Hardouin Vindicated:
Evidence for the Falsification of World History
December 23, 2023
G.D.O'Bradovich III
Page 2
chapter 11
The corruption of the Liturgy; of the Breviary and Missal. The distinction of Receiving and Reciting something in the Church. In what sense are there “no errors in the Canon of the Mass?”
11.01 THE fraud appears to have first begun with the Ecclesiastical Office, after the Bible had been
completed and the Greek version had been conficted.* Divine worship being neglected in many places, the impious band introduced under show of reformation the forms of Ecclesiastical Office and of the Sacred Liturgy itself which now obtains—except the Lections from the writings of the ‘‘Fathers,” which had not yet been conficted when they composed the Mozarabic Breviary, so called.†‡ It is wanting in those Lections; it has lections from Scripture only and so by song, by hymns, by the Ecclesiastical Office, the whole virus was first insinuated into the Church. Some good things were then admitted by the Church, as the Gregorian chant, so called, I imagine, from Gregory IX and rites or ceremonies which conduce to the majesty of religion.§ But in the prayers, on the other hand, were inserted matters at the same time, tending to establish their heresies and dogmatic consequences of their impiety. Their wickedness also invaded the Ritual books, in which they entered the trine immersion, as I said, and it remained there till the times of Paul V.‖
*Hardouin does not indicate an approximate age or century when the Vulgate Bible, in the hands of all Christendom, was completed.
†“neglected in many places”: It seems that Divine worship was neglected in the overwhelming majority of places, as the priests are later instructed to “frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound… some portion of those things which are read at mass, and… they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord's days and festivals.” Council of Trent, Session 22, Ch. 8.
If people attended Mass on a consistent basis, then a change in the language from the vernacular to Latin would not require expounding the readings or explaining the mystery of the sacrifice of the Mass. The inference from the advice offered by the Council is that the Mass was innovative and radically different from what preceded it, that the laity must be informed of the purposes of the Mass. The impression from the chapters of the Council of Trent is that the Roman Church is not the culmination of a millennium of experience, but the beginning of the western church
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/the-complete-text.htm
‡The Mozarabic Breviary is a small book of prayers first published in 1502. The Mozarabic Rite is a rite that was used in Spain and Portugal from the earliest times until the latter part of the eleventh century.
§Gregory IX, r. 1227–1241.
‖Paul V, r. 1605–1621.
†“neglected in many places”: It seems that Divine worship was neglected in the overwhelming majority of places, as the priests are later instructed to “frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound… some portion of those things which are read at mass, and… they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord's days and festivals.” Council of Trent, Session 22, Ch. 8.
If people attended Mass on a consistent basis, then a change in the language from the vernacular to Latin would not require expounding the readings or explaining the mystery of the sacrifice of the Mass. The inference from the advice offered by the Council is that the Mass was innovative and radically different from what preceded it, that the laity must be informed of the purposes of the Mass. The impression from the chapters of the Council of Trent is that the Roman Church is not the culmination of a millennium of experience, but the beginning of the western church
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/the-complete-text.htm
‡The Mozarabic Breviary is a small book of prayers first published in 1502. The Mozarabic Rite is a rite that was used in Spain and Portugal from the earliest times until the latter part of the eleventh century.
§Gregory IX, r. 1227–1241.
‖Paul V, r. 1605–1621.
11.10 In like manner, if the question be of certain names of Saints, since it pertains alone to the errors with which the holy synod deals, if any should deny that the Saints are to be invoked as in the Canon of the Mass; any Catholic who believes that the Saints are there to be invoked and himself religiously invokes them, using those very prayers, which are there read —yet who thinks that certain names of Saints have crept in (as it is allowed that into the Martyrology some have certainly been inserted)—and that these are fictitious, [then] I say he is not to be thought an adversary of the synod [Council of Trent], especially if the names be attributed to those to whom the feigned histories attribute them, as the names of Linus and Cletus.*†
*The hoaxer assigned to create the list of Popes exhausted his inspiration early in his endeavors when he named “Sixtus” as the seventh Pope, that is, the sixth successor to Saint Peter.
†Linus, r. 67–76; Cletus, r. c.79–c. 92.
†Linus, r. 67–76; Cletus, r. c.79–c. 92.
chapter 12
The Apostolio See will not have the alleged writings of the “Fathers” held as sacred. These writings are the source of all the heresies. Hardouin attempts to explain away the Decree of the Council of Trent on the Fathers, and on the alleged second Nicene Council, &c.
12.01 THE Apostolic See has so far been unwilling, is still unwilling, and will ever be unwilling that the alleged writings of the “Fathers” should be held as sacred writings, i.e., of the place and rank of the sacred books, although this was the purpose of those who first took care that these monuments should be read in the Breviary at the same time with the Sacred Scripture and who placed in the matins, out of nine lections, six ⟨which⟩ had been taken out of the writings of their so–called “Fathers.”*
*The reluctance of the Roman Church to address the writings of the Fathers can be explained, firstly, by the fact that the opinions of the Fathers do not affect the teachings and traditions of the Roman Church, and, secondly, it has no revelation regarding the writings of the Fathers.
12.02 Unless all these monuments be discredited, the foments of the heresies will be perpetual in the Church.* For the Calvinists and Lutherans and Jansenists find all their impious ravings in them and so great is the force of the arguments which those foes of the Church and of religion seize upon from that source, that
(1) Catholics can produce none in like manner with good faith for the truth and cause of God from the same source;
(2) no other reply can be made to the objections, except by saying that far other is, and has been, the tradition of the universal Church; and this can hardly be proved by any written testimony above about 200 years, or at least before the rise of Printing, assuming that the monuments written before this time to be genuine.*† But, if on the other hand, it be admitted that they are spurious, as in fact they are, [then] our Tradition will then have the authority of long ago, for it will be of 1,700 years and concerning God it will be found to have descended from Adam and Moses.†‡§
*Until the works of the Fathers lose their undeserved respect and admiration, heresies will persist.
†“that far other is” means that another, older tradition exists.
‡“1,700 years”: Scaliger's chronology.
§Hardouin now appeals to the authority of age; not reason, whereas earlier, he implored the reader to not “believe in men, but in sound arguments” [1.04].
†“that far other is” means that another, older tradition exists.
‡“1,700 years”: Scaliger's chronology.
§Hardouin now appeals to the authority of age; not reason, whereas earlier, he implored the reader to not “believe in men, but in sound arguments” [1.04].
12.03 It has not escaped me that the holy synod of Trent, session 5, professes that it “follows,” besides the rule “of the Sacred Scriptures,” the testimonies of holy Fathers and most approved Councils and the judgment and consent of the Church herself.* But the Council ⟨thus⟩ spoke of Fathers and Councils because it perceived that these were equally admitted by adversaries and by Catholic doctors as authentic, i.e., as having proceeded from those writers whose names they bore. Wherefore, the Council praises these as not questioned in common opinion, having meantime decreed to transfer nothing from those writings into its own, except what it knew was held by Catholics to be most approved, because received by them according to the same sense of the Catholic Church. For lucubration no one surely is ignorant that—I do not say all former Councils and all alleged writings of the “Fathers”— but that not one lucubration of a single ancient writer was called to critical examination by the holy synod or by any of the Popes, that it might be decreed whether it was truly the work of the author named in the title.† Wherefore, in matters of that kind which are of mere fact, of which the synod speaks according to the received opinion of its age, it is incorrect to say that the Church pronounced judgment.‡ The valid principle with just judges is that expressed by Melchior Canus, lib. v. de locis Theologicis, c. v., on the authority of Councils:
“Matters that in the decrees of Councils or Pontiffs are brought in for the sake of explanation or—even by the way and in passing, beyond the chief institute on which controversy was mainly held; these do not pertain to faith, i.e., are not judgments of the Catholic faith.”§
*Following “the testimonies of the sacred Scriptures, of the holy Fathers, of the most approved councils, and the judgment and consent of the Church itself, ordains, confesses, and declares these things touching the said original sin:” https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html
†lucubration: a piece of writing, typically a pedantic or over elaborate one. Lucubration is used twice in this paragraph.
‡Concerning matters that are mere facts, the Council of Trent “speaks according to the received opinion of its age.”
§Melchior Canus, 1509–1560; De Locis theologicis, 1562.
†lucubration: a piece of writing, typically a pedantic or over elaborate one. Lucubration is used twice in this paragraph.
‡Concerning matters that are mere facts, the Council of Trent “speaks according to the received opinion of its age.”
§Melchior Canus, 1509–1560; De Locis theologicis, 1562.
12.04 Tillemont, tom 11, p. 391, says:
“There are homilies cited under the name of St. Chrysostom by Councils of Antiquity; because the Councils have been wont to make use of what is found received in their times, without staying to examine if the pieces are truly of the authorship attributed to them.”*†
He took this observation from the notes of Fronto Ducaeus on Chrysostom, tom. 6.‡
*Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont, 1637–1698.
†The ancient Councils, identical to the Council of Trent, quote from the Fathers, but the Councils do not examine if the quotes are by the alleged author.
‡Fronto Ducaeus, 1559–1624; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407.
†The ancient Councils, identical to the Council of Trent, quote from the Fathers, but the Councils do not examine if the quotes are by the alleged author.
‡Fronto Ducaeus, 1559–1624; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407.
12.05 No more did Rome approve the other Acts of Councils of the ancients, as we now have them, more than she approved the Acts of the sixth Synod [the sixth Ecumenical Council].* It is clear that this synod was never approved by the Apostolic See from the fact that she expunged the name of Pope Honorius from the Roman Breviary, 28th July, in the office of St. Leo, where it had been intruded by the impious crew from the false Anastasius — as if the name had been noted with an anathema in that synod.† The See is, therefore, of opinion that in the Acts of that synod, in like manner, that name should not be inserted among the names of heretics; that the Acts are therefore corrupt: the See did not approve them. Rome ought to be believed to have approved only those Acts of Councils which the Papal Bull confirmed—as the Canons and Chapters of the Council of Trent.
*The Sixth Ecumenical Council took place in Constantinople in 680–681.
†Honorius, r. 625–638; Leo, r.440–461; Anastasius, r. 491–518.
Honorius was posthumously anathematized, initially for subscribing to monothelitism, and later only for failing to end it. The anathema against Honorius I became one of the central arguments against the doctrine of papal infallibility. Pope Honorius I, Wikipedia
The Council of Constance [held from 1414 to 1418], while not touching upon papal infallibility, issued Haec sancta (1415), which asserted the superiority of ecumenical councils over popes in at least certain situations. Council of Constance, Wikipedia
†Honorius, r. 625–638; Leo, r.440–461; Anastasius, r. 491–518.
Honorius was posthumously anathematized, initially for subscribing to monothelitism, and later only for failing to end it. The anathema against Honorius I became one of the central arguments against the doctrine of papal infallibility. Pope Honorius I, Wikipedia
The Council of Constance [held from 1414 to 1418], while not touching upon papal infallibility, issued Haec sancta (1415), which asserted the superiority of ecumenical councils over popes in at least certain situations. Council of Constance, Wikipedia
12.06 If the definitions of the Councils rest on the testimonies of the Fathers, [then] they are not free from suspicion or [free from] risk of error, for they rely on testimony obnoxious to censure. For say: by what revelation is it established—revelation which alone is infallible—or by what tradition on a parity with that by which the Church holds that Peter’s or Paul’s Epistles are Peter’s or Paul’s—that this or that book is Augustine’s or Ambrose’s?*† Who knows not that certain things in certain [Ecumincial] Councils— which are writings of heretics—are found attributed to Fathers? On no such testimony did the Church will that her definitions in the Council of Trent should lean, nor in the constitutions of the Popes which are undoubted and genuine.‡
*The challenge of Divine Revelation is deciding, by human reason alone, which of the conflicting revelations [such as Jewish, Christian, Moslem, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Mormon] is the correct revelation. By relying upon human reason alone, the conclusion is that none of these are divinely revealed, as, firstly, they contradict one another and, secondly, there are internal contradictions within their teachings. For example, the Mormon Church recognizes the Bible as authoritative, yet Saint Paul states that even if an angel brings another Gospel, then one should ignore it [Gal. 1:8]. What is this, but a description of the angel Moroni? What are collecting endless reams of family histories, but heeding endless genealogies [1 Tim. 1:4]?
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Ambrose of Milan, c.339–397.
‡As Hardoin does not list the “undoubted and genuine” Papal constitutions, the reader cannot know [4.4, 7.6].
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Ambrose of Milan, c.339–397.
‡As Hardoin does not list the “undoubted and genuine” Papal constitutions, the reader cannot know [4.4, 7.6].
12.07 In the Council of Trent, the force is far greater of the Canons than of the Chapters in which the doctrine of the Canons is explained; even as the authority of the Gospel is far greater than of even those Commentaries which holy Fathers are commonly believed to have put forth. In the Canons, the Holy Spirit dictates all opinions. In the Chapters, some mere facts may creep in which the synod itself does not adduce as certain and undoubted, if it has not examined them.* It only recites them as commonly received, as neither in any wise injurious to the faith or otherwise.† Of such kind is the reference to the Novatians, to the second Nicene Council, etc.‡
*According to Hardouin, “mere facts” may be uncertain and doubtful. The word “opinions” should be substituted for “facts” in this context.
†Many beliefs are recited as “commonly received” by Roman Catholics, the Roman Church, and heretics.
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17
‡Novatian, d. 430; the second Nicene Council, held 787.
Because Novatianists (including Novatian) did not submit to the bishop of Rome, they were labeled by Rome as schismatics. Novatianism, Wikipedia
†Many beliefs are recited as “commonly received” by Roman Catholics, the Roman Church, and heretics.
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17
‡Novatian, d. 430; the second Nicene Council, held 787.
Because Novatianists (including Novatian) did not submit to the bishop of Rome, they were labeled by Rome as schismatics. Novatianism, Wikipedia
12.08 You will say: “Under Clement VIII, the Patriarch of Alexandria was received on condition that he should anathematize Dioscorus; therefore, the Roman Church adopted the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.* Again, in the year 1441 the concord of the Jacobites in Egypt with the Holy Roman Church under Eugenius IV holds the same opinion of it and of all other heretics; and commemorates all the old Councils.”†
*Clement VIII, r. 1592–1605; Dioscorus, r. 444–445; the Council of Chalcedon, held 451.
†concord of the Jacobites, 1443; Eugene IV, r. 1431–1447.
Either Hardouin commits a factual error when writing the date of the concord as 1441, or the accepted date of this document has been modified since the eighteenth century.
†concord of the Jacobites, 1443; Eugene IV, r. 1431–1447.
Either Hardouin commits a factual error when writing the date of the concord as 1441, or the accepted date of this document has been modified since the eighteenth century.
12.08a I answer (1) that this concord of the Jacobites with the Holy Roman Church under Eugenius IV. rightly is viewed as a forgery, since on an old silver coin in my possession there is mention only of “united Armenian Greeks in the Florentine synod with the holy Apostolic See, under Pope Eugenius IV.”* Depicted on the reverse are the Byzantine Despot and the Armenian Patriarch with both knees bent, looking up at the Pope who is depicted above. I answer (2) that under Clement VIII, the Roman Church ⟨then⟩ chiefly willed that the faith of the Chalcedon Council should be received, believing it to be that [its teaching] held in the West.† She followed Doctors on that question of fact who were about 400 years ago led into errors by the authors of those spurious Acts, but in the doctrine of faith, she followed her own tradition alone, so interpreting the symbol of Chalcedon itself.‡
*Eugene IV signed an agreement with… a part of the Jacobites of Syria in 1443, and in 1445 he received some of the Nestorians and the Maronites. Pope Eugene IV, Wikipedia
“Florentine synod”: The Council of Florence, held 1431–1449.
†Clement VIII, r. 1592–1605. Council of Chalcedon, held 451.
‡”about 400 years ago”: Scaliger’s chronology.
“Florentine synod”: The Council of Florence, held 1431–1449.
†Clement VIII, r. 1592–1605. Council of Chalcedon, held 451.
‡”about 400 years ago”: Scaliger’s chronology.
12.09 The Council of Trent, session 25, on Images, when it says: “That which has been sanctioned by the decrees of Councils, especially of the Second Nicene synod against the assailants of images”; does not define either that there was a second Nicene synod, or if there were any, what its sense was; but only what Catholics believed its mind was and the Roman Church herself according to the opinion of Catholic Doctors thought, if in truth that synod did exist.*†‡
*”Begun on the third, and terminated on the fourth, day of December, MDLXIII…” https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html
†“the Second Nicene” Council, held 787.
‡“as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.” https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html
Once again, Hardouin states that the Council of Trent did not declare if “there was a second Nicene synod.” It is typically the reader’s obligation to evaluate the merits of a source in a finished work.
†“the Second Nicene” Council, held 787.
‡“as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.” https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html
Once again, Hardouin states that the Council of Trent did not declare if “there was a second Nicene synod.” It is typically the reader’s obligation to evaluate the merits of a source in a finished work.
12.09a For it [the question of authorship] was not expressly examined [by the Council of Trent], whether there were any such synod [Second Council of Nicea].* The same principle does not hold in respect to the sense of Jansenius, for example, for the book was allowed to be of Jansenius, and Catholics and Jansenists were agreed on the sense of the author and so the Church expressly pronounced on that sense, not on what it was, but of what quality it was. His fine opinions were condemned as heretical.† Again, the phrase “that which” in the decree of Trent signifies only that the words from the second Nicene synod were received; but the Fathers of Trent will that that sense should be held, which upon that matter Tradition and the Apostolic See, the mistress of Tradition, teaches all Catholics, and which the Calvinists and the rest of the Protestants disapprove.‡
*A repetition of the position that a council neither examined nor determined if the acts of previous councils are genuine.
†Cornelius Jansenius, 1585–1638.
‡Judging by the multitude of denominations, there are many disapproving Protestants. Otherwise said, protesters gonna protest.
†Cornelius Jansenius, 1585–1638.
‡Judging by the multitude of denominations, there are many disapproving Protestants. Otherwise said, protesters gonna protest.
12.10 In the Council of Trent, session 3, on the Symbol Section of Faith, it is said, “The Confession of Faith must be put in the first place, the synod having followed in this the examples of the Fathers, who in the more consecrated Councils were wont to place this shield against all heresies.”*† But when I say that the sense is: they follow the example of those who are commonly believed to be Fathers, and of Councils whose Acts are commonly thought to be peculiarly consecrated.‡
*”Celebrated on the fourth day of the month of February, in the year 1546.”
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct03.html
The “more consecrated Councils” is a strange expression, as though degrees of sacredness exist.
†“a confession of faith is to be set forth; following herein the examples of the Fathers, who have been wont, in the most sacred coucils [sic], at the beginning of the Actions thereof, to oppose this shield against heresies:” ibid.
‡The phrases “commonly believed” and “commonly thought” are related to “commonly received.”
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct03.html
The “more consecrated Councils” is a strange expression, as though degrees of sacredness exist.
†“a confession of faith is to be set forth; following herein the examples of the Fathers, who have been wont, in the most sacred coucils [sic], at the beginning of the Actions thereof, to oppose this shield against heresies:” ibid.
‡The phrases “commonly believed” and “commonly thought” are related to “commonly received.”
12.10a Not the mere verbal sense, but that which the Church understands beneath the words, is that which the Fathers of Trent certainly desire it to be believed, they assume, along with the Apostolic See.*
*The verbal sense is the exoteric meaning whereas the Church understanding is “beneath the words,” or esoteric. It could be said that this understanding by the Church is a form of “technical jargon” wherein certain words have a specialized interpretation.
12.11 Never has the Church pronounced juridically on the genuine sense, whether of those Acts [of the Ecumicnal Councils] or of any book out of the “Fathers,” commonly so called.* It is clear that neither was ever called into examination by the Apostolic See. The synod or the Pope only says in general terms that the sense of the holy Fathers is Catholic.† That is most true, otherwise they would be neither Fathers nor saints. No propositions were taken out of the books of the false Augustine which it declared to be good and true in the sense of the author. It accepted only some words, which it proposed to all, not as Augustine’s, or in the sense of the man who first wrote them, but as here and there amended and to be understood in its own sense.‡
*Neither the Roman Church nor a duly appointed authority has judged the genuineness of the acts of the Councils or the writings of the Fathers. These acts and writings exist and, from time to time, Councils and Popes use sections of these documents in the sense approved by the Roman Church.
†Everyone, including the “synod or the Pope,” speaks “in general terms” regarding the Catholicity of the Fathers.
‡Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
†Everyone, including the “synod or the Pope,” speaks “in general terms” regarding the Catholicity of the Fathers.
‡Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
12.12 But the objection is made: “The Calvinists themselves acknowledge the Lateran Council under Innocent III and the Canon Omnis utriusque sexus (everyone of either sex).”*† Quite so! But they do this because it behooves them to assign the time at which, as they will have it, the necessity of Confession was brought in; or to admit—as is the fact—that no beginning of that institute can be assigned, but from the Lord Christ.‡ On that account they have chosen the Canon, because they have no stronger weapon against us. But I say that in point of fact that Canon was first drawn up by the impious crew of forgers. It does not allege that Confession is necessary by divine law, as it is, nor that the power of the priests for the conferring of grace is ex opere operato (from the work wrought). It looks upon the priest as a medical man. But if, as I contend, that Canon is a fiction, though later praised by the Popes, it is vain for heretics to assign it as the beginning of the necessity of confessing sins brought into the Church and no beginning can be assigned by them and, thus, also the cause of the Church is victorious.
*Lateran Council, held 1215; Innocent III, r. 1198–1216.
†“Omnis utriusque sexus” is the 21st canon of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 and requires all Christians to confess their sins at least once a year to their own priest.
Fourth Council of the Lateran, Wikipedia
While the proceedings were not officially recorded, unlike in previous councils, evidence of the events have been found in various manuscripts by observers of the council. Ibid
The text of the fourth Lateran council has been pieced together from “various manuscripts.” That fact that the decrees of a council were not copied in their entirety and promulgated throughout Europe suggests that the council was unimportant.
“Henry of Segusio [1200–1271] likened the council to the ‘four great councils of antiquity.’” ibid.
It is not obvious why “four great councils” are mentioned and not the seven great ecumenical councils, unless at that time, only four councils were known, that is to say, only four councils were written and distributed by the hoaxers.
‡Calvinists must recognize the Lateran Council as the beginning of the sacrament of Confession, otherwise they would acknowledge that no other date for the commencement of confession is available in the historical record, and be forced to admit, albeit reluctantly, that this sacrament originates from Christ. Of course, the Orthodox Church does not recognize decrees from the Lateran Council, yet, it also has the sacrament of confession.
†“Omnis utriusque sexus” is the 21st canon of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 and requires all Christians to confess their sins at least once a year to their own priest.
Fourth Council of the Lateran, Wikipedia
While the proceedings were not officially recorded, unlike in previous councils, evidence of the events have been found in various manuscripts by observers of the council. Ibid
The text of the fourth Lateran council has been pieced together from “various manuscripts.” That fact that the decrees of a council were not copied in their entirety and promulgated throughout Europe suggests that the council was unimportant.
“Henry of Segusio [1200–1271] likened the council to the ‘four great councils of antiquity.’” ibid.
It is not obvious why “four great councils” are mentioned and not the seven great ecumenical councils, unless at that time, only four councils were known, that is to say, only four councils were written and distributed by the hoaxers.
‡Calvinists must recognize the Lateran Council as the beginning of the sacrament of Confession, otherwise they would acknowledge that no other date for the commencement of confession is available in the historical record, and be forced to admit, albeit reluctantly, that this sacrament originates from Christ. Of course, the Orthodox Church does not recognize decrees from the Lateran Council, yet, it also has the sacrament of confession.
12.13 The Council of Trent praises the Canon, Every one of either sex, but does so on the received opinion of the Doctors and makes what is laudable in it for its own.* What is defective in the Canon and, yet, is of highest importance in that matter, the Council most wisely, and from Tradition, supplies.*
*The Roman Church selects certain praiseworthy sections of Omnis utriusque sexus and those passages it accepts as its own.
†The faithful in the Roman Church must confess to a priest once a year. In the Orthodox Church, sins are confessed before taking communion which is expected to be taken frequently. If the eucharist is not the body and blood of Christ, then the spiritual condition of the faithful is not relevant, for “if God is simply Nature, [then] there can be no place for merit” or for the remission of sins through the sacrament of confession [9.26]. However, Paul writes that one can receive the Lord “unworthily,” which indicates the existence of an oral tradition where the bread and wine are changed into the body of Christ [1 Cor. 11:27].
†The faithful in the Roman Church must confess to a priest once a year. In the Orthodox Church, sins are confessed before taking communion which is expected to be taken frequently. If the eucharist is not the body and blood of Christ, then the spiritual condition of the faithful is not relevant, for “if God is simply Nature, [then] there can be no place for merit” or for the remission of sins through the sacrament of confession [9.26]. However, Paul writes that one can receive the Lord “unworthily,” which indicates the existence of an oral tradition where the bread and wine are changed into the body of Christ [1 Cor. 11:27].
chapter 13
Further attempt to explain away the Decrees of the Council of Trent. The true Fathers and the false. The Chinese theologians compared to the Heretics. Further discussion of the meaning of the Decrees of the Council of Trent: what is meant by the “common consent of the Fathers?” Further attack upon Augustine and Thomas Aquinas as spurious writers.
13.01 THE Council of Trent decrees, session 4, that the Sacred Scripture is not to be interpreted against the unanimous consent of the Fathers.* To this objection, I answer (1) the Council says it decrees this, in order to coerce petulant minds, which would interpret the Scripture in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, contrary to that sense which our holy Mother Church held and holds, whose part it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, or even against the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
* “Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year MDXLVI.” https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
†petulant: (of a person or their manner) childishly sulky or bad-tempered.
†petulant: (of a person or their manner) childishly sulky or bad-tempered.
13.01a It follows that on any point in which there was not a unanimous consent of all [the Fathers of the Council], [then] one may depart from them, if one does not ⟨, therefore,⟩ depart from the faith and doctrine of the Church and if there be even unanimous consent, but against that sense which our holy Mother Church held and holds, [then] they will justly cease to be deemed Fathers and it will behoove us to believe that the most holy synod either spoke of others, i.e., of Catholic Bishops who died in the communion of the Apostolic See; or, that with Catholic Doctors the synod [Council of Trent] took it for granted that the unanimous consent of those false “Fathers” was not adverse to the sense of the Church and the Apostolic See.* Which assumption had they tested and examined they would have detected as false.†‡
*The bishops attending the Council of Trent “took it for granted” that the “unanimous consent” of the Fathers was in accordance with the sense “commonly thought” by the Roman Church.
†The attendees of the Council “took it for granted”, or presumed, that the writings of the Church Fathers were compatible with Church teachings. As viewed from the long arc of verifiable history, it seems that scarcely any Roman Catholics investigate the assumptions of the Roman Church and, fewer still, publish their findings.
‡The phrases “commonly believed,” “commonly thought,” and “commonly received” are related to “took it for granted” and similar sentiments are found throughout the Prolegomena.
†The attendees of the Council “took it for granted”, or presumed, that the writings of the Church Fathers were compatible with Church teachings. As viewed from the long arc of verifiable history, it seems that scarcely any Roman Catholics investigate the assumptions of the Roman Church and, fewer still, publish their findings.
‡The phrases “commonly believed,” “commonly thought,” and “commonly received” are related to “took it for granted” and similar sentiments are found throughout the Prolegomena.
13.02 In no other question is the consent of the Fathers—i.e., of those commonly so called—more unanimous than in the demonstration of the existence and nature of God, for it is the same in all of them.* But then their proofs are plainly atheistic.† Nor in that matter alone, but the whole of their Theology, their doctrine of the Trinity, of Christ, and the consequences of these capital points of the faith, are atheistic. Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be said to have meant something else, when he suffered the unanimous consent of the Fathers [of the Council] to be commended. Certainly the sense in the mind of the Holy Spirit was that in which the sons of the holy Roman Church acknowledged those writings ought to be understood, which were commonly believed to be of the Fathers.‡ For “Instead of thy fathers, children were born to thee”; instead of true Fathers, children were born taught by them, that they may retain and defend the true sense of Fathers truly so named.
*The identical demonstrations concerning “the existence and nature of God” by the Church Fathers are compelling evidence of either plagiarism or collaboration.
†These proofs concerning the nature and existence of God will, without exception, include references to the material world, appeals to mundane examples of human existence, and analogies to the physical realm, to attempt to justify the existence of God. Hardouin is correct when he writes “their proofs are plainly atheistic,” as the writers are willfully ignorant of a spiritual element in their nearly identical demonstrations “of the existence and nature of God.” Even if a conclusion from the evidence of the world indicates a Creator, this conclusion does not necessarily indicate either the God of the Old Testament or a deity from any religious book. Speculations from the allegedly created cosmos concern the moral nature of the Creator, his goodness, or other attributes, such as his power and his wisdom.
For the invisible things of him [God, v.19] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom. 1:20
It is not certain which unseen attributes of God are obviously visible, not from the world, but “from the creation of the world.” The creation is assumed without evidence or argument, and of course, no human witness was present at the creation. The creation is recorded as occurring over six days and during one day [Gen. 1:1-31; Gen. 2:4]. Only a few valid conclusions can be drawn from the existence of the universe. The conclusion that the cosmos was created is not more probable than the interpretation that the universe is the cause of its existence.
‡There are many common beliefs that have no basis in reality. The phrases “commonly believed,” “commonly thought,” and “commonly received” are closely related.
†These proofs concerning the nature and existence of God will, without exception, include references to the material world, appeals to mundane examples of human existence, and analogies to the physical realm, to attempt to justify the existence of God. Hardouin is correct when he writes “their proofs are plainly atheistic,” as the writers are willfully ignorant of a spiritual element in their nearly identical demonstrations “of the existence and nature of God.” Even if a conclusion from the evidence of the world indicates a Creator, this conclusion does not necessarily indicate either the God of the Old Testament or a deity from any religious book. Speculations from the allegedly created cosmos concern the moral nature of the Creator, his goodness, or other attributes, such as his power and his wisdom.
For the invisible things of him [God, v.19] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom. 1:20
It is not certain which unseen attributes of God are obviously visible, not from the world, but “from the creation of the world.” The creation is assumed without evidence or argument, and of course, no human witness was present at the creation. The creation is recorded as occurring over six days and during one day [Gen. 1:1-31; Gen. 2:4]. Only a few valid conclusions can be drawn from the existence of the universe. The conclusion that the cosmos was created is not more probable than the interpretation that the universe is the cause of its existence.
‡There are many common beliefs that have no basis in reality. The phrases “commonly believed,” “commonly thought,” and “commonly received” are closely related.
13.03 Father Lombard says of the rites of the Chinese, p. 18,
“When we told them that Xangti was the Creator of the universe in the manner that we conceive, they laughed, and turned us into ridicule, being well assured, that according to the principles of their sect, Xangti is Heaven, or the virtue and power of Heaven; and that consequently he cannot have been before Heaven, but only when Heaven or after Heaven existed. If we would push the dispute further, and prove in our way that the Architect is before the house he builds, they interrupted and cut us short, saying: Well, since your God is our Xangti , you have no need to explain to us the matter, because we know better than you what Xangti is. In fine, whatever effort we made to show them that their interpreters have not given a good explanation of the word Xangti, they ever replied that we did not understand their books.”
13.03a Now change the names; put for Chinese—Jansenius, Andreas Martinus, or Ambrosius Victor, Thomassin, Malebranche, and other Augustinians; for Xangti put the Truth of all eternal truths in every kind which those theologians hold to be God.* There is a complete parallel. First, they laugh at us when they hear our profession that the God of our worship is the object of worship to Augustine and other Fathers, then they interrupt and say:
“If God whom you worship is the God of Augustine and the rest of the Fathers (for on that matter their consent is wondrously unanimous) it is well.† We need not your exposition, for we know much better than you who is the God of Augustine and the rest.”‡
* Jansenius, 1585–1638; Andreas Martinus [Andreas Karlstadt?], 1486–1541; Ambrosius Victor [uncertain]; Thomassin, 1619–1695; Malebranche, 1638–1715; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
Ambrose, d. 397; Jerome, d. 420; Augustine, d. 430; and Gregory the Great, d. 604, were promoted as Doctor in 1298 under Boniface VIII, r. 1294–1303. Doctor of the Church, Wikipedia
The next promotions were Thomas Aquinus, d. 1274, in 1567; John Chrysostom, d. 407, 1568; Basil the Great, d. 379, 1568; Gregory of Nazianzus, d. 398, 1568; Athanasius, d. 373, 1568; under Pius V, r. 1566–1572. Sixtus V, r. 1585–1590, promoted Bonaventura, d. 1274, in 1588. Clement XI promoted Anselm of Canterbury, d. 1109, in 1720; Isidore of Seville, d. 636, was promoted by Innocent XIII in 1722. Ibid
†The phrase, unanimous consent of the Fathers, is found in 8.05, 2 occurrences; 13.01, 2 occurrences; 13.01a, 3 occurrences; 13.02, 2 occurrences; 13.03a, 1 occurrence; 13.03b, 1 occurrence; 13.08, 3 occurrences; 13.10, 4 occurrences. The phrase originates in the fourth session of the Council of Trent.
‡Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
Ambrose, d. 397; Jerome, d. 420; Augustine, d. 430; and Gregory the Great, d. 604, were promoted as Doctor in 1298 under Boniface VIII, r. 1294–1303. Doctor of the Church, Wikipedia
The next promotions were Thomas Aquinus, d. 1274, in 1567; John Chrysostom, d. 407, 1568; Basil the Great, d. 379, 1568; Gregory of Nazianzus, d. 398, 1568; Athanasius, d. 373, 1568; under Pius V, r. 1566–1572. Sixtus V, r. 1585–1590, promoted Bonaventura, d. 1274, in 1588. Clement XI promoted Anselm of Canterbury, d. 1109, in 1720; Isidore of Seville, d. 636, was promoted by Innocent XIII in 1722. Ibid
†The phrase, unanimous consent of the Fathers, is found in 8.05, 2 occurrences; 13.01, 2 occurrences; 13.01a, 3 occurrences; 13.02, 2 occurrences; 13.03a, 1 occurrence; 13.03b, 1 occurrence; 13.08, 3 occurrences; 13.10, 4 occurrences. The phrase originates in the fourth session of the Council of Trent.
‡Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
13.03b They openly boast they know better than Catholics the nature of Augustinian grace and they think that Augustine makes for them and great progress, forsooth, do they make in propagating that grace of the false Augustine.* Unless God help us— owing to our ignorance or sloth, the God of the false Augustine and the whole impious band will make the same progress.†
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
†The hoaxers rely upon ignorance and sloth for the esoteric teachings of the Fathers to make encroachments into Christian teachings with the goal of overthrowing religion.
†The hoaxers rely upon ignorance and sloth for the esoteric teachings of the Fathers to make encroachments into Christian teachings with the goal of overthrowing religion.
13.04 If the synod of Trent defined that the writings of the Fathers contained the Tradition of the Church— [then] down to what times did it define the age of the Fathers? To the times of Bernard, as usual?* Why should it reject other bishops who wrote later? Was the Church at this day to reject St. Francis Sales?† If saints alone were to be admitted, [then] why not all of them? Why after Bernard is no Father allowed, after Thomas and Bonaventura, no Doctor of the Church?‡ For more than five hundred and fifty years have elapsed since Bernard, and from Thomas and Bonaventura, four hundred and fifty.§ What reason is there except that it was not and is not the usage of the Catholic Church to employ the appellation Fathers or Doctors of the Church; it was the device of the impious crew and of the men whom they deceived.¶ All those false Fathers were ⟨got up and⟩ forged in one workshop in the fourteenth and the fifteenth century.‖ Afterwards, no such fabrications of “Fathers” were known.
*Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090–1153.
†St. Francis Sales, 1567–1622.
‡Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274; Bonaventura, 1221–1274.
§“five hundred and fifty years” and “four hundred and fifty [years]”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‖“the fourteenth and the fifteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
¶As the title of “Father” was not in use by the Church in a specific historical sense, the hoaxers alighted upon the idea of calling their approved authors “Fathers of the Church.”
†St. Francis Sales, 1567–1622.
‡Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274; Bonaventura, 1221–1274.
§“five hundred and fifty years” and “four hundred and fifty [years]”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‖“the fourteenth and the fifteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
¶As the title of “Father” was not in use by the Church in a specific historical sense, the hoaxers alighted upon the idea of calling their approved authors “Fathers of the Church.”
13.05 The Council of Trent, ⟨then,⟩ hands down infallible rules in which the truth and integrity of the faith is contained and declares them to be sacred books and traditions conserved in the Catholic Church. It could not hand down rules, except those by no means obnoxious to error; of which kind are the two I have mentioned. But the lucubrations of the “Fathers” are not infallible rules.*† The Council could not, therefore, give those writings or the writers themselves as an infallible rule for the distinguishing of the truth and certainly the Council did not so give them. It could not affirm that the writings attributed to the Fathers contain the certain and infallible testimony of the received Tradition, before it weighed them one by one; before it surely separated the genuine from the spurious and then decreed that there was nothing in any of them at variance with the true tradition. It did neither. Hitherto, the Church has willed to do neither.
*lucubration: a piece of writing, typically a pedantic or over elaborate one.
†The rules of logic attempt to identify and to prevent contradictions.
13.06 Wisely and truly the response was made from the City to the province of the Lower Rhine, 9th December, 1594, in these words:
“The Pontiff, being asked to command that none should be admitted at Salamanca to the degree or chair of Theology unless he subscribed to the doctrine of St. Thomas, answers that he will not and cannot do this.”*†
*”the City”: Rome.
†The Pontiff”: Clement VIII, r. 1592–1605.
†The rules of logic attempt to identify and to prevent contradictions.
13.06 Wisely and truly the response was made from the City to the province of the Lower Rhine, 9th December, 1594, in these words:
“The Pontiff, being asked to command that none should be admitted at Salamanca to the degree or chair of Theology unless he subscribed to the doctrine of St. Thomas, answers that he will not and cannot do this.”*†
*”the City”: Rome.
†The Pontiff”: Clement VIII, r. 1592–1605.
13.07 You will say: “The Council of Trent, session 6, chapter II [sic], seems to approve the writings of the Fathers when it says: “None should use that rash saying, prohibited by the Fathers under anathema; that the precepts of God are impossible to a justified man to observe. For God does not commend impossible things, etc.”*
*Chapter eleven, not chapter two.
“But no one, how much soever justified, ought to think himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one ought to make use of that rash saying, one prohibited by the Fathers under an anathema,-that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified.”
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 11
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
“Celebrated on the thirteenth day of the month of January, 1547.”
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
The Council of Trent is clear that no one is exempt from observing the commandments:
CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.
CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.
In the nineteenth canon, the Roman Church teaches that more than faith “is commanded in the Gospel” which we interpret as good works, in addition to faith, are commanded in the Gospel.
Yea, a man may say, “Thou hast faith, and I have works.” Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. James 2:18
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach that the ten commandments apply to Christians, but the Sabbath is now observed on the first day of the week, not the seventh day. The Tridentine Fathers do not indicate which version of the ten commandments applies [Ex. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; Deut. 10:4]. This lack of specificity may indicate, firstly, that the Fathers were unaware that three versions of the ten commandments exist and, secondly, there was not one definitive edition of the Old Testament available during the age of the council.
CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments; let him be anathema.
The phenomenon of “accepting” Christ and living one’s life unchanged is a hallmark of Protestantism. It is as if Protestants have “no God… but the nature of things” [14.05].
CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.
The Tridentine Fathers wisely combine “good works done in God” with “merit of Jesus Christ” as the prerequisites of expecting and hoping for “eternal recompense from God.” The council mentions the merit of Christ, while “not one of the “Fathers” has said that our hope is to be placed in Christ’s merits” [9.26]. This mention of Christ’s merits may be the reason Hardouin accepts the Council of Trent as genuine.
“But no one, how much soever justified, ought to think himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one ought to make use of that rash saying, one prohibited by the Fathers under an anathema,-that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified.”
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 11
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
“Celebrated on the thirteenth day of the month of January, 1547.”
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
The Council of Trent is clear that no one is exempt from observing the commandments:
CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.
CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.
In the nineteenth canon, the Roman Church teaches that more than faith “is commanded in the Gospel” which we interpret as good works, in addition to faith, are commanded in the Gospel.
Yea, a man may say, “Thou hast faith, and I have works.” Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. James 2:18
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach that the ten commandments apply to Christians, but the Sabbath is now observed on the first day of the week, not the seventh day. The Tridentine Fathers do not indicate which version of the ten commandments applies [Ex. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; Deut. 10:4]. This lack of specificity may indicate, firstly, that the Fathers were unaware that three versions of the ten commandments exist and, secondly, there was not one definitive edition of the Old Testament available during the age of the council.
CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments; let him be anathema.
The phenomenon of “accepting” Christ and living one’s life unchanged is a hallmark of Protestantism. It is as if Protestants have “no God… but the nature of things” [14.05].
CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.
The Tridentine Fathers wisely combine “good works done in God” with “merit of Jesus Christ” as the prerequisites of expecting and hoping for “eternal recompense from God.” The council mentions the merit of Christ, while “not one of the “Fathers” has said that our hope is to be placed in Christ’s merits” [9.26]. This mention of Christ’s merits may be the reason Hardouin accepts the Council of Trent as genuine.
13.07a I answer, when the Holy Spirit judged that the time was not ⟨yet⟩ come for the detection of the mystery of iniquity, he suffered the most holy synod to use these words, which it was then, as matters were, necessary and useful to employ.* At a time, I mean, when the writings alleged to be of the Fathers were admitted to be such by those against whom the synod was framing its decrees. The language cited was in a manner an argument ad hominem on the part of the Holy Spirit:
“You, heretics, think these writings to be of the Fathers; but ⟨then⟩ their teaching is contrary to you, etc.”
*For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 2 Thes. 2:7
13.07b And again, the holy synod praises the sense and words of the Fathers, not as they are to be found in the books, for it had not discussed these either as a whole or any one of them by particular examination; but such as they were believed to be by Catholic Doctors; nor others could the synod of Trent approve.* The error was in the fact, not in the decision of fact, but in the supposition; the synod assumed, as admitted, that the sense of the books was that which Catholic Doctors reported.*
*Hardouin repeats that the Fathers of the Council of Trent assumed the writings of the “Church Fathers” were orthodox. The error was “in the fact” and “not in the decision of fact,” as no examinations concerning the genuineness of the writings of the Fathers were undertaken and no decisions were concluded.
13.08 “But nevertheless,” you will say, “the Council of Trent praises and commends in the interpretation of the sacred letters the consensus of the Fathers, session 4.”* I answer that the Synod of Trent only decrees, as I have already said, “that no one relying on his own wisdom, in matters of faith and morals— twisting the sacred scripture to his own meanings, against that sense which holy Mother Church held and holds, or even against the unanimous consent of the Fathers, dares to interpret the sacred scripture itself.”
But as for me, I do not rely on my own wisdom, I rely on the sole faith of the Apostolic See. I do not twist the scripture to my own sense, but I interpret by the sense and decrees of the Church.† I do not prefer the unanimous consent of any body of men ⟨whatever⟩ to the sense of the Church. I acknowledge no Fathers, save those whom after particular examination she has acknowledged; which examination, it is allowed, she has not yet instituted.
*The section titled “The Edition, and the use of the Sacred Books.”
“Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year MDXLVI.”
The fourth session uses the term “Fathers” twice:
(the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates… all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both…
Furthermore,… no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church… hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
The Council of Trent claims that the interpretations and remarkably unanimous consent found in the personal and private writings of the Fathers were never intended to be made public. The conclusion that the contents of a small library was created as personal endeavors only, with no intention of distributing the books to a larger audience, seems unlikely, as the works of the Fathers are acknowledged to be “highly useful for the thorough knowledge of Religion” [10.06a].
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
†As also in all his [Paul, v.15] epistles, speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Simon Peter 3:16
“Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year MDXLVI.”
The fourth session uses the term “Fathers” twice:
(the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates… all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both…
Furthermore,… no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church… hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
The Council of Trent claims that the interpretations and remarkably unanimous consent found in the personal and private writings of the Fathers were never intended to be made public. The conclusion that the contents of a small library was created as personal endeavors only, with no intention of distributing the books to a larger audience, seems unlikely, as the works of the Fathers are acknowledged to be “highly useful for the thorough knowledge of Religion” [10.06a].
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
†As also in all his [Paul, v.15] epistles, speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Simon Peter 3:16
13.09 Nor does the synod of Trent, nor do the Popes in their Brevia commend the common consent of the holy Fathers or the doctrine of Augustine or Thomas, except hypothetically, i.e., if it should be admitted that the books adduced under their name are truly theirs and contain doctrine by no means contrary to the faith of the holy Roman Church, who is mother and mistress of the Fathers themselves.*† This is patent from the fact that she suffers and thinks it right for everyone to call all and sundry works of that kind to examination; which no ecumenical synod, no popes, could permit in the case of the books of sacred scripture.‡ But they in whose writings, after that examination were found opinions contrary to the Catholic faith, are certainly condemned by the Church and repelled from the society of her authorities.
*Brevia formata refers to short legal documents called "brevia" that were used in the past instead of longer charters. Brevia were often blank or open, meaning they were not sealed, and were used for various legal purposes. Generative AI
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274.
‡No Ecumenical Council or Pope could permit an examination of the “books of sacred scripture.” However, it seems that at some point an authoritative decision would have been given regarding which books are to be called Scripture and which books were to be excluded from Scripture. If any books could be allowed into the Canon unsupervised, then Scripture would likely contain many books that have passages that are contrary to religion and inconsistent with approved morals.
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274.
‡No Ecumenical Council or Pope could permit an examination of the “books of sacred scripture.” However, it seems that at some point an authoritative decision would have been given regarding which books are to be called Scripture and which books were to be excluded from Scripture. If any books could be allowed into the Canon unsupervised, then Scripture would likely contain many books that have passages that are contrary to religion and inconsistent with approved morals.
13.10 Who ⟨, then,⟩ will be the Fathers whose consent is praised by the Council of Trent? I answer: all Bishops and Doctors who have departed in the communion of the Apostolic See. Of these, together with the Apostles and Prophets, we understand that saying, The God of our Fathers. How is their unanimous consent acknowledged? From the faith and doctrine of their successors adhering in like manner to the Apostolic See. ⟨But⟩ we must lay it down that there is still in the Church the gift of the Holy Spirit for the understanding of the Scriptures. The passage ⟨therefore⟩ of sacred letters which the Catholic Doctors unanimously apply for the fixing of a dogma— to this it behooves that there should have been the unanimous consent of those who were truly Fathers and Doctors. From this place, for example, Whose sins ye shall remit, etc., they collect the power of the priesthood in the remission of sins; these are Fathers; nor were there other Fathers in days of old, except their like in that manner.* From the passage “By the word of the Lord were the Heavens established and by the breath of his mouth all their virtue,” most of the ancients gather that there are two or three persons in God, but they are not Fathers.† None believes their unanimous consent in this matter. All, with unanimous and marvelous consent, interpret scripture allegorically, though some more sparingly.‡ Who does not at the present day thoroughly spurn this way of interpretation, except the Jansenist faction, in the Bible named of De Sacy?§
*Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. John 20:23
†“By the word of the Lord…”: Psalm 33:6. The word translated as “Lord” is Jehovah, Strong’s H3068.
The King James Bible Version translates Strong's H3068,Yᵊhōvâ, as: LORD (6,510), GOD (4), JEHOVAH (4), variant (1). The first appearance of H3068 is found in Gen. 2:4.
The word translated as “God” in the first verse of Genesis is Elohim, Strong’s H430. The King James Bible Version translates Strong's H430, 'ĕlōhîm, as: God (2,346), god (244), judge (5), GOD (1), goddess (2), great (2), mighty (2), angels (1), exceeding (1), God-ward (with H4136) (1), godly (1).
‡”All [the writings of the Church Fathers], with unanimous and marvelous consent… interpret scripture allegorically….” The fact that allegorical exegeses over several centuries are in agreement is evidence of either collusion or a hoax.
§Louis–Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy, 1613–1684, a priest of Port–Royal, was a theologian and French humanist. He is best known for his translation of the Bible, the most widespread French Bible in the 18th century, Louis–Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy, Wikipedia
†“By the word of the Lord…”: Psalm 33:6. The word translated as “Lord” is Jehovah, Strong’s H3068.
The King James Bible Version translates Strong's H3068,Yᵊhōvâ, as: LORD (6,510), GOD (4), JEHOVAH (4), variant (1). The first appearance of H3068 is found in Gen. 2:4.
The word translated as “God” in the first verse of Genesis is Elohim, Strong’s H430. The King James Bible Version translates Strong's H430, 'ĕlōhîm, as: God (2,346), god (244), judge (5), GOD (1), goddess (2), great (2), mighty (2), angels (1), exceeding (1), God-ward (with H4136) (1), godly (1).
‡”All [the writings of the Church Fathers], with unanimous and marvelous consent… interpret scripture allegorically….” The fact that allegorical exegeses over several centuries are in agreement is evidence of either collusion or a hoax.
§Louis–Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy, 1613–1684, a priest of Port–Royal, was a theologian and French humanist. He is best known for his translation of the Bible, the most widespread French Bible in the 18th century, Louis–Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy, Wikipedia
13.11 Let any that wills laugh at me when I say that the Popes and the Synod of Trent, when they praise all the Fathers, or mention Augustine or Thomas by name, meant this: that they follow the doctrine of the holy men who are recognised and worshiped in the Church under these names and not that doctrine contained in spurious writings, if there are such, falsely circulated under their names.*† He who ridicules me for saying this, or for asserting that so either the Fathers of Trent prophesied, or the Vicars of Christ, since they were each in his own way Pontiffs of the Church of God.‡ Let him also ridicule John the Evangelist who says of Caiaphas that he prophesied because he was high–priest of that year, although the malevolence of the man shows us that Caiaphas had another view than that hinted by the prophetic sense of his words.§
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274.
†The holy men “are recognised and” venerated, not worshiped, in the Church.
‡Hardouin uses the title “Vicar of Christ” and not the expected “Bishop of the Catholic Church”. Viz. 8.6; 19.14.
§And this spake he [Caiaphas, v.49] not of himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; John 11:51
†The holy men “are recognised and” venerated, not worshiped, in the Church.
‡Hardouin uses the title “Vicar of Christ” and not the expected “Bishop of the Catholic Church”. Viz. 8.6; 19.14.
§And this spake he [Caiaphas, v.49] not of himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; John 11:51
13.12 Therefore, the Synod of Trent may seem to have spoken with a certain prophetic spirit when it praised the common consent of the Fathers. It did not mean our extant writings, for they are not in common consent except in impiety, but, since they whose falsely–entitled writings are extant, do not consent with the Church, the synod willed to praise the consent of those Fathers and to pronounce them to be truly such, whose doctrine together with their sanctity of life the Roman Church extolled, i.e., all Bishops and Doctors whose names it entered in the Album of Saints.* For these in very truth ever did consent with one another and with the Church.
*”It did not mean our extant writings, for they” all were not made public when the Council of Trent was in session, so their contents were not public. Additionally, the Trenditine Fathers did not examine any works of the Church Fathers to determine if they were genuine or spurious, as the writings were “taken for granted” as “commonly received.”
13.13 I say, then, when the Popes commend in their Brevia the doctrine of Augustine or Thomas, they say these two things only:
(1) that holy men could not commit anything to writing except according to the Catholic faith;
(2) either that sense is to be found in the books which bear their names on the title–page which the Catholic Doctors think to be in their words, or books of that kind must be entirely condemned.*†
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274,
†The idea that the Catholic teachers accept what they “think to be” the words of the Fathers does not inspire confidence in their ability to accurately interpret the Fathers, as the Fathers must be charitably expounded to conform to Christian teachings.
†The idea that the Catholic teachers accept what they “think to be” the words of the Fathers does not inspire confidence in their ability to accurately interpret the Fathers, as the Fathers must be charitably expounded to conform to Christian teachings.
13.13a For of a holy man and a Catholic Doctor, the doctrine cannot be other, nor can the Roman Pontiffs approve any other in any writer, than that which agrees with the constitutions of the Popes. They say not that by their command these things were written and diligently examined and that according to the sense intended by the author they were Catholic.* Wherefore, if anyone shows that they are not Catholic, provided he earnestly defends the sense held by the Roman Church, the sense which she believes to be acknowledged by Catholic Doctors in these writings; he is above all a Catholic and he obeys the dicta of the Popes with the reverence desired by the Popes themselves.†
*No Pope has commanded that the works of the Fathers be “diligently examined” to ascertain if they conform to Christian doctrine. The plan of the hoaxers to insinuate the Fathers into the libraries and the theologies of the western churches has been successful.
†Roman Catholics must obey the formal pronouncements, “the dicta,” of the Popes.
†Roman Catholics must obey the formal pronouncements, “the dicta,” of the Popes.
13.14 The Catholic Doctors who think the books attributed to Augustine [are] genuine contend with all their might that Catholic doctrine is contained in them.* They are believed by the Popes, though the matter is not otherwise discussed and though no Doctors lay this down from any power delegated to them by the Apostolic See, and so the error of fact is found in both, prior to any examination, either accurate or juridical, such as ought to precede Apostolic definitions.* The error of fact is, if anyone will have it so, in the Popes themselves; but it is not the error of fact ill defined; but error of fact along with Catholic Doctors, and because of them, incautiously supposed to be the truth.†
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
†Fourfold repetition of the exact term “error of fact.” According to Black's Law Dictionary, an error of fact is a mistake about a fact that is material to a transaction. For completeness, a “manifest error” refers to an error in belief or judgment that does not match reality.
†Fourfold repetition of the exact term “error of fact.” According to Black's Law Dictionary, an error of fact is a mistake about a fact that is material to a transaction. For completeness, a “manifest error” refers to an error in belief or judgment that does not match reality.
13.15 But—it will be objected—there are extracts from Augustine and Thomas and others, read in the Roman Breviary.* Here I answer in the words of Antonius Gallonius, priest of the Oratorian Congregation in Rome, in his Apology for Cardinal Baronius against Constantine Bellotti, of the Order of St. Benedict, published in Rome, in the Vatican Printing Office, 1604, p. 10:*
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274.
†Antonius Gallonius, 1550?–1605; Cardinal Baronius, 1538–1607.
†Antonius Gallonius, 1550?–1605; Cardinal Baronius, 1538–1607.
13.15a “You say that Lections have been accepted from John the Deacon and that they have been introduced into the Roman Breviary and you argue from that, that we are no longer at liberty to call the writings of the said John into controversy. But I reply that the Roman Church does not hand down the Breviary itself to be so recited—except the Lections taken from the Canonical Scriptures —so that she should will in all matters in it to obtain the place and rank of Canonical Scriptures. For if it were so, why did Pope Pius V expose it to correction, when some matters in it were correct?* Why, very lately, under Pope Clement VIII was the same principle handed down as to be recognised, many places having been emended?† Among other matters, the assertion which John the Deacon makes of the Cardinalate of Gregory under Pope Benedict, is corrected; so that the name of Benedict was removed, because learned men felt that it was an open and manifest lie.”
How much more justly should be expunged from all Breviaries, all Lections alleged to be from the Fathers, when impiety has been detected in the same?
*Pius V, r. 1566–1572.
†Clement VIII, r. 1592–1605.
†Clement VIII, r. 1592–1605.
13.16 Alexander VII, in his Brief dated 7th August, 1660, praises the “unshaken and most safe dogmas of the Church in the Doctors Augustine and Thomas,” and their “great names”; but to them he prefers “the sane and incorrupt doctrine, such as so many declarations of the Apostolic See and traditions of the holy Fathers require.”*
*Alexander VII, r. 1655–1667.
13.17 In the Brief which Innocent XII wrote, 6th February, 1694, he says,
“Augustine, who was of knowledge so great, that he was held to be one of the best masters by our predecessors; and his doctrine according to their statutes is followed and preserved by the Roman Church.”*
The Pope here speaks according to the common opinion of Theologians, but that is false, for the very Epistles of Celestine and Hormisdas which the Pope ⟨here⟩ has in view are spurious; the forgeries of the impious crew who fabricated Augustine himself.†‡
*Innocent XII, r. 1691–1700.
†Celestine, r. 422–432; Hormisdas, r. 514–523; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
‡Innocent XII repeated the “common opinion of Theologians” as is “commonly believed.”
†Celestine, r. 422–432; Hormisdas, r. 514–523; Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
‡Innocent XII repeated the “common opinion of Theologians” as is “commonly believed.”
13.18 Pope Clement XI, 28th January, 1704, in his condemnation of the book. True Tradition, etc., by M. de Launoy, says that it seemed to the Cardinal Inquisitors:
“as impious, blasphemous, and injurious to the most splendid light of the Catholic Church, and to the great Doctor St. Augustine, nay to the very Church and to the Apostolic See.”*
And again:
“Desiring firmly to follow in the steps of the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, who had ever great esteem for the lofty doctrines of the same holy Doctor, and embraced it with all their hearts,” he “condemns and reproves” the book and “forbids it to be kept, under pain of excommunication for the deed.”
*Clement XI, r. 1700–1721; Jean de Launoy, 1603–1678.
13.18a But I answer (1) that the book is truly called impious and blasphemous, which accuses of impious doctrine and novelty a man believed by the writer to be a saint and enrolled among the saints by the Church. I answer (2) that it is truly said to be injurious to the Church and to the Apostolic See; both because it supposes the assertor of impious dogma (as I have said) to have been by her enrolled among the saints and also because it asserts, ⟨cap. 8,⟩ [chapter 8] that Pope Celestine favored the false dogma, or that at least he willed neither to condemn nor to approve the evil doctrine of St. Augustine; whence that doctrine becomes problematical.* I answer (3) that the saying about the “lofty doctrine, etc.,” can have no other sense but this: the Popes and the Apostolic See have esteemed that doctrine because they think, and truly, that it is wrong to assume that any impious doctrine exists in the books of one they have pronounced a saint.
*It is not obvious which Pope Celestine favored “false dogma,” unless Hardouin intends Celestine mentioned in 13.17. All Popes named Celstine: Celestine I, r. 422-432; Celestine II, r. 1143-1144; Celestine III, r. 1191-1198; Celestine IV, r. 1241; Celestine V, r. 1294.
Celectine V was elected pope in the Catholic Church's last non-conclave papal election, ending a two-year impasse. Among the few edicts of his to remain in force was the confirmation of the right of the pope to resign; nearly all of his other official acts were annulled by his successor, Boniface VIII. Pope Celestine V, Wikipedia
Celectine V was elected pope in the Catholic Church's last non-conclave papal election, ending a two-year impasse. Among the few edicts of his to remain in force was the confirmation of the right of the pope to resign; nearly all of his other official acts were annulled by his successor, Boniface VIII. Pope Celestine V, Wikipedia
13.18b Wrong, doubtless, and blasphemous it would be to think this of St. Francis Sales, or of St. Charles Borromeo whose writings the whole world learned to be genuine during their lifetime.* But it is not so certainly made out that the works bearing the names of Augustine and Thomas and the like are their genuine productions.† The Catholic Doctors now benignly interpret them, lest holy men should be thought to have been masters of heresy and impiety; but not yet has the Apostolic See, nor have the Catholic Doctors themselves, weighed them and they still think that it is right for anyone to inquire diligently into this matter and if some sagacious and laborious Catholic Doctor should detect that these books were falsely placed under the name of a great Doctor and Saint by the impious crew, [then] the Apostolic See will be first to declare that the mind and opinion of the Popes was none other than that which I say it was. Certainly, whatever the Apostolic See shall say it has examined and then approved or condemned, I hold, must be approved or condemned by all Catholics. Who thinks otherwise, him I consider a heretic and condemned by God. But the See has never examined the writings attributed to Augustine to ascertain whether they are his or not; never has the See said that she has commanded them to be examined. Until this is done, she cannot speak of them otherwise than all Catholic Doctors—the matter not being weighed—from common and popular fame alone.‡
*Francis Sales, 1567–1622, canonized 1665; Charles Borromeo, 1538–1584, canonized 1610.
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274.
From the above footnotes, it seems that the more contemporaneous a writer is to the commenter, the greater the certainty regarding the provenance of those works.
‡Until an examination of the Fathers is directed by the Holy See, it will continue to speak of the Fathers from a “common and popular fame,” as do all Catholic teachers.
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274.
From the above footnotes, it seems that the more contemporaneous a writer is to the commenter, the greater the certainty regarding the provenance of those works.
‡Until an examination of the Fathers is directed by the Holy See, it will continue to speak of the Fathers from a “common and popular fame,” as do all Catholic teachers.
13.18c No sense of these books being ⟨meantime⟩ approved than that which Catholic Doctors approve and which the See itself proposes by her Constitutions to beheld. At present, the Apostolic See can only speak as she does. For it would be hurtful to Catholic Christianity to confess that he who is believed to be an incomparable Doctor by the Catholic Church herself, has been the standard bearer of Lutherans, Calvinists, and Jansenists, i.e., of all the Atheists.* Meantime, the doctrine comprised in the books attributed to Augustine is, in fact, condemned by the Apostolic See—above all, by the latest Constitution of Clement XI, Unigenitus.† All the Jansenists agree with very many Catholics, and certainly with myself, that this is so. The Jansenists daily cry out loudly about this matter. They demand that Augustine’s doctrine shall be left intact and none can deny that the sense of the false Augustine is as clearly seen as that of Jansenius, but the illiterate, or the contentious, and the lovers of eternal strife.‡
*Lutherans, Calvinists, and Jansenists, are categorized as atheists, that is, “a society merely political and apart from God” [19.12].
†Unigenitus: Condemnation of the Errors of Paschasius, 1713. Pasquier Quesnel, 1634 –1719, was a French Jansenist theologian. Unigenitus has no fewer than 101 sentences from the Quesnel’s ‘Réflexions morales’ that were condemned as heretical, such as:
41. All knowledge of God, even natural knowledge, even in the pagan; philosophers, cannot come except from God;...
58. Neither God nor religion exists where there is no charity.
63. A baptized person is still under the law as a Jew, if he does not fulfill the law, or if he fulfills it from fear alone.
The Protestant concept of Grace is a two edged sword hanging over the heads of converts. For the Jewish converts, it frees them from the Law of the Old Testament; for Gentile converts, they must follow certain precepts of the Law, as if Gentiles do not have the law written on their hearts [Rom. 2:14–15]. This application of the concept of Grace is confusing, as it is not constant, but varies: either freeing or binding depending on needs of the commentator and, being a confusing practice, it cannot be from God [1 Cor. 14:33].
‡Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
†Unigenitus: Condemnation of the Errors of Paschasius, 1713. Pasquier Quesnel, 1634 –1719, was a French Jansenist theologian. Unigenitus has no fewer than 101 sentences from the Quesnel’s ‘Réflexions morales’ that were condemned as heretical, such as:
41. All knowledge of God, even natural knowledge, even in the pagan; philosophers, cannot come except from God;...
58. Neither God nor religion exists where there is no charity.
63. A baptized person is still under the law as a Jew, if he does not fulfill the law, or if he fulfills it from fear alone.
The Protestant concept of Grace is a two edged sword hanging over the heads of converts. For the Jewish converts, it frees them from the Law of the Old Testament; for Gentile converts, they must follow certain precepts of the Law, as if Gentiles do not have the law written on their hearts [Rom. 2:14–15]. This application of the concept of Grace is confusing, as it is not constant, but varies: either freeing or binding depending on needs of the commentator and, being a confusing practice, it cannot be from God [1 Cor. 14:33].
‡Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
13.19 You will say:
“You, after the lapse of 1,700 years, say that all the alleged old Greek and Latin writings on Ecclesiastical matters are spurious; [and] this never before occurred to anyone during that vast period!”*
I answer: that judgment could not be passed on these works before they came into existence and could be read.† ⟨Now⟩ they were forged in the fourteenth century, but they could scarce be read until they were printed and this was mostly done in the sixteenth century.‡ Almost immediately, after they had been conficted, Wyclif and his party abused them; afterwards Luther and Calvin. Catholics had more at heart to defend their non–written Tradition in every way, which cannot be mistaken, than to read writings of dubious credit—a matter full of toil and tedium.§ Moreover, they had not enough leisure to separate the spurious from the sincere, or rather, to understand that they were all fabricated with a view to introduce and establish impiety.‖
*“lapse of 1,700 years": Scaliger’s chronology.
†It is likely that Hardouin realized the hoaxers worked much later than the fourteenth century, possibly as late as the seventeenth century, that is, only after a printed version of the New Testament existed that could be corrupted. Hardouin maintains the fiction of a Vulgate Bible in the “hands of everyone,” as the Council of Trent states “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.”
“Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,––considering that 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, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.”
https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111trent.html
“(this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition,..”, ibid.
“on the thirteenth day of the month of December, in the year of the Lord, 1545.” ibid.
‡“fourteenth century” and “in the sixteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
§Wycliff relied upon the newly published Fathers for his innovative views.
“a matter full of toil and tedium”: 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” [3.19a]. “They praise the same authors. They confute the same stories” [3.19b].
‖The reiteration that the Fathers introduce atheism through their works is elaborated by stating that the monuments of the hoaxers “were all fabricated with a view to introduce and establish impiety.”
impiety: lack of piety or reverence, especially for a god.
lack: the state of being without or not having enough of something.
The hoaxers do not have enough reverence: they are without reverence.
†It is likely that Hardouin realized the hoaxers worked much later than the fourteenth century, possibly as late as the seventeenth century, that is, only after a printed version of the New Testament existed that could be corrupted. Hardouin maintains the fiction of a Vulgate Bible in the “hands of everyone,” as the Council of Trent states “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.”
“Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,––considering that 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, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.”
https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111trent.html
“(this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition,..”, ibid.
“on the thirteenth day of the month of December, in the year of the Lord, 1545.” ibid.
‡“fourteenth century” and “in the sixteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
§Wycliff relied upon the newly published Fathers for his innovative views.
“a matter full of toil and tedium”: 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” [3.19a]. “They praise the same authors. They confute the same stories” [3.19b].
‖The reiteration that the Fathers introduce atheism through their works is elaborated by stating that the monuments of the hoaxers “were all fabricated with a view to introduce and establish impiety.”
impiety: lack of piety or reverence, especially for a god.
lack: the state of being without or not having enough of something.
The hoaxers do not have enough reverence: they are without reverence.
13.20 No kind of argument seems to me more miserable, or more imbecile, than that adduced in attack upon our faith from the testimony of writings which began to be brought out of bookcases of Libraries late in the fourteenth century.*† Tell me, suppose that I, for example, and ten associates, or forty, if you will, should in this age conspire—I at Paris, others elsewhere—to treat the same subject–matter on some new principle, would anyone justly infer from this that a hundred years or more hence, all the Parisians, the Romans, the men of Bordeaux, of Toulouse, of Lyons—Spaniards, Italians, Germans—and the whole world shared our ravings and abandoned the prejudices instilled into them? Especially when it is manifest that writings of that kind, so soon as they were forged, were hidden with great care in Libraries, not to be brought forth until the lapse of a certain time and that they were not marked or held ⟨for sincere⟩ [as legitimate], except on the testimony of those who were implicated in the same folly and affected by the like madness.‡
*“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
†“No kind of argument seems to me… more imbecile, than… in attack upon our faith from the testimony of writings… .” Hardouin alludes to the protestant penchant for applying their Scripture against the faith of Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians.
‡The works of Fathers mutually support other works of the Fathers. Initially, their mutual testimony supports the chronology of the hoaxers, however, after examining even a handful of the works, the impiety and inappropriate comments indicate that these books can not be the result of Christian writers. Therefore, from one perspective, the works of the Fathers support accepted history and, from another view, the books are the strongest evidence of an attempt to undermine theism, generally, and Christianity, specifically.
†“No kind of argument seems to me… more imbecile, than… in attack upon our faith from the testimony of writings… .” Hardouin alludes to the protestant penchant for applying their Scripture against the faith of Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians.
‡The works of Fathers mutually support other works of the Fathers. Initially, their mutual testimony supports the chronology of the hoaxers, however, after examining even a handful of the works, the impiety and inappropriate comments indicate that these books can not be the result of Christian writers. Therefore, from one perspective, the works of the Fathers support accepted history and, from another view, the books are the strongest evidence of an attempt to undermine theism, generally, and Christianity, specifically.
chapter 14
The design of the Forgers in writing Ecclesiastical History. Fictitious Popes in “ Augustine.” The Church History of the First Twelve Centuries is entirely fabulous. It is allegorical and dramatic in principle. It is the result of Collaboration. Their perverse Greek and Roman History. Men could write any lies with impunity, there being no public Registers, no criticism, no contradiction. Forgeries on leaden plates, &c. The fabricators of Church History wrote also Greek and Roman History with a view to avoid suspicion. It is maintained that modern Latinists can write equally well with most of the alleged “ classical ” writers. The consent of the monkish historians with one another proves conspiracy: and their variations are designed, that conspiracy may not be detected.
14.01 TO prop up the fraud on all sides, it was necessary that Ecclesiastical History should be early written.* For so they would prove by diverse events that the faith and discipline which they desired to introduce and have observed had existed in all ages. On this account, with the view of framing History and gaining credit for it, it was necessary ⟨, besides,⟩ to make out the series of Roman Pontiffs that it might stand fast in what age, and about what year, each had lived; of whom out of the Patriarchs, each was the contemporary.† So Augustine in Epistle CLXV, in describing the series of Roman Pontiffs, invites our confidence (if we believe him) in the whole Church History down to his own times and to that very series of Popes, because he knew that it was necessary to gain belief in both for the purpose of establishing his hypothesis.‡
* Ecclesiastical history would be written first to allow sufficient time “so that whatever difficulty might arise in the matter of Religion, … the point might appear to have been long ago defined… according to the principles of atheism and natural religion” [3.05].
† To better manage the hoax of the Latin and Greek Churches, the list of the Popes was created simultaneously with the contemporary eastern Patriarchs.
‡Augutine’s Epistle 53, Ch. 1, sec. 2, lists the Popes to his time. “The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these...” Augustine mentions the subsequent Popes to the then current Pope, Anastasius, r. 399–401.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102053.htm
The impiety in the books of the Fathers prevents the reader from having any confidence in mundane statements, such as a list of bishops. The surest indicator of a hoax is that the statements found in those books lack collaboration apart from books.
“The only papal tombs to survive the demolition and be properly reconstructed in the present St Peter's are the two from the 1490s by Antonio del Pollaiuolo, of Pope Innocent VIII [r. 1484–1492] and Pope Sixtus IV [r. 1471–1484]” [Old St. Peter's Basilica, Wikipedia].
The “rebuilding of St. Peter's is responsible for the destruction of approximately half of all papal tombs. As a result, Donato Bramante, the chief architect of modern St. Peter's Basilica, has been remembered as Maestro Ruinante” [ibid.].
One explanation for the lack of Papal tombs is their destruction in the sixteenteenth century. Another explanation is that there were no Old St. Peter’s Basilica and no tombs, or there were few tombs in the area, notably those of Innocent VIII and Sixtus IV. Until the eighteenth century, no councils were held at St. Peter’s Basilica on the Vatican hill. The councils of Lateran were in 1123, 1139, 1179, 1215, 1512–1517; Lyon in 1245, 1274; Vienne, 1311–1312; Pisa, 1409: Constance, 1414–1418; Sienna, 1423–1424; Basel, Ferrara and Florence, 1431–1445; and Trent, 1545–1563. After four councils in quick succession at the Lateran, the avoidance of holding councils at Rome until 1512 seems inexplicable. Councils would be held anywhere but at the center of Roman Catholicism. It seems that Rome was insignificant.
The main church of Roman Catholicism remains Saint John Lateran, as it is the official church of the Pope. Saint Peter’s Basilica is the church for the Bishop of Rome.
The following sayings concerning Rome as first recorded in the English Language by the Oxford English Dictionary:
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
With this laten prouerbe agreeth yt which is commonly in euery mans mouth in England Whan yu art at Rome, do as they do at Rome. 1545 R. Taverner tr. Erasmus Prouerbes (new ed.) f. 51v,
Rome was not built in a day.
Div, Ye may use this prouerbe when ye wol signifie that one daye..is not ynoughe for..acheuinge..a great matter..Rome was not buylt in one day. 1545 R. Taverner tr. Erasmus Prouerbes (new ed.) sig.
All roads lead to Rome.
This difference in the choice of our means ought not to stop our career. All roads lead to Rome.
1795 tr. M. Ehrenstrom Let. 15 Mar. 1793 in tr. Baron Armfelt Corr. xlvii. 67
It is reasonable to conclude that the existance of Rome could not have preceded these sayings by more than 200 years, placing the founding of Rome between 1300 and 1400, or that Rome was insignificant until the sixteenth century.
The “philologian says ‘fraud.’”
Antichrist, Sec. 47, Frederich Nietzsche
† To better manage the hoax of the Latin and Greek Churches, the list of the Popes was created simultaneously with the contemporary eastern Patriarchs.
‡Augutine’s Epistle 53, Ch. 1, sec. 2, lists the Popes to his time. “The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these...” Augustine mentions the subsequent Popes to the then current Pope, Anastasius, r. 399–401.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102053.htm
The impiety in the books of the Fathers prevents the reader from having any confidence in mundane statements, such as a list of bishops. The surest indicator of a hoax is that the statements found in those books lack collaboration apart from books.
“The only papal tombs to survive the demolition and be properly reconstructed in the present St Peter's are the two from the 1490s by Antonio del Pollaiuolo, of Pope Innocent VIII [r. 1484–1492] and Pope Sixtus IV [r. 1471–1484]” [Old St. Peter's Basilica, Wikipedia].
The “rebuilding of St. Peter's is responsible for the destruction of approximately half of all papal tombs. As a result, Donato Bramante, the chief architect of modern St. Peter's Basilica, has been remembered as Maestro Ruinante” [ibid.].
One explanation for the lack of Papal tombs is their destruction in the sixteenteenth century. Another explanation is that there were no Old St. Peter’s Basilica and no tombs, or there were few tombs in the area, notably those of Innocent VIII and Sixtus IV. Until the eighteenth century, no councils were held at St. Peter’s Basilica on the Vatican hill. The councils of Lateran were in 1123, 1139, 1179, 1215, 1512–1517; Lyon in 1245, 1274; Vienne, 1311–1312; Pisa, 1409: Constance, 1414–1418; Sienna, 1423–1424; Basel, Ferrara and Florence, 1431–1445; and Trent, 1545–1563. After four councils in quick succession at the Lateran, the avoidance of holding councils at Rome until 1512 seems inexplicable. Councils would be held anywhere but at the center of Roman Catholicism. It seems that Rome was insignificant.
The main church of Roman Catholicism remains Saint John Lateran, as it is the official church of the Pope. Saint Peter’s Basilica is the church for the Bishop of Rome.
The following sayings concerning Rome as first recorded in the English Language by the Oxford English Dictionary:
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
With this laten prouerbe agreeth yt which is commonly in euery mans mouth in England Whan yu art at Rome, do as they do at Rome. 1545 R. Taverner tr. Erasmus Prouerbes (new ed.) f. 51v,
Rome was not built in a day.
Div, Ye may use this prouerbe when ye wol signifie that one daye..is not ynoughe for..acheuinge..a great matter..Rome was not buylt in one day. 1545 R. Taverner tr. Erasmus Prouerbes (new ed.) sig.
All roads lead to Rome.
This difference in the choice of our means ought not to stop our career. All roads lead to Rome.
1795 tr. M. Ehrenstrom Let. 15 Mar. 1793 in tr. Baron Armfelt Corr. xlvii. 67
It is reasonable to conclude that the existance of Rome could not have preceded these sayings by more than 200 years, placing the founding of Rome between 1300 and 1400, or that Rome was insignificant until the sixteenth century.
The “philologian says ‘fraud.’”
Antichrist, Sec. 47, Frederich Nietzsche
14.01a But I assert that all the names of Roman Pontiffs, which he adduces, are forged. Of Linus, for example, there is certainly no record extant at Rome, i.e., there is no church of his name, no chapel, no trace of his cult.* This is not the place to speak of the others one by one. I do not say that the series of Roman Pontiffs was not perpetual and uninterrupted. Heaven forbid! I say only that it was not more written down as a whole, was not and is not, more necessary to be known than the series of Jewish High Priests was written down in its integrity in the sacred books, or in the archives of particular cities of the Christian world, the series of bishops.† It was not more necessary to be known than that series of the Jewish Pontiffs was, or is now, necessary to be known.
*Linus, r. 67–76.
The church of Saint Linus, Rome, was consecrated in 1999. San Lino, Rome, Wikipedia
The fact that the first church dedicated to Saint Linus was built only in the twentieth century confirms Hardouin’s observation that “there is certainly no record extant at Rome” of Saint Linus.
†Apostolic Succession seems to be an oral tradition in the Roman Church until the sixteenth century when Bishops were not only appointed, but consecrated, and these consecrations were recorded.
The oldest extant episcopal lineage is named after Guillaume d'Estouteville, c. 1412–1483.
Guillaume d'Estouteville, Wikipedia
As late as 1831, Gregory XVI was consecrated after his election to the Papacy.
Pope Gregory XVI, Wikipedia
The church of Saint Linus, Rome, was consecrated in 1999. San Lino, Rome, Wikipedia
The fact that the first church dedicated to Saint Linus was built only in the twentieth century confirms Hardouin’s observation that “there is certainly no record extant at Rome” of Saint Linus.
†Apostolic Succession seems to be an oral tradition in the Roman Church until the sixteenth century when Bishops were not only appointed, but consecrated, and these consecrations were recorded.
The oldest extant episcopal lineage is named after Guillaume d'Estouteville, c. 1412–1483.
Guillaume d'Estouteville, Wikipedia
As late as 1831, Gregory XVI was consecrated after his election to the Papacy.
Pope Gregory XVI, Wikipedia
14.02 I shudder to say that there is no more fabulous History than ⟨is that called⟩ Ecclesiastical History of the twelve past Ages (“500–1700 A.D.”).*† I speak not of the Lives of the Saints; here the matter is manifest. I embrace in the phrase all the other historic writing. If this is true and it is true, [then] who can wonder that tractates on matters relating to religion are forged, since they rely on false and forged historical narration? Nothing can be pronounced more holy and divine than the Catholic Religion, if you consider its dogmas; nothing more sordid, if you consider either the writings of the false “Fathers” or the historical narrations (except the Sacred Books).‡ Verily, an enemy hath sowed tares among the wheat!§
* “500–1700 A.D.”: Scaliger’s chronology.
†“no more fabulous…”: Ecclesiastical history is fabulous, as it is a fable. It was created, not recorded; described, not experienced, as a “false and forged historical narration.”
‡The writings of the Fathers involve “ignoble actions and motives,” arouse “moral distaste and contempt,” as they are “dirty” or involve “a contemptible lack of moral standards.”
§Matt. 13:24–43.
†“no more fabulous…”: Ecclesiastical history is fabulous, as it is a fable. It was created, not recorded; described, not experienced, as a “false and forged historical narration.”
‡The writings of the Fathers involve “ignoble actions and motives,” arouse “moral distaste and contempt,” as they are “dirty” or involve “a contemptible lack of moral standards.”
§Matt. 13:24–43.
14.03 The Histories are so many allegorical narrations; so contrived that the professed worshippers of Truth, instead of God, might not seem to write mere lies.*† They [the Histories] are so many dramas or tragedies, artistically woven. If you take but one chapter away, it is to remove the destina; the building must come to the ground. They all agree in the purpose of setting up atheism, equally with the books called dogmatic.
*History is a contrivance by the hoaxers so that the adherents of “Truth” are not deemed to write falsehoods.
†Hardouin interprets history as “allegorical narrations,” since alike events and similar circumstances transpire in different times and countless locations.
†Hardouin interprets history as “allegorical narrations,” since alike events and similar circumstances transpire in different times and countless locations.
14.04 The pestiferous gang joined forces in the writing of History; hence, they ⟨very often⟩ copy one another and they overwhelmed readers with the number of books and so made it harder to believe that the suspicion of fraud and falsehood was well founded. Scarce is there anything more like another than are the writers on Heresies among themselves, though one sometimes seems to go farther than another, or to illustrate the matter more fully. They are in number about Twenty.* Many more are the writers of Chronicles, and they frequently copy one another. Spondanus says against the year 1215, no. VII., on the Lateran Council:
“The Chronicles of this period called Urspergensis, Altissiodorensis, Stadensis, and Parisius nearly all use the same words; so that they seem to have drawn from the same source what they have written on these matters.”†
More truly he might have said: “All these writers came from one impious workshop.”‡
*There are about twenty Church Fathers who write about heresies and this is not unexpected, as heresies were found in many locations with resurgences throughout history.
†Spondanus, 1568–1643; Urspergensis, 1177–1230, Altissiodorensis, c. 1150–1231; Stadensis, c. 1187–c. 1260; Parisius, 1160–1267.
‡“All these writers came from one impious workshop” with one library [3.19b].
†Spondanus, 1568–1643; Urspergensis, 1177–1230, Altissiodorensis, c. 1150–1231; Stadensis, c. 1187–c. 1260; Parisius, 1160–1267.
‡“All these writers came from one impious workshop” with one library [3.19b].
14.05 If there is no God, as the impious crew would have you believe, but the Nature of things, and the natural light, which is Right Reason; ⟨and⟩ [then] there is no other Christian Religion than obedience to Right Reason, which may be called Philosophy.* Since Right Reason is also Truth and Wisdom, it follows^that all those who obey Right Reason and natural light are Christians. Therefore, very many pagans were Christian, although without God, as Paul affirms.† For this reason, the forgers found it expedient to write Greek and Roman History full of the vices of Princes and People, full of homicides, slaughter, impurities of every kind. Their object being to prevent readers from supposing them to have been Christians. They must therefore be represented as not having lived under the guidance of reason.‡
*One need not speculate how an organization formed by an alleged “impious crew” would publicize itself by adhering to “Right Reason,” “Philosophy,” “Truth,” and “Wisdom,” as the Roman Church would, throughout the centuries, repeatedly and mercilessly attack this perceived manifestation of atheism as a threat to its power and influence.
†That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world: Eph. 2:12
‡Secular histories are rewritten to include incessant vices so that readers will not suppose the historical characters were, in fact, Christians; compare the unique death of the Christian Simon de Montfort in southern France [June, 1218] with the unique death of the unreasonable Abimelech [Judges 9:53–54].
†That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world: Eph. 2:12
‡Secular histories are rewritten to include incessant vices so that readers will not suppose the historical characters were, in fact, Christians; compare the unique death of the Christian Simon de Montfort in southern France [June, 1218] with the unique death of the unreasonable Abimelech [Judges 9:53–54].
14.06 Why are there fables in the books of pagans which bear some likeness to sacred histories? Because, if there is no God but Nature and events have taken place in any part of the earth, to teach man, and have, therefore, been consigned to letters, which are called Sacred Books, [then] it behooves, said these atheists, that in other lands and nations similar effects of Nature should happen which, in like manner, should be committed to writing. Therefore, it behooved them to show that elsewhere histories of events had been written among Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, with the object of in like manner instructing men.*
*Without divine interventions and with sufficient time, it would be natural to expect for man to experience similar occurrences throughout the world. The reason for kidnapping the Sabine women by the early Romans is identical to the tribe of Benjamin kidnapping the women at a nearby festival: the natural fear of having no progeny and becoming forgotten [Judges 21:1–23].
14.07 With the view to concoct Roman and Greek History, they took many names of men from ancient coins of which they had a great store.* It is through their hands that they [the histories] have come down to us. Whatever names are not extant on the coins or in Pliny, they have forged from the Hebrew, as I show in particular instances.† That there was no Roman or Greek History such as we have, earlier in existence, is manifest from this evidence; that this history is in violent conflict with the old coins—in relation to Genealogy, Chronology, and the deeds of Princes as I have shown from the coins of the Augusti, from Caesar to Heraclius, and others.‡ The coins are absolutely silent on the matters we read of in the written history; nay, they exhibit the exact contrary. What stronger evidence can there be of the fabulous character of the histories? Hardly anything that is engraved on the coins is represented in the written history. Is not that another proof of its spuriousness? What wonder that they lied in profane history, when they perverted or adulterated sacred history?§
*To mention that the hoaxers had a “great store” of coins is not surprising, as only wealthy families could finance a fraud on a large scale over many centuries. The greatest expense would not be labor, as the enlisted monks were not paid, but in parchment, paper, and travel to disperse the works. The endeavor itself would not be financially disastrous for these families, as the expenses would be divided among the families and incurred over centuries, not at once.
†The forged names are from coins, Pliny, and “from the Hebrews.” It is possible the reason why the Hebrews are mentioned, and no other society, is that there are many names of kings in the Old Testament that could be modified to create lists of rulers. Additionally, the Old Testament lists the duration of the reigns of their kings, therefore, the hoaxers could provide different names without the added challenge of creating workable durations for their reigns.
‡The Chronology is dependent on Scaligers’ opinions and is inseparable from Genealogy.
§The “adulterated sacred history” is not the variants found in Scripture, but ecclesiastical history.
†The forged names are from coins, Pliny, and “from the Hebrews.” It is possible the reason why the Hebrews are mentioned, and no other society, is that there are many names of kings in the Old Testament that could be modified to create lists of rulers. Additionally, the Old Testament lists the duration of the reigns of their kings, therefore, the hoaxers could provide different names without the added challenge of creating workable durations for their reigns.
‡The Chronology is dependent on Scaligers’ opinions and is inseparable from Genealogy.
§The “adulterated sacred history” is not the variants found in Scripture, but ecclesiastical history.
14.08 Had we no Annals written of the deeds of our [French] Kings in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, beyond some mere index containing the names of the kings written out in order and obscure rumors of wars; what a rich fund this might seem to some rogue, out of which he might contrive a history, or rather a fable, of those times!* He might make out civil wars in different provinces or foreign wars with the English, Dutch, Germans, Italians, and Spaniards; and again, alliances and treaties of peace and such a fund the nefarious conspiracy thought they possessed.† A space of twelve hundred years after Christ was exhibited, and more, in which our ancestors preferred to live a holy life rather than to write learned annals.†
*“the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries”: Scaliger’s chronology.
†The philological evidence of at least one misplaced “foreign war” is the “Hundred Years War” between England and France, from 1337 to 1453. Between 1548 and 1600, at least thirty words containing the adjective “French” were introduced into the English language. The expectation is that these words would be contemporaneous with the war, not commencing a century after the war ended, whereas only five words were recorded before 1387: French man (1), c.1205; French (A1), c.1225; French (B-Language), a. 1300; French (2 French like), 1300; and Frenchman (B), 1387.
‡“twelve hundred years after Christ”: Scaliger’s chronology.
Scaliger’s accepted chronology, which is found throughout the Prolegomena and never questioned, seems to contradict Hardouin’s suggestion that no one attempted to record any histories for twelve hundred years. Scaliger did not fabricate the historical episodes, which were recorded by various historians, but assembled the disparate stories into one comprehensive chronology. The fact that “learned annals” were not attempted until the twelfth century may be an indication that writing itself is a more recent invention than is commonly believed.
†The philological evidence of at least one misplaced “foreign war” is the “Hundred Years War” between England and France, from 1337 to 1453. Between 1548 and 1600, at least thirty words containing the adjective “French” were introduced into the English language. The expectation is that these words would be contemporaneous with the war, not commencing a century after the war ended, whereas only five words were recorded before 1387: French man (1), c.1205; French (A1), c.1225; French (B-Language), a. 1300; French (2 French like), 1300; and Frenchman (B), 1387.
‡“twelve hundred years after Christ”: Scaliger’s chronology.
Scaliger’s accepted chronology, which is found throughout the Prolegomena and never questioned, seems to contradict Hardouin’s suggestion that no one attempted to record any histories for twelve hundred years. Scaliger did not fabricate the historical episodes, which were recorded by various historians, but assembled the disparate stories into one comprehensive chronology. The fact that “learned annals” were not attempted until the twelfth century may be an indication that writing itself is a more recent invention than is commonly believed.
14.09 Unless published books were extant, and Public Registers, how could we know who was bishop of Paris one hundred and fifty or two hundred years ago?* But there were no public Registers in France before the late thirteenth century.†
*“one hundred and fifty or two hundred years ago”: Scaliger’s chronology.
†“the late thirteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
†“the late thirteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
14.10 If anyone wished to make up a history, not only of primitive times, but of the present kingdom of Morocco and Fez, or Algiers, which are regions placed opposite the shore of Europe, with what impunity he might lie! If in like manner it came into anyone’s head to make up a history of the Persians and to show that there, or in the kingdoms of Africa just named, Morocco, or Fez that the Christian Religion had greatly flourished, that churches with monasteries had been built, that Councils had been held, that persecutions had now and again sprung up; to call particular kings, Christian and Mahometan, by their names; he might write any fables he chose and go unpunished.* That was much easier in the fourteenth century than in our time, when fables are hated.† Now such is the whole history of the African Church, as we now read it.‡
*The repeated rises, declines, and intermediate periods of Egyptian history, along with numerous revivals of ancient customs and funeral formulas that fell into disuse, as presented in Egyptian chronology, suggest that the maintenance of fables extends beyond the twentieth century.
†“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‡Hardouin proposes methods that a hoaxer may utilize to write the history of the African Church. Of course, Augustine of Hippo was a bishop in Hippo Regius; in the modern day country of Algeria.
†“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‡Hardouin proposes methods that a hoaxer may utilize to write the history of the African Church. Of course, Augustine of Hippo was a bishop in Hippo Regius; in the modern day country of Algeria.
14.11 They concocted nearly all the history of past time so that it might agree with their impious hypothesis.* ⟨But that which⟩ above all [, what] they endeavored to overthrow and subvert stood whole and unhurt in the minds of the faithful; I mean the worship of the true Deity and of the true God and [the] man, Christ. So far, the Lord judged his own cause. Let men think as they would of Greek, Roman, French, Spanish, English matters; or even of historic narrations of Ecclesiastical affairs; God cares not what idle (Blank in translator’s copy.) Meantime he signally protected His cause and will protect it, according to its piety.
*The coincidence of history with an impious worldview is remarkable, yet, it is unsurprising that the histories of different cultures is described as “impious” by a writer who makes no effort to be impartial, while unabashedly and repeatedly demonstrating his bias towards France, its Royal family, and the Roman Church.
14.12 Not on parchment only, but on leaden plates the forgers wrote certain things relating to Ecclesiastical and profane history and others have more recently imitated them. Thus, Ahmed ben Cassem al Andalousi, a Moor of Granada, who lived in the year 1599, cites an Arabic MS of St. Caecilius, archbishop of Granada, which had been found with sixteen leaden plates, inscribed with the Arabic character, in a cave near Granada; on the attestation of Don Pedro De Castro y Quinonas, Archbishop of Granada.* These leaden plates, called Granada plates, were afterwards taken to Rome, where after several years’ examination, they were at length condemned as apocryphal, under Alexander VII.† The book On the Infancy of the Saviour contained many fabulous matters, on which see D’Herbelot.‡ Of the same kind are many leaden plates which have been cast into tombs, to give pretended testimony to the deposit of the bodies of Saints there, or they have names of Princes or of Consuls inscribed, with a view to invite confidence in the Fasti.§ On a false leaden plate, as the false “Guibert de Novigento” tells us, was written, FIRMINUS MARTYR AMBIANORUM EPISCOPUS; see his Book I., and on the pledges of the saints, chap. 5.‖
The Lead Books of Sacromonte are a series of texts inscribed on circular lead leaves, now considered to be 16th century forgeries. Lead Books of Sacromonte, Wikipedia
*al Andalousi, c. 1570–c. 1640; Caecilius, 1st century; De Castro y Quinonas, 1534–1623.
†Alexander VII, r. 1655–1667.
‡ D’Herbelot, 1625–1695.
§Documents placed “into tombs, to give pretended testimony” to the deceased and his times is a clever tactic.
‖ Guibert de Novigento, c. 1055–1124.
*al Andalousi, c. 1570–c. 1640; Caecilius, 1st century; De Castro y Quinonas, 1534–1623.
†Alexander VII, r. 1655–1667.
‡ D’Herbelot, 1625–1695.
§Documents placed “into tombs, to give pretended testimony” to the deceased and his times is a clever tactic.
‖ Guibert de Novigento, c. 1055–1124.
14.13 On stones, ⟨also,⟩ they engraved various frauds, false inscriptions, like fictions of Consuls, the canon of Hippolytus, and other matters.*†
*The Canons of Hippolytus, c. 170–c. 235, is a church order and survives only in Arabic, itself a translation from a Coptic version of the Greek.
Canons of Hippolytus, Wikipedia
The Canons of Hippolytus exist in Arabic and it is speculated that they were written in Coptic from a presumed Greek original. While this scenario is reasonable, it is not certain.
†Forgery was prevalent in the medieval period, and was often used to deceive. The Middle Ages are considered the "golden age" of document forgery.
Examples of forgery medieval headstones, Generative AI
‡“various frauds, false inscriptions”: The Arch of Titus is not dated and has provided the general model for many triumphal arches erected since the 16th century. The menorah depicted on the arch served as the model for the menorah used as the emblem of the state of Israel.
Arch of Titus, Wikipedia
Canons of Hippolytus, Wikipedia
The Canons of Hippolytus exist in Arabic and it is speculated that they were written in Coptic from a presumed Greek original. While this scenario is reasonable, it is not certain.
†Forgery was prevalent in the medieval period, and was often used to deceive. The Middle Ages are considered the "golden age" of document forgery.
Examples of forgery medieval headstones, Generative AI
‡“various frauds, false inscriptions”: The Arch of Titus is not dated and has provided the general model for many triumphal arches erected since the 16th century. The menorah depicted on the arch served as the model for the menorah used as the emblem of the state of Israel.
Arch of Titus, Wikipedia
14.14 If Church writers alone were produced, forthwith fraud would have been suspected, since nought of the profane writers seemed to have been preserved with the same care and there was the other reason above given for the forgery of profane writings of older times. Therefore, they had to frame ⟨the⟩ Greek and Roman History as we have it.* They must ⟨also⟩ write poems of all kinds which might serve to prop up their impious hypothesis and in which the genius of the nefarious conspiracy might be apparent to the more sagacious of readers.† The Church writers must seem to have drawn from these books what they told of the histories, fables and religion of the Ethnics. They must not seem to be inserting any of this out of their own heads.‡
*Although tt seems that Hardouin is unaware of the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius, it is highly unlikely that the erudite Hardouin was ignorant of the reputation of Petavius, a fellow Jesuit.
†sagacious: having or showing keen mental discernment and good judgment; shrewd.
‡The reason the works of the Fathers lack originality and individuality is explained by their possession of “one library” and they relied upon the same “histories, fables and religion of the Ethnics” [3.19b].
†sagacious: having or showing keen mental discernment and good judgment; shrewd.
‡The reason the works of the Fathers lack originality and individuality is explained by their possession of “one library” and they relied upon the same “histories, fables and religion of the Ethnics” [3.19b].
14.15 Even as in our time, the Jansenists write elegant French vernacular, they who are the heirs of that older impiety; so in the fourteenth century the men who wrote the best Latin made Cicero for us, the Aeneid of Virgil, Laotantius, and all the rest who are famous for their superior elegance in writing.* But under other and great names they desired their lucubrations to appear, since this was to their interest, just as it is to the interest of the Jansenists to hide themselves and not to inscribe their names on the books they have composed, for fear of the authorities.†‡ Pleasing and elegant minds they were—as Spondanus says —who on the occasion of the quarrel between the Pope and the Emperor Frederic, composed alleged prophecies against the year 1239 (nn. 6 and 7).§
*“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
†The hoaxers assigned “great names” that are easily recognized to the titles of their books so when these works were presented to the world, they would be accepted, preserved, and propagated.
‡Locations of “lucubration”: 3.23; 12.03, twice; 13.05; 14.15; 14.16; 15.09.
§Spondanus, 1568–1643; Gregory IX, r. 1227-1241; Emperor Frederic, r. 1220–1250.
†The hoaxers assigned “great names” that are easily recognized to the titles of their books so when these works were presented to the world, they would be accepted, preserved, and propagated.
‡Locations of “lucubration”: 3.23; 12.03, twice; 13.05; 14.15; 14.16; 15.09.
§Spondanus, 1568–1643; Gregory IX, r. 1227-1241; Emperor Frederic, r. 1220–1250.
14.16 They put the names of others to lucubrations, not their own, and why? That they might acquire more authority from the name of a distinguished man, specially a bishop or a saint, and that all the ages might be filled with many witnesses of their Atheism.*† Were not in our own age two great volumes published under the name of Father Lemos? Why did not the craftsman cause them to appear under his own name? It is the like reason in both cases.
*It is most certain that the writings under the name of the universally venerated Great Martyr Saint George are lost, i.e., unknown constraints prevented their creation.
†The hoaxers relied upon the value of the name recognition of the alleged author and the rarity of “ancient” works to assist in their preservation.
†The hoaxers relied upon the value of the name recognition of the alleged author and the rarity of “ancient” works to assist in their preservation.
14.17 But men raise the objection, “From the Aeneid, the real author would have acquired for himself immortal fame.” But I reply that the Aeneid and the writings under the names of Tully or of Plutarch and others, were got up by men more intent upon the propagation of their impiety than of their fame and so there is not one of these works that does not everywhere smack of the impious faction; not one certainly which does not seem, if it be believed from its title, to be old and to invite a like belief in the age of others by whom it is praised.*
*Tully [Marcus Tullius Cicero], 106–43 BC; Plutarch, c. 46–after 119. Petrarch, 1304–1374, a scholar and poet, should be distinguished from Plutarch, an historian, biographer, and essayist.
†The conclusion that the hoaxers were motivated by their desire to propagate impiety rather than personal fame lacks a proper foundation. It is possible that the authors experienced personal satisfaction from both the challenge of writing fictitious history and fabulous biographies. Additionally, the possibility exists that the task of subtly placing atheism in these books was rewarded by the likelihood that like minded individuals would discover the “impious hypothesis.” Of course, enjoying the creative process is a subjective experience, along with writing to future generations or “young men who like to think.”
[For] the labourer is worthy of his hire. Luke 10:7
†The conclusion that the hoaxers were motivated by their desire to propagate impiety rather than personal fame lacks a proper foundation. It is possible that the authors experienced personal satisfaction from both the challenge of writing fictitious history and fabulous biographies. Additionally, the possibility exists that the task of subtly placing atheism in these books was rewarded by the likelihood that like minded individuals would discover the “impious hypothesis.” Of course, enjoying the creative process is a subjective experience, along with writing to future generations or “young men who like to think.”
[For] the labourer is worthy of his hire. Luke 10:7
14.18 If there were inscribed on smoky parchments the treatises on Rhetoric, Tragedies, Orations, Poems, Odes, Panegyrics, Tractates on physical matters, Epistles, Epigrams, and other Scholastic Exercises which have been written in this one college of Paris during thirty or forty years; why, we should have new Quintilians, Senecas, younger Plinys, Virgils, Statii, Lucans, Horaces, writers of Odes—and perhaps better!*†‡
*epigram: a pithy saying or remark expressing an idea in a clever and amusing way.
†Marcus Fabius Quintilianus,c. 35–c.100; Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4 BC–65 AD; younger Pliny, 61–c. 113; Publius Vergilius Maro, 70–19 BC; Publius Papinius Statius, 1st century; Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, 39–65; Quintus Horatius Flaccus, 65 BC–8 BC.
‡The volume of quality material from one college in Paris indicates that the goal of creating countless “monuments” by the hoaxers, working from many monasteries over several centuries, was attainable.
†Marcus Fabius Quintilianus,c. 35–c.100; Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4 BC–65 AD; younger Pliny, 61–c. 113; Publius Vergilius Maro, 70–19 BC; Publius Papinius Statius, 1st century; Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, 39–65; Quintus Horatius Flaccus, 65 BC–8 BC.
‡The volume of quality material from one college in Paris indicates that the goal of creating countless “monuments” by the hoaxers, working from many monasteries over several centuries, was attainable.
14.18b But now the reason and the art and the will is wanting for deception; which in those times were in full force. The Constantinus of our Mambrun is not unequal to the Eneid. The Odes of Sarbievius are superior to the Horatian in my opinion and the Sedecias of Malapertus outshines Seneca the tragedian.*
*Constantinus Sarbievius Malapertus. Charles Malapert, 1581–1630.
Malapert's Sedecias is part of a collection of Latin plays and tragedies edited by the 17th century Jesuit scholar Denis Petau. The collection includes works by other authors, including: Denis Petau… Generative AI
Malapert's Sedecias is part of a collection of Latin plays and tragedies edited by the 17th century Jesuit scholar Denis Petau. The collection includes works by other authors, including: Denis Petau… Generative AI
14.19 Wonderful is the consent among the historical writers—which proves the existence of the pestiferous conspiracy—even when they are thought to be in the greatest dissent from one another. They purposely affected the appearance of dissent that the suspicion of conspiracy might be avoided.* The principle of agreement is that they are almost all allegorical or enigmatic histories, in which places and times and names the most unlike have the same occult and allegorical signification.* Hence, you may understand how much useless writing there is in this our age, directed to the harmonizing of these writers one with another and to the discovery of the truth of old history by any sort of conciliation of their diverse narrations.†
*Hardouin suggests that although the “times” and “names” of historical events concocted by the hoaxers are different, they have identical occult and allegorical significance.
Scaliger’s chronology, found in De emendatione temporum (1583), provided not only the years for historical events, but the months, days, and times. Lacking a concern of accuracy, modern historians invariably omit the time of these events. The omission of the times may suggest attempts by historians to distance themselves from the astrological and “occult” significations of Scaliger’s history.
†Much “useless writing” in the intervening three centuries has been “directed to the harmonizing of these writers one with another” can be applied to endeavors other than the reconciliation of history.
Scaliger’s chronology, found in De emendatione temporum (1583), provided not only the years for historical events, but the months, days, and times. Lacking a concern of accuracy, modern historians invariably omit the time of these events. The omission of the times may suggest attempts by historians to distance themselves from the astrological and “occult” significations of Scaliger’s history.
†Much “useless writing” in the intervening three centuries has been “directed to the harmonizing of these writers one with another” can be applied to endeavors other than the reconciliation of history.
14.20 Missionaries from Persia have reported to us that Persian histories of the wars of the Romans against the Persians in no way agree with our Annals. Nevertheless, we do not think the Persians to be more truthful than our spurious writers. For as to the events before the time of Mahomet contained in the historic books of the Arabs, they are mere fables and dream, as those skilled in Arabic agree with me in asserting.*†‡
*Mahomet [Muhammad], c.570–632.
†”I pray you not to believe in men, but in sound arguments” [1.04].
‡The perceived anachronisms of the Koran are due entirely to the interpreter's familiarity with Scaliger’s chronology.
†”I pray you not to believe in men, but in sound arguments” [1.04].
‡The perceived anachronisms of the Koran are due entirely to the interpreter's familiarity with Scaliger’s chronology.
chapter 15
It is maintained that there were no truly Catholic books before the invention of Printing: that there were no Libraries before the fourteenth century, and that they contained none but forged books, excepting the Bible and prayer books. All the monastic books have been ante–dated. Bernard of Clairvaux made last of the Fathers, at least 200 years after his decease. The fables of MSS brought from east to west. The period during which the Greek and Latin writers were forged: the Revival of Letters. Some haunts of the Benedictine forgers pointed out. Further exposure of the system of Fraud.
15.0l WERE there then no books before the fourteenth century?* Yes, there were many, for of writing books there is no end; but such as we now have in great numbers, which the larger Libraries alone keep, and only a few then; which no one could or would preserve, unless by the benefit of Printing they had been easy to prepare and of no dense volume; books of a kind which are spurned by the better Libraries and cast out; I refer to the Royal and Colbertine Libraries and the like.†‡
*“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
Before inexpensive paper and the invention of printing, it is unlikely there were “many” books.
†And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Ecc. 12:12
‡Bibliothèque nationale de France is the national library of France established in 1461. Jean–Baptiste Colbert, 1619–1683, possessed a remarkably fine private library filled with valuable manuscripts from every part of Europe and the Near East where France had placed a consul. Colbert's grandson sold the manuscript collection in 1732 to the Bibliothèque Royale. Jean–Baptiste Colbert, Wikipedia
Before inexpensive paper and the invention of printing, it is unlikely there were “many” books.
†And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Ecc. 12:12
‡Bibliothèque nationale de France is the national library of France established in 1461. Jean–Baptiste Colbert, 1619–1683, possessed a remarkably fine private library filled with valuable manuscripts from every part of Europe and the Near East where France had placed a consul. Colbert's grandson sold the manuscript collection in 1732 to the Bibliothèque Royale. Jean–Baptiste Colbert, Wikipedia
15.01a How comes it to pass that before the invention of Printing not a solitary book is extant which is in even one dogma Catholic and that in the Libraries care was taken to preserve and lay up only books which had been written by some one of the impious crew?*
*Hardouin asserts there is not one Roman Catholic dogma found in any book before the invention of printing. If this is true, then either Hardouin is correct regarding the fraud of universal history or the Roman Church is a recent creation and, if new, then the Council of Trent is the most compelling evidence for its late inception.
15.01b Other books might circulate among the public and, little by little, be worn out and perish. If Catholic books were laid up in the Libraries, [then] they would be so many witnesses against the productions of this impious gang. With great care, therefore, they [the Catholic books] had to be eliminated and to be kept out. Before the institution of Libraries—and there were none before the fourteenth century, all consisting of no other books than those which were then forged—with the exception of the Bible and books of prayer which might easily be carried and worn by use, but might ⟨daily⟩ be restored.* Just so the Jews kept nothing written but the Bible, which could be carried in one hand or in a wallet; so did the Christians, until the rise of the impious cohort.†‡
*“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
†”nothing written but the Bible”: Hardouin omits mentioning the Talmud, although it has been known since the sixteenth century:
“As the Iewes had set vp a boke of their Talmud to destroye the sense of the scripture.”
Confut. Tyndale in Wks. 679/2
‡The version of the Bible kept by the Jews that Hardouin envisions is many orders of magnitude smaller than our current Biblical Old Testament for it to “be carried in one hand or in a wallet.”
†”nothing written but the Bible”: Hardouin omits mentioning the Talmud, although it has been known since the sixteenth century:
“As the Iewes had set vp a boke of their Talmud to destroye the sense of the scripture.”
Confut. Tyndale in Wks. 679/2
‡The version of the Bible kept by the Jews that Hardouin envisions is many orders of magnitude smaller than our current Biblical Old Testament for it to “be carried in one hand or in a wallet.”
15.02 No books appear to have been written until years after the age lyingly assigned to them by these forgers —many years, now more, now less; so that they could falsely pretend that the writers were just of the opinion that they pretended them to be. While the writers were living, they could not have pretended this and, therefore, no history has been written by a contemporary writer. But long after his death, it has been attributed to a contemporary writer, i.e., some hundred years later.* Of the more recent history, that of the Council of Florence was put forth about thirty years after the Council was held.†
*False events could be published thirty years after the supposed event. If no witnesses of the event are specifically mentioned in the forged text, then no one could contradict the alleged narrative which, in time, would become the official version.
After that, he [Christ, v.3] was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 1 Cor. 15:6
For individuals, the hoaxers waited a hundred years after the demise of an individual to write false testimonies in their name.
†Council of Florence was held 1431–1449 and, according to Hardouin, “put forth about thirty years after the Council was held,” that is, circa 1479. Gemistos Plethon, 1355–1453, a renowned scholar and philosopher, attended the Council of Florence in its last year. Plethon should be distinguished from Plato, 428/427 or 424/423 – 348 BC, a distinguished philosopher.
After that, he [Christ, v.3] was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 1 Cor. 15:6
For individuals, the hoaxers waited a hundred years after the demise of an individual to write false testimonies in their name.
†Council of Florence was held 1431–1449 and, according to Hardouin, “put forth about thirty years after the Council was held,” that is, circa 1479. Gemistos Plethon, 1355–1453, a renowned scholar and philosopher, attended the Council of Florence in its last year. Plethon should be distinguished from Plato, 428/427 or 424/423 – 348 BC, a distinguished philosopher.
15.03 That at the beginning of the fourteenth century the design was adopted of contriving the writings of the “Fathers” should be manifest, as I said, from this: that the Forgers determined that Bernard of Clairvaux should be the last ⟨or most recent⟩ of the “Fathers.”*† This they could not do until at least two hundred years after his decease.‡ Then they could persuade the world that their writings had been found to be his. They were bound to will and to do this:
(1) lest after their time some other should in like manner be thought to be Fathers, who yet might dissent from them, that is, orthodox and Catholic men;§
(2) that they might show that down to the time of their “Fathers,’’ all Doctors had been of their mind, and that it was wrong to depart from them. But it was not the custom of the Church to call any writers Fathers; if it had held this custom it would still retain it. But it does not retain it. And in this particular the craftsmen had a splendid success.
From that time it was believed
(1) that the last Father was Bernard; as if there could not be afterwards learned men to beget sons for Christ through the Gospel;
(2) that it was a sin to depart from the doctrine contained in their writings even by a nail's breadth.
*“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
†Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090–1153.
‡Hardouin presents a contradiction when he writes that “at least two hundred years” passed, not “some hundred years later,” before the false writings of Bernard were publicized. While it might seem unlikely that the hoaxers would wait two centuries to publish their works on Bernard, there is a precedent after Hardouin’s demise. The first large-scale biography of William Shakespeare was written in the 1840s by Charles Knight. Shakespeare's authorship was first openly questioned in the pages of Joseph C. Hart's The Romance of Yachting (1848) and the controversy was taken up in earnest by Delia Bacon.
§The proactive hoaxers created their false heretical narrative before “orthodox and Catholic men” could record the true version of ecclesiastical history.
†Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090–1153.
‡Hardouin presents a contradiction when he writes that “at least two hundred years” passed, not “some hundred years later,” before the false writings of Bernard were publicized. While it might seem unlikely that the hoaxers would wait two centuries to publish their works on Bernard, there is a precedent after Hardouin’s demise. The first large-scale biography of William Shakespeare was written in the 1840s by Charles Knight. Shakespeare's authorship was first openly questioned in the pages of Joseph C. Hart's The Romance of Yachting (1848) and the controversy was taken up in earnest by Delia Bacon.
§The proactive hoaxers created their false heretical narrative before “orthodox and Catholic men” could record the true version of ecclesiastical history.
15.04 Who can wonder that in the turbulent times of Philip the Fair and perhaps a little before, but much more after his death, there were men of genius, but atheists who, in accord with the principles of their impious hypothesis (in which there is, indeed, much of acumen, no less than impiety) wrote books which they hid in Libraries like bastards in the obscurest shades of the places of their birth; designing after a few years to persuade men that they had been brought from Greece, from Africa, from Egypt, under St. Louis, from Italy, and other parts of the world; even from France itself and from other places than where the writers really lived?*† Who, I say, can think that incredible who has seen with me, in the times of the most religious prince, Louis the Great—a time in which there is said to be and is a large number of learned men and who certainly would wish to be held Catholics—that nevertheless books are not only secretly written and in no small number; but that very many are openly printed which manifestly teach Atheism, in this Christian kingdom, this leading city, few taking note of it, none protesting?‡§
*St. Louis, r. 1226–1270; Philip the Fair, r. 1285–1314.
†After storing the books in scattered libraries throughout France, a future generation of hoaxers would “find” them and claim they were recently brought from remote places such as Italy, Greece, and Egypt. The many crusades and incursions to the near east offered the plausible explanation that the books were looted from the local population. The reasonable conclusion is that France, “the best part of Christendom,” was the base of operations for the hoaxers.
‡Louis XIV, the Great, r. 1643–1715.
§Books are openly printed promoting manifest atheism along with the works of the Fathers that subtly promote atheism. France, or at least Paris, seems to be a hotbed for atheism in the early eighteenth century.
†After storing the books in scattered libraries throughout France, a future generation of hoaxers would “find” them and claim they were recently brought from remote places such as Italy, Greece, and Egypt. The many crusades and incursions to the near east offered the plausible explanation that the books were looted from the local population. The reasonable conclusion is that France, “the best part of Christendom,” was the base of operations for the hoaxers.
‡Louis XIV, the Great, r. 1643–1715.
§Books are openly printed promoting manifest atheism along with the works of the Fathers that subtly promote atheism. France, or at least Paris, seems to be a hotbed for atheism in the early eighteenth century.
15.05 The time seemed opportune to the impostors for fabricating false monuments when some could be said to have been brought into Italy and France from the East, whether after the taking of Constantinople by the French in 1203, or after the re–capture by the Greeks (as the Oriental historians indeed write) in the year of the Hegira 655 or year of Christ 1257; others from Egypt, Syria, Africa, after the expeditions of St. Louis into those regions.*† Hence, it seems to have come about that into Spain few ancient codices came; into lesser Britain scarce any.‡
*The taking of Constantinople by the French “in 1203” occurred during Apr. 12–13, 1204.
Sack of Constantinople, Wikipdiea
The year of Hijri 655 is correct for the Julian calendar “year of Christ1257,” but Constantinople fell during July 24–25, 1261.
Either Hardouin commits two factual errors in the same section or the consensus regarding the dates of the two captures of Constantiniple has been revised.
†The open promotion of the fraud throughout western Europe could begin in earnest at any point after the fall of Constantinople in 1204. Refugees from Constantinople in 1204 and 1453 provide the ostensible reason for the influx of books and, in the nineteenth century, the era would be described as the Renaissance.
French Renaissance (c1828 in sense 1a; earlier in figurative application to other revivals in intellectual or cultural life; 1835 in adjectival use). Renaissance, Oxford English Dictionary
‡Hardouin implies that the lack of ancient MMS in Spain and Britain is due to St. Louis’ campaigns in Egypt (Africa) and Syria. The hoaxers accompanying St. Louis hid their works in Africa and Syria, but not in Spain and Britain.
Sack of Constantinople, Wikipdiea
The year of Hijri 655 is correct for the Julian calendar “year of Christ1257,” but Constantinople fell during July 24–25, 1261.
Either Hardouin commits two factual errors in the same section or the consensus regarding the dates of the two captures of Constantiniple has been revised.
†The open promotion of the fraud throughout western Europe could begin in earnest at any point after the fall of Constantinople in 1204. Refugees from Constantinople in 1204 and 1453 provide the ostensible reason for the influx of books and, in the nineteenth century, the era would be described as the Renaissance.
French Renaissance (c1828 in sense 1a; earlier in figurative application to other revivals in intellectual or cultural life; 1835 in adjectival use). Renaissance, Oxford English Dictionary
‡Hardouin implies that the lack of ancient MMS in Spain and Britain is due to St. Louis’ campaigns in Egypt (Africa) and Syria. The hoaxers accompanying St. Louis hid their works in Africa and Syria, but not in Spain and Britain.
15.06 Down to the rise of Printing there was great facility for forgery and great lust for it.* After its rise, it may have been more difficult and so the great period for forgery was the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries; the period of Printing, the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries; the period of examination and detection of fraud, the end of the seventeenth century and the following ages; so that the fraud may not acquire strength with years.† And I think it to have been a singular providence, that God put this thought into the mind of none—I mean to hold all “Antiquity,” as they call it, suspect of falsehood— before the whole had come out of the Library shelves. For some monuments are of great service for the understanding and testing of others.‡ But now we can hardly expect anything of any moment, in addition to the material which has become public property. Therefore, it is now the time, as it was not before, to show all men clearly how pernicious they are to the Catholic Religion.
*It is uncertain if the “rise of Printing” is synonymous with “the age of Printing.” The tentative conclusion is that the period of the “rise of Printing” is the fifteenth century and the “the age of Printing” is the sixteenth and subsequent centuries.
†“the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries”: Scaliger's chronology.
‡The books themselves sow the seeds of discovering the truth concerning their origin, as “their mutual consent…shows the fraud” [4.5].
†“the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries”: Scaliger's chronology.
‡The books themselves sow the seeds of discovering the truth concerning their origin, as “their mutual consent…shows the fraud” [4.5].
15.07 The Greek writings alleged to be of the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries seem to have been forged from about the year 1450 at Venice, whence they were carried into Germany.*† So it comes to pass that a large number of MS copies are there still, in the Bavarian, the Augustan Library, etc.; and they long were in the Palatine Library.‡ Very many are at Venice, Milan, etc.
*“the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries”: Scaliger's chronology.
†The Greek works were forged from about the year 1450, or near the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
By 1500 there was a Greek-speaking community of about 5,000 in Venice.
Greek scholars in the Renaissance, Wikipedia
‡The Bibliotheca Palatina ("Palatinate library") of Heidelberg was the most important library of the German Renaissance. Bibliotheca Palatina, Wikipedia
A palatine or palatinus… is a high–level official attached to imperial or royal courts in Europe since Roman times. Palatine, Wikipedia
†The Greek works were forged from about the year 1450, or near the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
By 1500 there was a Greek-speaking community of about 5,000 in Venice.
Greek scholars in the Renaissance, Wikipedia
‡The Bibliotheca Palatina ("Palatinate library") of Heidelberg was the most important library of the German Renaissance. Bibliotheca Palatina, Wikipedia
A palatine or palatinus… is a high–level official attached to imperial or royal courts in Europe since Roman times. Palatine, Wikipedia
15.08 The Latin writings were earlier produced than the Greek, hence, the Latins of early ages hardly praise any Greeks, or only a few, added later at the end of a work.* So it is that some cite some canons, others ⟨others⟩ [sic] of the Council of Nicea, which they had ⟨determined⟩ [decided] upon and these canons were omitted by the later framers of Nicene canons.†
*Latin was known in western Europe, while Greek was not introduced into Italy until 1397, so the hoaxers wrote in Latin and waited for the opportunity of writing in Greek [15.10]. The hoaxers realized that if history was only written in Latin, then the fraud would be readily identifiable.
†The Council of Nicea was held in 325. Since not all the canons of the Council of Nicea were quoted in one work, it is necessary to assemble the complete canons from multiple works.
The text of the fourth Lateran [held 12 15] council has been pieced together from “various manuscripts” [12.12, footnote †]. As at least two ancient councils were assembled from scattered manuscripts, little confidence can be placed in the competency of ecclesiastical historians. It can not be determined if this inference of incompetence was an intention of the hoaxers or if it is a fortunate accident.
†The Council of Nicea was held in 325. Since not all the canons of the Council of Nicea were quoted in one work, it is necessary to assemble the complete canons from multiple works.
The text of the fourth Lateran [held 12 15] council has been pieced together from “various manuscripts” [12.12, footnote †]. As at least two ancient councils were assembled from scattered manuscripts, little confidence can be placed in the competency of ecclesiastical historians. It can not be determined if this inference of incompetence was an intention of the hoaxers or if it is a fortunate accident.
15.09 The impious coterie had mathematical computers of eclipses, lawyers who framed Codices and Laws, medical men who wrote on medicine, poets who put forth their songs, linguists and interpreters in their service, who turned their Latin writings chiefly into Greek, also into Hebrew and Arabic; even as the Wittemberg theologians had a Greekling who translated the Augsburg confession to be sent to Jeremias of Constantinople in a somewhat lax and loose style, though of quite the same sense.*†‡ They who then kept schools also gave their assistance. They wrote volumes on Grammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, Music, under the names of Augustine, Cassiodorus, Rabanus Maurus, and others, all of which lucubrations are assigned to monks.§‖
*coterie: a small group of people with shared interests or tastes, especially one that is exclusive of other people.
†Distrust of Ptolemy's observations [including eclipses] goes back at least as far as doubts raised in the 16th century by Tycho Brahe and in the 18th century by Delambre. Robert Newton, Wikipedia
Ptolemy, c. 100 – c. 170.
Since doubts of Ptolemy's observations began in the sixteenth century, it is likely that his work was made public during this time, that is, “not many years after they were finished” [15.10].
‡Jeremias of Constantinople, r. 1522–1524, 1525–1546.
§The monks were assigned the tedious tasks of verbose witings, while “men of genius, but atheists” with “acumen, no less than impiety” provided the subtle atheism found in the Fathers [15.04].
‖Cassiodorus, c. 485–c. 585; Rabanus Maurus, 780–856.
†Distrust of Ptolemy's observations [including eclipses] goes back at least as far as doubts raised in the 16th century by Tycho Brahe and in the 18th century by Delambre. Robert Newton, Wikipedia
Ptolemy, c. 100 – c. 170.
Since doubts of Ptolemy's observations began in the sixteenth century, it is likely that his work was made public during this time, that is, “not many years after they were finished” [15.10].
‡Jeremias of Constantinople, r. 1522–1524, 1525–1546.
§The monks were assigned the tedious tasks of verbose witings, while “men of genius, but atheists” with “acumen, no less than impiety” provided the subtle atheism found in the Fathers [15.04].
‖Cassiodorus, c. 485–c. 585; Rabanus Maurus, 780–856.
15.10 About the year 1350, Maximus Planudes is set down as having lived, who turned fifteen books of Augustine on the Trinity into Greek; i.e., not many years after they were finished. See what Spondanus says, no. 6, on the advent of Manuel Chrysoloras into Italy, 1397:
“He soon began to teach Greek letters which had been silent in Italy through the badness of the times for near seven hundred years; first at Venice and then at Florence and Rome, and at last at Ticino—and so excited the minds of the Italians, that not only did they happily take up that language, but also restored to its ancient splendor the Latin which had contracted much barbarism from long time.[”]*†‡
*Maximus Planudes, 1260–1305; Manuel Chrysoloras, 1350–1415. The lifetime of Maximus Planudes has been regressed since Hardouin wrote the Prolegomena.
†“seven hundred years”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‡During this time, the Latin language was being restored to its classical splendor. One could interpret this passage, in light of Hardouin’s idea of universal forgery, as the time that the Latin language was created.
“Whereas all men of letters and science were conversant in the [Latin] language, Leonardo struggled with even a basic knowledge.” Leonardo Da Vinci Notebooks, Thereza Wells, editor
https://librafalas.weebly.com/uploads/6/6/7/9/6679074/notebook_of_da_vinci.pdf
The conjugation of Latin verbs in his notebook is charitably interpreted as an indication that Leonardo, 1452–1519, struggled with Latin. It was never suggested that he was involved in the construction of Latin verb tenses.
†“seven hundred years”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‡During this time, the Latin language was being restored to its classical splendor. One could interpret this passage, in light of Hardouin’s idea of universal forgery, as the time that the Latin language was created.
“Whereas all men of letters and science were conversant in the [Latin] language, Leonardo struggled with even a basic knowledge.” Leonardo Da Vinci Notebooks, Thereza Wells, editor
https://librafalas.weebly.com/uploads/6/6/7/9/6679074/notebook_of_da_vinci.pdf
The conjugation of Latin verbs in his notebook is charitably interpreted as an indication that Leonardo, 1452–1519, struggled with Latin. It was never suggested that he was involved in the construction of Latin verb tenses.
15.11 Pavia (Ticinum) or a man of Pavia, seems to me to have much to do with the wicked faction
(1) because they pretend that the body of St. Augustine was there;
(2) because they made up a tale of distinguished prerogatives attributed to its bishops by the Popes; and with good success, for they preserve them to this day, though they rest only on those false monuments. See tom. 1 of Ughelli’s Italia Sacra.*†
In Belgic Gaul, near Theodosius’ Villa, I suspect that some of these works were concocted, from what I find in “Paulus Diaconus,” book 1, chap. 5; but many more in France and, above all, in Paris. The English and others ⟨then⟩ imitated the French.‡
*Pavia (Latin: Ticinum) is a town in Northern Italy, 22 miles south of Milan. The city was the capital of the Ostrogothic Kingdom, 540–553; of the Kingdom of the Lombards, 572–774; of the Kingdom of Italy, 774–1024; and seat of the Visconti court from 1365–1413.
Upon his death St Augustine was buried in the ancient city of Hippo in Northern Africa. A few decades later,... his remains were transferred to Sardinia. In 720 AD Sardinia itself became unsafe; therefore, his remains… were brought to Pavia, Italy. http://www.saintsinrome.com/2013/08/st-augustine.html
†Ferdinando Ughelli, 1595–1670.
‡Paulus Diaconus, 8th century.
Upon his death St Augustine was buried in the ancient city of Hippo in Northern Africa. A few decades later,... his remains were transferred to Sardinia. In 720 AD Sardinia itself became unsafe; therefore, his remains… were brought to Pavia, Italy. http://www.saintsinrome.com/2013/08/st-augustine.html
†Ferdinando Ughelli, 1595–1670.
‡Paulus Diaconus, 8th century.
15.12 There were ⟨, then,⟩ in the West many ⟨fugitives⟩ [immigrants] from the East, skilled in Oriental languages, to whom books written in French and Latin were handed over to be turned into Greek or other foreign tongue.*† So, lately in this city have we seen a man who turned into Ethiopic from the Greek the homily of Chrysostom on the Natal day of Christ.‡ If this should be carried to Ethiopia, presently the translation will be held as of the same age as Chrysostom himself. The same judgment must be passed on Greek MSS and others.§
*fugitive: a person who has escaped from a place, especially to avoid persecution.
Hardouin may be referring to the refugees from the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
†“Oriental languages”: possibly Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic.
‡Full text of the homily: http://ww1.antiochian.org/node/21955
§Manuscripts found in libraries, in jars, or in caves, that is, any manuscripts with no provenance, must incur the same skeptical judgment.
Hardouin may be referring to the refugees from the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
†“Oriental languages”: possibly Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic.
‡Full text of the homily: http://ww1.antiochian.org/node/21955
§Manuscripts found in libraries, in jars, or in caves, that is, any manuscripts with no provenance, must incur the same skeptical judgment.
15.12a For these reasons, they pretended that in the year 1285 the study of Arabic and other Oriental tongues was instituted at Paris, as Spondanus relates against that year, n. 22. The statement is false; but it is a true belief that long afterwards were translated from the primary Latin sources into Arabic the history of Elmacin, the Annals of Eutychius, the Arabic version of the Bible, etc.*†‡
*Eutychius, 877–940.
†It is doubtful that an Arabic version of the Bible was created before the Biblical canon was acknowledged by the Council of Trent and subsequent publication of the Sixtus Bible in 1590.
‡George Elmacin, 1205–1273. Jirjis al-Makin Ibn al-'Amid, Wikipedia
†It is doubtful that an Arabic version of the Bible was created before the Biblical canon was acknowledged by the Council of Trent and subsequent publication of the Sixtus Bible in 1590.
‡George Elmacin, 1205–1273. Jirjis al-Makin Ibn al-'Amid, Wikipedia
15.13 Father Pierre Besnier, of our Society of Jesus, told me that there was shown to him at Constantinople a treatise on the Primacy of the Pope, written in Greek, under the name of Arsenius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, whose successor Dositheus was then living.* But Besnier detected that the treatise had first been written in Latin and then had been translated into Greek at the request of three Residents who were most ill–affected towards the Roman Curia.† The style did not in the least smack of a man born under a Greek sky.‡
*Arsenius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, r. 1000–1010; Dositheus II of Jerusalem, r. 1669–1707. Dositheus was not the immediate successor to Arsenius.
†The Roman Curia is the administrative body that manages the affairs of the Roman Catholic Church.
‡Magna Graecia was the name given by the Romans to the Greek–speaking coastal areas of Southern Italy in the present–day Italian regions of Apulia, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, and Sicily; these regions were extensively populated by Greek settlers. Magna Graecia, Wikipedia
Linguistically speaking, it was possible as late as the seventeenth century to be born in Italy and to write as one “born under a Greek sky.”
“We call to mind that Greek city in southern Italy, which once a year still celebrates its Greek feasts.…”
Human, all too Human, 223, Friedrich Nietzsche
†The Roman Curia is the administrative body that manages the affairs of the Roman Catholic Church.
‡Magna Graecia was the name given by the Romans to the Greek–speaking coastal areas of Southern Italy in the present–day Italian regions of Apulia, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, and Sicily; these regions were extensively populated by Greek settlers. Magna Graecia, Wikipedia
Linguistically speaking, it was possible as late as the seventeenth century to be born in Italy and to write as one “born under a Greek sky.”
“We call to mind that Greek city in southern Italy, which once a year still celebrates its Greek feasts.…”
Human, all too Human, 223, Friedrich Nietzsche
15.14 From about the year 1350 to the year 1480 seem to have been forged all our writings and writers attributed to the eleventh and following centuries, down to that year 1480, and chiefly the Decretal books of the Popes, the Extravagants, etc.*† That this space of time might be filled by the authors, questions were renewed—of the procession of the Holy Spirit and of the primacy of the Pope, which had been very often agitated before.‡ The Scholastic Summae were also got up, to be received in the schools as the writings and opinions of the “Fathers”. Two Councils were then forged on the Procession of the Holy Spirit; the second one imperfect, that of Lyons, so that afterwards another one was demanded by Barlaam, which was better attended, because Patriarchs were present and which was held in the following age in the year 1439.‡
*The Bubonic plague affected Europe from 1347–1351. Second plague pandemic, Wikipedia
†“eleventh and following centuries”: Scaliger’s chronology.
All of the forged history from the eleventh century and ending circa 1480 was written during a span of 130 years [1350 to 1480]. Since few annals were recorded from the eleventh century to 1480, it would be a straightforward matter to release the forged histories and for them to overwhelm any of few factual records that were in circulation. As the forged histories compliment one another, they would be accepted while the true annals would be dismissed by later historians due to their frequent anachronisms.
‡History repeats because it was originally assembled from fragments and scraps and not fundamentally corrected since the seventeenth century. The hoaxers repeated ecclesiastical controversies in the attempt to furnish sufficient events for their artificially extended timeline.
§Council of Lyons, held 1274; Barlaam [of Calabria], c. 1290–1348; Council of Florence, held 1431–1439.
†“eleventh and following centuries”: Scaliger’s chronology.
All of the forged history from the eleventh century and ending circa 1480 was written during a span of 130 years [1350 to 1480]. Since few annals were recorded from the eleventh century to 1480, it would be a straightforward matter to release the forged histories and for them to overwhelm any of few factual records that were in circulation. As the forged histories compliment one another, they would be accepted while the true annals would be dismissed by later historians due to their frequent anachronisms.
‡History repeats because it was originally assembled from fragments and scraps and not fundamentally corrected since the seventeenth century. The hoaxers repeated ecclesiastical controversies in the attempt to furnish sufficient events for their artificially extended timeline.
§Council of Lyons, held 1274; Barlaam [of Calabria], c. 1290–1348; Council of Florence, held 1431–1439.
15.15 Charters, diplomas, [and] false privileges began to be forged under Philip the Fair, more under Philip of Valois, most under Charles V, king of the French, as I have elsewhere shown; some things also on Egyptian papyrus, brought into Europe after the Egyptian expedition of St. Louis.*
*Philip the Fair, r. 1285–1314; Philip of Valois, r. 1328–1350; Charles V, r. 1364–1380; St. Louis, crusade in 1250. The importance of St. Louis’ crusade, either in reality by depositing books in libraries and jars or on paper by declaring works brought into Europe, for the hoaxers cannot be overstated.
The first records of the Tarot deck date to 1367 in Berne and they appear to have spread very rapidly across the whole of Europe, as seen from the records of card games being banned.
Tarot, Wikipedia
While innocuous games like playing cards can result in wagers, the near universal ban on the Tarot cards in western Europe is not likely due to gambling, but because a possible arrangement of the images on the twenty two cards of the Major Arcana that results in an impious, if not an atheistic, interpretation.
The Capetian house of Valois was a cadet branch of the Capetian dynasty. They succeeded the House of Capet to the French throne, and were the royal house of France from 1328 to 1589.
House of Valois, Wikipedia
With the establishment of the Salic law in France, the male-line descendants of the third race of the kings of France were recognized as princes of the blood, who had the contingent right of succession to the French crown. Though the House of Courtenay multiplied, they did so in obscurity and poverty. From princes they became barons, and from barons they became rural lords. [They] obtained a favorable opinion of 20 lawyers from Italy and Germany, and compared themselves to the descendants of King David, whose rights were not impaired by the lapse of ages or the trade of a carpenter.
Capetian House of Courtenay, Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capetian_House_of_Courtenay#cite_ref-2
The House of Courtenay is a medieval noble house, with branches in France, England and the Holy Land.
Renaud de Courtenay, d. 1190, was a French nobleman of the House of Courtenay who took up residence in England and founded the English Courtenay family, who became Earls of Devon in 1335. His daughter, Elizabeth de Courtenay, 1127–1205, who was given in marriage by the French King Louis VII (d.1180) to his youngest brother, Peter of France (d.1183), who became known as "Peter I of Courtenay" Renaud became Lord of the Manor of Sutton in 1161 and died in 1190.
Peter, 1126–1183, was the sixth son of Louis VII, r.1137–1180, and took the name of his wife’s family.
His son, Peter II, c.1155–1218, was Latin Emperor of Constantinople, r.1216–1217.
Robet de Courtenay d.1228 r. 1221–1228
Baldwin de Courtenay d. 1273 r. 1228–1273 in exile 1261–1273.
Philip, son of Baldwin, 1243–1283, r. 1273–1283
Beatrice, daughter of Philip. 1274–1307. Married Charles, Count of Valois, fourth son of Philip III.
Joan of Valois, 1304–1363; daughter of Beatrice.
John of Artois, son of Joan, 1321–1387. Count of Eu.
Robert IV of Artois, Count of Eu son of John (1356–1387), DSP
Philip of Artois, 1358–1397, Count of Eu, son of John
Charles of Artois, Count of Eu, captured at Agincourt (1394–1472) son of Philip
Bonne of Artois (1396–1425),son of Philip
Catherine (1397–1418/22), daughter of Philip married c. 1416 John of Bourbon, Lord of Carency
Close kinsmen and powerful allies of the Plantagenet kings, especially Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V, the Earls of Devon were treated with suspicion by the Tudors, perhaps unfairly, partly because William Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon (1475–1511), had married Princess Catherine of York, a younger daughter of King Edward IV, bringing the Earls of Devon very close to the line of succession to the English throne.
Renaud de Courtenay, d.1190
Robert de Courtenay, d.1242, son of Renaud
John de Courtenay, d.1274, son of Robert
Hugh de Courtenay, 1251–1292, son of John
Hugh de Courtenay, 1st/9th Earl of Devon (1276 – 23 December 1340), son of Hugh d.1292
Hugh de Courtenay, 2nd Earl of Devon (d.1377, son of Hugh d.1340
Edward de Courtenay (d. between 2 February 1368 –1371, son of Hugh, d.1377
Hugh Courtenay (after 1358 –1425), son of Edwad d.1371
Sir Hugh Courtenay (c.1427–1471), son of Hugh d.1425
Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon (d.1509), son of Hugh d.1471
Hugh de Courtenay, 2nd Earl of Devon (d.1377), seven generations before this Earl, successfully claimed the title in 1831.
The first records of the Tarot deck date to 1367 in Berne and they appear to have spread very rapidly across the whole of Europe, as seen from the records of card games being banned.
Tarot, Wikipedia
While innocuous games like playing cards can result in wagers, the near universal ban on the Tarot cards in western Europe is not likely due to gambling, but because a possible arrangement of the images on the twenty two cards of the Major Arcana that results in an impious, if not an atheistic, interpretation.
The Capetian house of Valois was a cadet branch of the Capetian dynasty. They succeeded the House of Capet to the French throne, and were the royal house of France from 1328 to 1589.
House of Valois, Wikipedia
With the establishment of the Salic law in France, the male-line descendants of the third race of the kings of France were recognized as princes of the blood, who had the contingent right of succession to the French crown. Though the House of Courtenay multiplied, they did so in obscurity and poverty. From princes they became barons, and from barons they became rural lords. [They] obtained a favorable opinion of 20 lawyers from Italy and Germany, and compared themselves to the descendants of King David, whose rights were not impaired by the lapse of ages or the trade of a carpenter.
Capetian House of Courtenay, Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capetian_House_of_Courtenay#cite_ref-2
The House of Courtenay is a medieval noble house, with branches in France, England and the Holy Land.
Renaud de Courtenay, d. 1190, was a French nobleman of the House of Courtenay who took up residence in England and founded the English Courtenay family, who became Earls of Devon in 1335. His daughter, Elizabeth de Courtenay, 1127–1205, who was given in marriage by the French King Louis VII (d.1180) to his youngest brother, Peter of France (d.1183), who became known as "Peter I of Courtenay" Renaud became Lord of the Manor of Sutton in 1161 and died in 1190.
Peter, 1126–1183, was the sixth son of Louis VII, r.1137–1180, and took the name of his wife’s family.
His son, Peter II, c.1155–1218, was Latin Emperor of Constantinople, r.1216–1217.
Robet de Courtenay d.1228 r. 1221–1228
Baldwin de Courtenay d. 1273 r. 1228–1273 in exile 1261–1273.
Philip, son of Baldwin, 1243–1283, r. 1273–1283
Beatrice, daughter of Philip. 1274–1307. Married Charles, Count of Valois, fourth son of Philip III.
Joan of Valois, 1304–1363; daughter of Beatrice.
John of Artois, son of Joan, 1321–1387. Count of Eu.
Robert IV of Artois, Count of Eu son of John (1356–1387), DSP
Philip of Artois, 1358–1397, Count of Eu, son of John
Charles of Artois, Count of Eu, captured at Agincourt (1394–1472) son of Philip
Bonne of Artois (1396–1425),son of Philip
Catherine (1397–1418/22), daughter of Philip married c. 1416 John of Bourbon, Lord of Carency
Close kinsmen and powerful allies of the Plantagenet kings, especially Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V, the Earls of Devon were treated with suspicion by the Tudors, perhaps unfairly, partly because William Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon (1475–1511), had married Princess Catherine of York, a younger daughter of King Edward IV, bringing the Earls of Devon very close to the line of succession to the English throne.
Renaud de Courtenay, d.1190
Robert de Courtenay, d.1242, son of Renaud
John de Courtenay, d.1274, son of Robert
Hugh de Courtenay, 1251–1292, son of John
Hugh de Courtenay, 1st/9th Earl of Devon (1276 – 23 December 1340), son of Hugh d.1292
Hugh de Courtenay, 2nd Earl of Devon (d.1377, son of Hugh d.1340
Edward de Courtenay (d. between 2 February 1368 –1371, son of Hugh, d.1377
Hugh Courtenay (after 1358 –1425), son of Edwad d.1371
Sir Hugh Courtenay (c.1427–1471), son of Hugh d.1425
Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon (d.1509), son of Hugh d.1471
Hugh de Courtenay, 2nd Earl of Devon (d.1377), seven generations before this Earl, successfully claimed the title in 1831.
15.16 In the examination or censure of particular works, I can point out numberless arguments ⟨, incidentally offered,⟩ which prove the age to be that which I assign. Works under the name of Augustine ceased not to be forged in the late fourteenth century; witness the Sermons to the brethren in the desert, which learned men agree were then conficted by some French Fleming. *†‡
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
†“the late fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‡The works of Augustine continued to be fabricated beyond the fourteenth century and a reasonable presumption is that the writings of other works by the Fathers continued, without the hindrance of censors, unabated.
†“the late fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‡The works of Augustine continued to be fabricated beyond the fourteenth century and a reasonable presumption is that the writings of other works by the Fathers continued, without the hindrance of censors, unabated.
15.17 “How,” you will say, “was it that the world was not astounded, that so great a mass of books previously unknown was poured out upon it?” I answer:
(1) were there today no art of Printing, a mob of rogues, say of Jansenists, could—some being in one city, others in another of the kingdom—bring out of their Libraries and bookcases writings which they might lyingly say had been formerly written by Cardinal Baronius or St. Francis de Sales or by other luminaries of a former age. So in days gone by, did men produce elsewhere other works under great names; they were false, though now believed to be true. I answer:*
(2) that all the books were not written at once, not poured out at the same time, nor in one place. Some in Paris, some in Italy, others were published elsewhere, and ⟨that⟩ by degrees. Very many saw not the light until a hundred or two hundred years from their rise; such as “Facundus,” came out a little before our time, and some others in our time.† Others were said to be recently brought from the East, as all the Greeks, others from Italy, and this was said by those who alone had the keys of knowledge, i.e., who alone had Libraries.‡ Why should the world wonder that books came out of those houses in which most of them were openly believed to have been written? For from Gregory the Great’s times to the thirteenth century, either there is no writer or he is a rarity, whom the Benedictines do not boast to have been of their house and family.‡§‖¶
* Cardinal Baronius, 1538–1607; Francis de Sales, 1567–1622.
†Facundus [of Hermiana], 6th century.
‡By “those who alone had the keys of knowledge,” is a strange expression.
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Matt. 23:13
Jesus said: Woe to the Pharisees, for they are like a dog lying in the manger of the cattle; for he neither eats nor does he let the cattle eat. Gospel of Thomas, 102
§Gregory the Great, r. 590–604.
‖“the thirteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
¶Because the Benedictines have so many writers from the sixth to the eighteenth century, this is an indication that the fraud originated with them; but not all of the Benedictines are guilty, just the hoaxers, who are few in number.
†Facundus [of Hermiana], 6th century.
‡By “those who alone had the keys of knowledge,” is a strange expression.
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Matt. 23:13
Jesus said: Woe to the Pharisees, for they are like a dog lying in the manger of the cattle; for he neither eats nor does he let the cattle eat. Gospel of Thomas, 102
§Gregory the Great, r. 590–604.
‖“the thirteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
¶Because the Benedictines have so many writers from the sixth to the eighteenth century, this is an indication that the fraud originated with them; but not all of the Benedictines are guilty, just the hoaxers, who are few in number.
15.18 Let no one, however, suppose that I am the bitter enemy of the Benedictines of the present day. I would not have them considered to be children of the impious, any more than children of the undisciplined, into whose place they came, on the induction of the Reformation. Dom Mabillon himself imputes to the monks of St. Remy at Rheims a spurious epistle of Benedict to the bishop Remy; see his Benedictine History, age I. in preface, sec. 2.*†
*Dom Jean Mabillon, 1632–1707.
†Rheims is a city in northeastern France, east of Paris. Remigius (French: Remi or Rémi; c. 437–533) was the Bishop of Reims and "Apostle of the Franks". On December 25, 496, he baptized Clovis I, King of the Franks [c .481–c. 509]. Saint Remigius, Wikipedia
†Rheims is a city in northeastern France, east of Paris. Remigius (French: Remi or Rémi; c. 437–533) was the Bishop of Reims and "Apostle of the Franks". On December 25, 496, he baptized Clovis I, King of the Franks [c .481–c. 509]. Saint Remigius, Wikipedia
15.19 The workshops and mints of this furtive coin appear to have been Corbey, St. Vincent of Paris, or, more truly, the monastery of St. Germain, St. Denis, Fleury, Luxeuil; in Italy, Bobbio, Monte Cassino, etc.*† On the monastery of Bobbio see Italia Sacra (tome iv., On the Bishop of Bobbio). Against the monks of Cassino, see the animadversions of Baronius on the occasion of the Body of St. Benedict.‡§‖¶
*furtive: an adjective meaning to act with stealth or to avoid discovery.
†Corbie Abbey is a former Benedictine monastery in Corbie, Picardy, France. The Church of Saint-Germain-des-Prés was originally the church of a Benedictine abbey founded in 558 by Childebert I, the son of Clovis, King of the Franks.
In 590, Columbanus founded the monastery of Luxeuil in the Vosges mountain range west of the plateau of Lorraine. The scriptorium of this abbey acquired a high reputation for its quality…. Plundered and ravaged by the Saracens… in 731 or 732, the abbey was relieved by Charlemagne who entrusted it to the Benedictines. ibid.
One of the oldest and most productive scriptoria was Luxeuil Abbey, founded by the Irish monk Columbanus in 590 and destroyed in 732. Merovingian illumination, Wikipedia
Corbie Abbey, located in the Somme, near Amiens, was founded by Balthild of Chelles, 626–680. Manuscripts produced on site use less zoomorphic motifs but more ornaments such as the "bull's eye" (a circle with a dot in the middle). Ibid.
A “circle with a dot in the middle” is a point in a circle, a symbol of Freemasonry and an Egyptian hieroglyph representing the sun.
‡Bobbio Abbey is a monastery founded by Irish Saint Columbanus, 543–615, in 614. The learned Saint Dungal (d. after 827) bequeathed to the abbey his valuable library, consisting of some 27 volumes. A late 9th-century catalog lists more than 600 volumes. Bobbio Abbey, Wikipedia
The “valuable library” held twenty seven volumes.
Monte Cassino founded around 529 in the province of Frosinone and is approximately 75 miles south south east from Rome.
§animadversion: an unfavorable or censorious comment.
censorious: severely critical of others.
‖Caesar Baronius, 1538–1607.
¶The relics of St. Benedict are in the monastery of Monte Cassino. The monastery was destroyed in 581 and again in 884, Monte Cassino, Wikipedia
†Corbie Abbey is a former Benedictine monastery in Corbie, Picardy, France. The Church of Saint-Germain-des-Prés was originally the church of a Benedictine abbey founded in 558 by Childebert I, the son of Clovis, King of the Franks.
In 590, Columbanus founded the monastery of Luxeuil in the Vosges mountain range west of the plateau of Lorraine. The scriptorium of this abbey acquired a high reputation for its quality…. Plundered and ravaged by the Saracens… in 731 or 732, the abbey was relieved by Charlemagne who entrusted it to the Benedictines. ibid.
One of the oldest and most productive scriptoria was Luxeuil Abbey, founded by the Irish monk Columbanus in 590 and destroyed in 732. Merovingian illumination, Wikipedia
Corbie Abbey, located in the Somme, near Amiens, was founded by Balthild of Chelles, 626–680. Manuscripts produced on site use less zoomorphic motifs but more ornaments such as the "bull's eye" (a circle with a dot in the middle). Ibid.
A “circle with a dot in the middle” is a point in a circle, a symbol of Freemasonry and an Egyptian hieroglyph representing the sun.
‡Bobbio Abbey is a monastery founded by Irish Saint Columbanus, 543–615, in 614. The learned Saint Dungal (d. after 827) bequeathed to the abbey his valuable library, consisting of some 27 volumes. A late 9th-century catalog lists more than 600 volumes. Bobbio Abbey, Wikipedia
The “valuable library” held twenty seven volumes.
Monte Cassino founded around 529 in the province of Frosinone and is approximately 75 miles south south east from Rome.
§animadversion: an unfavorable or censorious comment.
censorious: severely critical of others.
‖Caesar Baronius, 1538–1607.
¶The relics of St. Benedict are in the monastery of Monte Cassino. The monastery was destroyed in 581 and again in 884, Monte Cassino, Wikipedia
15.19a Wherever the monks were, the architects of these frauds (and doubtless many others, secular priests, joined with them); they are those called “Acoemetes” in their alleged ancient writings. It was pretended that they were so called because of their continuous singing, even at night!—from the Greek word signifying sleepless! But it certainly was not because of psalmody—which pious explanation of the word was later thought of as one becoming the monks; rather, it was because of their restless love of toil.* Yet some ascribe this title to the Luxeuil monks because of the former meaning; some with Mabillon in his preface to age 4, part 2 of the Benedictine Annals give it to the monks of St. Denis, on the authority of their “Fredegarius,” cap. 79.† But in point of fact, for no other cause, I may say in passing, was that word taken from the Greek by the impious faction, like a vast number of others, than to invite the opinion of their antiquity. For we believe usages unknown to our time to be old.
*Ephedra fragilis is a very rare plant in peninsular Italy. The only formerly known locality of this species is located at San Ferdinando, Calabria. Ephedra plants Italy, Generative AI
The Monks’ “restless love of toil” can be explained by ephedrine, as prolonged usage would explain why reading the Fathers is invariably “painful,” as “they set down whatever allegories came into their heads, very often… senseless.” With “running pen, they wrote these works, … as they sometimes boast, in the course of one night.” “It is fearfully tedious, therefore, to read them.”
†Luxeuil–les–Bains is near the present borders of Germany and Switzerland.
‡The Chronicle of Fredegar is the conventional title used for a 7th–century Frankish chronicle that was probably written in Burgundy. The author is unknown and the attribution to Fredegar dates only from the 16th century. The Chronicle of Fredegar with its Continuations is one of the few sources that provide information on the Merovingian dynasty for the period after 591 when Gregory of Tours' [538–594] the Decem Libri Historiarum finishes. Chronicle of Fredegar, Wikipedia
Saint–Denis is located 5.8 miles north from the center of Paris. During its history, Saint-Denis has been closely associated with the French royal house. Starting from Dagobert I, c. 603–639, almost every French king was buried in the Basilica. Dagobert I, King of the Franks (reigned 628 to 637), transformed the church into the Abbey of Saint Denis, a Benedictine monastery in 632.
Basilica of Saint-Denis, Wikipedia
The Merovingian dynasty was the ruling family of the Franks from the middle of the 5th century until 751.
The Monks’ “restless love of toil” can be explained by ephedrine, as prolonged usage would explain why reading the Fathers is invariably “painful,” as “they set down whatever allegories came into their heads, very often… senseless.” With “running pen, they wrote these works, … as they sometimes boast, in the course of one night.” “It is fearfully tedious, therefore, to read them.”
†Luxeuil–les–Bains is near the present borders of Germany and Switzerland.
‡The Chronicle of Fredegar is the conventional title used for a 7th–century Frankish chronicle that was probably written in Burgundy. The author is unknown and the attribution to Fredegar dates only from the 16th century. The Chronicle of Fredegar with its Continuations is one of the few sources that provide information on the Merovingian dynasty for the period after 591 when Gregory of Tours' [538–594] the Decem Libri Historiarum finishes. Chronicle of Fredegar, Wikipedia
Saint–Denis is located 5.8 miles north from the center of Paris. During its history, Saint-Denis has been closely associated with the French royal house. Starting from Dagobert I, c. 603–639, almost every French king was buried in the Basilica. Dagobert I, King of the Franks (reigned 628 to 637), transformed the church into the Abbey of Saint Denis, a Benedictine monastery in 632.
Basilica of Saint-Denis, Wikipedia
The Merovingian dynasty was the ruling family of the Franks from the middle of the 5th century until 751.
15.20 The name of Victorious, under which are extant Commentaries on the Apocalypse, the names also of Hugo and Richard of St. Victor, and that of Augustine himself cast suspicion upon the monastery of St. Victor with the rest of the impious band.*†
Books there were none or very rare outside the Libraries of the Monasteries down to the twelfth century, says Mabillon in his work on Monastic Studies , bk.1, c. 16, p. 136.‡ He might have said with greater truth that in those very monastic libraries there were none or very few before the fourteenth century.§
*Victorious, Bishop of Ptui, Slovenia, d. 304; Hugo of St. Victor, c. 1096–1141; Richard of St. Victor, 1110–1173.
†The abbey of St. Victor was founded in the late Roman period and named after the saint and martyr, Victor of Marseilles. According to legend, Mary Magdalene sailed to Marseille and converted the locals to Christianity. She arrived in France with Lazarus, Maximin, Martha, and their servant Sara.
‡Mabillon, 1632–1707.
§“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
No part of the Apocalypse is read in the annual lectionary of the Orthodox Church, although it is found in the Protestant Bibles and the Vulgate Bible. These two facts suggest the Apocalypse was accepted into the western canon, and possibly written, between the east west schism, 1054, and the Reformation, 1517.
†The abbey of St. Victor was founded in the late Roman period and named after the saint and martyr, Victor of Marseilles. According to legend, Mary Magdalene sailed to Marseille and converted the locals to Christianity. She arrived in France with Lazarus, Maximin, Martha, and their servant Sara.
‡Mabillon, 1632–1707.
§“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
No part of the Apocalypse is read in the annual lectionary of the Orthodox Church, although it is found in the Protestant Bibles and the Vulgate Bible. These two facts suggest the Apocalypse was accepted into the western canon, and possibly written, between the east west schism, 1054, and the Reformation, 1517.
15.21 Pliny praises many Writers the loss of whose writings we deplore.*† They were neglected by antiquity and, of the Latins, Plautus, Pliny, nine Eclogues of Virgil with the Georgics, the Satires and Epistles of Horace only were preserved and of the Greeks, the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer, and nine books of Herodotus.† A great number of other excellent monuments were neglected. Can you then suppose that a vast number of other writings would have been preserved, which are justly spurned by men of learning and of taste because of the thinness of the argument, the poverty of the style, and very many other vices, had not those interested in their preservation taken care to deposit them in Libraries—not of private men, for there were none at that time—but of the Monasteries, whence nothing could be taken except with difficulty?§ It was the interest of the impious band to write a mass of books in support of their hypothesis. It was, therefore, to their interest that all of them should be most diligently kept.‖ They found means to attain their object.‖
*Pliny, 23/24–79.
†Hardouin deplores the loss of the alleged writings mentioned by Pliny, not the writers.
‡Plautus, d. 184 BC; Horace, d. 8 BC; Homer, 8th century BC; Herodotus, c. 484–c. 425 BC.
§“the thinness of the argument”: Hardouin states how it was possible that the Fathers, with their simplistic augments, were preserved by men of “learning and of taste”: these works were deposited in the libraries of monasteries.
Godfrey of Saint–Omer was a Flemish knight and one of the founding members of the Knights Templar in 1119. Bela, the son of Nicholas I of Saint–Omer [d. c. 1235], would marry Bonne de La Roche, the sister of Guy I, the Duke of Athens [r. 1225/34–1263], and lay the foundations for the rise of the Saint Omer family to a prominent position in Frankish Greece.
‖The hoaxers sought that all of the works “should be most diligently kept” and they found that the restricted monasteries and their libraries was the “means to attain their” objective.
†Hardouin deplores the loss of the alleged writings mentioned by Pliny, not the writers.
‡Plautus, d. 184 BC; Horace, d. 8 BC; Homer, 8th century BC; Herodotus, c. 484–c. 425 BC.
§“the thinness of the argument”: Hardouin states how it was possible that the Fathers, with their simplistic augments, were preserved by men of “learning and of taste”: these works were deposited in the libraries of monasteries.
Godfrey of Saint–Omer was a Flemish knight and one of the founding members of the Knights Templar in 1119. Bela, the son of Nicholas I of Saint–Omer [d. c. 1235], would marry Bonne de La Roche, the sister of Guy I, the Duke of Athens [r. 1225/34–1263], and lay the foundations for the rise of the Saint Omer family to a prominent position in Frankish Greece.
‖The hoaxers sought that all of the works “should be most diligently kept” and they found that the restricted monasteries and their libraries was the “means to attain their” objective.
15.22 In the Council of Arles, year 1260 (p. 511 of my Edition) the following statement is made concerning the books of the alleged “Joachim”:
By our ancestors down to this time they remained intact” (to Wycliffe’s time, i.e. ) “seeing that they lay hid among certain Religious in holes and corners, undiscussed by Doctors; if the doctors had ruminated them, [then] they would have by no means been placed among the sacred books and the Books of the Saints.”*†
Now I say that this statement holds good of all the books which are in circulation inscribed with the name of the “Fathers.”
*John Wycliffe, c. 1328–1384.
†The hidden works were not discussed by Roman Catholic teachers. If, after their presentation to the world, the works were studied intently, then they would neither be esteemed nor placed among the Bible and genuine writings of the Saints. Instead, the works were accepted without discussion, possibly due to the attributed author, and also because books were valuable.
†The hidden works were not discussed by Roman Catholic teachers. If, after their presentation to the world, the works were studied intently, then they would neither be esteemed nor placed among the Bible and genuine writings of the Saints. Instead, the works were accepted without discussion, possibly due to the attributed author, and also because books were valuable.
15.23 “Jonas of Orleans” charges in the Preface to his “Cult of Images” a fraud upon “Claudius of Turin” he is reported to have piled up bookish monuments on the African heresy, and with a view to attack the simplicity and purity of the Catholic and Apostolic faith, to have secretly and craftily left them in the Book Case of his Bishop.* The writers of the wicked conspiracy habitually practiced this trick.† They cunningly left their writings in Book–Cases that they might infect posterity. It is a lying writer of the fourteenth or fifteenth century who pretends that his own production was a ninth century work.‡
*Jonas of Orleans, c. 760–843; Claudius of Turin, 780–827.
†The hoaxers agreed upon a simple method of ensuring these works would be preserved. The placement of their books in possibly hundreds of monasteries throughout Europe and not in a single location that could be compromised, increased the likelihood the vast majority of the works would survive. Generally speaking, although multiple copies of a single book did not exist, the loss of a few monasteric libraries through vandalism or plunder would neither be disastrous nor a hindrance to the hoaxers' long term plans. Additionally, the writings of the Fathers include a certain amount of redundancy to protect against the possible loss of a number of works, as “they mostly copy” earlier works [3.21].
‡“the fourteenth or fifteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
†The hoaxers agreed upon a simple method of ensuring these works would be preserved. The placement of their books in possibly hundreds of monasteries throughout Europe and not in a single location that could be compromised, increased the likelihood the vast majority of the works would survive. Generally speaking, although multiple copies of a single book did not exist, the loss of a few monasteric libraries through vandalism or plunder would neither be disastrous nor a hindrance to the hoaxers' long term plans. Additionally, the writings of the Fathers include a certain amount of redundancy to protect against the possible loss of a number of works, as “they mostly copy” earlier works [3.21].
‡“the fourteenth or fifteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
15.24 How was it that no member of that wicked conspiracy repented, none revealed the secret? Because he that denies God hardly ever repents.* How many Jansenists of today, who prefer learning, how many return to a good and right mind?
*Hardouin assigns the reason for the lack of revelation by the hoaxers to the idea that atheists rarely repent. However, it is plausible that the hoaxers, to prevent the possibility of the conspiracy becoming revealed, the writings proceeded on a “need to know” basis. The writers were compartmentalized on such topics as sermons, “Apologies. Epistles, Tractates against Heretics,” Homilies, “Commentaries,” “Collectanea,” “discourses to the people,” “disputations,” and lives of the Saints and Martyrs and were unaware of a conspiracy [3.23, 9.26].
chapter 16
The Libraries of the Monasteries formed in the fourteenth century were repositories of atheism and heresy before the time of Printing. The Greek MSS were probably mostly written in France. "Athanasius” is a Benedictine author. The devices of the Forgers in their attempts to give their writings an ancient appearance. Hebrew MSS are not very old: of the fourteenth century. The recency of the Royal Library in Paris: illustrations of the paucity of books there. The paucity of books in Constantinople contrasted with the number in the West after 1453. Forged alphabets and fraudulent inks.
16.01 ALL the Libraries of the Monasteries (and there were none others before about the year 1370) were nothing else before the invention of Printing, but ⟨so many⟩ armories of atheism and heresies, which for now three hundred years have been miserably vexing and rending the Church.*
*Merton College Library was built in Oxford, England in 1370. 1370, Wikipedia
The Bibliothèque nationale de France (National Library of France) was founded as the Royal Library at the Louvre Palace in Paris, by Charles V of France in 1368. 1368, Wikipedia
The Bibliothèque nationale de France (National Library of France) was founded as the Royal Library at the Louvre Palace in Paris, by Charles V of France in 1368. 1368, Wikipedia
16.02 When these books began to be brought forth to the light, about the middle of the fourteenth century, they were greedily taken up ⟨and⟩ without any examination and the impious band caused many copies to be made of the more celebrated [books] and of those which they desired to be constantly turned over in men’s hands and they were distributed at high prices.*† They boasted that they were skilled in writing and industrious in painting pictures, because according to the principles of their monastic institute, labor of the hands was their delight. Yet of many works, one solitary copy (or two) is extant in the whole world, so far as we know; of works, i.e., which seemed less necessary or more difficult to write.‡
*“the middle of the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
This time that the books were made known is contemporaneous with the outbreak of the Bubonic Plague.
†With proper promotion and the resultant anticipation among the public, the writing of history, whether factual or fictional, can be lucrative. The hoaxers offset their losses which were incurred during the initial stages of the hoax through the later day distribution of highly desired fictional works to an unsuspecting populace.
‡Although a given work may be “difficult to write,” it is easy to copy.
The Papyrus of Ani contains an example of the pitfalls that await copyists who forgot what they were producing. The text model contained errors in retrograde writing. Many copies of the Book of the Dead were written by scribes who did not understand what they were copying. Omissions of signs, words, and even whole passages are very common. Papyrus of Ani backwards copyist, Generative AI
This time that the books were made known is contemporaneous with the outbreak of the Bubonic Plague.
†With proper promotion and the resultant anticipation among the public, the writing of history, whether factual or fictional, can be lucrative. The hoaxers offset their losses which were incurred during the initial stages of the hoax through the later day distribution of highly desired fictional works to an unsuspecting populace.
‡Although a given work may be “difficult to write,” it is easy to copy.
The Papyrus of Ani contains an example of the pitfalls that await copyists who forgot what they were producing. The text model contained errors in retrograde writing. Many copies of the Book of the Dead were written by scribes who did not understand what they were copying. Omissions of signs, words, and even whole passages are very common. Papyrus of Ani backwards copyist, Generative AI
16.03 All MS Codices were in that age equally unknown as those are now which have not been ⟨yet⟩ extracted from the presses.* They were not ⟨forthwith⟩ published when they were written, as are those which are now put forth in type, but they were stored up, to be extracted after five, ten, or more years.†‡
*The sentence paraphrased: At that time, all manuscript codices were unknown, just as in our time, all unprinted works are unknown.
It is not clear why Hardouin would state the obvious: the public is unacquainted with unknown works and unpublished books.
†forthwith: immediately; without delay.
‡The works were made known gradually, being accomplished over decades, if not centuries, and across several areas, such as northern Italy, France, and southern Germany.
It is not clear why Hardouin would state the obvious: the public is unacquainted with unknown works and unpublished books.
†forthwith: immediately; without delay.
‡The works were made known gradually, being accomplished over decades, if not centuries, and across several areas, such as northern Italy, France, and southern Germany.
16.04 It was necessary that the books should be written on parchment and not on paper (although possibly paper was then in use), so that they might keep up the lie of great antiquity and be longer preserved, for all books on paper either have faded writing or torn leaves.*
*parchment: a stiff, flat, thin material made from the prepared skin of an animal and used as a durable writing surface in ancient and medieval times.
paper: material manufactured in thin sheets from the pulp of wood or other fibrous substances,
To copy the Fathers from paper onto parchment is one thing, but works needed a first draft and possibly several revisions before the completed books were hidden. These revisions would double or triple the volume of parchment needed. It seems likely the hoaxers learned to write on inexpensive paper, and produced the works on paper, along with any revisions, before being transferred to parchment for long term preservation.
The Bubonic plague fatally infected one third of Euopeans from 1347 to 1350. From the untold number of decedents, there would be a surplus of clothes that could be bought inexpensively and produced into paper. Oftentimes, there would not be an “up front” cost for the clothes, as entire monasteries and villages lacked any legal claimants.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6667914/#:~:text=If%20we%20take%20the%20whole,in%20mortality%20of%201.25%3A1.
Printers in the Islamic part of the Iberian Peninsula utilized hemp and linen rags as a source of fiber for paper.
During the thirteenth century, mills were established in Amalfi, Fabriano, and Treviso, Italy, and other Italian towns by 1340. Papermaking then spread further northwards, with evidence of paper being made in Troyes, France by 1348.
Amalfi is located 38 miles south-east of Naples; Fabriano, 89 miles south-east of Florence; Treviso, 25 miles from Venice; and Troyes is located 87 miles south-east of Paris.
Arab prisoners who settled in a town called Borgo Saraceno in the Italian Province of Ferrara
developed the application of stamping hammers to reduce rags to pulp for making paper.
“Paper making centers began to multiply in the late 13th century in Italy, reducing the price of paper to one sixth of parchment and then falling further; paper making centers reached Germany a century later.” Burns, Robert I. (1996), "Paper comes to the West, 800–1400"
“Before the industrialisation of the paper production the most common fibre source was recycled fibres from used textiles, called rags. The rags were from hemp, linen and cotton.”
Göttsching, Lothar; Pakarinen, Heikki (2000), "1", Recycled Fiber and Deinking, Papermaking Science and Technology, vol. 7, Finland: Fapet Oy, pp. 12–14
History of paper, Wikipedia
paper: material manufactured in thin sheets from the pulp of wood or other fibrous substances,
To copy the Fathers from paper onto parchment is one thing, but works needed a first draft and possibly several revisions before the completed books were hidden. These revisions would double or triple the volume of parchment needed. It seems likely the hoaxers learned to write on inexpensive paper, and produced the works on paper, along with any revisions, before being transferred to parchment for long term preservation.
The Bubonic plague fatally infected one third of Euopeans from 1347 to 1350. From the untold number of decedents, there would be a surplus of clothes that could be bought inexpensively and produced into paper. Oftentimes, there would not be an “up front” cost for the clothes, as entire monasteries and villages lacked any legal claimants.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6667914/#:~:text=If%20we%20take%20the%20whole,in%20mortality%20of%201.25%3A1.
Printers in the Islamic part of the Iberian Peninsula utilized hemp and linen rags as a source of fiber for paper.
During the thirteenth century, mills were established in Amalfi, Fabriano, and Treviso, Italy, and other Italian towns by 1340. Papermaking then spread further northwards, with evidence of paper being made in Troyes, France by 1348.
Amalfi is located 38 miles south-east of Naples; Fabriano, 89 miles south-east of Florence; Treviso, 25 miles from Venice; and Troyes is located 87 miles south-east of Paris.
Arab prisoners who settled in a town called Borgo Saraceno in the Italian Province of Ferrara
developed the application of stamping hammers to reduce rags to pulp for making paper.
“Paper making centers began to multiply in the late 13th century in Italy, reducing the price of paper to one sixth of parchment and then falling further; paper making centers reached Germany a century later.” Burns, Robert I. (1996), "Paper comes to the West, 800–1400"
“Before the industrialisation of the paper production the most common fibre source was recycled fibres from used textiles, called rags. The rags were from hemp, linen and cotton.”
Göttsching, Lothar; Pakarinen, Heikki (2000), "1", Recycled Fiber and Deinking, Papermaking Science and Technology, vol. 7, Finland: Fapet Oy, pp. 12–14
History of paper, Wikipedia
16.05 Numberless Codices still lie hid in the Libraries of perhaps four hundred years old (there are none, except a few sacred Codices, older).* They have not yet seen the Light. Tell me, because they have been in the shade for four hundred years, have they any authority from the fact that through so many years none has convicted them of falsehood? It would be a folly to say so!
*There is a contradiction between “Numberless Codices still lie hid in the Libraries” and “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” [1.8].
16.06 Many monuments there are today kept shut up in the Castle of St. Angelo, Rome, which are said to contain many things contrary to the rights and laws of the Popes.* The enemies of the Apostolic See boast in their ignorance that they are genuine, simply because they are kept shut up there. Just as if everything that at Paris in the Royal Treasury of Charts, or in the Chamber of Computes, is kept shut up, must be genuine!† Why? How many instruments have I myself detected to be false! On the MSS of the Vatican Library, see the thoughtful judgment of Baronius against the year DCIV.‡
*The Mausoleum of Hadrian, usually known as Castel Sant'Angelo is a towering rotunda and was initially commissioned by the Roman Emperor Hadrian [r. 117–138] as a mausoleum for himself and his family. The popes later used the building as a fortress and castle, and is now a museum.
Castel Sant'Angelo, Wikipedia
†Even in the present day, certain motivated individuals maintain that the unpublished books in the Vatican Archive are genuine. This suspicion is perpetuated only by their credence that the works contain items contrary to the Apostolic See. “Why?” It is “as if everything that” is undisclosed “must be genuine.”
‡Cesare Baronius, 1538–1607.
Castel Sant'Angelo, Wikipedia
†Even in the present day, certain motivated individuals maintain that the unpublished books in the Vatican Archive are genuine. This suspicion is perpetuated only by their credence that the works contain items contrary to the Apostolic See. “Why?” It is “as if everything that” is undisclosed “must be genuine.”
‡Cesare Baronius, 1538–1607.
16.07 In France are the greater part of the Latin Codices. There are few in Italy. On the other hand, there are many Greek codices in Italy, but of more recent handwriting, i.e., under the care of Theodore Lascaris and the Medici princes.* At Corbey in Picardy, many of the Latin books were written. The Italians say that France is the repertory of the Latin MSS. Hence, I suspect that very many Greek books were first written in Latin in France, because the same impiety is in both; that they were then sent into Italy to be rendered into Greek, whether at Venice or Milan or Rome, or in the kingdom of Naples.† Hence, later, a few returned into Constantinople and into France many more; as a few of the Latin, written in France, were transmitted to Italy.
*Theodore Lascaris, 1221–1274.
Though known from antiquity, the first document to contain the Epistle of Clement and to be studied by Western scholars was found in 1628, having been included with an ancient Greek Bible given by the Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril I to King Charles I of England.
First Epistle of Clement, Wikipedia
†The Kingdom of Naples: To the time of Hardouin, the Kingdom was a sovereign state from 1282 to 1442 and from 1458 to 1501. The motto was Noxias herbas, Noxious herbs. Kingdom of Naples, Wikipedia
Though known from antiquity, the first document to contain the Epistle of Clement and to be studied by Western scholars was found in 1628, having been included with an ancient Greek Bible given by the Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril I to King Charles I of England.
First Epistle of Clement, Wikipedia
†The Kingdom of Naples: To the time of Hardouin, the Kingdom was a sovereign state from 1282 to 1442 and from 1458 to 1501. The motto was Noxias herbas, Noxious herbs. Kingdom of Naples, Wikipedia
16.08 A remarkable evidence that the Greek Codices were written in the Latin world, and perhaps in the city of Paris itself, is the Codex Damasceni, which is believed to be very old, in the custody of the Dominican Fathers of St. Honore; for in one parchment quaternian [sic], the Greek of Damascenus is on one side, and on the surface of the membrane Latin names with the acrostic of four parts, which savors of the fourteenth or fifteenth century:
Nitimur in vanum, dant auri pondera nomen.*†
[We lean in vain, they give the name of weights of gold. Google Translate]
*The only information on the “Codex Damasceni” is an AI generated result: “a Greek manuscript that contains pages 10, lines 6–27, line 4 of Damasceni, Romae 1888. The manuscript is 205 mm tall and 140–147 mm wide.” The link was to Emmanuel College MS 32 which had no information on this codex.
†“the fourteenth or fifteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
[We lean in vain, they give the name of weights of gold. Google Translate]
*The only information on the “Codex Damasceni” is an AI generated result: “a Greek manuscript that contains pages 10, lines 6–27, line 4 of Damasceni, Romae 1888. The manuscript is 205 mm tall and 140–147 mm wide.” The link was to Emmanuel College MS 32 which had no information on this codex.
†“the fourteenth or fifteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
16.09 The same most ancient MS codices have the works of the “Fathers,” both those now held to be genuine and those which scholars are forced to confess [are] spurious, because of disparity of style and other causes. This is certainly acknowledged of the codices of Athanasius by the Benedictines, pp. 49, 72, 80, 238, 667, of tome 2.* The same editors have rejected some of the dubious works, on which none had before pronounced an opinion: and this without any blame or offense to scholars.†
*Athanasius, c. 296–373.
†The rejection of certain works attributed to the Fathers elicits no reaction or outcry from scholars, with the inference that the rejection of all of the works of the Fathers will have no detrimental effect on Christianity as preserved in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Of course, Protestantism, lacking a significant oral tradition, is dependent upon the Fathers.
†The rejection of certain works attributed to the Fathers elicits no reaction or outcry from scholars, with the inference that the rejection of all of the works of the Fathers will have no detrimental effect on Christianity as preserved in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Of course, Protestantism, lacking a significant oral tradition, is dependent upon the Fathers.
16.10 “Lupus of Ferrara,” in his fifth epistle (p. 23 of Baluz’ edition), says,
“The writer Regius Bertcandus is said to have the measure written down of the ancient letters only, which are the largest, and are thought by some to be called Uncials.”*†
This passage indicates that the forgers had the measure and form of letters for each age [and] that they had not only parchments and inks, but the form of letters for all their alleged literary ages, which they might imitate in writing; so that a codex might simulate, or be believed to simulate, the age of the seventh, eighth, ninth, or other century.‡
*Lupus of Ferrara, c.805–c.862.
†Regius Bertcandus is a writer who is said to have written down the measurements of the largest ancient letters, which are thought by some to be called Uncials. Bertcandus is mentioned in a letter from Lupus von Ferrieres to Einhard from 836. In the letter, Lupus asks for an introduction to Calculus, or Easter festival calculation. Regius Bertcandus, Generative AI
‡“seventh, eighth, ninth, or other century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
The Easter calculations were performed by Dionysius Exiguus [475–544] and by Denis Pétau (Dionysius Petavius) [1583–1652]. It is noteworthy that not only do they share the same name, engaged in the same work, but also had the same lifespans.
†Regius Bertcandus is a writer who is said to have written down the measurements of the largest ancient letters, which are thought by some to be called Uncials. Bertcandus is mentioned in a letter from Lupus von Ferrieres to Einhard from 836. In the letter, Lupus asks for an introduction to Calculus, or Easter festival calculation. Regius Bertcandus, Generative AI
‡“seventh, eighth, ninth, or other century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
The Easter calculations were performed by Dionysius Exiguus [475–544] and by Denis Pétau (Dionysius Petavius) [1583–1652]. It is noteworthy that not only do they share the same name, engaged in the same work, but also had the same lifespans.
16.11 An example of this simulation and fraud is adduced by Dom Montfaucon himself, in his Palaeography, p. 326, from the Royal Codex, 1684, on parchment, which contains the Gospels for the year elegantly written.* The year 1336 is noted at the end.
“The character of the eleventh century,” he says, “has been imitated by the amanuensis” (although he wrote in the fourteenth); “but those who are used to turning over MSS can recognise the difference at the first glance.”†
So the dishonest amanuensis was not crafty in the practice of his art. That fourteenth century was more productive than any other of spurious codices.‡§
*Dom Montfaucon, 1655–1741.
†“the eleventh century, the fourteenth”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‡“That fourteenth century” Scaliger’s chronology.
§The fourteenth century was more productive for the hoaxers due, no doubt, to the copious amounts of surplus clothes from the victims of the bubonic plague that were converted into inexpensive paper.
The amanuenses did not require craftiness, as the plan was to overwhelm posterity by the multitude of works produced by the hoaxers.
†“the eleventh century, the fourteenth”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‡“That fourteenth century” Scaliger’s chronology.
§The fourteenth century was more productive for the hoaxers due, no doubt, to the copious amounts of surplus clothes from the victims of the bubonic plague that were converted into inexpensive paper.
The amanuenses did not require craftiness, as the plan was to overwhelm posterity by the multitude of works produced by the hoaxers.
16.12 For the recent date of MS Codices, despite the lies of amanuenses, or rather of the forgers, there is a proof, among others, to be derived from the MS Codex of St. Jerome, which is in the Royal Library. For the most skilled judges, on inspecting the character, would make solemn asseveration that it is scarce three hundred years old and, yet, at the end the amanuensis makes the statement in Greek that it was written more than six hundred years ago. Father R. Simon, in his select Letters, tom. 1, p. 218, says,
“I will tell you only here in general, that very able critics have believed Greek MSS to be twelve hundred years old, which were nevertheless quite new.”
The Codex Amiatinus is the earliest surviving manuscript of the complete Bible in Latin Vulgate. It is considered the most accurate copy of Saint Jerome's original translation and was produced around 700 in the northeast of England at the Benedictine Monkwearmouth–Jarrow Abbey. The Codex Amiatinus is one of three giant, single–volume Bibles made at Wearmouth–Jarrow in the early years of the 8th century. It contains copies of both the Old and New Testament, written on 1,030 leaves of parchment made from at least 515 animal skins. Codex Amiatinus, Generative AI
Codex Amiatinus is “7 inches thick, and weighs over 75 pounds.”
H. J. White, The Codex Amiatinus and its Birthplace, in: Studia Biblica et Ecclesiasctica [sic]
(Oxford 1890), Vol. II, p. 273.
By using Codex Amiatinus as the typical volume of a Bible, it can be concluded that every Bible before the age of printing required over 500 animal skins. Codex Amiatinus has 1,040 leaves and the King James Bible version has 783,137 words. Therefore, each leaf has approximately 752 words; each page, 376 words.
Saint Augustine's works total over five million words. Generative AI
Saint Augustine's works would require 13,441 sheets or 3,288 animal skins, of which “at least a fourth part” are “iterations” [3.18a].
Codex Amiatinus is “7 inches thick, and weighs over 75 pounds.”
H. J. White, The Codex Amiatinus and its Birthplace, in: Studia Biblica et Ecclesiasctica [sic]
(Oxford 1890), Vol. II, p. 273.
By using Codex Amiatinus as the typical volume of a Bible, it can be concluded that every Bible before the age of printing required over 500 animal skins. Codex Amiatinus has 1,040 leaves and the King James Bible version has 783,137 words. Therefore, each leaf has approximately 752 words; each page, 376 words.
Saint Augustine's works total over five million words. Generative AI
Saint Augustine's works would require 13,441 sheets or 3,288 animal skins, of which “at least a fourth part” are “iterations” [3.18a].
16.13 No Hebrew MSS are believed to be more than four hundred years old, i.e., in the fourteenth century were written and depraved all that we now possess; because in the Hebrew characters they could not, as in the Latin, invent different forms, like the Merovingic, the Lombardic, the Saxon, etc., of their alleged sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries, etc.*†
*“the fourteenth century” and “sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries”: Scaliger’s chronology.
† Merovingic, the Lombardic, the Saxon scripts possesse lines, circles, and semicircles that were based on the Latin alphabet. Due to the exacting shape of the Hebrew letters, such as the similar forms of Mem, Tet, and Sameck, the script could not be easily manipulated to create variants.
There were four major centers of Merovingian script: the monasteries of Luxeuil, Laon, Corbie, and Chelles. Luxeuil is located 80 miles north-west of Basel, Switzerland; Laon, 100 miles north-east of Paris; Corbie, 90 miles north of Paris; Chelles is 11 miles east of Paris.
Unlike Gothic capitals, Lombardic capitals were also used to write words or entire phrases.
Lombardic capitals, Wikipedia
Anglo-Saxon runes (Old English: rūna ᚱᚢᚾᚪ) were used by the early Anglo-Saxons as an alphabet in their writing system. Today, the characters are known collectively as the futhorc (ᚠᚢᚦᚩᚱᚳ fuþorc) from the sound values of the first six runes. The futhorc was a development from the 24-character Elder Futhark. Futhorc also recorded Old Frisian along with Old English. Anglo-Saxon runes, Wikipedia
Hardouin indicates that no “Hebrew MSS are believed to be” written before “the fourteenth century.” This supposition creates doubt regarding the accurate transmission of the Old Testament texts from the ancient Israelites to the Age of Printing.
Manuscripts earlier than the 13th century are very rare. The majority of the manuscripts have survived in a fragmentary condition.
List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts, Wikipedia
The codex is now preserved in the National Library of Russia. Its former owner, Abraham Firkovich, left no indication in his writings where he had acquired the codex, which was taken to Odessa in 1838 and later transferred to the Imperial Library in St Petersburg.
Leningrad Codex, Wikipedia
The Leningrad Codex is “the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, using the Masoretic Text and Tiberian vocalization.” Although dated to the eleventh century, its provenance begins in 1838.
† Merovingic, the Lombardic, the Saxon scripts possesse lines, circles, and semicircles that were based on the Latin alphabet. Due to the exacting shape of the Hebrew letters, such as the similar forms of Mem, Tet, and Sameck, the script could not be easily manipulated to create variants.
There were four major centers of Merovingian script: the monasteries of Luxeuil, Laon, Corbie, and Chelles. Luxeuil is located 80 miles north-west of Basel, Switzerland; Laon, 100 miles north-east of Paris; Corbie, 90 miles north of Paris; Chelles is 11 miles east of Paris.
Unlike Gothic capitals, Lombardic capitals were also used to write words or entire phrases.
Lombardic capitals, Wikipedia
Anglo-Saxon runes (Old English: rūna ᚱᚢᚾᚪ) were used by the early Anglo-Saxons as an alphabet in their writing system. Today, the characters are known collectively as the futhorc (ᚠᚢᚦᚩᚱᚳ fuþorc) from the sound values of the first six runes. The futhorc was a development from the 24-character Elder Futhark. Futhorc also recorded Old Frisian along with Old English. Anglo-Saxon runes, Wikipedia
Hardouin indicates that no “Hebrew MSS are believed to be” written before “the fourteenth century.” This supposition creates doubt regarding the accurate transmission of the Old Testament texts from the ancient Israelites to the Age of Printing.
Manuscripts earlier than the 13th century are very rare. The majority of the manuscripts have survived in a fragmentary condition.
List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts, Wikipedia
The codex is now preserved in the National Library of Russia. Its former owner, Abraham Firkovich, left no indication in his writings where he had acquired the codex, which was taken to Odessa in 1838 and later transferred to the Imperial Library in St Petersburg.
Leningrad Codex, Wikipedia
The Leningrad Codex is “the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, using the Masoretic Text and Tiberian vocalization.” Although dated to the eleventh century, its provenance begins in 1838.
16.14 We have no MSS of the Bible in our Libraries that are not elegant, written, and illuminated in the best manner; because there are none there except corrupt ones, ⟨none but those⟩ which the impious crew found it to their interest to preserve in book–cases that they might be brought forth at the due season. Of the Vulgate Edition, on the contrary, there are no copies in the Libraries, because, in point of fact, none of them were written except for use; when worn out, they were thrown away, as is now the practice.*† Before they were worn out they were employed by the librarii (or bookmen) for the purpose of making other similar copies.
*Codex Sinaiticus came to the attention of scholars in the 19th century at Saint Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula, with further material discovered in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Codex Sinaiticus, Wikipedia
Tischendorf “wrote that in 1844, during his first visit to the Saint Catherine's Monastery, he saw some leaves of parchment in a waste–basket. They were ‘rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery.’" ibid.
†The Codex Vaticanus is a biblical manuscript that has been found in the Vatican Library since at least 1475. It is also known as “B”. The Codex Vaticanus is one of the oldest surviving copies of the Bible and is named after the Vatican Library, where it has been kept. It is the most complete Greek version of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint. However, the first twenty leaves of the Book of Genesis are missing, as well as the two books of Maccabees and a few other minor parts. The New Testament also lacks Hebrews from chapter 9, verse 14, on the Pastorals, Philemon, and Revelation.
Codex Vaticanus, Generative AI
And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan and he read it. 2 Kings 22:8
Perhaps the hoaxers, inspired by the story of Hilkiah, decided to hide books in religious buildings with limited access.
Whoever the hoaxers were, they must have had almost unrestricted access to the monastic libraries from the time of storing the books to the time, decades or centuries later, of removing them. This either indicates the hoaxers, over many generations, were on familiar terms with the abbots or the abbots were bribed. The inducement would not necessarily be great, as the simple requirement was to safely store books written by the Fathers in an obscure section of the monastery. On the surface, the request was neither illegal, immoral, or unethical.
Codex Sinaiticus, Wikipedia
Tischendorf “wrote that in 1844, during his first visit to the Saint Catherine's Monastery, he saw some leaves of parchment in a waste–basket. They were ‘rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery.’" ibid.
†The Codex Vaticanus is a biblical manuscript that has been found in the Vatican Library since at least 1475. It is also known as “B”. The Codex Vaticanus is one of the oldest surviving copies of the Bible and is named after the Vatican Library, where it has been kept. It is the most complete Greek version of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint. However, the first twenty leaves of the Book of Genesis are missing, as well as the two books of Maccabees and a few other minor parts. The New Testament also lacks Hebrews from chapter 9, verse 14, on the Pastorals, Philemon, and Revelation.
Codex Vaticanus, Generative AI
And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan and he read it. 2 Kings 22:8
Perhaps the hoaxers, inspired by the story of Hilkiah, decided to hide books in religious buildings with limited access.
Whoever the hoaxers were, they must have had almost unrestricted access to the monastic libraries from the time of storing the books to the time, decades or centuries later, of removing them. This either indicates the hoaxers, over many generations, were on familiar terms with the abbots or the abbots were bribed. The inducement would not necessarily be great, as the simple requirement was to safely store books written by the Fathers in an obscure section of the monastery. On the surface, the request was neither illegal, immoral, or unethical.
16.15 That Books are of recent origin is also manifest from the fact that although the French were easily inflamed with the desire of learning what had been written, yet, there was no Royal Library before Charles V, called the Wise, King of the French.* He, partly out of books which his father King John left to him at his death, partly out of those which he himself acquired, founded a Library of nine hundred volumes and it was a vast number of books for those times.† Afterwards, it was greatly augmented by Francis I and by Catherine of Medici, books having been brought from Florence from the Library of Lorenzo of Medici. Late in the fifteenth century, Nicholas V a Pope very studious of antiquity, caused inquiry to be made for Greek books, which he had rendered into Latin.‡ But in the year 1304, Simon, Bishop of Paris, has no other books to bequeath to his Church, except '‘books of the Chapel for the use of the Paris Church,” as we read in the Martyrology of that Church, in Du Bois, p. 532.§‖
*Charles V, called the Wise, King of the French, r. 1364–1380.
Hardouin suggests that libraries would be manifest shortly after many books were written, as a dedicated facility for their storage and preservation would be required. Since the Royal Library did not exist before Charles V, the conclusion is that books only became commonplace during the later half of the fourteenth century.
†King John, r. 1350–1364.
‡Francis I, r. 1515–1547; Catherine of Medici, 1519–1589; Nicholas V, r. 1447–1455.
§Simon Matifort, Bishop of Paris, r. 1290–1304.
https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dpars.html
‖The books are the personal property of the Bishop; not among the possessions of the church.
Hardouin suggests that libraries would be manifest shortly after many books were written, as a dedicated facility for their storage and preservation would be required. Since the Royal Library did not exist before Charles V, the conclusion is that books only became commonplace during the later half of the fourteenth century.
†King John, r. 1350–1364.
‡Francis I, r. 1515–1547; Catherine of Medici, 1519–1589; Nicholas V, r. 1447–1455.
§Simon Matifort, Bishop of Paris, r. 1290–1304.
https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dpars.html
‖The books are the personal property of the Bishop; not among the possessions of the church.
16.16 The books which Stephen Tampier, bishop of Paris, bequeaths to his Church in the year 1279 are these and none but these, as we read in the Necrology of the Church of Paris, in Du Boie, p. 402:
‘‘Item, he gave to the bishopric of Paris, and to the bishops his successors, books pertaining to the Office of the Church; namely, Two Missals, a Gospel and Epistles in two volumes, three Graduals, an Episcopal Ordinary; item, one Collectary; item, one Troperium; item, one Breviary of gross letters for the Paris use; item, one Breviary in two volumes covered with green hide; item, one small Breviary; item, two Ordinaries on the ordinary of Service. Item, he bought a postillate Bible in two volumes, at the price of two hundred pounds, for the needs of the Chancellor and the Paris Chancery.”*†‡
* Bishop Étienn Templier (Tempier), r. 1268–1279.
https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/btemplier.html
†The books are given to the “bishopric” and to “his successors,” not to the church.
‡postillate: obsolete, 1. to annotate, to postil; 2. to preach from homilies or postils.
https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/btemplier.html
†The books are given to the “bishopric” and to “his successors,” not to the church.
‡postillate: obsolete, 1. to annotate, to postil; 2. to preach from homilies or postils.
16.16a No more! No Augustine there, no Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom, or Gregory appears, no Master of Sentences, or other ⟨like⟩ feigned writers, disguised under great names, to the destruction of our most holy religion.* Do you suppose that the Bishop of Paris would have been wanting in that age so many distinguished writers—whom the alleged “Peter Lombard,” also Bishop of Paris, if we believe the tale, possessed and diligently copied more than a hundred years before—had they been in existence in the later bishops’ time?†‡
Again, on p. 531, you have a long eulogy from the same Martyrology of Bishop Simon of Paris, who is said to have died 1304. There is a list of his bequests to the Church of Paris; not a book among them!§
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Jerome, 347–419/420; Ambrose of Milan, c. 339–397; John Chrysostom, c. 347–407; or Gregory of Nazianzus, 329–390; Gregory of Nyssa, c. 335–395.
† Peter Lombard, 1100–1160.
Not listed in https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dpars.html.
Peter Lombard, Wikipedia.
‡One of the risks of a fraudulent chronology is that oddities emerge, such as examples of bequests of religious books wherein the works of the Fathers are expected, but none are found. Another difficulty is that a hoaxer must be vigilant in having information that the earlier genuine writers did not possess and to not divulge this knowledge in their works. An example of customs not known to the ancients is the additive and subtractive properties of Roman numerals.
His substaunce was vij. M. shepe, iij.M. camels, v.C. yock of oxen, v.C. she asses,
Coverdale Bible [1535], Job 1:3
Job had 500 oxen: “v.” is read as “five” and “C.” is read as “hundred.” Therefore, ”v.C.” is read together as “five hundred.” The letter “M.” is read as “thousand” and has a full stop following the letter. The number of sheep is seven thousand, as the full stop is omitted from the “v” to indicate that that “v” is added to “ii” to total seven, just as the “iij” is added to total three and read as three thousand camels. The numbers for the yoke of oxen and the she asses include full stops, so these letters are read as their respective numbers, “five” and “hundred,” i.e., “five hundred” yoke, not as ninety five yoke.
Hys substaunce was .vij.M. shepe .iij.M. camels .v.C. youck of oxen .v.C. she asses, & a very greate housholde: Matthew’s Bible [1537], Job 1:3
His substaunce also was seuen .M. shepe, & thre .M. camels, .v.C. youck of oxen, & fyue .C. she asses,
The Great Bible [1539], Job 1:3
His substaunce also was seuen thousand sheepe, and three thousand camels, fiue hundred yoke of oxen, and fiue hundred shee asses, Bishop’s Bible [1568], Job 1:3
From 1537 to 1568, the numbers in Job 1:3 transitioned from being fully noted in Roman numerals to being written completely in English. The same development is demonstrated from a passage of Revelation:
And I loked and loo a lambe stode on the mount Syon and with him C. and xliiii. thousande…
Tyndale Bible [1534], Rev. 14:1
“C. and xliiii. thousande” is read as “100 and 44 thousand.” The subtractive property is utilized, as “x” is
deducted from “l” for the value of forty.
And I loked, and lo, a lambe stode on the mout Syon, and with him .C. and xliiij. thousande…
Coverdale Bible [1535], Rev. 14:1
And I loked, and lo a lamb stode on the mounte Syon, and wyth him an hundred & .xliiij. thousand…
Matthew’s Bible [1537], Rev. 14:1
And I loked, and lo, a lambe stode on the mount Syon, & with hym an .C. & .xliiii. thousande…
The Great Bible [1539], Rev. 14:1
And I loked, and lo, a lambe stoode on the mount Sion, and with hym an hundreth fourtie and foure thousande,... Bishop’s Bible [1568], Rev. 14:1
https://textusreceptusbibles.com/
16.17 Similarly in the year 1271, when study began to be taken up in earnest in Paris, the Archdeacon of Canterbury ⟨there⟩ bequeathed to the Chancellor of Paris all his books “of Theology, to be accommodated to the use of poor scholars and students at Paris in theology, and needing books.”* They are fourteen volumes, each containing some part of the Bible, with a Gloss. The whole instrument of that donation is extant in Claudius Hemeraeus’ treatise on the Academy of Paris, pp. 55–57.† None of the “Fathers” is here, none of the Scholastic Theologians who are said to have written before the fourteenth century.‡
*Once again, the books are bequeathed to an individual, not to a church.
†Academy of Paris, pub.1637.
‡“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
A donation from England in 1271 consisted of fourteen volumes, but there were no writings of the Fathers or scholastic theologians who wrote before the fourteenth century.
†Academy of Paris, pub.1637.
‡“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
A donation from England in 1271 consisted of fourteen volumes, but there were no writings of the Fathers or scholastic theologians who wrote before the fourteenth century.
16.18 In the same small treatise, p. 57, we find another Catalogue of “books which are of the Armary of St. Mary of Paris,” taken from a small Pastorale, which was not written before the fourteenth century.*† There are altogether thirty–eight volumes, of like subject matter, i.e., they are so many parts of the Bible, with Glosses. At the end there are added the Sentences and the Questions of Peter of Poietiers [sic].‡ Altogether there were forty volumes; a vast treasure of books for those times. None of the “Fathers” is there, no Ecclesiastical History and only one Scholastic theologian.
*Armary: a library: used by Wyclif in the plural for books, writings.
†“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‡Peter of Poitiers, c.1125/1130–1205.
†“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger’s chronology.
‡Peter of Poitiers, c.1125/1130–1205.
16.19 After the capture of Constantinople by Mahomet II there were about fifty MS Codices in the Patriarchium of the city; so says Ant. Verderius and after him Ant. Possevin.* See Dom Montfaucon, p. 20.† In the whole city, ⟨though so ample,⟩ scarce one hundred and eighty were found and what has become of them is unknown. See Montfaucon again. ‡
*Mahomet II, 1432–1481; Antonius Verderius, 1544–1600; Antonio Possevino, 1533–1611.
†Dom Bernard de Montfaucon, Jan. 16, 1655–Dec. 21, 1741, was an astute scholar who founded the discipline of palaeography, as well as being an editor of works of the Fathers of the Church and is regarded as one of the founders of the modern discipline of archaeology. He was born in the Province of Languedoc. Bernard de Montfaucon, Wikipedia
‡In 1453, the Patriarchal library is reported to have held fifty codices. A contemporary of Hardouin, Montfaucon, states that Constantinople held approximately 180 codices.
†Dom Bernard de Montfaucon, Jan. 16, 1655–Dec. 21, 1741, was an astute scholar who founded the discipline of palaeography, as well as being an editor of works of the Fathers of the Church and is regarded as one of the founders of the modern discipline of archaeology. He was born in the Province of Languedoc. Bernard de Montfaucon, Wikipedia
‡In 1453, the Patriarchal library is reported to have held fifty codices. A contemporary of Hardouin, Montfaucon, states that Constantinople held approximately 180 codices.
16.20 In the whole of Greece this side of Byzantium, except perchance on Mount Athos—where the number of books in existence is unknown—you can hardly infer with certainty from Dora Bernard de Montfaucon’s description that there were one hundred Greek MS books.*†‡ Of the rest of the East, we have no information. But in the West, i.e., in France, Italy, England, Germany, Holland, he says on p. 21, that the number hardly reached twenty thousand. How many more than in the East! The reason is that in the West, all [the books] were first written by the forgers. More has been adduced on this head in my work On Greek MSS.§
*The phrase “the whole of Greece this side of Byzantium” is a strange expression, as the mainland of Greece is west of Byzantium.
†An Orthodox community of 20 monasteries on a peninsula in western Greece with a “vast repository of manuscripts”. Monastic community of Mount Athos, Wikipedia
‡Montfaucon, 1655–1741.
§No information could be located for the book “On Greek Manuscripts.”
†An Orthodox community of 20 monasteries on a peninsula in western Greece with a “vast repository of manuscripts”. Monastic community of Mount Athos, Wikipedia
‡Montfaucon, 1655–1741.
§No information could be located for the book “On Greek Manuscripts.”
16.21 The gang of forgers had Alphabets and Inks in both tongues, Greek and Latin, and parchments to suit every age. A notable example of the fraud is that the copies which they ⟨made believe⟩ [pretend] to be about one thousand years old (at the present time) [8th century] wherever they were written, show the same form of writing, the same character; simply because the writers had the same alphabet before their eyes. In the year 1712, the Epitome of Lactantius was published from a MS of the Turin Library.* The Editor gave a specimen of the letters in which the MS was written; it is precisely the same character as that in the Royal Codex of the Epistles of St. Paul, as Dom Montfauoon has shown it against p. 27 of his Palaeography; and in the Codex of St. Germain of Paul’s Epistles, against p. 218, and in our Codex of the Four Gospels. So alike is the character everywhere, you might swear that all these Codices came not only out of one workshop, but from one hand; or if from many, [then] certainly from those who had the same alphabet before their eye [sic]—or form of letters which they accurately preserved in painting each. Dom Mabillon in his work on Diplomatics, p. 233, says:
“I do not test the truth of falsehood” (of the diplomats) “only by the material, which smacks of a high antiquity; but at the same time by other characters, and above all style. The mask of the impostor shall not escape me under the show of the bark, or the seeming age of a lying hand–writing, and if the other features do not agree.”†‡
He means by Bark the material on which they wrote.
*Lactantius, c. 250– c. 325.
†Dom Jean Mabillon, 1632–1707.
‡“and above all style”: Style is a subjective methodology.
†Dom Jean Mabillon, 1632–1707.
‡“and above all style”: Style is a subjective methodology.
chapter 17
The connection between Augustine, Wyclif, Luther, Calvin, and Jansenius as Heretics. A great number of Heresies in the monastic books are fictions: they nowhere exist. The purpose in their Invention explained.
17.01 1 THERE was no public Heresy, no public persecution in the Church, from the time when the Church of the Gentiles was founded and the Synagogue destroyed, until Wycliffe.*†‡ He first used the books under the name of Augustine and others forged for the purpose of attack upon the Church. Augustine first begot Wyclif, Wyclif begot Luther and Calvin, Calvin begot Jansenius, and scarce other Heresies has the Christian world beheld.§
*There were no public heresies and “no public persecution in the Church” is difficult to interpret. It seems that the Church did not persecute heretics publicly, but in private, or, more likely, through secular authorities. Jacques de Molay [1245–1313] and Jan Huss [1369–1415] are two notable examples of heretics punished by secular authorities.
†“Synagogue destroyed”: The destruction of the Jewish Temple in the year 70.
‡John Wycliffe, c. 1328–1384.
§Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Martin Luther, 1483–1546; John Calvin, 1509–1564; Cornelius Jansenius, 1585–1638.
†“Synagogue destroyed”: The destruction of the Jewish Temple in the year 70.
‡John Wycliffe, c. 1328–1384.
§Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Martin Luther, 1483–1546; John Calvin, 1509–1564; Cornelius Jansenius, 1585–1638.
17.02 What you read ⟨of⟩ in books as Heresies are fictions, invented for the purpose of being opposed, and so establishing Atheism.* They are all inexplicable and fatuous—Manichaean, Arian, Macedonian, Eutyohian, Nestorian, Pelagian, and all the rest; i.e., if we understand by the name of God, of whom they discourse in these heresies, the true God whom Catholics know and worship.† But, on the contrary, all these heresies are easy to understand if God is assumed to be none other than he whom impiety owns: The Essence of all Essences, or The Formal universal Verity of all Truth.
*The hoaxers created the narrative and so it is immaterial to the goal of atheism if the readers believe the defense of Christianity by the “Fathers” or the descriptions of the heresies. The fictitious Heresies establish atheism.
†Mani, 216–274; Arius, 250 or 256–336; Macedonius died after 360; Eutyches, c. 380–c. 456; Nestorius, c. 386–c. 451; Pelagius, c. 355–c. 420.
†Mani, 216–274; Arius, 250 or 256–336; Macedonius died after 360; Eutyches, c. 380–c. 456; Nestorius, c. 386–c. 451; Pelagius, c. 355–c. 420.
17.03 It is ⟨, again,⟩ clear that these heresies were feigned and fabulous, from the fact that they nowhere exist in the world.* ⟨None renew⟩ [No one renews] them and this because they are fatuous and insane, and invented with the sole object that, by opposing them in definitions of Councils and in special controversial writings, impiety may be suggested.† The words God and Father and Son and Holy Spirit and other Religious words are understood in the sense expounded by the writers who have written these very definitions. But on the other hand, the true heresies championed by heresiarchs and their followers will hardly ever—such is human wickedness—cease. Such are the Lutheran, the Calvinist, the Jansenist, etc.; for they fall within the intelligence of the common people.‡
*The formerly feigned and fabulous heresies are manifest in the modern world and are either received with apathy or are viewed as mundane. The suggestion that impiety is introduced by the Fathers when they defend Christianity and attack the heresies is an unexpected statement.
“Unless impiety is blatant, it is likely to be overlooked by the typical or unsuspecting reader. Inappropriate or “not suitable or proper in the circumstances”, while also subjective, is oftentimes easier to identify than impiety. An example of an inappropriate statement is found in Augustine’s “City of God”, where the reader learns that "harlots were called lupæ, she-wolves, from which their vile abodes are even yet called lupanaria" [Book 18, Chapter 21]. Let us be clear: learning the Roman nicknames of prostitutes is not applicable to either Christianity or Christian doctrine.”
†The hoaxers, by discussing heresies in the writings of the various councils and the Fathers, made the heresies available to the public. By “recording” the heresies in detail, along with their commentaries, the Fathers perpetuate the heresies. The charitable explanation that the Fathers were attempting to undermine heresies is unwarranted.
The impieties found in the Fathers is subtle and unobtrusive to the typical reader. However, these impieties can be identified, if the reader asks “Is this comment, or is this statement appropriate, for a Christian book?” These inappropriate statements, although unobtrusive, lead the thoughtful reader, not to explicit atheistic statements, which would result in the destruction of the book, but to notice the subtle inconsistencies in the unstated conclusions of the various statements that a careful reader would notice. This reader would realize that the author himself must have understood the implications of his statements, with the result, firstly, that the reader questions the teachings of the Fathers and, secondly, that the reader doubts the teachings of the Church. Otherwise said, careful readers will become future co–conspirators for atheism; the ultimate design of the hoaxers.
‡Martin Luther, 1483– 1546; John Calvin, 1509–1564; Cornelius Jansenius; 1585–1638.
The “common people” will always accept the teachings of the heretics, as their doctrines are easily understood, being “fabulous,” or fables, and “inexplicable” [17.02]. The acceptance of inconsistencies found in these teachings are not a hindrance for “lowest vulgar herd,” as dual minded individuals are unstable [James 1:8]. The inability to elucidate various aspects of the heresies are explained to the “common people” by stating that God’s ways are not our ways [Isaiah 55:8]. This explanation offers no clarification, expounds nothing, and is a justification for nonsense, readily accepted by those with “no large views”.
“Unless impiety is blatant, it is likely to be overlooked by the typical or unsuspecting reader. Inappropriate or “not suitable or proper in the circumstances”, while also subjective, is oftentimes easier to identify than impiety. An example of an inappropriate statement is found in Augustine’s “City of God”, where the reader learns that "harlots were called lupæ, she-wolves, from which their vile abodes are even yet called lupanaria" [Book 18, Chapter 21]. Let us be clear: learning the Roman nicknames of prostitutes is not applicable to either Christianity or Christian doctrine.”
†The hoaxers, by discussing heresies in the writings of the various councils and the Fathers, made the heresies available to the public. By “recording” the heresies in detail, along with their commentaries, the Fathers perpetuate the heresies. The charitable explanation that the Fathers were attempting to undermine heresies is unwarranted.
The impieties found in the Fathers is subtle and unobtrusive to the typical reader. However, these impieties can be identified, if the reader asks “Is this comment, or is this statement appropriate, for a Christian book?” These inappropriate statements, although unobtrusive, lead the thoughtful reader, not to explicit atheistic statements, which would result in the destruction of the book, but to notice the subtle inconsistencies in the unstated conclusions of the various statements that a careful reader would notice. This reader would realize that the author himself must have understood the implications of his statements, with the result, firstly, that the reader questions the teachings of the Fathers and, secondly, that the reader doubts the teachings of the Church. Otherwise said, careful readers will become future co–conspirators for atheism; the ultimate design of the hoaxers.
‡Martin Luther, 1483– 1546; John Calvin, 1509–1564; Cornelius Jansenius; 1585–1638.
The “common people” will always accept the teachings of the heretics, as their doctrines are easily understood, being “fabulous,” or fables, and “inexplicable” [17.02]. The acceptance of inconsistencies found in these teachings are not a hindrance for “lowest vulgar herd,” as dual minded individuals are unstable [James 1:8]. The inability to elucidate various aspects of the heresies are explained to the “common people” by stating that God’s ways are not our ways [Isaiah 55:8]. This explanation offers no clarification, expounds nothing, and is a justification for nonsense, readily accepted by those with “no large views”.
17.04 Ought not every one to wonder at the alleged fact that the Heresies sprang up in the order in which divers tracts on Religion may be arranged in the schools?* The first Heresies against the Trinity in general brought in eight Aeons, as Ptolemaeus; or Thirty, as Valentinus; or three hundred and sixty–five, as Basilides.† Then it is pretended that Marcion and Manes madly erred concerning God the Father; Arius on the consubstantiality of the Word; Macedonia on the Holy Spirit; Nestorius on the unity of Christ; then Eutyches on the two natures in Christ; Sergius and Pyrrhus on the two wills; the Iconomachi on the cult of images,and specially whether the image of Christ can be called the image of God and then disputes began on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, on predestination, etc.‡
*The manifestation of the heresies is logically presented in history books which span many centuries. In reality, controversies extending above one generation are resolved without any obvious principle of organization. For example, the resolutions of slavery, women’s suffrage, and prohibition in the United States should have been found in the organizing principles of the Constitution and its amendments, yet, were not. Hardouin’s observation that the order of the historical heresies is ideal to a methodical treatment in the seminaries is among the compelling evidence for the existence of a chronological hoax.
†Ptolemaeus, 2nd century; Valentinus, d. c. 180; Basilides, 2nd century.
Hardouin mentions the conflicting number of aeons among the various heresies. For some readers, this will be their initial encounter with the term Aeons, which “belong to a purely ideal, noumenal, intelligible, or supersensible world; they are immaterial, they are hypostatic ideas. Together with the source from which they emanate, they form Pleroma” [Aeon (Gnosticism), Wikipedia].
‡Marcion, d. 160; Manes, d. 274; Arius, d. 336; Macedonia, 4th century; Nestorius, d. c. 451; Eutyches, d. c. 456; Sergius, d. 638; Pyrrhus, d. 655; the Iconomachi, 8th and 9th centuries.
†Ptolemaeus, 2nd century; Valentinus, d. c. 180; Basilides, 2nd century.
Hardouin mentions the conflicting number of aeons among the various heresies. For some readers, this will be their initial encounter with the term Aeons, which “belong to a purely ideal, noumenal, intelligible, or supersensible world; they are immaterial, they are hypostatic ideas. Together with the source from which they emanate, they form Pleroma” [Aeon (Gnosticism), Wikipedia].
‡Marcion, d. 160; Manes, d. 274; Arius, d. 336; Macedonia, 4th century; Nestorius, d. c. 451; Eutyches, d. c. 456; Sergius, d. 638; Pyrrhus, d. 655; the Iconomachi, 8th and 9th centuries.
17.05 It is, however, the greatest interest of all the heresies which now flourish to defend to the utmost those alleged old heresies from attack as fictions, because it is the object of the impious theorists to defend the decrees in Councils against those heresies—the decrees defended by the “Fathers” so–called, as consenters to that impiety.* But they will never succeed in disguising from men of sound mind the extreme fatuousness of those heresies, if by the names God and Word and Christ, and Holy Spirit and substance and person, and other names, that be understood as of necessity, which the faith teaches and the Catholic faith itself understands.†
*The hoaxers control the narrative, since ‘the decrees defended by the “Fathers”’ consent “to that impiety” in the councils. As always, the impiety and atheism that Hardouin found in the Fathers is covert and, without a proper understanding of Christianity, remains unnoticed.
†fatuousness: the quality of being stupid, not correct, or not carefully thought about.
†fatuousness: the quality of being stupid, not correct, or not carefully thought about.
17.06 I deny that the Arian or Pelagian or any other heresy existed. But I do not say that any who may think with Pelagius and Arius, as they are described in books, are not heretics, but atheists and fools. Nay, I boldly pronounce that if there were such men, [then] they were not only heretics, but atheists and fools. I only deny that any such men existed and that, equally, they and their adversaries who invented them are to be abominated.*
*It is a spark of brilliance to write under the names of Church Fathers and to refute nonexistent heresies, while subtly directing the attentive reader to atheism. Of course, discussing nonexistent heresies ensures their possible emergence, just as the multipage description of an induced abortion by Tertullian in “On the Soul” ensures that this knowledge is passed to another generation. Otherwise said, the plot proposed by Hardouin is diabolical.
17.07 A manifest example of the fraud of the invention of fabulous heresies with a view to suggest true ones, appears in Manuel Caleca, an alleged writer of the fourteenth century, in his fourth book against the Greeks.*† For he so attacks those who deny Purgatory as himself to actually do away with Purgatory and of the Eucharist in like manner and of the procession of the Holy Spirit he holds heretical and atheist opinions.‡ And all of the same herd are of Caleca’s mind.§
*Manuel Caleca, 1360–1410.
†“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
‡Likewise, Tertullian’s “On the Soul” places the immortal human soul in at least five locations, such as the brain, the heart, and throughout the body, and, by locating the soul in various parts of the body, the thoughtful reader will realize that the author himself does not believe in the existence of the immortal soul, otherwise only one definite statement would be made concerning the location of the soul. Tertullian “so attacks those who deny” the immortal soul “as himself to actually do away with” the immortal soul. The immortal soul was not a Roman Catholic dogma until 1513, so an exoteric defense of the immortal soul suggests that its origin is ancient. However, esoterically understood, the attack on the immortal soul was likely written after the dogma was decreed. Interestingly, Tertullian is neither a Father nor a Saint in either the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox Churches. These four facts indicate the writings of Tertullian, c. 155– c. 220, were later than the east west schism and his works are possibly among the latest Fathers, as his views against remarriage of widows were various facets of marriage disputed among Protestants and Roman Catholics in the sixteenth century.
§The arguments used by the Fathers against their supposed opponents are often sophomoric, which allows those readers with no large views to readily side with the Fathers.
†“the fourteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
‡Likewise, Tertullian’s “On the Soul” places the immortal human soul in at least five locations, such as the brain, the heart, and throughout the body, and, by locating the soul in various parts of the body, the thoughtful reader will realize that the author himself does not believe in the existence of the immortal soul, otherwise only one definite statement would be made concerning the location of the soul. Tertullian “so attacks those who deny” the immortal soul “as himself to actually do away with” the immortal soul. The immortal soul was not a Roman Catholic dogma until 1513, so an exoteric defense of the immortal soul suggests that its origin is ancient. However, esoterically understood, the attack on the immortal soul was likely written after the dogma was decreed. Interestingly, Tertullian is neither a Father nor a Saint in either the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox Churches. These four facts indicate the writings of Tertullian, c. 155– c. 220, were later than the east west schism and his works are possibly among the latest Fathers, as his views against remarriage of widows were various facets of marriage disputed among Protestants and Roman Catholics in the sixteenth century.
§The arguments used by the Fathers against their supposed opponents are often sophomoric, which allows those readers with no large views to readily side with the Fathers.
17.08 The impious crew saw they should be fortunate and successful in their enterprise if they could persuade readers and posterity that the opinion of any one writer on divine things was the opinion of the whole Church. But nothing can be more craftily suggested in favor of the dogma of the whole Church, than the published condemnation of a heresy contrary to it. Therefore, they had to invent as many heresies and as many symbols against them, as there were evil dogmas to be inculcated and, by all and each, those heresies were designed to be attacked.*†
*inculcate: instill (an attitude, idea, or habit) by persistent instruction.
†When the introduction of the heresies was exhausted, they would be revived in later centuries by the hoaxers. The adage “history repeats itself” is true because it is written repetitiously.
†When the introduction of the heresies was exhausted, they would be revived in later centuries by the hoaxers. The adage “history repeats itself” is true because it is written repetitiously.
chapter 18
Lives of Saints and Martyrs clearly fabulous. The purpose in writing them. Their effect in producing true Jesuit martyrs. Church Histories and Lives of Saints a contemporaneous phenomenon with the rise of Romance in France.
18.01 TO men of less acute ability, but nevertheless well trained in impiety, was given the task of writing lives of Saints and Martyrs and Histories and these were wrapped up in wondrous episodes, each one striving to make his own little fable fairer than any other.* Hence, there are in them so many and so manifest hallucinations, so many anachronisms, so many things in conflict with one another.† Some things were so ingeniously written that they are not unlike histories; nay, they often pretend to more probability than the truth itself. That many fables have passed into History see the excellent passage in Baronius himself, against the year 853, no. lxi.‡
*The phrase “well trained in impiety” is a strange expression.
†The numerous anachronisms of history and the repetition of infrequent events are the direct result of Scaliger’s incorrect chronology. The strongest evidence for this erroneous chronology is that, even after three hundred years, archaeological discoveries often create difficulties for historians. Of course, these historians cannot conceive that the simplest explanation for these ever increasing number of anachronisms is that the chronology before 1650 is erroneous. As always, when a contradiction is encountered, then one should reexamine the premises, as at least one premise is incorrect. Otherwise said, contradictions do not exist; they exist only due to improper conclusions interpreted from the facts.
‡Caesar Baronius, 1538–1607.
†The numerous anachronisms of history and the repetition of infrequent events are the direct result of Scaliger’s incorrect chronology. The strongest evidence for this erroneous chronology is that, even after three hundred years, archaeological discoveries often create difficulties for historians. Of course, these historians cannot conceive that the simplest explanation for these ever increasing number of anachronisms is that the chronology before 1650 is erroneous. As always, when a contradiction is encountered, then one should reexamine the premises, as at least one premise is incorrect. Otherwise said, contradictions do not exist; they exist only due to improper conclusions interpreted from the facts.
‡Caesar Baronius, 1538–1607.
18.02 Plainly, it was necessary that both Lives of Saints and Acts of Martyrs should be written equally with Ecclesiastical History, so that out of the whole class of writers and monuments it might clearly appear that in each age of the Church the doctrine contained in the writings of the “Fathers” had been approved and handed down by holy men and, that for holding the same, numberless Martyrs had poured forth their blood.
*The lives of Saints and the acts of Martyrs were written simultaneously with ecclesiastical history, so that each age may have a sufficient number of both, along with pious descriptions of their lives and, regarding the martyrs, their deaths.
18.03 The fictitious stories of Martyrs have had this effect: that true martyrs have been found in these last times in Japan, Brazil, and elsewhere in the whole world; the Almighty ⟨thus⟩ bringing good out of the very lie.* For those stories inspire the minds of readers that, like unto their God, they may devote themselves, their toils and their life, even through greatest tortures. They say that John Gerson wrote that it was right to cleverly compose Lives of Saints, because they had much influence in the fostering of piety.†
*For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say,) “Let us do evil that good may come?” Rom. 3:7–8
†John Gerson, 1363–1429.
The writing of false biographies of the Saints and Martyrs inspires later day Christians to be Saints and Martyrs. This is a utilitarian concept, as the ends, present day suffering for the faith, justify the means, fabricated lives of the Martyrs and Saints. “God forbid that His Church should need or should use false witnesses or testimonies” [4.10].
†John Gerson, 1363–1429.
The writing of false biographies of the Saints and Martyrs inspires later day Christians to be Saints and Martyrs. This is a utilitarian concept, as the ends, present day suffering for the faith, justify the means, fabricated lives of the Martyrs and Saints. “God forbid that His Church should need or should use false witnesses or testimonies” [4.10].
18.04 The age in which the Romance fables (as they call them) began to be written in France, is that [age] in which so many Ecclesiastical Histories and Lives of Saints were forged.* It should not ⟨therefore⟩ appear more wonderful that false writings on dogmas were composed, than false Lives of Saints. But it is allowed that these are numberless. Nor should it more be said that the Church was deceived when she believed those writings of the “Fathers” to be genuine before examination, than it should be said that she was deceived because she long suffered lies to be inserted in the Breviary and public prayers and fables of Honorius, of George, of Catherine, and others; the like of which and others, in great numbers, experts confess are there contained to this day.†
*The Grail is first featured in Perceval, le Conte du Graal (The Story of the Grail) by Chrétien de Troyes, c.1160–1191, who claims he was working from a source book given to him by his patron, Count Philip of Flanders, 1143–1191. This incomplete poem is dated sometime between 1180 and 1191.
Holy Grail, Wikipedia
It was in the work of Robert de Boron [late 12th and early 13th centuries] that the Grail truly became the "Holy Grail" and assumed the form most familiar to modern readers in its Christian context. de Boron composed his verse romance Joseph d'Arimathie between 1191 and 1202, ibid.
Saul’s adventures in the New Testament are correctly understood as a Romance story, as he begins his quest opposed to Christianity, killing those who do not denounce Christ and, then, by divine intervention, becomes an outspoken champion of Christ. As a sign of his conversion, he changes his name from Saul to Paul and seeks to convert Jews. When these attempts repeatedly fail, he focuses on converting the Gentiles. Over many years, Saint Paul journeys to many towns, converts multitudes to the faith, endures tribulations, defeats foes in disputes, and, finally, travels to the world's capital to defend his beliefs before Caesar, where the end story ends unresolved.
Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods. Once was I stoned. Thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep. In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren, in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
2 Cor. 11:24–27
And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead. Acts 14:19
From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. Gal. 6:17
But they [the people of Syria and Cilicia, v.21] had heard only that he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed and they glorified God in me. Gal. 1:23–24
Paul was thought to be dead, yet, he now lives. The Galatians know that he has the marks of crucifixion and the people of Syria and Cilicia glorified God in him.
†“to be genuine before examination”: The Roman Church accepts the works of the Fathers at face value, in good faith, without a detailed inspection or investigation.
Holy Grail, Wikipedia
It was in the work of Robert de Boron [late 12th and early 13th centuries] that the Grail truly became the "Holy Grail" and assumed the form most familiar to modern readers in its Christian context. de Boron composed his verse romance Joseph d'Arimathie between 1191 and 1202, ibid.
Saul’s adventures in the New Testament are correctly understood as a Romance story, as he begins his quest opposed to Christianity, killing those who do not denounce Christ and, then, by divine intervention, becomes an outspoken champion of Christ. As a sign of his conversion, he changes his name from Saul to Paul and seeks to convert Jews. When these attempts repeatedly fail, he focuses on converting the Gentiles. Over many years, Saint Paul journeys to many towns, converts multitudes to the faith, endures tribulations, defeats foes in disputes, and, finally, travels to the world's capital to defend his beliefs before Caesar, where the end story ends unresolved.
Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods. Once was I stoned. Thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep. In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren, in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
2 Cor. 11:24–27
And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead. Acts 14:19
From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. Gal. 6:17
But they [the people of Syria and Cilicia, v.21] had heard only that he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed and they glorified God in me. Gal. 1:23–24
Paul was thought to be dead, yet, he now lives. The Galatians know that he has the marks of crucifixion and the people of Syria and Cilicia glorified God in him.
†“to be genuine before examination”: The Roman Church accepts the works of the Fathers at face value, in good faith, without a detailed inspection or investigation.
chapter 19
Renewed attack on Augustine as a teacher of Atheism. The literary Conspirators are all non Catholics: they have different conceptions under the same theological names; the “Fathers" the source of all heresies, whose common principle is Atheism: the Lutherans and Calviuists, in relying on them, lean upon a breaking reed. The Catholic Dogma set forth. Faith must be from hearing, not from many books. What the Catholic Religion and Society is.
19.0l IF any one would introduce Atheism, [then] he should do it craftily and so that it may be by no means recognised by men of strong understanding.* Can any one do this with greater subtlety and cunning than “Augustine on Free Will, Book 2,” does it?†
*Hardouin believes that persons possessing a “strong understanding” do not tolerate atheism, as though religious convictions, pious beliefs, and mental ability are positively correlated. However, Hardouin acknowledges that, among the hoaxers, “there were men of genius, but atheists” [15.04].
†The first dialogue of Book 2:
Evodius: Now explain to me, if you can, why God gave human beings free choice of the will, since if we had not received it, we would not have been able to sin.
Augustine: Do you know for certain that God gave us this thing that you think should not have been given?
https://library.uoh.edu.iq/admin/ebooks/57559–saint–augustine–bishop–of–hippo,–thomas–williams–(translator)–on–free–choice–of–the–will–––hackett–pub–co–inc–(1993).pdf
Now the serpent… said unto the woman, “Yea, hath God said, ‘Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?’” Gen. 3:1
Evodius believes that man has “free choice of the will” and this view is established by the actions of the first man, Adam, and the woman in the Garden in the account from Genesis. Augustine asks Evodius if he has certain knowledge that God gave men free will, which is information that Evodius cannot possess. Similarly, the serpent asks the woman a question she cannot answer, as she was formed after the prohibition of eating from the tree was given to Adam. The forbidding of the fruit was directed to Adam alone: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it” [Gen. 2:17]. The subject “thou” is singular, referring to Adam alone. Since the woman does not know what God said to Adam. she cannot answer the serpent’s question, although she makes an attempt: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ‘Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die’” [Gen 3:2–3]. The woman’s response is not in the expected singular subject, but in the plural: “Ye shall not,” “neither shall ye,” and ”lest ye die.”
†The first dialogue of Book 2:
Evodius: Now explain to me, if you can, why God gave human beings free choice of the will, since if we had not received it, we would not have been able to sin.
Augustine: Do you know for certain that God gave us this thing that you think should not have been given?
https://library.uoh.edu.iq/admin/ebooks/57559–saint–augustine–bishop–of–hippo,–thomas–williams–(translator)–on–free–choice–of–the–will–––hackett–pub–co–inc–(1993).pdf
Now the serpent… said unto the woman, “Yea, hath God said, ‘Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?’” Gen. 3:1
Evodius believes that man has “free choice of the will” and this view is established by the actions of the first man, Adam, and the woman in the Garden in the account from Genesis. Augustine asks Evodius if he has certain knowledge that God gave men free will, which is information that Evodius cannot possess. Similarly, the serpent asks the woman a question she cannot answer, as she was formed after the prohibition of eating from the tree was given to Adam. The forbidding of the fruit was directed to Adam alone: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it” [Gen. 2:17]. The subject “thou” is singular, referring to Adam alone. Since the woman does not know what God said to Adam. she cannot answer the serpent’s question, although she makes an attempt: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ‘Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die’” [Gen 3:2–3]. The woman’s response is not in the expected singular subject, but in the plural: “Ye shall not,” “neither shall ye,” and ”lest ye die.”
19.02 I ⟨dare, nonetheless,⟩ say that it is easier to show that all our writers, especially on matters pertaining to Religion (I of course except the divine books), are spurious [, rather] than that any one of them is spurious. For by far more perspicuous is the consent of all of them amongst one another, much clearer and more patent is it [the impiety], [rather] than the impiety of any one of them, however clear and open that may be.*†
*perspicuous: (of an account or representation) clearly expressed and easily understood; lucid.
†Except for the Sacred Books, all the writings are spurious, all agree with one another, and all possess impiety.
†Except for the Sacred Books, all the writings are spurious, all agree with one another, and all possess impiety.
19.03 Countless are the points in alleged ancient writings opposed to the particular Catholic dogmas. Nor do they speak accurately of any dogma, unless something be added by which those writings may be forced to yield a good sense.* But if it is necessary to add that which makes for goodness in men, [then] they certainly have it not. Therefore, there is no good in them. But the principle is very bad by which those very bad writings are good–naturedly explained by adding words and sentences not found in them. For what they say not, they did not will to say, nor to have it thought that they said or believed. They would not have anything else understood but what they say openly. What they did not say, they would not have it believed they thought.†
*The Fathers intentionally distort Christian dogmas and misrepresent doctrines. Only by supplementing them with charitable explanations, can one achieve the proper sense found in Christian teaching.
†The conclusions from what the Fathers explicitly write point to contradictions. These inconsistencies, in turn, lead to rejecting Church teaching and, ultimately, accepting atheism. Of course, the rational and reasoned conclusions by the reader from explicit statements of the Fathers are expected by the hoaxers and this process of concluding atheism is the raison d'etre of the writings of the Church Fathers.
The subtlety and the ingenuity of the Fathers is that the reasoned conclusions from “Statement A” and from “Statement B” create contradictions. Only a careful and thoughtful reader would notice these unstated inconsistencies and are not encountered by the majority of readers. No thoughtful writer who has mastered the subject at hand would inadvertently allow contradictions in a text and likely misunderstandings. Therefore, it must be concluded that these discrepancies are intentional, as they are found in every work with the name of a Church Father affixed to the title.
†The conclusions from what the Fathers explicitly write point to contradictions. These inconsistencies, in turn, lead to rejecting Church teaching and, ultimately, accepting atheism. Of course, the rational and reasoned conclusions by the reader from explicit statements of the Fathers are expected by the hoaxers and this process of concluding atheism is the raison d'etre of the writings of the Church Fathers.
The subtlety and the ingenuity of the Fathers is that the reasoned conclusions from “Statement A” and from “Statement B” create contradictions. Only a careful and thoughtful reader would notice these unstated inconsistencies and are not encountered by the majority of readers. No thoughtful writer who has mastered the subject at hand would inadvertently allow contradictions in a text and likely misunderstandings. Therefore, it must be concluded that these discrepancies are intentional, as they are found in every work with the name of a Church Father affixed to the title.
19.04 He who brings forward from the writings of the “Fathers” ⟨testimonies⟩ to prove the existence of God, the doctrine of the Three Persons in God—the dogma that Christ is God and man, that the Body and Blood of Christ is in the Eucharist—that there is a Purgatory, etc.—acts like one who should proffer the testimonies of astronomers to persuade us that the celestial dog barks or that the bull there bellows— astronomers who affirm that dog and bull are there.*† Those matters in the writings of the “Fathers” are as like, in name, when compared with the sense of the Church, as are the words dog and bull, when used of living creatures on the earth and of the sidereal bodies.
*All attempts to “prove the existence of God” must either end in failure or be unsatisfying. The primary obstacle to overcome is the idea of God wherein his existence is wholly immaterial, that is, his Essence is incomprehensible to man, as man only has actual experiences with the material world, while usages and definitions of words such as love, justice, and God are subjective. Therefore, these efforts at proving the existence of God always default to fatuous efforts by utilizing an aspect of the material realm, which are always poor metaphors when applied to an eternal God. The idea of God as an immaterial being who is omnipresent and omniscient is not Biblical, as he calls to Adam, Gen. 3:9; Cain leaves his presence, Gen. 4:16; he sees, Gen. 6:5; he regrets his actions, Gen. 6:6; he comes down, Gen. 11:5; and he appears to Abram, Gen. 12:7.
†proffer: hold out (something) to someone for acceptance; offer.
†proffer: hold out (something) to someone for acceptance; offer.
19.05 Those who think animals to be automata, nevertheless, abuse the words received in common use. They say that dogs howl, feel, see, hear, although they contend that the meanings underlying these words can only be catachrestically (contrary to proper usage) made to suit those animals.*† So they who recognise, instead of God, Nature alone and the Light of Nature and Right Reason and Justice and formal Wisdom and Fate— do nonetheless make use, without any religion, of the terms foreknowledge, and hatred of evil, and love of truth, and similar attributes in God and names. So, before them Nature is spoken of as artifex, artificer, by Pliny (book 2, sect. 66), who in like manner knows no God beyond Nature.‡ In book 28, sect. 65, he says “This sign God has in that month,” and sect. 60, “Before God has given a sign.’’ In book 2, sect. 5, he says, “The power of Nature and that is what we call God.”§
*While there may be nuanced debates concerning what, if anything, dogs “feel,” there is no doubt that they “howl,” “see,” and “hear.”
†catachrestically: to misuse or misapply a word or phrase, or to use a strained figure of speech.
‡The “demiurge” of the Gnostics may be synonymous with artifex.
For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker G1217 is God. Heb. 11:10
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G1217, dēmiourgos, as: maker (1).
§”And, if we illustrate the nature of our connexion with God by a less serious argument, he cannot make twice ten not to be twenty, and many other things of this kind. By these considerations the power of Nature is clearly proved, and is shown to be what we call God. It is not foreign to the subject to have digressed into these matters, familiar as they are to everyone, from the continual discussions that take place respecting God.” Book 2, Ch. 5(7), Pliny
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D2&force=y
†catachrestically: to misuse or misapply a word or phrase, or to use a strained figure of speech.
‡The “demiurge” of the Gnostics may be synonymous with artifex.
For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker G1217 is God. Heb. 11:10
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G1217, dēmiourgos, as: maker (1).
§”And, if we illustrate the nature of our connexion with God by a less serious argument, he cannot make twice ten not to be twenty, and many other things of this kind. By these considerations the power of Nature is clearly proved, and is shown to be what we call God. It is not foreign to the subject to have digressed into these matters, familiar as they are to everyone, from the continual discussions that take place respecting God.” Book 2, Ch. 5(7), Pliny
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D2&force=y
19.06 The writings of the “Fathers,’’ so–called, are the foments of all heresies, past, present, and future. By the past I mean Wyclif and his school; by the present, I mean Luther’s, Calvin’s, Jansenist.*† I add future and possible, because there can be no heresy which can hope for disciples, unless it can prove that its opinions were received in old times and this it cannot prove, except from those writings which comprise all possible heads of heresies.‡
*foment: instigate or stir up (an undesirable or violent sentiment or course of action).
†John Wycliffe, c. 1328–1384; Martin Luther, 1483–1546; John Calvin, 1509–1564; Cornelius Jansenius, 1585–1638.
‡The propagation of heresies requires an appeal to the ancients and their unquestioned authority.
†John Wycliffe, c. 1328–1384; Martin Luther, 1483–1546; John Calvin, 1509–1564; Cornelius Jansenius, 1585–1638.
‡The propagation of heresies requires an appeal to the ancients and their unquestioned authority.
19.06a There is no heresy (if you reason rightly) which can rely alone on Sacred Scripture, since it must show that Scripture was understood by some in the sense received by itself, otherwise, the heretic cannot persuade a solitary human being that he understands it as he ought. Therefore, it is necessary for him to show that in some ages, at least, his interpretation flourished.* For his audience would think it ridiculous that a sense of Scripture was proposed by Pastors and Doctors, as if certain and necessary to believe, which, though adverse to Catholic doctrine, they could not show to have been approved by any one through the fifteen centuries before Luther and Calvin.† It is on this account that the Socinians claim as on their side the Fathers of the first three centuries, otherwise, they could not find or make a warranty for their dicta.‡ It follows that the thorough abolition of the writings falsely called of the “Fathers” is the extinction of all heresies and, henceforth, the first care of those to whom the tutelage of the faith is committed, ought to be this—to diligently weigh and test them and let no authority be attributed to them in the schools, until an examination of them shall have been instituted and completed.
*At least one exception to the proposition that no heresy can gain adherents without being found in the Fathers is the modern teaching of the Rapture, which originated in the 1840s. The purpose of the Rapture is to remove faithful Christians from the world to safety before the final trials of mankind. Since untold numbers have suffered and died as Christians, it does not seem just that later day Protestants will avoid persecution. It is “ridiculous that a sense of Scripture was proposed by Pastors” and could be held by the laity, yet “could not” be shown “to have been approved by any one through the” eighteen centuries. Such is the power of belief in sola scriptura cum charlatans.
†“fifteen centuries”: Scaliger's chronology.
‡dicta: singular, dictum; a formal pronouncement from an authoritative source.
†“fifteen centuries”: Scaliger's chronology.
‡dicta: singular, dictum; a formal pronouncement from an authoritative source.
19.07 Martin Steyaert, in his Latin work, “Sabbatic Theses,” p. 45, says:
“Great harm has been done to Theology by a certain enormous admiration of the ancients, and a distaste for the present writers compared with them.”*
I say that the books of “Augustine” and others have ruined the whole of the North and the East.† Why do we wait until they ruin also the West?‡ Let them, forthwith, be subjected to serious examination that the impiety I demonstrate in detail may become patent to the whole world.§
*Martin Steyaert, 1647–1701.
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
‡The north of Europe is ruined by Lutheranism and the east was ruined when the Greeks accepted the Rites of the hoaxers. The Roman Church acknowledges the sacraments of the Orthodox as valid, so, from a theological perspective, the latter neither requires nor needs Papal authority. It seems that the reason for the Roman Church desiring reunion with the Greek Church is “for the sake of enlarging their dominion” [7.08].
§patent: easily recognizable; obvious.
If the Church Fathers present ideas that conflict with the tradition of the Orthodox Church, then those innovations are ignored. However, in the Roman Church and Protestant communities, the influences of the Church Fathers have become significant since the time of Hadrouin’s writing.
†Augustine of Hippo, 354–430.
‡The north of Europe is ruined by Lutheranism and the east was ruined when the Greeks accepted the Rites of the hoaxers. The Roman Church acknowledges the sacraments of the Orthodox as valid, so, from a theological perspective, the latter neither requires nor needs Papal authority. It seems that the reason for the Roman Church desiring reunion with the Greek Church is “for the sake of enlarging their dominion” [7.08].
§patent: easily recognizable; obvious.
If the Church Fathers present ideas that conflict with the tradition of the Orthodox Church, then those innovations are ignored. However, in the Roman Church and Protestant communities, the influences of the Church Fathers have become significant since the time of Hadrouin’s writing.
19.08 Whoever would not be a Catholic, must of necessity follow the camp of the atheists.* For of all heresies now most notorious, the Lutheran, Calvinist, Socinian, Jansenist, the one common principle is Atheism. Calvin thinks of God, the Three Persons, and Christ as the Atheists think, in the whole of his work De Institutione, especially in chap. 6, no. 19.† The whole body of the pestiferous doctrine rests on that principle. It is not one or two chapters of the Catholic faith that is attacked, but the very existence of the true God and, consequently, the whole of religion to its foundation.‡ For this reason, the Atheists are forced to corrupt and overthrow, not a few passages of Scripture, but the whole of it by their perpetual Commentaries on the text.§
*Either one is a Roman Catholic or an atheist. In this duality, there is no place for either the schismatic Orthodox or protestant communities.
†Chapter 6, number 19, could not be located in De Institutione. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/45001/pg45001–images.html
‡pestiferous: harboring infection and disease.
§Perpetual commentaries on the text by the Fathers are replaced nowadays by incessant “sermons” of protestant pastors who “babble and prate more than the” the Fathers.
†Chapter 6, number 19, could not be located in De Institutione. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/45001/pg45001–images.html
‡pestiferous: harboring infection and disease.
§Perpetual commentaries on the text by the Fathers are replaced nowadays by incessant “sermons” of protestant pastors who “babble and prate more than the” the Fathers.
19.09 There is the like trickery and deceit in the triple faction—Lather’s, Calvin’s, and their forerunners, the “Fathers,” falsely so called, in using Catholic words in a foreign sense; I mean the names God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Christ, Satisfaction, Merit, etc.* The Lutherans did not dispute with the Calvinists, nor these with those of any other matter, when the Eucharist was in debate, except as to which party could craftily employ the most Catholic words, so as to maintain the error of denying that Christ is truly present in it, and that the Bread is physically transubstantiated.† But there remains in the pastors—by God’s blessing—there remains in the sheep—especially there remains in the Roman Church the true understanding of those words; there remains the tradition of the true faith. It is the part of a plain impostor, worse than a very devil, to use Catholic words in a non–Catholic sense; who speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three hypostases or three persons, and the like, yet by these, only understands metaphysical concepts which no atheist would reject.
*The words God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Christ, Satisfaction, Merit, among others, are interpreted differently by the hoaxers than what either the literal or the ecclesiastical usage would suggest. By using an exacting vocabulary, they communicate their atheistic view to “those who have ears to hear.” Such nuanced interpretations would be unnoticed by those same individuals who assume Simon Peter, Peter, and Simon are synonymous in the Gospels; who believe the Father, God, and the Lord are identical in the Pauline Epistles; and who err by saying “that the resurrection is past already and overthrow the faith of some” [2 Tim. 2:18].
Since the Fathers do not provide explicit definitions for their terms, the curious reader must determine the correct definitions from hints scattered throughout their books through reason, persistence, and “trial and error.”
†Heretics always maintain that the Eurcharist is not the body and blood of Christ.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily G371, eateth and drinketh damnation G2917 to himself, not discerning G1252 the Lord's body. 1 Cor. 11:29
Saint Paul does not explain how one could be either be worthy or unworthy to eat bread and drink wine; nor does he provide a reason for damnation for consuming a meal; a symbolic meal, as protestants assuredly teach. It is as if Saint Paul believes that the elements of communion are, in reality, the body and blood of Christ and advises believers to conduct themselves accordingly, lest their impiety results in damnation.
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G371, anaxiōs, as: unworthily (2). The other usage of G371 is in 1 Cor. 11:27.
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G2917, krima, as: judgment (13), damnation (7), condemnation (5), be condemned (1), go to law (with G2192) (1), avenge (with G2919) (1).
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G1252, diakrinō, as: doubt (5), judge (3), discern (2), contend (2), waver (2), miscellaneous (5).
Substituting the various English translations of G1252 into 1 Cor. 11:29:
eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not doubting the Lord's body.
eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not judging the Lord's body.
eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not contending the Lord's body.
eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not wavering the Lord's body.
Since the Fathers do not provide explicit definitions for their terms, the curious reader must determine the correct definitions from hints scattered throughout their books through reason, persistence, and “trial and error.”
†Heretics always maintain that the Eurcharist is not the body and blood of Christ.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily G371, eateth and drinketh damnation G2917 to himself, not discerning G1252 the Lord's body. 1 Cor. 11:29
Saint Paul does not explain how one could be either be worthy or unworthy to eat bread and drink wine; nor does he provide a reason for damnation for consuming a meal; a symbolic meal, as protestants assuredly teach. It is as if Saint Paul believes that the elements of communion are, in reality, the body and blood of Christ and advises believers to conduct themselves accordingly, lest their impiety results in damnation.
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G371, anaxiōs, as: unworthily (2). The other usage of G371 is in 1 Cor. 11:27.
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G2917, krima, as: judgment (13), damnation (7), condemnation (5), be condemned (1), go to law (with G2192) (1), avenge (with G2919) (1).
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G1252, diakrinō, as: doubt (5), judge (3), discern (2), contend (2), waver (2), miscellaneous (5).
Substituting the various English translations of G1252 into 1 Cor. 11:29:
eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not doubting the Lord's body.
eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not judging the Lord's body.
eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not contending the Lord's body.
eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not wavering the Lord's body.
19.10 The Lutherans, Calvinists, Jansenists, and the like are the greatest fools to need the writings of the “Fathers” as evidence in defense of their heresies.* For, if it be allowed that these are impious forgeries, [then] they lean upon a staff or reed which will pierce their own hand.† They ought to be just as convinced of their genuineness and age, as of the genuineness of the Epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Matthew, otherwise, their credulity leans upon a probable foundation only and a fallible [foundation]. Therefore, they are the most thoughtless of men who think themselves secure of their salvation on the testimonies of “Augustine,” “Ambrose,” and the like; since none can be convinced infallibly or otherwise than from the vulgar opinion that those writings are not recent fabrications creation of impious men.‡ Assuredly, they would not be mad who affirm them to be fictions. Assuredly, they are Catholics.
*Modern protestants do not rely upon the writings of the Fathers, but provide amusing explanations of Biblical passages that support their theological whim du jour.
†Lo, thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him. Isaiah 36:6
‡Thoughtless men are “secure” in the knowledge concerning the salvation of their immortal souls. One cannot alter the prevailing “vulgar” opinions that these writings are ancient creations of inspired men.
†Lo, thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him. Isaiah 36:6
‡Thoughtless men are “secure” in the knowledge concerning the salvation of their immortal souls. One cannot alter the prevailing “vulgar” opinions that these writings are ancient creations of inspired men.
19.11 Most truly did the Lord Christ pronounce, as all his words, so this: “This is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”* For all heretics in this one point go astray from eternal life, because they know not God nor Christ as the Catholic Church, but verbally only.† But I superabound in joy when I understood that the faith which I profess by the gift of God is that which persisted through the first thirteen centuries, opposed by no writings, except of atheists, and that not before the fourteenth century.‡Who framed that faith? Who caused it to be propagated, but God and Christ himself? For if any one should say, that rather is the Faith extant in these monuments, the true Faith; I ask, “Who afterwards founded ours? Who persuaded us of it?” Absolutely, that could not be! Moreover, that assuredly is not the true faith, which is conjoined with atheism, with frauds and countless wiles, with the adulteration of Scripture, and other vices.
*And this is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3
†Modern protestants only “know” Christ through their weekly gatherings where they receive confusing lectures and participate in sporadic “revivals.” The revivals are no less vacuous than the sermons, although they allow for additional aberrant behaviors from the assembled “believers.”
Let all things be done decently G2156 and in order G5010. 1 Cor. 14:40
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G2156, euschēmonōs, as: honestly (2), decently (1).
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G5010, taxis, in the following manner: order (10).
‡“the first thirteen centuries” and “the fourteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
†Modern protestants only “know” Christ through their weekly gatherings where they receive confusing lectures and participate in sporadic “revivals.” The revivals are no less vacuous than the sermons, although they allow for additional aberrant behaviors from the assembled “believers.”
Let all things be done decently G2156 and in order G5010. 1 Cor. 14:40
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G2156, euschēmonōs, as: honestly (2), decently (1).
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G5010, taxis, in the following manner: order (10).
‡“the first thirteen centuries” and “the fourteenth century”: Scaliger's chronology.
19.12 Peruse diligently the dogmas of the heretics of our age, one by one; none of them, as I have said, has any note of divinity.* In a society merely political and apart from God, all [anything] might be instituted and handed down, which they teach, on the Eucharist, the administration of Penance, the satisfaction of Christ.* On the contrary, as I said at the beginning and am glad again to inculcate, there is no dogma of the Catholic faith which does not teach and assume as certain the existence of the true God.†‡ A mere man without God may institute a Supper in memory of the passion and resurrection of Christ.§ Nature cannot place under the species (or appearance) of Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ; God alone can. Therefore, Christ did this. For he willed that out of each dogma of his religion it might be collected and inferred: “Therefore, there is some true God who instituted or taught this.” He foresaw that there would be men, especially in these last ill times, who would indeed preach of God that they might avoid the stake, but by the name of God [they] would understand nothing but “the Nature of things, the immutable laws of motion, according to which all things in the universe are ordered.”‖ For that reason, to protect the faith and the idea of true divinity, God taught that he subsisted in three persons really distinct; which can be convenient to God alone. He wrought and daily works the miracle of Transubstantiation; which the true God alone can effect. He gives to the priesthood the power of absolving and justifying the penitent; the true God alone can give such power to men. He taught, under pain of mortal sin, the observance of the Lord’s Day; the true God alone can make this precept.
*The teachings of modern Christians have no value or worth regarding the Deity. From the rituals and the sacraments, one can infer that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches have teachings of Christ and doctrines regarding God. The same cannot be said for Protestants. No one can conclude, from their services and revivals alone, that Protestants have a God or need a God, generally, or Christ, specifically. The results of their services, rituals, and revivals can be achieved by either an atheist or a “pastor.” Although an atheistic pastor gives a ludicrous impression, the reception of grace in protestant communities is independent of the beliefs or qualifications of the pastor, but relies upon the pious thoughts of the individuals during baptism and communion.
†inculcate: instill (an attitude, idea, or habit) by persistent instruction.
‡“Every “dogma of Catholic faith” teaches and assumes “as certain the existence of the true God.” Protestant doctrines and dogmas concerning God have a “probable foundation” only, as they are, in a large part, borrowed from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches [19.10]. Baptism and communion are divorced from their historical and Christological backgrounds and exist only as disembodied parodies whose only existence takes place “in the mind of believers by pious thought,” This “action” is called the “operation of the Holy Spirit” [2.03a]. As always, pious thought requires neither the existence of God nor his intercession.
§Hardouin describes the Protestant service not with a religious term, but with a secular expression: political. It can be asked what is the difference between a Protestant service and a meeting of the Elks, Moose, or any fraternal order. None of these organizations can remit sins or change the elements of the bread and wine to the Body of Christ, as none of these organizations claim the ability to do so, yet one of these groups is considered to be religious.
‖This quote could not be located on Google.
†inculcate: instill (an attitude, idea, or habit) by persistent instruction.
‡“Every “dogma of Catholic faith” teaches and assumes “as certain the existence of the true God.” Protestant doctrines and dogmas concerning God have a “probable foundation” only, as they are, in a large part, borrowed from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches [19.10]. Baptism and communion are divorced from their historical and Christological backgrounds and exist only as disembodied parodies whose only existence takes place “in the mind of believers by pious thought,” This “action” is called the “operation of the Holy Spirit” [2.03a]. As always, pious thought requires neither the existence of God nor his intercession.
§Hardouin describes the Protestant service not with a religious term, but with a secular expression: political. It can be asked what is the difference between a Protestant service and a meeting of the Elks, Moose, or any fraternal order. None of these organizations can remit sins or change the elements of the bread and wine to the Body of Christ, as none of these organizations claim the ability to do so, yet one of these groups is considered to be religious.
‖This quote could not be located on Google.
19.13 If there is some God—and there is, most surely— then He wills, certainly, that he should be known and worshiped by men. Therefore, he ought to teach how he should be worshiped and how he would be known.* Therefore, He ought to teach men, by whom I myself may be taught and whom I may interrogate and they, men taught by God—the Church properly so called and they ought to be infallible, otherwise, it would be as if God did not care that men should know how He would be worshiped by them.†
*God can, through supernatural means, clearly explain to the totality of humanity his expectations. Since God does not do this, but relies upon various prophets, with the receptive audience composed entirely of confused individuals; confused because revealed religions offer conflicting precepts, edicts, and dogmas. Since God is not the author of confusion, a reasonable conclusion is that none of the religions are divinely inspired [1 Cor. 14:33]. Yet, through pious thought, or the claimed workings of the Holy Spirit, Protestants know God’s will.
†It would seem that one single accurate understanding of God does not exist and, as a result, men struggle to present various suppositions of His will and His attributes to their followers, not his followers.
†It would seem that one single accurate understanding of God does not exist and, as a result, men struggle to present various suppositions of His will and His attributes to their followers, not his followers.
19.13a The Society of these men ought ever to stand, ever to be infallible, so long as men shall have to be taught —how God should be worshiped by them.* By the Church, therefore, men must be taught what is the true knowledge of God and what is the true discipline of morals.†
*The quest for “infallibility” or the knowledge of personal salvation is fraught with uncertainty.
†Morals are inseparable from the true knowledge of God and this position explains why every religious proposition may possess certain moral precepts that may or may not overlap with other religions. Of course, there are exceptions to or conditions upon religious propositions in each religion.
†Morals are inseparable from the true knowledge of God and this position explains why every religious proposition may possess certain moral precepts that may or may not overlap with other religions. Of course, there are exceptions to or conditions upon religious propositions in each religion.
19.13b That Church existed when Calvin and Luther were youths and, therefore, had to be taught concerning the worship of God. But later, they withdrew from that doctrine and led ⟨with them⟩ a very great multitude. They should return to the Pristine Infallible Society which in their folly they deserted, or they must of necessity err and, in their error, at last perish.
*The Roman Church existed before Calvin and Luther began preaching from their “Scripture.”
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble G5015 you and would pervert G3344 the gospel of Christ. 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. 1:6-8
If Protestants truly believed their Scripture, then each one would be required to determine which existing Church continues to evangelize the one, ancient, unaltered Gospel and not the multitude of modern perverted Gospel versions that induce troubles and confusion.
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G5015, tarassō, as: trouble (17).
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G3344, metastrephō, as: turn (2), pervert (1).
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble G5015 you and would pervert G3344 the gospel of Christ. 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. 1:6-8
If Protestants truly believed their Scripture, then each one would be required to determine which existing Church continues to evangelize the one, ancient, unaltered Gospel and not the multitude of modern perverted Gospel versions that induce troubles and confusion.
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G5015, tarassō, as: trouble (17).
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G3344, metastrephō, as: turn (2), pervert (1).
19.13c Heretics, who will not hear the Church, say that from the doctrine should be distinguished which is the true Church, as if men could do this before they are learned and of mature age.* Youths and boys ought to be willing to be taught and they should be rightly taught how God would be worshiped by their elders, therefore.
*Protestants believe that Biblical statements can be employed to identify the “true Church” or recreate the “true Church.” Without a basic understanding of the practices of the historical church during its first centuries, not the first years as recorded in Acts, the true church can neither be identified nor reconstructed. Thus, the “true Church” remains an alluring vision; incapable of being fulfilled.
19.13d You should be a Christian first and then a learned man. Boys, I say, and youths should be faithful men. But Faith is from hearing, not from many letters. Therefore, if any have become Elders and Learned men and they ⟨then⟩ from their learning or skill would change or pervert what they learned as boys or youths, [then] they are impious and this because they would have another creed believed than that which they were taught by men whom God and Christ through the Apostles taught, that they might teach others the same and these again others and yet others.* This is to desire the destination of the Faith once received, without which it is impossible to please God.†
*All protestants possess another creed than what the church teaches; regardless of the criteria utilized, otherwise they would be Roman Catholics or Orthodox Christians.
†The premise is that it is possible to please God, yet one is entirely dependent upon others to discover what, exactly, is pleasing to either the God of the Bible or the God of the churches. This need for others, whether in the form of books or in lectures or word of mouth, is an indication that such teachings are not divinely inspired, but created by men who are advocates for God [advocatus dei]. This reliance upon third parties is a constant source of uncertainty regarding competing and contradictory claims of knowing God’s will.
†The premise is that it is possible to please God, yet one is entirely dependent upon others to discover what, exactly, is pleasing to either the God of the Bible or the God of the churches. This need for others, whether in the form of books or in lectures or word of mouth, is an indication that such teachings are not divinely inspired, but created by men who are advocates for God [advocatus dei]. This reliance upon third parties is a constant source of uncertainty regarding competing and contradictory claims of knowing God’s will.
19.14 In every age God said to every adult man who was solicitous about the finding of the true religion:
Remember the old days, consider the generations; ask of thy father and he will tell thee.
Deut. 32:7*
*memento dierum antiquorum cogita generationes singulas interroga patrem tuum et adnuntiabit tibi maiores tuos et dicent tibi. Deut. 32:7
Relying upon the memories, beliefs, and understandings of living members of the religious community is, once again, rife with uncertainty as it pertains to historical continuity.
Relying upon the memories, beliefs, and understandings of living members of the religious community is, once again, rife with uncertainty as it pertains to historical continuity.
19.14a From the house and family of Noah, the new society began to be questioned of the true religion by all men. It remained in the posterity of Noah, at least with those from whom Abraham derived his origin; but also in others whence came Melchisedech, Abimelech, and, long afterwards, Job. They who departed and worshiped idols had to inquire whether, thus, the Elders—i.e., Noah and others—had lived.*† Forthwith, they might have learned from father and ancestors that they worshiped one true God and that he ought to be worshiped by them.‡ Nay, they knew full well that they had deserted the God of their fathers; for the sons of Noah—Shem, Ham, and Japhet—were living with their children. And these, if they were questioned, would reply either that they worshiped God, as their father Noah had done and as they had learned from him [how] God should be worshiped; or that they had deserted the worship they had learned from Noah; in which they were manifestly reprehensible.
*“worshiped idols”: worship is not synonymous with veneration; cf. latria and dulia.
†The knowledge received from one’s father concerning how one’s ancestors worshiped is hearsay, that is,“information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate.”
‡It is not possible to know how the ancients worshiped their God, even with the extensive documentary evidence such as the Old Testament, as oral traditions are not recorded. Passing one’s child “through the fires of Molech” may be a human sacrifice or it may be a purifying ritual that produces neither harm nor injury, and from the text alone, one cannot be certain which interpretation is valid [Lev. 18:21]. Without the context of historical Christianity, infant baptism, the immersion of babies into water, can be interpreted as child sacrifice to a water deity, that is, passing a child “through the waters of Christ.”
†The knowledge received from one’s father concerning how one’s ancestors worshiped is hearsay, that is,“information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate.”
‡It is not possible to know how the ancients worshiped their God, even with the extensive documentary evidence such as the Old Testament, as oral traditions are not recorded. Passing one’s child “through the fires of Molech” may be a human sacrifice or it may be a purifying ritual that produces neither harm nor injury, and from the text alone, one cannot be certain which interpretation is valid [Lev. 18:21]. Without the context of historical Christianity, infant baptism, the immersion of babies into water, can be interpreted as child sacrifice to a water deity, that is, passing a child “through the waters of Christ.”
19.14b So today is the Catholic Religion. It is a Society known to all men, a City set upon a hill.* It begins from Peter and ends with Peter; i.e., in the Apostolic See, and any Church in communion with her. That Society begins at Jerusalem, but from Peter himself, alone the Preacher, as universal Head and Pastor.† Hence, it perseveres in the supreme Pontiff, as Bishop of the Catholic Church (for so, as I have said, he ever subscribes); and in any Church whatever in communion with him.*†
*Vatican City is built upon Vatican hill.
†But when Peter was come to Antioch, I [Paul, 1:1] withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Gal. 2:11, 14
The second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians is the only mention of Peter in the Pauline Epistles and therein Paul openly condemns Peter’s hypocrisy.
*There are twenty four churches in communions with the Pope.
Eastern Catholic Churches, Wikipedia
The Pope is the head of the political Vatican City and is head of the religious Catholic Church whose largest component is the Roman rite. The Pope is also the head of twenty five churches in communion with the Holy See. There is ambiguity determining if the Pope speaks as the Pope, whose seat is St. John Lateran, or as the bishop of Rome, whose cathedral is St. Peter’s Basilica. Additionally, he may speak as the head of one of the sui juris churches, or speak as a private person. This uncertainty does not exist with written decrees in the name of the Pope.
†On two occasions, Hardouin does not write the expected phrase “Bishop of the Catholic Church”, but “from the jurisdiction of the Vicar of our Saviour Christ” and “the Vicars of Christ” [9:10, 13:11].
†But when Peter was come to Antioch, I [Paul, 1:1] withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Gal. 2:11, 14
The second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians is the only mention of Peter in the Pauline Epistles and therein Paul openly condemns Peter’s hypocrisy.
*There are twenty four churches in communions with the Pope.
Eastern Catholic Churches, Wikipedia
The Pope is the head of the political Vatican City and is head of the religious Catholic Church whose largest component is the Roman rite. The Pope is also the head of twenty five churches in communion with the Holy See. There is ambiguity determining if the Pope speaks as the Pope, whose seat is St. John Lateran, or as the bishop of Rome, whose cathedral is St. Peter’s Basilica. Additionally, he may speak as the head of one of the sui juris churches, or speak as a private person. This uncertainty does not exist with written decrees in the name of the Pope.
†On two occasions, Hardouin does not write the expected phrase “Bishop of the Catholic Church”, but “from the jurisdiction of the Vicar of our Saviour Christ” and “the Vicars of Christ” [9:10, 13:11].
19.14c This Luther, Calvin, and others, learned when they were youths and in their old age they ought to have kept what they had learned in their youth. To any of their followers you may now rightly say:
‘‘Remember the old days, think of the generations, each one; ask thy father and he will tell thee; thy elders and they will say to thee.”*†‡
They who desert those elders are to be condemned, as they were assuredly worthy of condemnation, who deserted the worship of the true deity, as they knew it had been observed by Noah, that they might serve idols.§
*Martin Luther, 1483–1546; John Calvin, 1509–1564.
†Deut. 32:7
Inquire of thy father and he will tell thee; thy elders and they will declare to thee. Deut. 32:7 [9.07]
Remember the old days, consider the generations; ask of thy father and he will tell thee.
Deut. 32:7 [19.14]
‘‘Remember the old days, think of the generations, each one; ask thy father and he will tell thee; thy elders and they will say to thee.” Deut. 32:7 [19.14c]
The three mentions of Deut. 32:7 are inexact repetitions.
‡The modern belief that all Christrian communities are equal has one demonstrable result: more Christian communities being founded, as no one objective standard exists to determine what should be practiced and taught in the church.
§No evidence is presented to demonstrate that the deserters of religion knew the manner it “had been observed by Noah,” For an indeterminate time, the Jews did not know of the existence of the law of Moses until the finding of the law [2 Kings 22:8]. This ignorance of the existence of the law, not their disregard of it, explains Israel’s continual backsliding into Baal worship throughout the Old Testament. Examples of the dedication of Israel to the worship of Baal, or the Master, are found in Jud. 6:25-32; 1 Kings 16:31-32, 18:19-26; and 2 Kings 10:18-28, 23:4-5.
The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me [Moses, 5:1]; unto him ye shall hearken; Deut. 18:15
I [the Lord, 18:15] will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee [Moses, 5:1], and will put my words in his mouth and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him and it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Deut. 18:18-19
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Deut. 18:22
From the criteria of the law, it is clear that Jesus is a prophet of the Lord, truthfully speaking of things that are to come to pass [Mark 13:2]. The second coming of Jesus is expected by the Roman and Orthodox Churches [“And he [Jesus Christ] will come again to judge the living and the dead….”]. However, the coming of “the son of man” is not a future event as claimed by modern Bible believers, but occurred during the generation of Jesus. By conflating the second coming of Jesus with the coming of “the son of man,” modern Christians transform Jesus into a liar and a false prophet, since he misled his audience:
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matt.16:28
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Matt. 23:36
†Deut. 32:7
Inquire of thy father and he will tell thee; thy elders and they will declare to thee. Deut. 32:7 [9.07]
Remember the old days, consider the generations; ask of thy father and he will tell thee.
Deut. 32:7 [19.14]
‘‘Remember the old days, think of the generations, each one; ask thy father and he will tell thee; thy elders and they will say to thee.” Deut. 32:7 [19.14c]
The three mentions of Deut. 32:7 are inexact repetitions.
‡The modern belief that all Christrian communities are equal has one demonstrable result: more Christian communities being founded, as no one objective standard exists to determine what should be practiced and taught in the church.
§No evidence is presented to demonstrate that the deserters of religion knew the manner it “had been observed by Noah,” For an indeterminate time, the Jews did not know of the existence of the law of Moses until the finding of the law [2 Kings 22:8]. This ignorance of the existence of the law, not their disregard of it, explains Israel’s continual backsliding into Baal worship throughout the Old Testament. Examples of the dedication of Israel to the worship of Baal, or the Master, are found in Jud. 6:25-32; 1 Kings 16:31-32, 18:19-26; and 2 Kings 10:18-28, 23:4-5.
The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me [Moses, 5:1]; unto him ye shall hearken; Deut. 18:15
I [the Lord, 18:15] will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee [Moses, 5:1], and will put my words in his mouth and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him and it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Deut. 18:18-19
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Deut. 18:22
From the criteria of the law, it is clear that Jesus is a prophet of the Lord, truthfully speaking of things that are to come to pass [Mark 13:2]. The second coming of Jesus is expected by the Roman and Orthodox Churches [“And he [Jesus Christ] will come again to judge the living and the dead….”]. However, the coming of “the son of man” is not a future event as claimed by modern Bible believers, but occurred during the generation of Jesus. By conflating the second coming of Jesus with the coming of “the son of man,” modern Christians transform Jesus into a liar and a false prophet, since he misled his audience:
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matt.16:28
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Matt. 23:36
chapter 20
Hardoum defends his Censure of the Monastic Books by quoting from Gallonius against the Benedictine of Monte Cassino, Bellotti.
20.01 BUT now to make an end of these general arguments. Let me enter upon the Censure of writings which are commonly thought to be of the “Fathers.’’ I have gone through, with such censure, the case of the writings of Augustine, Bernard, and Thomas, which have been happily described, also of most of the Councils, but I must deal with others while God grants me health and life.* I have shown that it was right to institute a censure of this kind, unless I am mistaken, and that erudite and Catholic men think so, may be understood by the reader from the work of a scholar already praised by me, Antonius Gallonius, Presbyter of the Oratorian Congregation in Rome, in his Apology for Cardinal Baronius, against Constantine Bellotti, Benedictine monk of Monte Cassino, published at Rome from the Vatican Typography, 1604, p. 9:
“You, Constantine, must be taught that you should be taught by what distinction the holy Roman Church is said to approve books. For not all books (as you suppose) which the Church approves, does she desire to be of the firmest authority, as are the Hagiographa, the Sacred Scripture itself, which consists of books we call canonical. To them alone belongs the privilege that naught of what is written in them may be called into doubt, the Catholic faith being preserved; but it is otherwise with books received by the Church; even if they are of the leading Masters of the Church, whom for their dignity we call Doctors of the Church, as Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and Gregory.”†‡
*Augustine of Hippo, 354–430; Bernard of Clairvaux 1090–1153; Thomas Aquinas, 1225–1274.
†Antonius Gallonius, 1550?–1605; Cardinal Baronius, 1538–1607.
‡Jerome, 347–419/420; Ambrose of Milan, c.339–397; Gregory of Nazianzus, d.398; Gregory of Nyssa, c. 335–395.
†Antonius Gallonius, 1550?–1605; Cardinal Baronius, 1538–1607.
‡Jerome, 347–419/420; Ambrose of Milan, c.339–397; Gregory of Nazianzus, d.398; Gregory of Nyssa, c. 335–395.
20.02 And on p. 10:
“Learn, therefore, Constantine, to what kind of writings that prerogative is due; namely, to the canonical alone, so that nothing in them ought to be made matter of doubt and controversy; concerning the rest, this is by no means the case; so take heed lest you strike again into monstrous errors of that kind; but know that any one’s writings are so approved by the Roman Church, as recognised by her, that there must be nothing in them contrary to the Catholic faith and good manners.* But if anything false should be in them, she suffers the liberty of proving this to anyone that wills.”
*Teachings “contrary to the Catholic faith” are included with “good manners.” Once again, morality is an aspect of religious teaching.
20.03 On p. 11:
“You say a little later, ‘Since therefore the Church approves the writings preserved in her coffers, and thence John derived what he wrote of the blessed Gregory, it is clearer than the day that the Church approved what he wrote at least as far as the credit of history is concerned.’ But in saying this, Constantine, you almost make me blush for your sake, for you would make the whole Apostolic coffers a Hagiograph (or sacred repository) so that none of its contents can be argued erroneous, according to your contention. But how about the many surreptitious writings which the Apostolic See against her will has constantly to endure? It is of God alone who beholds the heart, to be free from these; and in all things which are brought before the tribunal of the Church to know and discern falsehood from truth, but who is ignorant that men and even the Pope himself in these matters of fact, are fallible and may be deceived?”*
*Who “is ignorant that men and even the Pope himself in these matters of fact, are fallible and may be deceived?” When speaking ex cathedra, the Pope is infallible and this position of speaking infallibly has been taken once since the Vatican I Council of 1870, on the Assumption of Mary in 1950.
20.03a So far then let what I have said suffice as Prolegomena to be read as a preface to my Censure, by which it will clearly appear, ⟨as I hope,⟩ that the contrivers of so many Dogmatic works and of Ecclesiastical History (as they call it) had this object in view, to utterly ruin, if possible, the whole of Religion. From my treatise on the Ancient Coins of the French Kings it appears that this design was taken up by the impious crew and meditated in the reign of Philip Augustus; much more under Philip the Fair, and Philip of Valois; that it afterwards was immensely enlarged through more than one hundred and fifty years.*†
* Philip Augustus, r. 1180–1223; Philip the Fair, r. 1285–1314; Philip of Valois, r. 1328–50.
†“more than one hundred and fifty years”: Scaliger's chronology.
†“more than one hundred and fifty years”: Scaliger's chronology.
THE END.