in modern Greek was finally allowed in 1924. Maximos of Gallipoli, Wikipedia
7.02 The error on the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone sprang from the impious faction solely, alone.* Nothing is more certain. Permanence (manentia) in Being (esse)—that is in their impious hypothesis the Holy Spirit—Being or Proceeding (procession being understood metaphorically) can only be from Being or Essence; and this to the impious conspiracy[,] is the Father; from the Truth of Being, or the Son, the Spirit has not his essence, but from Essence alone.†
*Jesus “saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him…” Matt. 3:16
Jesus “saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him…” Mark 1:10
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him [Jesus,v.21].... Luke 3:22
And John bare record, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him [Jesus, v.29].” John 1:32
From the four accounts in the Gospels, without the aid of Divine revelation to the contrary, the conclusion is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father who is in heaven. It is not evident why Hardouin would state that the hoaxers are responsible for the “error of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone” when the four Gospels are in agreement on this point.
Jesus identifies the Comforter with the Holy Ghost in John 14:26.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth G1607 from the Father, he shall testify of me: John 15:26
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7
The Father sends the Holy Spirit [John 14:26]. Jesus is explicit when he states that the “Comforter” “proceedeth from the Father” [John 15:26].
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G1607, ekporeuomai, as: proceed (10), go out (6), go (5), come (4), depart (3), go forth (2), miscellaneous (4), variations of 'go forth' (1).
Other than the claim of Papal Supremacy, a valid reason for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and from the Son cannot be determined from the Gospels.
†This is a difficult sentence to interpret. “Being” or Essence is the Father the “Truth of Being” is the Son.
The “Spirit has not his essence, but from Essence alone.”
The Holy Spirit does not have the Son’s essence; the Holy Spirit only has Essence, which is the Father.
Hardouin states that the hoaxers created a metaphysical system to explain religion; a system that no atheist would reject [19.9]. Additional statements regarding the metaphysical system are found in 2.11–12.
Jesus “saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him…” Mark 1:10
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him [Jesus,v.21].... Luke 3:22
And John bare record, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him [Jesus, v.29].” John 1:32
From the four accounts in the Gospels, without the aid of Divine revelation to the contrary, the conclusion is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father who is in heaven. It is not evident why Hardouin would state that the hoaxers are responsible for the “error of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone” when the four Gospels are in agreement on this point.
Jesus identifies the Comforter with the Holy Ghost in John 14:26.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth G1607 from the Father, he shall testify of me: John 15:26
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7
The Father sends the Holy Spirit [John 14:26]. Jesus is explicit when he states that the “Comforter” “proceedeth from the Father” [John 15:26].
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G1607, ekporeuomai, as: proceed (10), go out (6), go (5), come (4), depart (3), go forth (2), miscellaneous (4), variations of 'go forth' (1).
Other than the claim of Papal Supremacy, a valid reason for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and from the Son cannot be determined from the Gospels.
†This is a difficult sentence to interpret. “Being” or Essence is the Father the “Truth of Being” is the Son.
The “Spirit has not his essence, but from Essence alone.”
The Holy Spirit does not have the Son’s essence; the Holy Spirit only has Essence, which is the Father.
Hardouin states that the hoaxers created a metaphysical system to explain religion; a system that no atheist would reject [19.9]. Additional statements regarding the metaphysical system are found in 2.11–12.
7.02a Therefore, the schism of the Greeks took rise entirely from the impious faction and at the end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century at the earliest and, therefore, it was at that time that Greece changed the rites of the sacraments, which before it had in common with the Roman Church; those alone excepted which the Holy Apostolic See still recognises in her.*† What follows from these things, I leave, for the present, to the consideration of others.
*“the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century at the earliest”: Scaliger's chronology.
The schism of the Greeks could date from the later part of the fourteenth and extend to the sixteenth century. It is possible that these written endeavors of the hoaxers could stretch through the sixteenth and into the seventeenth century.
†No evidence is offered for the claim of these alleged changes to the Greek sacraments, which remain unchanged to the present. Leo XII, r. 1878-1903, decreed in 1896 that the Anglican orders were invalid due to a defect of form. However, the rites of the sacraments of the Roman Church were significantly, possibly fundamentally, changed after the Council of Vatican II, although the council did not make any dogmatic decrees. A claim of the modern sedevacantists is that the changes in the orders of ordination and episcopal consecration since Vatican II are also defective and, therefore, in their opinion, invalid.
The national churches in Orthodoxy are independent, no central governing body exists, unlike the Papacy of the Roman Church. It would be nearly impossible for any major changes to the rites by one national church to be accepted by the other national churches, especially as any innovations are against tradition.
The schism of the Greeks could date from the later part of the fourteenth and extend to the sixteenth century. It is possible that these written endeavors of the hoaxers could stretch through the sixteenth and into the seventeenth century.
†No evidence is offered for the claim of these alleged changes to the Greek sacraments, which remain unchanged to the present. Leo XII, r. 1878-1903, decreed in 1896 that the Anglican orders were invalid due to a defect of form. However, the rites of the sacraments of the Roman Church were significantly, possibly fundamentally, changed after the Council of Vatican II, although the council did not make any dogmatic decrees. A claim of the modern sedevacantists is that the changes in the orders of ordination and episcopal consecration since Vatican II are also defective and, therefore, in their opinion, invalid.
The national churches in Orthodoxy are independent, no central governing body exists, unlike the Papacy of the Roman Church. It would be nearly impossible for any major changes to the rites by one national church to be accepted by the other national churches, especially as any innovations are against tradition.
7.03 All the Greek writings—of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries—on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, and the rest, are so like one another, in the very words as well as in the opinions (one writer clearly copies another, as Bessarion, Caleca, and so in other cases) that all must have been contrived at one time and in the same workshop, that is to say, all writings alleged to be of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries must have been forged at the end of the thirteenth, or beginning of the fourteenth, under this or that name, or no name at all.*† The names were added, with certain temporal circumstances, in order that they might appear to be the works of those three ages.‡
*“he fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,” ”the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries,” and ”the thirteenth, or beginning of the fourteenth”: Scaliger's chronology.
†Bessarion, 1403–1472; Manuel Caleca, 1360–1410.
‡Historical names and temporal elements were added to the works to give the impression that they were created in earlier ages.
†Bessarion, 1403–1472; Manuel Caleca, 1360–1410.
‡Historical names and temporal elements were added to the works to give the impression that they were created in earlier ages.
7.04 With great zeal, toil, and perseverance they thought they must write a Byzantine History as one of their first efforts.* They must write ⟨also⟩ a series of Greek Books down to about the times of Leo X, because in that tract of time they had to place their “Councils,” their heresies, and their Patriarchs.†‡ If the like of these things were said to have taken place in the West, [then] the authors of the fable would be refuted by the constant silence of the [eastern] provinces on all these matters. Therefore, it was necessary that the Westerns should seem to have long been unaware of the doings in the East through so many ages. They must seem to learn that from books written in the East, as they alleged, and scattered through the whole West, about the time of the capture of Constantinople by the Turks.§ Hence, there are so many volumes of Byzantine History, hence so many Greek “Fathers,” historic and other writers. But all of them really sprang from the impious workshop of the West.
*The Byzantine Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire primarily in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages and continued until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Byzantine Empire, Wikipedia
The importance of the forgeries concerning the Byzantine Empire cannot be underestimated, as it relied upon the AM calendar. It is likely that important events were recorded in the eastern provinces that were unknown or little reported in the west. The AM calendar, commencing around the year 5507 BC, provides sufficient duration for the hoaxers to place events of their world chronology.
†Leo X, r. 1513–21.
‡The forgeries continued at least until the 1520s, if not later. The Council of Trent was allegedly held between 1545 and 1563, yet the Orthodox Church did not respond to the developments in western Europe until the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672, that is to say, a delay of a century is unrealistic. Christopher Columbus sailed in 1492, but the first record of Columbus in the English language is from 1593 and, again, a delay of a century is unfeasible. We suggest that the Council of Trent was created in the seventeenth century, back dated or misdated by a century, and published shortly before the response by the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. G.R.S. Mead, 1863–1933, was aware of the possibility of shifting events by a century in ancient history, as the title of his book “Did Jesus Live 100 BC?” suggests.
§The “capture of Constantinople” was in 1492.
The importance of the forgeries concerning the Byzantine Empire cannot be underestimated, as it relied upon the AM calendar. It is likely that important events were recorded in the eastern provinces that were unknown or little reported in the west. The AM calendar, commencing around the year 5507 BC, provides sufficient duration for the hoaxers to place events of their world chronology.
†Leo X, r. 1513–21.
‡The forgeries continued at least until the 1520s, if not later. The Council of Trent was allegedly held between 1545 and 1563, yet the Orthodox Church did not respond to the developments in western Europe until the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672, that is to say, a delay of a century is unrealistic. Christopher Columbus sailed in 1492, but the first record of Columbus in the English language is from 1593 and, again, a delay of a century is unfeasible. We suggest that the Council of Trent was created in the seventeenth century, back dated or misdated by a century, and published shortly before the response by the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. G.R.S. Mead, 1863–1933, was aware of the possibility of shifting events by a century in ancient history, as the title of his book “Did Jesus Live 100 BC?” suggests.
§The “capture of Constantinople” was in 1492.
7.05 They made up the story of the “translation of the Empire” to the East, so that the Bishop of Constantinople might believe himself to be Patriarch and Ecumenical and the equal of the Supreme Pontiff and that he might get almost the whole East to believe this folly.* Their object also was to allow the emperor of the Turks to boast of being the successor of Constantine, and that to him, therefore, belonged both empires, the Eastern and the Western. Annals of about the beginning of the sixteenth century allege this of Soliman.†
*The relocation of the capital from Rome in Italy to Constantinople. The Emperors of Constantinople under the Palaiologos dynasty, 1261–1453, had the motto “King of Kings. Ruling over Rulers” [Βασιλεὺς Βασιλέων Βασιλεύων Βασιλευόντων] and used the bicephalous eagle as their emblem. The fabricated story was successful, as judged by the hubristic motto and the later adoption of the bicephalous eagle by Austria, Albania, Serbia, Russia, and other countries.
The translation of the Empire to the east implies that Rome in Italy is older and more venerable than Constantinople, regardless of the fact when Rome in Italy was first settled.
†Suleiman the Magnificent reigned from 1520–1566.
The translation of the Empire to the east implies that Rome in Italy is older and more venerable than Constantinople, regardless of the fact when Rome in Italy was first settled.
†Suleiman the Magnificent reigned from 1520–1566.
7.06 They pretended that there were four Patriarchates in the East, intending the deduction to be drawn that it was becoming for four to be superior to one, the fifth [the Pope], and to overrule him in case he held an opinion contrary to the opinion and rite of the other four.* For example, if he forbade the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, or decreed that the use of the unleavened bread was to be kept, and the like.†
*The “pretended” four Patriarchs in the East are the sees of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Tradition claims that Saint Peter founded the church in Antioch, where Christians were first named [Acts 11:26]. The five Patriarchal Sees were found by the Apostles: Andrew, Constantinople, and Peter, Rome, who were brothers; Jerusalem, James the brother of the Lord; and Alexandria, Mark.
†And as they were eating, Jesus took bread G740 and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” Matt. 26:26
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread G740 and blessed and brake it and gave to them and said, “Take, eat: this is my body.” Mark 14:22
And he [Jesus, 20:8] took bread, G740 and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. This do in remembrance of me.” Luke 22:19
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G740, artos, as: bread (72), loaf (23), shewbread (with G4286) (with G3588) (4).
The use of leaven bread for communion in the Orthodox Church suggests that the Last Supper was not the Passover meal, which requires unleavened bread, that is recorded in the Synoptic Gospels.
The phrases “Now before the feast G1859 of the passover” and “And supper G1173 being ended” indicate the Last Supper, as least in the Gospel of John, is not the Passover [John 13:1-2].
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G1859, heortē, as: feast (26), holy day (1).
The KJV translates Strong's G1173, deipnon, as: supper (13), feast (3).
All interpretations of deipnon as “feast”:
And love the uppermost rooms at feasts G1173 and the chief seats in the synagogues, Matt. 23:6
And the chief seats in the synagogues and the uppermost rooms at feasts: G1173 Mark 12:39
Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings… the chief rooms at feasts; G1173 Luke 20:46
†And as they were eating, Jesus took bread G740 and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” Matt. 26:26
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread G740 and blessed and brake it and gave to them and said, “Take, eat: this is my body.” Mark 14:22
And he [Jesus, 20:8] took bread, G740 and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. This do in remembrance of me.” Luke 22:19
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G740, artos, as: bread (72), loaf (23), shewbread (with G4286) (with G3588) (4).
The use of leaven bread for communion in the Orthodox Church suggests that the Last Supper was not the Passover meal, which requires unleavened bread, that is recorded in the Synoptic Gospels.
The phrases “Now before the feast G1859 of the passover” and “And supper G1173 being ended” indicate the Last Supper, as least in the Gospel of John, is not the Passover [John 13:1-2].
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G1859, heortē, as: feast (26), holy day (1).
The KJV translates Strong's G1173, deipnon, as: supper (13), feast (3).
All interpretations of deipnon as “feast”:
And love the uppermost rooms at feasts G1173 and the chief seats in the synagogues, Matt. 23:6
And the chief seats in the synagogues and the uppermost rooms at feasts: G1173 Mark 12:39
Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings… the chief rooms at feasts; G1173 Luke 20:46
7.07 It may be asked: “How and when the Greeks were persuaded to change the Roman Rite and to adopt that which they now have?” I say that it seems to have been done at the end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century—occasion being taken from the hatred of the Greeks towards the Latins, who had been expelled on the recovery of Constantinople by the former.*†
*“end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
†The recovery of Constantinople in 1261. Hardouin explains that the Greek hatred for the Latin Church was so intense that the Greeks changed their religious Rites. If hatred were the primary factor for the change, then the desolation of Constantinople in 1204 would be a more likely date.
†The recovery of Constantinople in 1261. Hardouin explains that the Greek hatred for the Latin Church was so intense that the Greeks changed their religious Rites. If hatred were the primary factor for the change, then the desolation of Constantinople in 1204 would be a more likely date.
7.07a It was as easy to persuade them of this, as it was easy to persuade (as they say) Pope Gregory XI that the office of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary was most ancient in the East, but in the West either unknown or obliterated, although the approbation of Pope Gregory XI and the epistles of Charles V, King of France, on that matter are nowhere else extant than in the Victorine MS 1–12. fol. 2. See Spondanus for the year 1372, num. 9.*†
*Gregory XI, r. 1370–1378; Charles V, King of France, r. 1364–1380.
†The Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a liturgical feast celebrated on November 21. The feast was celebrated in the monasteries of Southern Italy by the ninth century, and was introduced into the Papal Chapel in Avignon in 1372 by decree of Pope Gregory XI. Presentation of Mary, Wikipedia
†The Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a liturgical feast celebrated on November 21. The feast was celebrated in the monasteries of Southern Italy by the ninth century, and was introduced into the Papal Chapel in Avignon in 1372 by decree of Pope Gregory XI. Presentation of Mary, Wikipedia
7.07b Nor was that office received into the Roman Breviary before the time of Pius III, and afterwards, little by little, in the West; elsewhere scarce sixty years later.*† That was at last done among the Greeks with the like ease with which Paul V was persuaded that the solemnity of the Stigmata of St. Francis had lapsed and been forgotten, as is told in the old Lections of the Roman Breviary.‡
*Pius III, r. 1503.
†The feast was included in the Roman Missal in 1472, but was suppressed by Pope Pius V in 1568. ibid.
‡Paul V, r. 1605–1621; Stigmata of St. Francis, Sept. 17, 1224.
†The feast was included in the Roman Missal in 1472, but was suppressed by Pope Pius V in 1568. ibid.
‡Paul V, r. 1605–1621; Stigmata of St. Francis, Sept. 17, 1224.
7.08 I say that the impious crew persuaded the Constantinopolitans in the first instance—whence the error easily flowed to others—in the fourteenth century; that the Latin Rite in the performance and administration of the Sacraments was recent, invented at Rome, or at least in the Latin world, and that the Romans brought it into Greece for the sake of enlarging their dominion and that the Grecian Rite was older, as the Liturgies—which liturgies forsooth they had forged under the great names of Basil and Chrysostom—and other monuments showed.*†‡§
*“to others”, that is, to the national Orthodox Churches in communion with the See of Constantinople.
†“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
†Basil the Great, of Caesarea, 330–379; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407.
The Liturgies of Saint Basil the Great and Saint John Chrystostom are the most common liturgies in the Orthodox Church. The Liturgy of Chrysostom is significantly shorter in duration than the Liturgy of Basil.
§The Greeks were convinced by the hoaxers that the Latin rite was a Trojan horse with the goal of expanding the reach of the Papal authority.
The Latin rite in use during the fourteenth century, whenever it was promulgated, was significantly changed after the Council of Trent. The inference from the twenty second session is that the Roman rite was celebrated in the vernacular language and, after the Council of Trent, the Latin rite was introduced as a rectified Roman rite. With this understanding, ecclesiastical Latin was the language of the Latin rite, whereas the vernacular language was utilized in the Roman rite. This presumed distinction was likely confounded, when in “1568 and 1570 Pope Pius V suppressed the breviaries and missals that could not be shown to have an antiquity of at least two centuries in favor of the Roman Missal and Roman Breviary” Latin liturgical rites, Wikipedia
†“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
†Basil the Great, of Caesarea, 330–379; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407.
The Liturgies of Saint Basil the Great and Saint John Chrystostom are the most common liturgies in the Orthodox Church. The Liturgy of Chrysostom is significantly shorter in duration than the Liturgy of Basil.
§The Greeks were convinced by the hoaxers that the Latin rite was a Trojan horse with the goal of expanding the reach of the Papal authority.
The Latin rite in use during the fourteenth century, whenever it was promulgated, was significantly changed after the Council of Trent. The inference from the twenty second session is that the Roman rite was celebrated in the vernacular language and, after the Council of Trent, the Latin rite was introduced as a rectified Roman rite. With this understanding, ecclesiastical Latin was the language of the Latin rite, whereas the vernacular language was utilized in the Roman rite. This presumed distinction was likely confounded, when in “1568 and 1570 Pope Pius V suppressed the breviaries and missals that could not be shown to have an antiquity of at least two centuries in favor of the Roman Missal and Roman Breviary” Latin liturgical rites, Wikipedia
7.09 The impious crew were extremely anxious to forge Greek Fathers and historical writers in great numbers, down to the capture of Constantinople by the Turks and later.* They needed to do this in order to draw the Greeks over to their side by inventing and exaggerating the prerogative of the See of Constantinople and to put scruples in the minds of the Latins who turned over these books, whether they were to stand by the dogmata and decrees of the learned and formerly more celebrated Greek Church (as they endeavored to make men believe) rather than the Latin.† For that purpose, they hired Greek fugitives from their own country and paid them to render into Greek what they themselves had first written in Latin or in French.‡
*The hoax of history continued after the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
†“inventing and exaggerating the prerogative”: All of the Patriarchs of the national Orthodox Churches have the same authority in the matters of their respective jurisdictions. The See of Constantinople has a place of honor among the Orthodox Patriarchs. The Eucumincal Patiach cannot intevene in the affairs of any Orthodox church, unlike the Pope, who, as head of the Roman Church, and can intervene in any Church in communion with the Holy See, even the Pope of Alexandria.
‡The “Greek fugitives'' are fleeing the fall of Constanitople and arriving in western Europe. The majority of the Greeks refugees would be unaware of the historical development of their language and would write in contemporary Greek. Therefore, if Hardouin is correct that the hoaxers existed, then the writings of the Fathers should demonstrate little or no change in the language, although allegedly written over several centuries. The hoaxers wrote in Latin or in French, rather than German or Italian, and this may be another hint by Hardouin to assist in identifying the hoaxers.
†“inventing and exaggerating the prerogative”: All of the Patriarchs of the national Orthodox Churches have the same authority in the matters of their respective jurisdictions. The See of Constantinople has a place of honor among the Orthodox Patriarchs. The Eucumincal Patiach cannot intevene in the affairs of any Orthodox church, unlike the Pope, who, as head of the Roman Church, and can intervene in any Church in communion with the Holy See, even the Pope of Alexandria.
‡The “Greek fugitives'' are fleeing the fall of Constanitople and arriving in western Europe. The majority of the Greeks refugees would be unaware of the historical development of their language and would write in contemporary Greek. Therefore, if Hardouin is correct that the hoaxers existed, then the writings of the Fathers should demonstrate little or no change in the language, although allegedly written over several centuries. The hoaxers wrote in Latin or in French, rather than German or Italian, and this may be another hint by Hardouin to assist in identifying the hoaxers.
7.10 Hence, it comes to pass that in the Royal and Colbertine Libraries there are many more Greek MSS than in the whole of the East, as we have been told by eye–witnesses, because they were all written in France about the end of the fifteenth century.* Hence many Gallicisms appear in these Greek writings. Some Latin writings, which they had not leisure or money ⟨enough⟩ to turn into Greek, were represented to be Latin translations from the Greek.† Some turned into Greek from the Latin were again turned into Latin, as the Synodicon, and the Acts of the Council of Ephesus.‡ In France, these craftsmen gave out that Acts of Councils and other Greek codices had been brought to them. The Easterns, on the other hand, were persuaded that they had been copied out of the Patriarchal Roman Church, to which they had first been transmitted. Thus one is feigned to have said in the 6th synod, Act 14, p. 1363 of my Edition: Coming from the West , I brought a book of the Fifth Council. Then the Collectio Graeca Regia 2951 is feigned to have been written first at Rome in the year 774 and to have been made up out of those Acts. “John Cinnamus” states at the end that he wrote it in the year 1276.§ But the name Cinnamus is fictitious and I doubt not that the forger has given a much earlier date than the true one. It is written on papyrus, such as the Orientals use at the present day.
*“end of the fifteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
There are more Greek MSS in two French libraries than in the east and this is evidence of a hoaxer and suggesters the hoax was headquartered in France.
†The unpaid monks wrote in Latin and in French, however, the hoaxers financed the Greek refugees to translate the works into Greek.
‡Synodicon Vetus, also called Libellus Synodicus, is an anonymous, pseudo–historical book of early Christianity, largely based on earlier Greek sources. It contains information on synods and ecumenical councils from the first century through the year 887. Synodicon Vetus, Wikipedia
§John Cinnamus, d. after 1185.
There are more Greek MSS in two French libraries than in the east and this is evidence of a hoaxer and suggesters the hoax was headquartered in France.
†The unpaid monks wrote in Latin and in French, however, the hoaxers financed the Greek refugees to translate the works into Greek.
‡Synodicon Vetus, also called Libellus Synodicus, is an anonymous, pseudo–historical book of early Christianity, largely based on earlier Greek sources. It contains information on synods and ecumenical councils from the first century through the year 887. Synodicon Vetus, Wikipedia
§John Cinnamus, d. after 1185.
7.11 The Latin Benedictines were sent from Genoa to Constantinople and dedicated a Church there in the year 1395.* What if about that time or somewhat earlier in that century, those monks carried thither from the West the Greek books which I say were translated here in France and with the altered Liturgies? An inscription was there found, with the note of that year. Father Pierre Besnier of our Society (Jesuits) copied it at Constantinople and showed it to me. Greek Rites which they had brought into use but a short time, say a decade, they forthwith call Apostolic Traditions. But the Greeks were deceived by the impostors and accepted the Rites discrepant from the Latin and not approved by the Apostolic See.†
*In 1395, the Ottoman Empire began a siege of Constantinople that lasted until 1453. The decades-long siege suggests that walls constructed since the sack of Constantinople in 1204 were formidable.
†The various Rites must be approved by the Apostolic See, even, or more so, among the schismatic Greeks.
†The various Rites must be approved by the Apostolic See, even, or more so, among the schismatic Greeks.
7.12 “Twenty years ago,” says Scaliger, ep. 157 (dated Section 12; 13th May, 1602, p. 380), “Metetius Syriga, the protosyncellus of Silvester, patriarch of Alexandria, sent to the queen of Navarre a jeweled pyx with a Greek letter requesting her to send him copies of Basil, Chrysostom, Nazianzen, which he could not acquire elsewhere.”* That was because they were actually conficted and written under the names of those alleged Fathers. None of those works are or were in the East, unless what had been carried thither from the West.†
*Joseph Scaliger, 1540–1609; Silvester, patriarch of Alexandria, d. 1590; Basil the Great, of Caesarea, 330–379; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407; Gregory of Nazianzus, 329–390.
†At least some of the crusades were important for the hoaxers to carry the Fathers to the east. The inability of the repeated crusades to accomplish their objective of freeing the Holy Land suggests that there were possibly other motives for these campaigns.
†At least some of the crusades were important for the hoaxers to carry the Fathers to the east. The inability of the repeated crusades to accomplish their objective of freeing the Holy Land suggests that there were possibly other motives for these campaigns.
7.12a None at all were certainly carried thither till the fourteenth century was far advanced.* This is the cause why very few Greek writers have been turned into the Russian tongue.† See in the apparatus of Possevin, p. 364, tom ii.‡ To Ethiopia, Greek books alone were carried, but very few of them and not before the sixteenth century.§ See Hist. Ethiop. lib. iii. c. 4 n. 41, 42, and c. 6, n. 49.
*“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
†The suggested reason for why few Greek works were translated into Russian is the late date of the hoaxers, as “the fourteenth century was far advanced.” The western hoaxers were unaware of the influence of the Russian Church in the world of Orthodoxy, otherwise many works would have been translated into the Russian language. The influence of the hoaxers is experienced in the present, as any knowledge of the history and the importance of the Russian Church in the west is difficult to discover, although not impossible. If the hoaxers knew that Russian was not only a language and a people, but also a religious designation, as is Jew or Moslem, then they would have taken a greater interest in forging works in the Russian language.
‡Antonio Possevino, 1533–1611.
§“the sixteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
†The suggested reason for why few Greek works were translated into Russian is the late date of the hoaxers, as “the fourteenth century was far advanced.” The western hoaxers were unaware of the influence of the Russian Church in the world of Orthodoxy, otherwise many works would have been translated into the Russian language. The influence of the hoaxers is experienced in the present, as any knowledge of the history and the importance of the Russian Church in the west is difficult to discover, although not impossible. If the hoaxers knew that Russian was not only a language and a people, but also a religious designation, as is Jew or Moslem, then they would have taken a greater interest in forging works in the Russian language.
‡Antonio Possevino, 1533–1611.
§“the sixteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
7.13 The Greek writers, especially in their comments on Scripture, babble and prate more than the Latins. They knew that few would read and that it did not much matter what they wrote, so long as they made up big volumes. “Gregory of Nyssa” in the whole of his first tome is a most verbose fellow.*†
*Gregory of Nyssa, c. 335–395.
†The incredible size of the writings of the Fathers, in terms of the total number of words in a specific work, is an indication that the availability of inexpensive material, such as paper, was not a hindrance to the efforts of the hoaxers.
†The incredible size of the writings of the Fathers, in terms of the total number of words in a specific work, is an indication that the availability of inexpensive material, such as paper, was not a hindrance to the efforts of the hoaxers.
7.14 In the alleged “sixth century,” no new heresy is said to have been got up and very few, therefore, of the writings of the “Greek Fathers” have been attributed to that age.*† Of these “Procopius” himself confesses that his work on Scripture had been compiled out of the works of earlier writers.‡ After nine alleged centuries from the birth of Christ,the system of the impious herd was finished and exhausted.§ Therefore, they set down any works at all, whether Greek or Latin, to their “tenth century” and they accordingly called it the Age of Ignorance, or the Dark Age.‖¶
*the alleged “sixth century”: Scaliger's chronology:
†The works of the hoaxers provide no dates for their composition, so scholars attempt to determine when they were written.
‡Procopius, c. 500–565.
§“nine alleged centuries”: Scaliger's chronology.
‖“tenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
¶The idea of a Dark Age originated with the Tuscan scholar Petrarch, 1304–1374, in the 1330s.
Dark Ages, Wikipedia
†The works of the hoaxers provide no dates for their composition, so scholars attempt to determine when they were written.
‡Procopius, c. 500–565.
§“nine alleged centuries”: Scaliger's chronology.
‖“tenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
¶The idea of a Dark Age originated with the Tuscan scholar Petrarch, 1304–1374, in the 1330s.
Dark Ages, Wikipedia
7.15 Of the alleged “Greek Fathers”, why is there none set down to Greece proper, except Dionysius the Areopagite?* None to that learned land? Was it because the Attic speech is difficult and, therefore, none dared to lyingly call himself an Attic? But the style of even the alleged Dionysius is not Attic. All the Greek writers use the same dialect, even those who are alleged to have written before the seat of the Empire was placed at Constantinople.†‡
*Dionysius the Areopagite, 5th–6th century.
Attic Greek is the Greek dialect of the ancient region of Attica, including the polis of Athens. Often called classical Greek, it was the prestige dialect of the Greek world for centuries and remains the standard form of the language that is taught to students of ancient Greek. As the basis of the Hellenistic Koine, it is the most similar of the ancient dialects to later Greek. Attic Greek, Wikipedia
Hardouin writes that “none dared to lyingly call himself an Attic,” implying that it was a difficult dialect, yet, today, Attic Greek is the standard form of the language that is taught.
†The capital was moved to Constantiniople in 330.
‡The “same dialect” can be explained either by writing in a “dead” language or that the writers were from the same region, southern Italy, and spoke the same dialect, Calabrian Greek. Hardouin might be hinting that the Greek of the NT, which was allegedly composed before 330, and the Greek of the Fathers, written up to the time of Bernard, are identical. Of course, a competent philologist, such as Nietzsche, would be aware of these historical facts, realize the inconsistencies, and draw the appropriate conclusions.
Attic Greek is the Greek dialect of the ancient region of Attica, including the polis of Athens. Often called classical Greek, it was the prestige dialect of the Greek world for centuries and remains the standard form of the language that is taught to students of ancient Greek. As the basis of the Hellenistic Koine, it is the most similar of the ancient dialects to later Greek. Attic Greek, Wikipedia
Hardouin writes that “none dared to lyingly call himself an Attic,” implying that it was a difficult dialect, yet, today, Attic Greek is the standard form of the language that is taught.
†The capital was moved to Constantiniople in 330.
‡The “same dialect” can be explained either by writing in a “dead” language or that the writers were from the same region, southern Italy, and spoke the same dialect, Calabrian Greek. Hardouin might be hinting that the Greek of the NT, which was allegedly composed before 330, and the Greek of the Fathers, written up to the time of Bernard, are identical. Of course, a competent philologist, such as Nietzsche, would be aware of these historical facts, realize the inconsistencies, and draw the appropriate conclusions.
7.15a In the French language, we see the greatest changes in the course of 500 years.* But in the Greek “Fathers” and historians, there is not the slightest vestige of a change in the language during an alleged period of 1500 years!†‡ All use the same dialect and the same syntax.§ Balsamon is equally terse with Justin, Basil, Chrysostom.‖ So in the Latins there is the like elegance and flow of language in Augustine, Bernard, Algar, etc.¶
*“the course of 500 years”: Scaliger's chronology.
†“an alleged period of 1500 years”: Scaliger's chronology.
§The historical hoax left hints that philologists and competent investigators can discern.
‖Theodore Balsamon, d. after 1195; Justin Martyr, c. 100–c. 165; Basil the Great, of Caesarea, 330–379; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407.
¶Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090– 1153. Information on “Algar” could not be discovered.
†“an alleged period of 1500 years”: Scaliger's chronology.
§The historical hoax left hints that philologists and competent investigators can discern.
‖Theodore Balsamon, d. after 1195; Justin Martyr, c. 100–c. 165; Basil the Great, of Caesarea, 330–379; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407.
¶Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090– 1153. Information on “Algar” could not be discovered.
7.16 From the reading of these books, the Greeks educated in the West and especially at Rome, derive their errors and defend them with the greatest obstinacy. If they knew them to be spurious, the offspring of a gang of scoundrels, [then] they would lack weapons for resistance to the truth.†
*Obstinacy is not indicative of being erroneous.
†Truth, in this context, is synonymous with Papal authority.
†Truth, in this context, is synonymous with Papal authority.
chapter 8
The attacks of the monkish faction on the Popes. The fiction of the “Kingdom of Italy” and its object. The monkish Roman Empire is a mere fable, refuted by a mass of coins. The theory of Peter and his Successors. The fiction of the distribution of the Provinces among the Apostles. The dignity and power of the Pope is made to rest on Oral Tradition. The monks have endeavored to overthrow his Primacy.
8.01 AMONG the other designs of the impious conclave, after they had declared war on God, was a
violent effort to diminish the authority and power of the supreme Pontiff.* They pretended that almost in
every age some one of the Popes had erred in faith; in the third century they made out Marcellinus to be an idolater, in the fourth Liberius to be an Arian, in the fifth Zosimus to be a Pelagian, Homisdas to be an Arian in the sixth century, and Vigilius an Eutychian; in the seventh Honorius to be a Monothelite, i.e., in chief and capital doctrines about Christ, those Popes were heretics and, when a new heresy failed them that they could charge upon the Popes, they created in their “tenth century” prodigiously unchaste Popes!†‡§
*“after they had declared war on God”: This is a strange expression. It is not surprising that the “war on God” is connected to the diminishment of the authority and the power of the Pope.
†The ancient Popes are manifest heretics because their histories are written as fictional accounts to show the Papacy in the worst possible manner. The Avigonon Popes are also poor examples of ecclesiastical authority. In short, all Popes before the “Age of Printing”, that is, before accurate documentation, are inevitably depicted as horrible men who lack reason; not worthy of the name “Christian.”
‡Marcellinus, r. 296–304; Liberius, r. 352–366; Zosimus, r. 417–418; Hormisdas, r. 514–523; Vigilius, r. 537–555; Honorius, r. 625–638.
§The Pornocracy or the Rule of the Harlots, the popes from 904–964 were influenced strongly by a powerful and allegedly corrupt aristocratic family, the Theophylacti, and their relatives and allies.
Saeculum obscurum, Wikipedia
†The ancient Popes are manifest heretics because their histories are written as fictional accounts to show the Papacy in the worst possible manner. The Avigonon Popes are also poor examples of ecclesiastical authority. In short, all Popes before the “Age of Printing”, that is, before accurate documentation, are inevitably depicted as horrible men who lack reason; not worthy of the name “Christian.”
‡Marcellinus, r. 296–304; Liberius, r. 352–366; Zosimus, r. 417–418; Hormisdas, r. 514–523; Vigilius, r. 537–555; Honorius, r. 625–638.
§The Pornocracy or the Rule of the Harlots, the popes from 904–964 were influenced strongly by a powerful and allegedly corrupt aristocratic family, the Theophylacti, and their relatives and allies.
Saeculum obscurum, Wikipedia
8.02 Why did they invent the “kingdom of Italy?”* Why, that by placing kings in Italy, and emperors at Constantinople, the Bishop of that imperatorial City might contend for the Primacy with the Bishop of Rome and that there might be no Pope apart from the consent of the kings of Italy.† See Anselm of Havelberg, in his third Book.‡
*From the context, the “kingdom of Italy” is the Holy Roman Empire.
†“no Pope apart from the consent of the kings of Italy”: The Holy Roman Emperors and the Popes were competitors for influence over many centuries and, as late as the Conclave of 1903, Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria asserted the right claimed by certain Catholic rulers to veto a candidate for the papacy,
‡Anselm of Havelberg, c. 1100–1158.
†“no Pope apart from the consent of the kings of Italy”: The Holy Roman Emperors and the Popes were competitors for influence over many centuries and, as late as the Conclave of 1903, Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria asserted the right claimed by certain Catholic rulers to veto a candidate for the papacy,
‡Anselm of Havelberg, c. 1100–1158.
8.03 Could any emperor have desired to force Councils to his will, as they pretended in their tales of Constantine and the two Theodosii, unless Roman History had been so made up as to show the emperor in the light of the supreme arbiter of the Roman empire and that the Republic or Senate had no share of power, but were merely the servile flatterers of the Augusti, having lost their liberty?* I say that such a form of Roman Empire is a mere fable and that on the testimony of coins, more than 1,500 in number, I have confuted it.
*“two Theodosii”: The Council of Constantinople was convened by King Theodosius in 381; the Council of Ephesus, by King Theodosius II in 431. In at least one aspect, the hoaxers were consistent, as the first seven Ecumenical Councils recognized by the Roman and Orthodox Churches were convened by Emperors while subsequent “Ecumincal Councils” in the West were initiated under the authority of the Pope.
8.04 All the Patriarchal Seats are feigned to have had heresiarch bishops, or certainly notable favourers of heresies; the Alexandrine Dioscorus, Petrus Mongus, etc., the Antiochene Paul of Samosata, Petrus Cnapheus, and others; the Roman Honorius, and Liberius.*† They desired that not even the See of Peter anywhere should be thought free from error, or more so at Rome than elsewhere.‡
*As with the Roman See, the Patriarchal Seats in the east were occupied by heretics. All of ecclesiastical history is populated with rogues and heretics, so that the approved conclusion--Christianity eventually triumphs over heresies--would be evident to everyone.
†Alexandrine Dioscorus, r. 444–454; Petrus Mongus, r. 482–490; Paul of Samosata, r. 260–268; Petrus Cnapheus, d. 381; Roman Honorius, r. 393–423; Liberius, r. 352–366.
‡If the record of verifiable history is to be believed, then one of the few men who was elected Pope and remained a decent human being was John XXIII, r. 1958–1963.
†Alexandrine Dioscorus, r. 444–454; Petrus Mongus, r. 482–490; Paul of Samosata, r. 260–268; Petrus Cnapheus, d. 381; Roman Honorius, r. 393–423; Liberius, r. 352–366.
‡If the record of verifiable history is to be believed, then one of the few men who was elected Pope and remained a decent human being was John XXIII, r. 1958–1963.
8.05 They who hold the false “Fathers” to be true and will have the Sacred Scripture understood by their unanimous consent, yet, nonetheless, bear themselves as strenuous defenders of the holy Apostolic See and of the authority and infallibility of the Pope.* They, I say, are hard pressed by their adversaries. For the latter very readily approve these words of Christ: Thou art Peter, Feed my sheep, confirm thy brethren, from the unanimous consent of those “Fathers'' to mean that Christ does not give the supreme Pontiff the supreme authority over Church and Council or, in defining controversies of faith, the highest power and the infallibility of which they speak. So is Bellarmine keenly assailed by Launoy in his epistles, tome fifth.†‡
*Papal Infallibility was proclaimed a dogma of the Roman Church in 1870. Prior to this decree, it could be held as a pious belief, yet Hardouin expects to find the Fathers as strenuous defenders of “the authority and infallibility of the Pope.”
†Bellarmine, 1542–1621; Launoy, 1603–1678.
‡But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Luke 22:32
†Bellarmine, 1542–1621; Launoy, 1603–1678.
‡But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Luke 22:32
8.06 The Calvinists and others who clearly saw that Peter never came to Rome used that argument against the Catholics—the argumentum ad hominem, as it is called.* “You”, said the Calvinists, “have no Roman Pontiff as successor of Peter, unless Peter himself visited Rome.” But I utterly deny the first proposition. The Bishop of Rome is not the successor of Peter, but, as he is wont ever to subscribe in Bulls and Constitutions: Bishop of the Catholic Church and, therefore, as compared with the Pope, who is Bishop of the Catholic Church, the rest of the Bishops stand in the relation of Governors of provinces and cities to a king and so, compared with the Royal or General Procurator, those who are called his Substitutes or Vicars.†
*”the argumentum ad hominem, as it is called”: This is a strange expression and is not applicable to the belief that Peter did not visit Rome. The Calvinist opinion is not an attack on the person of Peter, on either his moral failing or his hypocrisy, but questions the interpretation that he went to Rome.
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you and so doth Marcus my son.
Peter 5:13
If interpreted literally, as the preferred method of exegesis by fundamental protestants, then Peter 5:13 clearly states that Peter is in Babylon, not Rome.
If Babylon is interpreted as Rome, then Peter wrote from Rome. The six mentions of Babylon in Revelation are oftentimes interpreted allegorically as the city Rome, “the most corrupt seat of idolatry and the enemy of Christianity.”
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g897/kjv/tr/0-1/
†“Bishop of the Catholic Church”: According to Hardouin, the Bishop of Rome is not the successor of Saint Peter, however, the Annuario Pontificio for the year. 2009 lists “Bishop of Rome” (Episcopus Romanus), “Vicar of Jesus Christ” (Vicarius Iesu Christi), “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles” (Successor principis apostolorum), and “Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church” (Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Universalis) as some titles of the Pope. It is assumed that “the Prince of the Apostles” is Saint Peter, so that the Pope is now considered “the successor of Saint Peter.”
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you and so doth Marcus my son.
Peter 5:13
If interpreted literally, as the preferred method of exegesis by fundamental protestants, then Peter 5:13 clearly states that Peter is in Babylon, not Rome.
If Babylon is interpreted as Rome, then Peter wrote from Rome. The six mentions of Babylon in Revelation are oftentimes interpreted allegorically as the city Rome, “the most corrupt seat of idolatry and the enemy of Christianity.”
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g897/kjv/tr/0-1/
†“Bishop of the Catholic Church”: According to Hardouin, the Bishop of Rome is not the successor of Saint Peter, however, the Annuario Pontificio for the year. 2009 lists “Bishop of Rome” (Episcopus Romanus), “Vicar of Jesus Christ” (Vicarius Iesu Christi), “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles” (Successor principis apostolorum), and “Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church” (Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Universalis) as some titles of the Pope. It is assumed that “the Prince of the Apostles” is Saint Peter, so that the Pope is now considered “the successor of Saint Peter.”
8.07 In the same design, they made up the tale of the allotment of the provinces among the Apostles, that it might be thought no more had been given to Peter than to each of the others, but that Rome fell by lot to him, Jerusalem to James, Ethiopia to Matthew, India to Thomas, and so with the rest and that this might the more certainly hold with posterity, even in certain Martyrologies they consigned that feast of the Division of the Apostles to the 15th day of July among the Latins.* On that day the division of the Apostles for Preaching. The Office of .that day is for the same alleged event in the Breviary of Herbipolis (Wurzburg).
*The feast [the Division of the Apostles] was not included in the Tridentine Calendar [1568] or in any later revision of the General Roman Calendar. Dispersion of the Apostles. Wikipedia
Later revisions to the General Roman Calendar occurred in 1588, 1602, 1631, 1882, 1907, 1960, and 1969.
Later revisions to the General Roman Calendar occurred in 1588, 1602, 1631, 1882, 1907, 1960, and 1969.
8.08 As Peter’s care, after the death of Judas, was to have another elected in his place to be the twelfth and to judge (as Christ had promised), after the descent of the Holy Spirit, the twelve tribes of Israel; so was it necessary on the decease of Peter that from the elders, i.e., bishops and presbyters who were in Peter’s company, another should be brought in to undertake and sustain the same duty, to confirm the brethren, to hold the keys, and in the universal Church to build up her powers, as Christ had promised.*†‡ §For to Peter alone, the other Apostles are to be commended, to be confirmed by the Lord Christ. There will ever be in the Church both heresies and Bishops who are to be confirmed in the faith. Therefore, by someone who is equal in power to Peter this must be done and also he must be an infallible judge of controversies, otherwise, he could not confirm his brethren in the faith.‖¶
*“the death of Judas”:
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. Acts 1:21–22
The possible candidates for the replacement of Judas Iscariot were limited to those who were at the baptism of Jesus and a witness of his resurrection.
†Christ’s promises to his church were fulfilled by men who built “up her powers”.
‡But I [the Lord, v.31] have prayed for thee [Simon, v.31], that thy faith fail not and when thou art converted, strengthen G4741 thy brethren. Luke 22:32
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G4741, stērizō, as: stablish (6), establish (3), strengthen (2), fix (1), stedfastly set (1).
§And I [Jesus, v.17] will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matt. 16:19
‖“an infallible judge of controversies”: For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 1 Cor. 11:19
¶The Vulgate Bible has “confirma fratres tuos” which explains Hardouin’s four fold repetition of “confirming.”
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. Acts 1:21–22
The possible candidates for the replacement of Judas Iscariot were limited to those who were at the baptism of Jesus and a witness of his resurrection.
†Christ’s promises to his church were fulfilled by men who built “up her powers”.
‡But I [the Lord, v.31] have prayed for thee [Simon, v.31], that thy faith fail not and when thou art converted, strengthen G4741 thy brethren. Luke 22:32
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G4741, stērizō, as: stablish (6), establish (3), strengthen (2), fix (1), stedfastly set (1).
§And I [Jesus, v.17] will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matt. 16:19
‖“an infallible judge of controversies”: For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 1 Cor. 11:19
¶The Vulgate Bible has “confirma fratres tuos” which explains Hardouin’s four fold repetition of “confirming.”
8.09 The surest proof of a perpetual tradition and doctrine in the Church is the dignity and power of the Pope. For if books fail, as they must—books framed with the object of bringing in atheism—[then] it cannot afterwards be shown whence or at what time, except from Christ, it began to exist. Nor could it be shown by any probable argument that the power of the supreme Pontiff in defining questions of faith was not ever the same that it is now.* It is not clear that they had any temporal power before the tenth century, but that they had it at least from that age is clear from old coins.†‡
*”the same that it is now”: The date of Easter was universally recognized until it was changed by Gregory XIII, r. 1575-1585, in 1582. Although this innovation is against the tradition of the Orthodox Churches, Hardouin expects the reader to agree that the Papacy can alter the principle Feast of Christianity by fiat as “Bishop of the Church.” It is evident that “the power of the supreme Pontiff in defining questions of faith” has increased since the rise of printing, not remaining “the same that it is now.”
In 2018, the Catechism of the Catholic Church was revised to state that the death penalty is "inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." The fact that no previous Pope thought that civil penalties were “inadmissible” indicates increasing Papal power, demonstrating it is not “ever the same.” Catholic Catechism, 2267
It would seem that acts of bodily torture by the Inquisition should have been rightly considered as an “attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” but they were not. To make such heretical statements such that women, witches, and heretics, among others, possess “dignity” would result in being turned over to the secular authorities to incur civil penalties, that is, to be burned at the stake.
There have been a multitude of changes in the Roman Church due to Papal authority since the year 1513, when the Lateran Council decreed the dogma of the immortal soul. The current representation of the Roman Church is radically different from that time, although only a few doctrines have been introduced.
†“the tenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
‡Based on the coins, there is no indication of temporal power of the Papacy before the tenth century. The spiritual power of the Papacy could have existed for unknown ages prior to its temporal power.
In 2018, the Catechism of the Catholic Church was revised to state that the death penalty is "inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." The fact that no previous Pope thought that civil penalties were “inadmissible” indicates increasing Papal power, demonstrating it is not “ever the same.” Catholic Catechism, 2267
It would seem that acts of bodily torture by the Inquisition should have been rightly considered as an “attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” but they were not. To make such heretical statements such that women, witches, and heretics, among others, possess “dignity” would result in being turned over to the secular authorities to incur civil penalties, that is, to be burned at the stake.
There have been a multitude of changes in the Roman Church due to Papal authority since the year 1513, when the Lateran Council decreed the dogma of the immortal soul. The current representation of the Roman Church is radically different from that time, although only a few doctrines have been introduced.
†“the tenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
‡Based on the coins, there is no indication of temporal power of the Papacy before the tenth century. The spiritual power of the Papacy could have existed for unknown ages prior to its temporal power.
8.10 It was impossible, then, utterly to abrogate the primacy of the Pope, who was everywhere recognised with perfect consent at the time that the impious gang took its rise.*
*Since Hardouin maintains that the hoaxers are the cause of the schism between the Orthodox and Roman Churches, the only time that Papal “primacy” was “everywhere recognised” was during an indeterminate period after the east west schism and before the Reformation. The final session of the Lateran Council was March 16, 1517 and Luther posted the 95 theses a few months later, on October 31, 1517.
The Papal Bull, Apostolici Regiminis, was issued on December 19, 1513 and decreed the dogma of the immortal soul. Indulgences, prayers, or good works that are offered to assist the faithful departed to leave Purgatory are questionable if the souls of the faithful are dead, along with their bodies, until the Resurrection. The declaration that souls do not die with body, but are immortal, ensures that the souls are in Purgatory and can receive assistance from the living faithfull.
The first obstacle to the idea of Purgatory is that the fate of individuals can be changed after their demise.
The second obstacle to Purgatory is the second coming of Jesus, when he will “judge the living and the dead.” At that time, Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven would be emptied for the Final Judgment. Hell, the damned, and Heaven, the Saints, are included in the judgment so that the impious suggestion that God is a respecter of persons could not be concluded if only those faithful in Purgatory were to be judged [Rom. 2:11]. Since Christ can, will, or should empty Purgatory for the last judgment and purge those worthy souls of their venial sins, one wonders what theological purpose Purgatory provides.
The Papal Bull, Apostolici Regiminis, was issued on December 19, 1513 and decreed the dogma of the immortal soul. Indulgences, prayers, or good works that are offered to assist the faithful departed to leave Purgatory are questionable if the souls of the faithful are dead, along with their bodies, until the Resurrection. The declaration that souls do not die with body, but are immortal, ensures that the souls are in Purgatory and can receive assistance from the living faithfull.
The first obstacle to the idea of Purgatory is that the fate of individuals can be changed after their demise.
The second obstacle to Purgatory is the second coming of Jesus, when he will “judge the living and the dead.” At that time, Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven would be emptied for the Final Judgment. Hell, the damned, and Heaven, the Saints, are included in the judgment so that the impious suggestion that God is a respecter of persons could not be concluded if only those faithful in Purgatory were to be judged [Rom. 2:11]. Since Christ can, will, or should empty Purgatory for the last judgment and purge those worthy souls of their venial sins, one wonders what theological purpose Purgatory provides.
8.10a “Let it be conceded to him [the Pope],” they [the forgers] said; “but
(1) only after it shall have been shown that in former ages of the Church the Greek and Latin ‘Fathers’ and the Africans did not concede it.
[1a] Let us say that the concession was made by the Councils, not by Christ.
(2) Let us pretend that there were a great many quarrels stirred up about that question and that they have never been ended.
(3) Let us change the supreme power into a Primacy, i.e., the first place among peers.*
[3a] Let us give the second place in dignity and jurisdiction to the Bishop of Constantinople.
[4] Let us constitute five Patriarchs [as] peers.”
*“change the supreme power into a Primacy”: However, in the first sentence of 9.10, Hardouin mentions “the primacy of the Pope,” not the expected “supremacy of the Pope.”
8.10b Therefore, ⟨they early, i.e.⟩, from the fourth and fifth century, [they] attributed like prerogatives to the Bishop of Constantinople and much more in the ninth century, so that there might be in ⟨the last⟩ [those] times an opponent of the Roman Pontiff.* They added also a contention concerning the faith—namely, the procession of the Holy Spirit, because on matters of that kind dissidences are eternal. Other controversies may be arranged on friendly terms. Thus, they easily persuaded the Patriarchs of the East to withdraw themselves from the jurisdiction of the Vicar of our Saviour Christ.† This was effected by the spurious monuments written by the impious crew which were either carried hence to the East, or were sedulously read in the Academies and Colleges of Italy by the Easterns, where literature was studied.‡
*“the fourth and fifth century” and “the ninth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
The hoaxers had a general outline of history and were aware that “in the last times” of the nine century there would be opponents of the Pope and wrote history accordingly.
†We read “Vicar of our Saviour Christ” and not the expected “Bishop of the Catholic Church”. Viz. 8:6, 19:14.
‡sedulously: (formal) in a way that shows great care and effort in one’s work.
The hoaxers had a general outline of history and were aware that “in the last times” of the nine century there would be opponents of the Pope and wrote history accordingly.
†We read “Vicar of our Saviour Christ” and not the expected “Bishop of the Catholic Church”. Viz. 8:6, 19:14.
‡sedulously: (formal) in a way that shows great care and effort in one’s work.
chapter 9
The Catholic Tradition alleged by Hardouin to be infallible and Catholics to be independent of all Writings. He attacks the principle of Written Tradition as held by the Socinians and other heretics. Further defense of the alleged “living” and “unwritten” Tradition.
9.01 THE Catholic faith relies on the word of God alone, the written word (scriptum) in the canonical books, and the word handed down (traditum), as the Council of Trent defines. This tradition is not obnoxious to any error, because it is from God, teaching man what he would have believed concerning Himself and His institutes. That Tradition is ⟨, I say,⟩ much more infallible than that which holds that Louis XV, King of the French, is of a very noble and ancient stock.* Even if there were no books to teach this, no other monuments, that tradition is infallible.† So is the tradition among Catholics, not only on the other heads of the faith, but on the constant and perpetual succession of Pontiffs from Peter to Benedict XIII.‡
*Louis XV, r. 1715–74, King of the French.
†The claim that tradition is infallible, but the truth, the objective reality, of that tradition can be questioned, that is, is the House of Bourbon “ancient” as claimed, or did the hoaxers have a hand in the royal genealogies, especially those of France? For “France is the best part of Christendom” [3.20b].
‡Benedict XIII, r. 1724–1730.
†The claim that tradition is infallible, but the truth, the objective reality, of that tradition can be questioned, that is, is the House of Bourbon “ancient” as claimed, or did the hoaxers have a hand in the royal genealogies, especially those of France? For “France is the best part of Christendom” [3.20b].
‡Benedict XIII, r. 1724–1730.
9.02 We Catholics are like those noblemen whose nobility is undoubted and confessed by all.* We need not any writings for the proof of the antiquity of our faith, even as noblemen of primary rank seek not for tablets or parchments by which to support their nobility, as they do whose nobility is doubtful.† The heretics are like the latter. They seek witnesses or rather allies and patrons of their faith or infidelity. Some quote the “Ante–Nicene Fathers,” others quote others, but this is to rely on witnesses who may be supposititious.‡ The Calvinist may be shown, at some time, that Augustine is supposititious. The Calvinists think they have shown the Anglicans that the epistles of Ignatius are supposititious, notwithstanding the current belief that they were received as genuine by the historical faith of 1,500 years.§‖ Would not he who should prove Augustine to be spurious justly say to the Calvinists, “Your religion is vain,” even as the Calvinists themselves say to the Anglicans, ‘‘Your episcopate is vain, for it relies on the false epistles of Ignatius alone.”
*The lack of doubt and sincere statements do not contribute to truth.
†Hardouin does not distinguish among members of “nobility,“ nobles of “primary rank,” and royalty. Typically, the longer that a given monarchy exists, the greater the number of pretenders; witness the three factions; Bonapartist, Legitimist, and Orléanist; vying for the throne of France while there are none for the throne of Norway. There were many claimants to generally acknowledged rulers and these would often be resolved through wars of succession. Those pretenders, if far removed from the current monarch, would necessarily rely upon “tablets or parchments” to support their claim to legitimately reign.
‡Relying on witnesses that are possibly suppositious is a characteristic of modern Christianity.
§Ignatius of Antioch, 108–140.
‖“the historical faith of 1,500 years”: Scaliger's chronology.
†Hardouin does not distinguish among members of “nobility,“ nobles of “primary rank,” and royalty. Typically, the longer that a given monarchy exists, the greater the number of pretenders; witness the three factions; Bonapartist, Legitimist, and Orléanist; vying for the throne of France while there are none for the throne of Norway. There were many claimants to generally acknowledged rulers and these would often be resolved through wars of succession. Those pretenders, if far removed from the current monarch, would necessarily rely upon “tablets or parchments” to support their claim to legitimately reign.
‡Relying on witnesses that are possibly suppositious is a characteristic of modern Christianity.
§Ignatius of Antioch, 108–140.
‖“the historical faith of 1,500 years”: Scaliger's chronology.
9.03 It is said, ‘‘We should believe nothing that is not written.” How is this proved? Where is that written? If it is not written, [then] it is not itself to be believed. If this is true, ⟨“Only writing should be believed”,⟩ [then] it follows that this written thing being non–extant, it cannot be believed. From what time did the principle begin to be true? Who defined it and by what power? The Apostles certainly taught the contrary. They said that the rule of faith was that which before they wrote anything.* They taught by preaching.
1 Peter 1:15. But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which was preached in the Gospel to you. He says not, which was written , but which was preached in the Gospel.
1 John 2:24. What ye heard from the beginning (he does not say what was written and ye read) let it abide in you.
*This “rule of faith” may be an example of relying “on witnesses who may be supposititious” [9.02].
1 John 2:24. What ye heard from the beginning (he does not say what was written and ye read) let it abide in you.
*This “rule of faith” may be an example of relying “on witnesses who may be supposititious” [9.02].
9.03a They [the Apostles] were writing to Christians. Therefore, they [the recipients of the letters] were Christians not by means of written books, but of Apostolic Preaching.* In fine, it is a folly to say that there is nothing certain in the faith, but what is written in Councils; since the alleged “old Councils,” as we have them, are of doubtful credit and there is nothing defined in the Councils, ⟨except⟩ because of the malice of heretics who depart from Tradition, absolutely nothing which was not [defined] earlier [as a] matter of faith.†
*The first audience of the epistles were Christians before the letters were written.
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints… Rom. 1:7
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth… called to be saints… 1 Cor. 1:2
….unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia: 2 Cor. 1:1
…unto the churches of Galatia… Gal. 1:2
…to the saints which are at Ephesus… Eph. 1:1
…to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons… Phil. 1:1
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse… Col. 1:2
They were Christians by Apostolic Preaching and by chrismation. All the Gospels agree that Jesus was anointed with oil, or chrism, and this tradition is followed by the Roman and Orthodox Churches [Matt. 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9; Luke 7:36–50; John 12:1–8].
†Neither the ecumenical councils nor the western councils can be held as being “certain in the faith” due to the involvement of the hoaxers. The Church must rely upon traditional practices when the decrees of the councils are at variance with received tradition.
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints… Rom. 1:7
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth… called to be saints… 1 Cor. 1:2
….unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia: 2 Cor. 1:1
…unto the churches of Galatia… Gal. 1:2
…to the saints which are at Ephesus… Eph. 1:1
…to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons… Phil. 1:1
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse… Col. 1:2
They were Christians by Apostolic Preaching and by chrismation. All the Gospels agree that Jesus was anointed with oil, or chrism, and this tradition is followed by the Roman and Orthodox Churches [Matt. 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9; Luke 7:36–50; John 12:1–8].
†Neither the ecumenical councils nor the western councils can be held as being “certain in the faith” due to the involvement of the hoaxers. The Church must rely upon traditional practices when the decrees of the councils are at variance with received tradition.
9.04 The false “Irenaeus” himself, who is believed to have written in the year 200, says:
But what if not even the Apostles had left Scriptures to us, ought we not to follow the order of Tradition, which they handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches? To this ordination many nations of barbarians assent, of whom they who believe on Christ without chart and ink, having their salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit and diligently keeping the old Tradition, etc.*†‡§
*Irenaeus, c.130–c.202.
†“the year 200”: Scaliger's chronology.
‡Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 4
§“their salvation written in their hearts”: Irenaeus cannot mean that people have knowledge of, and are assured of, salvation in this life.
“God forbid that His Church… should use false witnesses or testimonies” [4.10].
†“the year 200”: Scaliger's chronology.
‡Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 4
§“their salvation written in their hearts”: Irenaeus cannot mean that people have knowledge of, and are assured of, salvation in this life.
“God forbid that His Church… should use false witnesses or testimonies” [4.10].
9.05 Ps. 43:1 0 God we have heard with our ears. Our fathers announced to us. They do not believe Scripture because it is written, but because it relates what their fathers had told them.* Ps.77:3–6: What great things have we heard (not how great things do we read), and we have known them; and our fathers have told us. How great things he commanded our fathers, to make them known to their sons that the next generation might know; the sons who shall be born shall arise and shall tell them to their sons.†
*We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have told us, What work thou didst in their days, in the times of old. Psalm 44:1
†Quanta audivimus et cognovimus ea, et patres nostri narraverunt nobis. Non sunt occultata a filiis eorum in generatione altera, narrantes laudes Domini et virtutes ejus, et mirabilia ejus quae fecit. Et suscitavit testimonium in Jacob, et legem posuit in Israel, quanta mandavit patribus nostris nota facere ea filiis suis: ut cognoscat generatio altera; filii qui nascentur et exsurgent, et narrabunt filiis suis, Psalm 77:3-6
†Quanta audivimus et cognovimus ea, et patres nostri narraverunt nobis. Non sunt occultata a filiis eorum in generatione altera, narrantes laudes Domini et virtutes ejus, et mirabilia ejus quae fecit. Et suscitavit testimonium in Jacob, et legem posuit in Israel, quanta mandavit patribus nostris nota facere ea filiis suis: ut cognoscat generatio altera; filii qui nascentur et exsurgent, et narrabunt filiis suis, Psalm 77:3-6
9.06 Exod. 3:6: I am the God of thy father; as if to say, If thou wouldst know me, [then] learn from thy father and desire no other witness.
Moreover he [the Lord, v.4] said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.*
Ex. 3:6
*And he [the Lord, v.17] said, Thou [Moses, v.17] canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Exod. 33:20
The reason that Moses “hid his face” was the threat of death. However, Moses did see the Lord’s “back parts” [Exod. 33:23].
9.07 Deut. 32:7: Inquire of thy father and he will tell thee; thy elders and they will declare to thee. It does not say, Interrogate thy books.
Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. Deut. 32:7
The reason that Moses “hid his face” was the threat of death. However, Moses did see the Lord’s “back parts” [Exod. 33:23].
9.07 Deut. 32:7: Inquire of thy father and he will tell thee; thy elders and they will declare to thee. It does not say, Interrogate thy books.
Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. Deut. 32:7
9.08 The Christian, Apostolic, and divine Tradition is contained in dogmas which the Church believed, until the rise of that band of wicked men. But the dogmas believed by the Church in those times are precisely those which the impious crew assails under the names of feigned Heresies.* They would not have assailed them, if they did not understand that they were believed in the Church and were contrary to their own system of opinions.† The doctrines attacked are all ours. In our system, therefore, the Apostolic Christian and divine Tradition is contained.
*The Fathers attack “feigned Heresies.” The hoaxers masquerade as Church Fathers to verbosely refute the heresies that the hoaxers themselves created. Therefore, whether the unsuspecting reader concurs with the Fathers or with the heresies, the hoaxers triumph.
†The hoaxers subtly assault the teachings of the Church, which are contrary to their system of reasoning. It matters little if a reader sides with the Fathers or concludes the heresies are valid; for, either way, the hoaxers have deceived the reader and furthered their goals.
9.09 Were there no written Tradition, the faith which the Apostle praises would, nonetheless, be true, and most true —faith from hearing; he says not that it is from reading.*†‡
*Saint Paul is “the Apostle.”
†If the Torahs, Korans, and Bibles were supernaturally removed from the world, then Judaism, Islam, and Protestantism would be untenable without written support, yet the Roman and Orthodox Churches would continue their evangelization unaffected. This conclusion indicates that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy predate the Age of Printing, as they are not dependent upon books to fulfill their respective missions.
‡“faith from hearing… not… from reading”: Saint Paul is the most influential writer of the NT.
For verily I [Jesus, 4:12] say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matt. 5:18
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matt 5:38-39
†The hoaxers subtly assault the teachings of the Church, which are contrary to their system of reasoning. It matters little if a reader sides with the Fathers or concludes the heresies are valid; for, either way, the hoaxers have deceived the reader and furthered their goals.
9.09 Were there no written Tradition, the faith which the Apostle praises would, nonetheless, be true, and most true —faith from hearing; he says not that it is from reading.*†‡
*Saint Paul is “the Apostle.”
†If the Torahs, Korans, and Bibles were supernaturally removed from the world, then Judaism, Islam, and Protestantism would be untenable without written support, yet the Roman and Orthodox Churches would continue their evangelization unaffected. This conclusion indicates that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy predate the Age of Printing, as they are not dependent upon books to fulfill their respective missions.
‡“faith from hearing… not… from reading”: Saint Paul is the most influential writer of the NT.
For verily I [Jesus, 4:12] say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matt. 5:18
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matt 5:38-39
9.10 If Tradition was not constantly preserved after the Apostles without writings, [then] Mahomet would be more fortunate in his sect than Christ. The Sacraments in the Church are of Tradition, even as (if I may use the comparison) among the Turks circumcision is of tradition; of which there is no mention in the Koran itself.* But, in the Church, the tradition is confirmation of the truth; ⟨without⟩ [outside of] the Church, of error. And assuredly, I ween, Mahomet would have desired to do away with circumcision, since he was an atheist; but against the use and tradition of his nation, he dared not attempt it.†‡§
*The Hagarites are the children of Abraham through his son Ishmael and practice circumcision [Gen. 17:4, 6; Gen. 17:10, 12–13].
And Ishmael, his son ,was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. Gen. 17:25–26
That in blessing I [the Lord, v.16] will bless thee [Abraham, v.15], and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore... Gen. 22:17
Three chapters later, the sons of Ishamel and their nations fulfilled the promise of the Lord to Abraham that his progeny will be as numerous as “the stars of the heaven.”
These are the sons of Ishmael and these are their names by their towns and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations. Gen. 25:16
†ween: be of the opinion; think or suppose.
‡The supposed connection between being an atheist and forbidding circumcision is tenuous.
§The unwritten tradition of the Arabs is stronger than the desire of Mohammed, an alleged atheist, to reform Arabian culture.
And Ishmael, his son ,was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. Gen. 17:25–26
That in blessing I [the Lord, v.16] will bless thee [Abraham, v.15], and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore... Gen. 22:17
Three chapters later, the sons of Ishamel and their nations fulfilled the promise of the Lord to Abraham that his progeny will be as numerous as “the stars of the heaven.”
These are the sons of Ishmael and these are their names by their towns and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations. Gen. 25:16
†ween: be of the opinion; think or suppose.
‡The supposed connection between being an atheist and forbidding circumcision is tenuous.
§The unwritten tradition of the Arabs is stronger than the desire of Mohammed, an alleged atheist, to reform Arabian culture.
9.11 The impious and libertine would prefer nothing to the depression or neglect or even overthrow of the force of Ecclesiastical traditions and the judgment of the Church which leans on that tradition.* That unwritten tradition attests the Sacred Scripture itself and by an infallible judgment. No alleged writing of the “ancients” is so attested.†
*The hoaxers desire to “reduce the level or strength of activity” of the Church, either through passive means, by having the faithful fail to properly care for the Church, or by active methods, forcibly removing the Church from influence, whether temporal or moral.
†The Sacred Scriptures was an unwritten tradition until the undoubted and genuine Council of Trent promulgated a decree on “the eighth day of the month of April, in the year MDXLVI.”
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
In this canon, the books of the New Testament are listed “and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”
The schismatic Orthodox Church has not received the Apocalypse, whether in the old Latin vulgate or in another language, into its annual Lectionary and, therefore, is anathematized.
†The Sacred Scriptures was an unwritten tradition until the undoubted and genuine Council of Trent promulgated a decree on “the eighth day of the month of April, in the year MDXLVI.”
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
In this canon, the books of the New Testament are listed “and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”
The schismatic Orthodox Church has not received the Apocalypse, whether in the old Latin vulgate or in another language, into its annual Lectionary and, therefore, is anathematized.
9.12 The Mosaic Law stood through more than 1,500 years with the sacred books alone and those for a long time very few, to wit, the Pentateuch alone, with Tradition and the Responses of the Pontiff in doubtful cases. Deut. 17:8–9: There were then no other books on religion and sacred matters and why should not the Christian Religion stand, with its sacred books, tradition and Responses of the supreme Pontiff, seeing that the Church is in that respect like the Synagogue?*†
*“more than 1,500 years”: Scaliger's chronology.
†If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates, then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose and thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites and unto the judge that shall be in those days and enquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: Deut. 17:8–9
The average reading level, based on seven popular readability formulas, of these two verse yields a final result:
Score: 26 [ = grade level ]
Reading Difficulty: Extremely Difficult
Grade Level: College Graduate
https://readabilityformulas.com/readability-scoring-system.php#formulaResults
†If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates, then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose and thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites and unto the judge that shall be in those days and enquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: Deut. 17:8–9
The average reading level, based on seven popular readability formulas, of these two verse yields a final result:
Score: 26 [ = grade level ]
Reading Difficulty: Extremely Difficult
Grade Level: College Graduate
https://readabilityformulas.com/readability-scoring-system.php#formulaResults
9.13 The written tradition is the tradition of the Socinians, who utterly reject the oral tradition, or that which has all authority from the attesting Church, and yet they admit the written tradition down to the Nicene Council, because something of this sort is necessary to them that they may prove their certain conviction, for example, that Matthew’s Gospel is Matthew’s.* There is a certain mean, says Socinus, ep. 4. to Christopher Ostorod, between Scriptures and Tradition. Nay, it is a manifold medium; Written Histories, and other testimonies and reasons which have lead and do lead men of sense to hold the Gospel of Matthew to be a true history of Jesus Christ and not to hold it to be Thomas’s [sic] work, there being here no intervention of the authority of the Church and of the Spirit, by whom she is perpetually governed.†‡
*Socinianism is a nontrinitarian Christian belief system developed in the Polish Reformed Church between the 16th and 17th centuries. Socinianism, Wikipedia
†Socinus. 1539–1604.
‡“Written Histories, and other testimonies”: Flavius Josephus, c. 37–c. 100; author of “The Jewish War” and “Antiquities of the Jews.”
†Socinus. 1539–1604.
‡“Written Histories, and other testimonies”: Flavius Josephus, c. 37–c. 100; author of “The Jewish War” and “Antiquities of the Jews.”
9.14 If there were no written tradition, yet that faith would be true which is believed to have existed concerning the homoousion in the 318 Nicene Fathers who are thought to have established it by their decree, though no book (or few) had that name or faith.*†
*Homoousion is a Christian theological term that means "same in being" or "same in essence". It is used in the Nicene Creed to describe Jesus as being of the same essence as God the Father.
Homoousion, Wikipedia
†And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. Gen. 14:14
The mention of the 318 Fathers is extraneous, as there is no commentary. The numeral value of the name of “Eliezer” in Hebrew is 318. The sun, “Helios” in Greek, is equal to 318. The hoaxers seem to involve numerology into their design, as the 318 Fathers is numerically equal to the “Eliezer.” The word Eliezer [Strong’s H499] is related to Lazarus [Strong’s G2976], who was resurrected by Jesus. Jesus resurrected on the third day, Sunday, the day of the Sun.
Homoousion, Wikipedia
†And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. Gen. 14:14
The mention of the 318 Fathers is extraneous, as there is no commentary. The numeral value of the name of “Eliezer” in Hebrew is 318. The sun, “Helios” in Greek, is equal to 318. The hoaxers seem to involve numerology into their design, as the 318 Fathers is numerically equal to the “Eliezer.” The word Eliezer [Strong’s H499] is related to Lazarus [Strong’s G2976], who was resurrected by Jesus. Jesus resurrected on the third day, Sunday, the day of the Sun.
9.15 If Religion ought to stand by the testimony of written books, [then] the essentials of Religion are gone.* For the chief head of Religion, on which all the rest in their connection depend, is this: Who God is, of what nature He whom Christians worship is. For all those books bring in another God than the God of Christians —I mean the alleged writings of the “Fathers.” They teach of a God who is simply such as atheists would have.†
*The “essentials of Religion” are who “God is” and his “nature” and they cannot “stand on the testimony of written books.” In vain, Protestants attempt to assign the triune God, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence into the pages of the Old Testament.
†A God of the atheists is no god, as the claims of God are without evidence. Hardouin likely has “right reason” in mind when he mentions the god of the atheists.
†A God of the atheists is no god, as the claims of God are without evidence. Hardouin likely has “right reason” in mind when he mentions the god of the atheists.
9.16 The living Tradition is by far the surer witness of the faith and of the true and ancient use in the Sacraments than books, whether MSS or published. In the Roman Ritual, before Paul V and the year 1614, Baptism is placed under the triune mersion alone.*† Yet, was that observed whether in France or Rome? It was utterly neglected, tradition and ancient use prevailing over the mischiefs of the impious band by whom that rite had been intruded. Certain Bishops, but by the favor of God, very few, would have Extreme Unction precede the Viaticum and so formerly certain men placed it, even in Paris, because some old books and fictitious stories offered arguments for the usage. But who complied? That use was neglected and rightly spurned by the faithful. The tradition was received from the Apostles’ lives.‡ Nothing, then, written is either true or useful, unless it consents with the perpetual Tradition of the Church.§
*Paul V, r. 1605–1621.
†Living Tradition is the certain witness of the ancient usage of the seven Sacraments.
‡Tradition is a claim without evidence.
§The touchstone of the Orthodox church is whether any suggested practice conforms to tradition; if not, then the practice is rejected, that is to say, “perpetual Tradition” does not partake of innovation.
†Living Tradition is the certain witness of the ancient usage of the seven Sacraments.
‡Tradition is a claim without evidence.
§The touchstone of the Orthodox church is whether any suggested practice conforms to tradition; if not, then the practice is rejected, that is to say, “perpetual Tradition” does not partake of innovation.
9.17 It is, indeed, equivalent to a huge miracle that against the gates of hell, against the efforts of the impious cohort, the force of the unwritten Tradition has hitherto been so wondrously exerted. For though that Faction poured out their venom into the Roman Missal and Breviary and Ritual, so that there is scarce any other book in which the dogmas of the Catholic faith are more subtly attacked than in those. Nevertheless the faith stands sound and whole in the minds of the faithful and of Doctors dissentient from the contents of the Missal, Breviary, and Ritual, except the forms of the Sacraments.* If you attend, in the case of the rest, to the words precisely as they sound and not to the sense of the Church and of Catholics reading them.† Lately, there was published a Paris Ritual showing a prayer in funeral services, such as are held in a Metropolitan Church which openly teaches that souls enjoy glory only on the last day of Judgment.‡ Are you therefore to say that this is the faith of the Church of Paris?
*dissentient: in opposition to a majority or official opinion.
†The words utilized eccliesiaticaly by the Church have nuanced or different meanings than the plain understanding of the word would suggest.
‡Souls in Purgatory do not “enjoy glory” until their entrance into Heaven. For souls that remain in Purgatory until the day of Judgment, the reasonable conclusion is that they enjoy glory “only on the last day.” Individuals who die in a state of grace bypass Purgatory and arrive in Heaven without the necessary purging fires of Purgatory.
†The words utilized eccliesiaticaly by the Church have nuanced or different meanings than the plain understanding of the word would suggest.
‡Souls in Purgatory do not “enjoy glory” until their entrance into Heaven. For souls that remain in Purgatory until the day of Judgment, the reasonable conclusion is that they enjoy glory “only on the last day.” Individuals who die in a state of grace bypass Purgatory and arrive in Heaven without the necessary purging fires of Purgatory.
9.18 ⟨They who⟩ [Those] in France and Lotharingia [who] do not receive the Council of Trent are not ⟨therefore⟩ less Catholics in all that belongs to the dogmas of the faith.*†‡ They embrace and hold them, not because they are defined by the Council of Trent, but because they have received them from ancient and Apostolic tradition and by the Roman faith and institution.§
*Lotharingia was a medieval successor kingdom of the Carolingian Empire. It comprised present–day Saarland, Luxembourg, Lorraine, Netherlands, and the eastern half of Belgium, along with parts of today's North Rhine–Westphalia, Rhineland–Palatinate and Nord. Lotharingia, Wikipedia
†Those Orthodox Christians who “do not receive the Council of Trent are not less” Catholic regarding “all that belongs to the dogmas of the faith,” since “they have received them from ancient and Apostolic tradition.”
‡It is doubtful that Hardouin would agree that those in Poland who rejected the first Vatican Council are no “less Catholics in all that belongs to the dogmas of the faith.”
§Orthodox Christians “embrace and hold them, not because they are defined by the Council of Trent, but because they have received them from [the] ancient and Apostolic tradition.”
†Those Orthodox Christians who “do not receive the Council of Trent are not less” Catholic regarding “all that belongs to the dogmas of the faith,” since “they have received them from ancient and Apostolic tradition.”
‡It is doubtful that Hardouin would agree that those in Poland who rejected the first Vatican Council are no “less Catholics in all that belongs to the dogmas of the faith.”
§Orthodox Christians “embrace and hold them, not because they are defined by the Council of Trent, but because they have received them from [the] ancient and Apostolic tradition.”
9.19 All heretics abhor Tradition as handed down ⟨and⟩ apart from the written word. For if they granted that one was to be preserved out of those which the Church teaches are to be received, [then] all would be compelled to adopt and retain all those which she approves. A certain Calvinist asked me: “Where was the Tradition of the dogmas which Catholics hold?” I answered that it was in the mouth of all Catholics and accordingly certain and immutable; not in the books of writers who may write what they will, but who cannot deceive the whole body of the Church. So the Tradition of the sense of Calvin perseveres in the mouth and the minds of the whole Calvinist folk and, therefore, it is certain and will not be changed, even if all the books should perish in which anything is written in the sense of Calvin.
*Heretics must rely on the written word, whether Scripture, contemporary commentaries on Scripture, or the “Church Fathers.” Some of the unwritten traditions include infant baptism, remission of sins by a priest, episcopal succession, and transubstantiation.
9.20 God makes light of written tradition or sets it at naught, as He has shown in these last ages. For since the monuments are all false on which commonly Catholic Doctors rely—nor merely false, but adverse to the faith.* None of the Doctors relies on them unless he can effect, by means of twisted and forced interpretations, by some violence or art, a consent with the non–written tradition, i.e., with the judgment of the Holy Roman Church and the consent of the Catholic world.*†
*”Doctors” in this section should be understood as current teachers of Roman Catholicism. The writings of the Fathers are not beneficial towards the Church, nor neutral, but “adverse.”
†Twisted and “forced interpretations” are not limited to the exegeses of teachers of Roman Catholicism.
†Twisted and “forced interpretations” are not limited to the exegeses of teachers of Roman Catholicism.
9.21 But the one and the other tradition is necessary, otherwise, how could one part show itself ⟨the⟩ superior in the interpretation of the Sacred Letters?* For that reason the Socinians claim the Fathers of the first three centuries.† But if they vainly do this, because I am proving these writings to be supposititious — [then] there remains the one unwritten viva voce Tradition that, namely, of the Bishops who lived when the impious crew forged these writings and those [Bishops] who now live and are of the same mind with theirs [Bishops].
*Hardouin states that different methods of interpretation of Scripture lead to different results. As “superior” is named, it seems mediocre and decadent are possible additional results.
†“the first three centuries”: Scaliger's chronology.
†“the first three centuries”: Scaliger's chronology.
9.22 The best tradition is the unwritten, for it is not an impossibility that the writings in our hands are supposititious, or ⟨(if you will)⟩ that they have been corrupted and depraved.* On the other hand the living tradition is ever incorrupt and constantly the same. It is impossible that that faith should not be held by all in the Church this year which was her faith last year, or ten years ago and thus our fathers were assured of the faith of their own and of a former age.†
*The writings of the Fathers “in our hands” are supposititious, assumptive, corrupted, and depraved.
†”held by all in the Church this year… or ten years ago”: The Immaculate Conception of Mary, 1854; Papal Infallibility, 1870; and the Assumption of Mary, 1950; were unwritten traditions that may have been held as pious beliefs, before becoming dogmatic written traditions in the Roman Church.
Various aspects of the faith of the Roman Church have been clarified since Hardouin wrote in the early eighteenth century.
†”held by all in the Church this year… or ten years ago”: The Immaculate Conception of Mary, 1854; Papal Infallibility, 1870; and the Assumption of Mary, 1950; were unwritten traditions that may have been held as pious beliefs, before becoming dogmatic written traditions in the Roman Church.
Various aspects of the faith of the Roman Church have been clarified since Hardouin wrote in the early eighteenth century.
9.23 The unwritten Tradition alone is openly favored by Deity and it alone protects the faith of the Church from injury.* However, the false Augustine and the false Fulgentius and other books written with great artifice and, by all, received with honor and reverence, may state that the efficacy of Grace is irresistible, yet the Church has laid down and hands down that which she received from the Lord.† Let theologians explain Augustine and others as they will; she will meantime, when enquired of, reply from her invariable tradition: he who shall say that there is never resistance to interior grace in the state of lapsed nature, let him be anathema.‡
*The Deity has traditions that are “openly favored,” such as the unwritten, yet Hardouin does not mention what traditions, if any, that are secretly favored by the Deity.
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Fulgentius, 468–533.
‡From the mention that the importance of acknowledging resistance to interior grace as a sinner suggests this is, or was, a tenet of Protestantism.
According to Calvinism, those who obtain salvation do so, not by their own "free" will, but because of the sovereign grace of God. Lutherans teach that the Holy Spirit limits itself to working only through the means of grace and nowhere else, so that those who reject the means of grace are simultaneously resisting and rejecting the Holy Spirit and the grace it brings.
Irresistible grace, Wikipedia
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Fulgentius, 468–533.
‡From the mention that the importance of acknowledging resistance to interior grace as a sinner suggests this is, or was, a tenet of Protestantism.
According to Calvinism, those who obtain salvation do so, not by their own "free" will, but because of the sovereign grace of God. Lutherans teach that the Holy Spirit limits itself to working only through the means of grace and nowhere else, so that those who reject the means of grace are simultaneously resisting and rejecting the Holy Spirit and the grace it brings.
Irresistible grace, Wikipedia
9.24 If these monuments, which with God’s help we shall show to be false and supposititious, are the offspring of the fourteenth century, [then] it is manifest that religion stood for thirteen centuries apart from written tradition safe and inviolate, such as now the Roman Church and with her the Catholic world holds and professes.* Christians through 1,300 years either wrote no books or only pious books which were worn out and so easily perished, even as the Jews through 1,500 years were content with their sacred books alone and tradition.*†
*“the fourteenth century,” “for thirteen centuries,” “through 1,300 years,” and “through 1,500 years”: Scaliger's chronology.
†The Talmud is an aspect of that tradition. The size of the Talmud, approximately 2.5 million words, suggests that the Talmud is a recent tradition; one began after the age of printing, when immense texts in book form became possible.
†The Talmud is an aspect of that tradition. The size of the Talmud, approximately 2.5 million words, suggests that the Talmud is a recent tradition; one began after the age of printing, when immense texts in book form became possible.
9.25 It is an evident proof that living Tradition, not that which is written in the monuments believed to be of the “Fathers” or in any others, is the rule of faith, as I have just pointed out, that the Catholics always understand those writings according to that Tradition and if, perchance, the writings should seem contrary to the Tradition, forthwith Catholics may exclaim that they are apocryphal or corrupt, or should be softened by a kindly interpretation.* The Sacred Scripture itself teaches the necessity and power of Tradition. The Tradition of the Sacred Scripture itself shows the truth. The Catholic Doctors who desire to show that the mock “Fathers” were of Catholic mind, what else have they in view but the strenuous defense of the non–written Tradition, which they received from their elders? Therefore, it is preferable to the written, is older and more fixed in men’s minds and more venerable.
*When Catholics are confronted with a challenging passage from the Fathers, or a difficult conclusion after following the rules of logic, they defend the writings as either “apocryphal” or as “corrupt.” A time honored example of offering a charitable explanation is the ubiquitous “scribal error.”
Although not a scribal error, Irenaeus explains why the structure of many of Saint Paul’s sentences do not conform to the expectations of Greek grammar: “From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him.”
Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch. 7, Sec. 2
Although not a scribal error, Irenaeus explains why the structure of many of Saint Paul’s sentences do not conform to the expectations of Greek grammar: “From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him.”
Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch. 7, Sec. 2
9.26 If in written tradition alone the Christian Religion is contained, [then] let no one place his hope in Christ’s merits, in the merits and satisfactions of the passion of Christ, but in Christ only, i.e., in the example of his Resurrection, the like of which God or Nature bids us hope for. For not one of the “Fathers” has said that our hope is to be placed in Christ’s merits; neither in epistles nor tractates nor in discourses to the people nor in disputations, nowhere in fact does that dictum occur, not once on the part of any of them. The hiding of so great a matter, what is it, but a denial of it?* Forsooth, if God is simply Nature, [then] there can be no place for merits. But assuredly reason and religion and unwritten tradition teach another doctrine.
*The omission of a topic that should be discussed is an indication that the commentator wishes the alert reader to conclude that the subject is unimportant. An omission is an intentional act. Of the words “Hell,” “Hades,” and “Tartarus,” there is one mention in the Pauline Epistles: ᾅδη in
1 Cor. 15:55.
1 Cor. 15:55.
9.27 An uncertain Writer (not of our Society of Jesus, I am sure, nay, one hardly fair to it) thus excellently reasons in his French Letters written to a friend on the disputes of Jansenism, p.7:
“In rigour the Church has no need of the testimony of Antiquity to establish the truth and, consequently, the perpetuity of her belief. Her own testimony suffices her; for that, the principle of S. Irenaeus having no less point in reference to the written tradition than for the sacred books, which he did not think necessary to her. Even if, said he, the Apostles had not left scriptures, ought we not to follow the order of Tradition? And so, though all the ecclesiastical authors and all the Councils should be lost, or though they should never have existed, we should have always to abide equally attached to the oral and living tradition of the Church and to believe that she never changes anything an it, however distant she may be from its origin. She will have in all times the right to say to her children what St. Chrysostom said to his people: The things that I teach you are of tradition; ask no other proof of them.* It is not by writing that the Church has received her faith; no more then is it by writing that she is obliged to transmit it.”†
*John Chrysostom, c. 347–407.
†The Catholic Apostolic Church has not received her faith from writing nor is she obligated to cause the faith to be propigated by writing.
†The Catholic Apostolic Church has not received her faith from writing nor is she obligated to cause the faith to be propigated by writing.
9.28 Again, p. 6:
“It would have first to be ⟨proved⟩ [demonstrated] that the Church of each age resided essentially in the authors who remain to us, or at least to show that they were inspired.* For if it is allowed that they were only private persons, however holy and enlightened they may be supposed to have been, [then] they might possibly have erroneous sentiments on fundamental points of Religion.”†
*The level of success by the hoaxers is measured by the number of readers who conclude that the faith of the Church in each century is the same faith found “in the authors who remain to us” and who have been assigned to that age.
†Private persons “might possibly have erroneous sentiments on fundamental points of Religion.” To describe the writings of the alleged Fathers as private opinions is an ingenious solution to the issue that they distort doctrine, introduce impiety, and promote atheism.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Simon Peter 1:20
†Private persons “might possibly have erroneous sentiments on fundamental points of Religion.” To describe the writings of the alleged Fathers as private opinions is an ingenious solution to the issue that they distort doctrine, introduce impiety, and promote atheism.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Simon Peter 1:20
9.29 And on p. 67:
“Assuredly to found the truth of the Church’s decisions on the intelligence of Authors who cannot rigorously be said to represent the Church of their time, is not to do a good service to the Church. Tell me, can four or five Theologians per century be regarded as so many Ecumenical Councils?”*
*An excellent rhetorical question.
9.30 Someone may say: [“]Perhaps this faith which now flourishes was introduced little by little, even as there were introduced into the daily Office, into the Missal, into the Ritual very many prayers alien from the true faith, as is patent from the success of the Calvinist innovation in France.[”]* On the other hand ecclesiastical prayers can be readily taken up, when they delight by their beauty and are believed to have nothing on first appearance that is adverse to the faith.†
*The “Calvinist innovation” is an aspect of the Protestant Reformation and emphasizes the sovereignty of God and the authority of the Bible.
†Initially charmed by the appearance of beauty, the researcher, after thoughtful reflection, can find material “that is adverse to the faith.”
†Initially charmed by the appearance of beauty, the researcher, after thoughtful reflection, can find material “that is adverse to the faith.”
9.31 The Lord’s Prayer in Latin seems to have been accepted from Tradition, before the Gospel was written. For where we say “daily” (quotidianum), Matthew wrote “supersubstantial.”
Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/latin–prayers–9125
panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie. Matt. 6:11
https://vulgate.org/nt/gospel/matthew_6.htm
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/latin–prayers–9125
panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie. Matt. 6:11
https://vulgate.org/nt/gospel/matthew_6.htm
chapter 10
Th« alleged twofold “Word of God”. What books are approved. Hardouin obstinately denies that sacred Letters are imperiled by his criticism: because a good Catholic will shed his blood in their defense. The Councils are fictions. The Roman Catholic the only true Church. The Calvinists have no certainty. It is pretended that the Catholic faith flourished in Bishops, Monks, and Clerks who wrote nothing. The literary monks alone were Atheists.
10.01 IF you repudiate all the old writings, someone may say, [then] you lay down that the one rule of faith is the Word of God. Yes! But, as the Council of Trent says, the Word of God is twofold; one written in sacred books; the other handed down by the mouth of the Church and by hand.* But the written word of God, I say, is to be understood in the sense that the Pastors have learned from the Roman Church.† It behooved that they should be sheep before they became shepherds; disciples and sons of the Church before they became Masters and Fathers in the Church.
*The rules of the Church rests upon decrees of ecumenical councils and traditions, which include practices or rituals and oral traditions.
This sentence seems to repeat section 9.01: “THE Catholic faith relies on the word of God alone, the written word (scriptum) in the canonical books, and the word handed down (traditum), as the Council of Trent defines.”
†Passages from the written word of God are to be understood only in the sense that the Church interprets. as “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” [Simon Peter 1:20].
This sentence seems to repeat section 9.01: “THE Catholic faith relies on the word of God alone, the written word (scriptum) in the canonical books, and the word handed down (traditum), as the Council of Trent defines.”
†Passages from the written word of God are to be understood only in the sense that the Church interprets. as “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” [Simon Peter 1:20].
10.02 I do not detract from the authority of all written books. I do not forbid books of tradition to be adduced as testimony. But what books?* Those that were at once approved by all good men, which saw the light of publicity at once; books which Fathers, i.e., Catholic Bishops, weighed and commended; not books that were furtively edited, that were hidden in bookcases and libraries, were brought out ⟨thence⟩ much later, and were ⟨put forward⟩ [promoted] by men self–deceived in their ignorance, or impelled by their impiety to overthrow the Christian Religion by these weapons; books, in fine, ⟨scarce, ever⟩ [sparsely] read, and considered in their integrity as they ought to have been. I deny that these are fit witnesses of tradition, or that they are to be held in any esteem.†
*Determining what books are approved for the needs of the Church requires both reasoning and a system of values. The question “By what standard?” is answered by the Church, however, Protestants must incessantly make this inquiry for every jot and tittle and, thereby, reach no consensus: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way” [Isaiah 53:6].
†The books of the Fathers should not “be held in any esteem,” yet they “should diligently” be preserved, as there “is the greatest use to be derived from them” [10.6].
†The books of the Fathers should not “be held in any esteem,” yet they “should diligently” be preserved, as there “is the greatest use to be derived from them” [10.6].
10.03 It may be said that I shake the whole foundations of our belief, but this would be the saying of injustice and ignorance. I do indeed reject “historic facts,” but [I show] the Catholic faith and the universal received discipline ⟨I show to⟩ stand on the written and traditional word of God, so that both have been perpetual, never even impugned in public before the fourteenth century and, not even then, except by atheists.*†‡
*The “historic facts” are simply Scaliger’s opinion on history, which Hardouin seems to reject.
†“before the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‡John Wycliffe, c. 1328–1384; Jan Hus, 1369–1415.
Hus wrote De Ecclesia in 1413, yet the first ten chapters are an epitome of Wycliffe's work of the same title and the following chapters are an abstract of another of Wycliffe's works (De potentate papae) on the power of the pope. Jan Hus, Wikipedia
Huss mostly copies or augments only “the former writings” of Wycliff [3.21]. It “was necessary to repeat what the former had said and so the volume was thickened, which would otherwise have been slight and meager” [3.20]. Once again, the hoaxers reiterate Papal controversies, “because on matters of that kind dissidences are eternal” [8.10b].
†“before the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‡John Wycliffe, c. 1328–1384; Jan Hus, 1369–1415.
Hus wrote De Ecclesia in 1413, yet the first ten chapters are an epitome of Wycliffe's work of the same title and the following chapters are an abstract of another of Wycliffe's works (De potentate papae) on the power of the pope. Jan Hus, Wikipedia
Huss mostly copies or augments only “the former writings” of Wycliff [3.21]. It “was necessary to repeat what the former had said and so the volume was thickened, which would otherwise have been slight and meager” [3.20]. Once again, the hoaxers reiterate Papal controversies, “because on matters of that kind dissidences are eternal” [8.10b].
10.04 Another may say that the words of “Vincent of Lerins,” 100. 21, are applicable to me:
“You may hear some of them say, Come, O ye foolish and wretched, and learn the true faith, which none but ourselves understand, which was hidden for many ages, but was lately revealed and shown; but learn furtively and secretly, for it will delight you. And when ye shall have learned, teach it in secret, that the world may not hear, that the Church may not know. For to few [individuals] has it been granted to receive the secret of so great a mystery.”*
*Vincent of Lerins, d.c. 445.
10.04a My reply is, [“]God forbid that I should teach a faith hidden for many ages.[”] I preach and expound that very faith which the Catholic Church everywhere held.* I was compelled, in the first instance, to point out privately, to pious and erudite men, those by whom it was attacked; because in this matter the minds of the ignorant must be prudently handled.† They are numerous.‡ They must not be exasperated, lest they should overwhelm us by their numbers.§
*It would seem that before their formal decree, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, 1854; the Infallibility of the Pope, 1870; and the Assumption of Mary, 1950, were pious beliefs, but were not held everywhere or by everyone.
†It may be at this time Hardouin removed “long extracts from particular Greek and Latin writers” from a bookcase to demonstrate certain points that he was “compelled” to discuss with knowledgeable men in private [1.18].
‡The prudent handling of the numerous ignorant is a challenging task.
§Although Hardouin is correct in stating that numerous exasperated ignorant minds can overwhelm “us,” this statement appears uncharitable.
†It may be at this time Hardouin removed “long extracts from particular Greek and Latin writers” from a bookcase to demonstrate certain points that he was “compelled” to discuss with knowledgeable men in private [1.18].
‡The prudent handling of the numerous ignorant is a challenging task.
§Although Hardouin is correct in stating that numerous exasperated ignorant minds can overwhelm “us,” this statement appears uncharitable.
10.05 You may urge that if all the alleged writings of the “Fathers” are supposititious, [then] the Sacred Letters themselves are imperiled.* Not in the least, I reply, for you who make this objection, being a Catholic, would shed your blood in defense of your confession that the Gospel of Matthew, for example, or the epistles of Paul, had Matthew or Paul for author.† But for asserting that some book bearing the name of “Augustine, bishop of Hippo,” and called Augustine, you would not endure three stripes in public.‡ So by Catholics will sacred letters be ever championed ⟨and the more⟩ as other books come into contempt.
*”Sacred Letters” are presumably the Pauline Epistles and, by extension, all of Sacred Scripture.
†The authors of the Gospels are anonymous and are assigned by tradition. Hardouin expects Roman Catholics to die for these allegations of authorship.
‡Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
§The “sacred letters” of the last sentence is an inexact reception of “Sacred Letters” from the first sentence. This variation may not exist in the original Latin version.
†The authors of the Gospels are anonymous and are assigned by tradition. Hardouin expects Roman Catholics to die for these allegations of authorship.
‡Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
§The “sacred letters” of the last sentence is an inexact reception of “Sacred Letters” from the first sentence. This variation may not exist in the original Latin version.
10.06 You may say, “Then all books [of the Fathers] must be burned.” Nay verily! You should diligently preserve them. There is the greatest use to be derived from them. They teach how the faith attacked by these writers flourished down to their time, in all its capital points—i.e., our own most holy faith.*† But secondly, what if they were burned? If God were to reveal that they are all spurious, as I teach and believe, [then] you would also believe this, nor would you deem that Religion or tradition lost anything thereby. Tell me then, will Religion more suffer if by studious labor a fraud inimical to her be detected, than if it should be laid open by revelation? What matters it, the way in which the truth is known? Can truth hurt truth?‡
*To write that the faith “survived” is more accurate than to state that it “flourished.”
†The hoaxers attack the “capital points” or the principle teachings of Christianity.
‡But some of them [the people, v.14] said, “He [the Lord, v.1] casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.” But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.” Luke 11:15, 17–19
†The hoaxers attack the “capital points” or the principle teachings of Christianity.
‡But some of them [the people, v.14] said, “He [the Lord, v.1] casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.” But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.” Luke 11:15, 17–19
10.06a However, I say that you should keep and preserve with the greatest care the books of Augustine and all the rest, though they are supposititious. For they are highly useful for the thorough knowledge of Religion, provided you diligently look into the sentiments of the writer and yourself hold the contrary of what he teaches.†*
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
*Although “the sentiments of the writer” cannot be known with certainty, the proper conclusions from a multitude of statements can be found through reason. The Fathers could have presented their teachings in an unambiguous style with clear statements, lucid comments, with intelligibly defined terms; that none of them did this is an indication that their intentions must be discovered. Jesus says that no one lights a lamp and places it under a basket, yet the Fathers place their light under so many passages, chapters, and books that it falls into obscurity [Matt. 5:15].
Hardouin compliments the hoaxers, as he acknowledges that their works are “highly useful for the thorough knowledge of Religion.”
*Although “the sentiments of the writer” cannot be known with certainty, the proper conclusions from a multitude of statements can be found through reason. The Fathers could have presented their teachings in an unambiguous style with clear statements, lucid comments, with intelligibly defined terms; that none of them did this is an indication that their intentions must be discovered. Jesus says that no one lights a lamp and places it under a basket, yet the Fathers place their light under so many passages, chapters, and books that it falls into obscurity [Matt. 5:15].
Hardouin compliments the hoaxers, as he acknowledges that their works are “highly useful for the thorough knowledge of Religion.”
10.07 You may say: “Then you deny and reject the Council of Nicaea, of Ephesus, and the like.”* [“]God forbid,[”] I reply, [“]that I should wish to rescind the faith which Catholics believe to be established by these Councils.[”]† I would with all my heart that it were held by each, even unto blood; but I do deny that that faith is contained in these Acts, if they are rightly understood.‡ I hold them to be feigned and got up for the purpose of overthrowing the true and Catholic faith.
*Council of Nicaea, held 325; Council of Ephesus, held 431.
†There is a type, or form, of faith established from the fraudulent Councils that Catholics believe and this faith can be rescinded or “revoked, canceled, or repealed.”
“God forbid that His Church should need or should use false witnesses or testimonies” [4.10].
‡On one hand, there is no Catholic faith in the councils and, on the other hand, Catholics believe that there is a faith established by these councils. Hardouin does not want to “rescind the faith which Catholics believe to be established by these Councils” and, yet, in the following sentence, he denies “that [the Catholic] faith is contained in these Acts.”
†There is a type, or form, of faith established from the fraudulent Councils that Catholics believe and this faith can be rescinded or “revoked, canceled, or repealed.”
“God forbid that His Church should need or should use false witnesses or testimonies” [4.10].
‡On one hand, there is no Catholic faith in the councils and, on the other hand, Catholics believe that there is a faith established by these councils. Hardouin does not want to “rescind the faith which Catholics believe to be established by these Councils” and, yet, in the following sentence, he denies “that [the Catholic] faith is contained in these Acts.”
10.08 Another objector may say: “You favor the Puritans, of whom Spondanus (after others) discourses, against the year 1565, no. 22., ‘who rejected all the ancient Fathers to a man, not enduring that they should be alleged, even for the confirmation of their own opinions.’”*
I answer: “Add the following sentence: ‘For they said that the Church was from the first corrupt, from the very times of the Apostles, that they might not be forced to admit some traditions;’ and you will understand that the difference between them and myself is no less than the difference between the worst heretics and good Catholics by the gift of God.”†
*Spondanus, 1568–1643.
The Puritans were members of a religious reform movement that began in the Church of England in the late 16th century who believed the Church of England was too similar to the Roman Catholic Church and should eliminate ceremonies and practices not rooted in the Bible. Puritans, Generative AI
The Puritans only accepted Scripture for the confirmation of their own practices.
†The claim that the Church was corrupt from the beginning was suggested so as to not admit Church traditions that are not found in the Bible. Additionally, this claim implies that the Apostles were dishonest while, no doubt, maintaining orthodox, or Biblical, views regarding the nature of Jesus. If the Church is identified with Christ, then a logical possibility exists that Christ himself is corrupt. At this point, individuals will begin to doubt the true nature of Christ and accept any Christological heresy. Therefore, all attempts by protestants to return to the “Biblical church” are in vain, as these endeavors will always result in their churches becoming corrupt or, more likely, commencing in corruption.
Furthermore, no two attempts to recreate a “Biblical church” have the same result, as opinions will always differ on the correct interpretation and the proper application of any given text, wth the foreseen result of dissidents forming another “Biblical church.” The wording of a Biblical or “Bible believing church” is, ultimately, worthless, as it has no objective sense.
The Puritans were members of a religious reform movement that began in the Church of England in the late 16th century who believed the Church of England was too similar to the Roman Catholic Church and should eliminate ceremonies and practices not rooted in the Bible. Puritans, Generative AI
The Puritans only accepted Scripture for the confirmation of their own practices.
†The claim that the Church was corrupt from the beginning was suggested so as to not admit Church traditions that are not found in the Bible. Additionally, this claim implies that the Apostles were dishonest while, no doubt, maintaining orthodox, or Biblical, views regarding the nature of Jesus. If the Church is identified with Christ, then a logical possibility exists that Christ himself is corrupt. At this point, individuals will begin to doubt the true nature of Christ and accept any Christological heresy. Therefore, all attempts by protestants to return to the “Biblical church” are in vain, as these endeavors will always result in their churches becoming corrupt or, more likely, commencing in corruption.
Furthermore, no two attempts to recreate a “Biblical church” have the same result, as opinions will always differ on the correct interpretation and the proper application of any given text, wth the foreseen result of dissidents forming another “Biblical church.” The wording of a Biblical or “Bible believing church” is, ultimately, worthless, as it has no objective sense.
10.09 You may say: “If the writings of the Fathers are spurious, [then] we shall have to stand on Scripture alone, as the Calvinists insist.”* I reply (1) by denying the consequence. The true consequence will be that we must deem that to be the only true holy Society or true Church under heaven, which with the sacred books worships the true God.† But the Catholic or Roman Church alone worships the true God. She, therefore, alone must be held the true Church.‡ The minor proposition is most certain. For the Lutheran and Calvinist sect leans on the principle of the impious faction; that there is no God but Nature and the light of Nature, which they call Right Reason and Truth, the sum of all eternal truths. The God of the Socinians is the Father. Therefore, the Society of the Roman faith is the sole true Church.
*Although Hardouin specifies Calvinists, it is likely that all protestants or all heretics who “stand on Scripture alone” are meant.
†An ambiguous term, “sacred books,” is written, instead of the expected “the Vulgate Bible,” an exact term.
‡The Roman Church alone worships the true God, so it must be the true church. Without argument or evidence both the premise and the conclusion are doubtful.
†An ambiguous term, “sacred books,” is written, instead of the expected “the Vulgate Bible,” an exact term.
‡The Roman Church alone worships the true God, so it must be the true church. Without argument or evidence both the premise and the conclusion are doubtful.
10.09a All these things are proved from their books and decrees which best agree with Atheism; i.e., which may stand and be defended, though no true God were acknowledged. But if one of them should, nevertheless, acknowledge the true God and be content with Scripture alone, [then] let him strike out a new hypothesis, a new Church, falsely, so called. Moreover, he cannot be certain of his own system.* For how can he know for certain, unless he has learned from revelation, that nothing else is to be believed or done but that which is contained in the sacred books? But a revelation of that kind cannot be, since the revelation made to the Church is adverse to it.†‡
*Otherwise said, the protestant or the reformer cannot be certain of his own “set of principles or procedures according to which something is done,” that is, “an organized framework or method” of belief. This uncertainty applies to his “faith” founded on his “scripture” and his version of “scripture,” while excluding all other versions of “scripture” and other, equally valid, interpretations of that “scripture.” The search for certainty remains elusive.
†”unless he has learned from revelation”: All protestants have had at least one personal revelation: their belief system is certain, whatever it is. Based on this proposition, they maintain that the belief systems of other Christians and other religions, such as Muslims and Hindus, are not only uncertain, but erroneous. These subjective personal revelations received by protestants are presumably from the Holy Spirit. This presumption is not certain.
‡No protestants have had a personal revelation, since this belief of personal revelations is adverse to the Church's previous revelation that there will not be additional personal revelations, as all new revelations are the exclusive domain of the Church. The Roman Church's revelations are infrequent, with dogmatic decrees occurring in 1854, 1870, and 1950; while the Orthodox Church has had no new revelations since at least the age of printing, if not long before, and maintains the traditions entrusted to it.
†”unless he has learned from revelation”: All protestants have had at least one personal revelation: their belief system is certain, whatever it is. Based on this proposition, they maintain that the belief systems of other Christians and other religions, such as Muslims and Hindus, are not only uncertain, but erroneous. These subjective personal revelations received by protestants are presumably from the Holy Spirit. This presumption is not certain.
‡No protestants have had a personal revelation, since this belief of personal revelations is adverse to the Church's previous revelation that there will not be additional personal revelations, as all new revelations are the exclusive domain of the Church. The Roman Church's revelations are infrequent, with dogmatic decrees occurring in 1854, 1870, and 1950; while the Orthodox Church has had no new revelations since at least the age of printing, if not long before, and maintains the traditions entrusted to it.
10.10 And so I reply (2) even if we had to stand on Sacred Scripture alone, each man ought to be certain of the genuine sense of Scripture, but the Calvinist cannot be certain that the sense which he ascribes to Scripture is genuine, i.e., the sense held by the ancient Church.* For if all other monuments are false, except the Scripture—as I contend and know that I have in great part proved—[then] by what arguments will he teach that the sense which he feigns in Scripture was the sense of the ancient Church. But if that sense which he feigns to find in Scripture is the very same in those monuments which Atheists framed in the design of undermining the Roman faith, if possible; if this is surely made out, [then] it will be in like manner certain that the sense which the Calvinist feigns in Scripture came from atheism and is simply the sense of Atheists and that the only genuine sense of Scripture is that opposed by the atheists and defended by the Church.†
*“the sense which he ascribes to Scripture is genuine”: Otherwise said: the protestant cannot be certain that every explanation which he ascribes to every passage of Scripture is correct, or even plausible, let alone historically accurate. The Old Testament has 23,145 verses; the New Testament, 7,957 verses; totaling 31,102 verses. At a minimum, Protestants have 31,102 opportunities for possible disagreements with other Protestants.
†Hardouin argues that if Calvinist, and Protestants by extension, assign an interpretation to Scripture that agrees with the Fathers, then that understanding is ultimately based on an atheistic worldview.
†Hardouin argues that if Calvinist, and Protestants by extension, assign an interpretation to Scripture that agrees with the Fathers, then that understanding is ultimately based on an atheistic worldview.
10.11 You may say: “It follows that in those ages in which you place your Forgers, all Monks and Ecclesiastics were atheists and impious!” I answer, [“]Nay! The impious were solely the literary craftsmen whom I repudiate and how few they were, compared with the rest, the multitude of the faithful![”]* Meantime, the Catholic faith flourished in the holy Apostolic See, in Bishops, Monks, Clerics, who wrote nothing; in many also, under whose names spurious works have been placed and, finally, in the whole mass of Christian people.† They assuredly were Catholic Bishops and Doctors, from whom the Catholic tradition has flowed down to us. Otherwise, when ⟨, prithee,⟩ or by whom did they receive a faith diverse from that which is contained in those fictitious fourteenth century books?‡ By whose exhortation or impulse?
*The mass of the faithful are compared to the few hoaxers.
†Hardouin writes that the faith “flourished” in the “Apostolic See,” which is a positive view, and among “Bishops, Monks, [and] Clerics” who allegedly wrote nothing.
“St Bonaventure [1221–1274], cardinal and general of the Franciscans, likened Rome to the harlot of the Apocalypse…” Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Peter De Rosa, pg. 118
‡Hardouin inquires why the faith and practices of the Church are so different from the practices and faith promoted in the works of the Fathers. This is compelling evidence that Hardouin’s proposal that the writings of the Fathers are detrimental to the Church is valid.
†Hardouin writes that the faith “flourished” in the “Apostolic See,” which is a positive view, and among “Bishops, Monks, [and] Clerics” who allegedly wrote nothing.
“St Bonaventure [1221–1274], cardinal and general of the Franciscans, likened Rome to the harlot of the Apocalypse…” Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Peter De Rosa, pg. 118
‡Hardouin inquires why the faith and practices of the Church are so different from the practices and faith promoted in the works of the Fathers. This is compelling evidence that Hardouin’s proposal that the writings of the Fathers are detrimental to the Church is valid.
10.17 Someone may say, “Would that you had been present at the Congregation de Auxiliis; you would have proclaimed the victory of Molina, by showing that his adversary relied on the authority of one atheist in particular, i.e., of one false Augustine.* How useful a service would one have rendered, who with like, opinions to yours had been present at the Council of Trent!” I answer, “It behooved not that this should take place. God willed himself alone to make His cause—fiercely attacked by heretics, feebly defended by Catholics who tried to make writings opposed to them serve their purpose—depart victorious. ⟨This⟩ He brought [this] about so that no man might ⟨have whereof to⟩ boast concerning the victory gained by God or the Church. Better instruments indeed than puny fighters, like myself, God needs not, who often chooses the weak things of the world to confound the mighty.”†
*Molina, 1535–1600; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
†God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1 Cor. 1:27
†God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1 Cor. 1:27