An ORDINANCE of my Lord the Archbishop of PARIS; containing the Condemnation of a BOOK having this Title; A New Library of Ecclesiastical Authors, &c.
It being the Chief Duty of the Pastors of the Church to keep the Doctrine wherewith they are entrusted, such as they have received from the Apostles, whose Successors they are, and not to suffer any Person to make any Change in it without due Censure; and as Tradition is the Channel which should convey to us by an uninterrupted Course, the Catholick Doctrines in all their Purity, so there should be a singular Regard had to Books and Authors which pretend to represent the same entire, deriving it from the Source, and tracing it from Age to Age, even to the present Times. We [Page 6] have therefore judged that we ought to apply our selves carefully to the Examination of a Book printed some Years since in this City, under the Title of a New Library of Ecclesiastick Authors, &c. of which there hath already appeared Five Tomes, one after another, divided into seven Volumes. The design of this Work being to treat of all the Ecclesiastick Authors, which have been since the first Establishment of the Church, to Publish what they have Written, and to give an Account of their Character and Merit, which the Author professeth to have been performed for the first Eight Ages in those Volumes which he hath already published, intending to continue those which follow until the present. And we are so much the more concerned to enter upon a narrow Enquiry into this Book; having understood that many Persons do find these first Tomes full of considerable Faults. That nothing in this Affair might pass without great Deliberation and a perfect Scrutiny, we caused this Book to be read by four Doctors in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, who did read all those Tomes, each apart by himself, and then conferred a long time together about them, of all which they have given us an exact Account in many Meetings. We have also our self examined this Book with all possible Attention, and have found that this Work is so far from being useful to the Church, that it would be on the contrary very prejudicial, if we should allow the Sale of it. Moreover, we desired to hear the Author's Defences, that so we might know his Sentiments and present Disposition, for which Cause we have granted him as favourable an Audience as was possible, for several Meetings, in the presence of the same Doctors: And as we have found in him an entire Submission to all we should ordain, having put into our Hands a Writing signed [Page 7] by himself, which is annexed to these Presents, in which of the Twelve Articles which we judged chiefly censurable in his Book, he doth retract many Propositions advanced by him, and testifies in general, that he submits himself to our Judgment without any restriction or reservation. And as this absolute Submission (without which we could not think his Writings sufficient, there being in his Book many Propositions censurable, which he doth not touch in his Writing) secures his Religion, and obliges us to spare his Person; so there remains nothing more to be done, but to give Sentence against the Doctrine of his Book. We could have wished that this Work might have deserved only a limited Censure, and so would have been satisfied to have marked out of the Author such Changes as he should make for saving the rest of it, without proceeding to a full Condemnation, and to an entire Suppression of it. But the Evil being almost spread through the whole Work, we could not dispence with the Condemnation of this Book, but are obliged to prohibit the Reading it to all Persons, whom it hath pleased God to submit to our Conduct, for preventing the Prejudice which it might otherwise do amongst People, if such a stop were not put to it, that the Church may receive no more Scandal, nor Hereticks get any Occasion of drawing Advantage against the Catholicks. For these Reasons after having implored the Grace of the Holy Ghost to beseech his Guidance of us, we have Condemned, and do Condemn the Book, entituled, A New Library of Ecclesiastick Authors, &c. by Monsieur Ellies Du Pin, Doctor of the Faculty of Paris, &c. as containing many Propositions false, rash, scandalous, offensive to pious Ears, tending to weaken the Proofs of Tradition about the Authority of the Canonical Books, and many other [Page 8] Articles of Faith; Injurious to Oecumenical Councils, to the Holy Apostolical See, and to the Fathers of the Church; Erroneous and leading to several Heresies. We most strictly, and under the Penalties prescribed by Law, forbid the Reading of this Book to all our Diocesans of either Sex, or the causing or advising it to be Read by any Person, or having it in their Houses, or any other where; enjoyning them under the same Censures, to return them to us as soon as possible. So we command the Officers of our Ecclesiastical Court to see the Execution of our present Ordinance to cause it to be affixed upon the Church Doors of this City and its Suburbs, and in every other place where it shall be needful; and also to require, if it be necessary, the Authority of the Magistrates, of whose Zeal and Piety we have had Proofs on other Occasions, to stop by all due and reasonable Methods, the Impression, Sale and Vending hereof.
Here followeth the Writing mentioned in this Ordinance, signed by the Author of the New Library, which he gave into the hands of my Lord the Archbishop.
Declaration of Monsieur Du Pin.
THere being some Persons, who after the Reading of my Books of the New Library of Ecclesiastick Authors, have testified that they were offended at many places; and those Complaints being carried to my Lord Archbishop of Paris; who, in Quality of proper Judge of Doctrine, hath taken them into his Consideration, and named some Doctors to search narrowly into this Work, and make a Relation of the same to him. I do my self acknowledge by a serious Reflection on their Observations that there has indeed dropt from me some Expressions which are hard, obscure, and that might give some Offence to the Reader; some also which may not be true, and which, against my Design, may be brought against the Truth, for which I shall always have a Respect, and which I do believe, ought to be maintained in the Church.
This obligeth me, seeing my Lord the Archbishop hath had the Goodness to discover the same to me in three different Assemblies, in which I have not been less touched with his Goodness and Paternal Charity, than instructed by his great and clear Light, in the presence of the Doctors to whom he committed the Examination of my Book, and with whom he himself did Examine it: I say, this obligeth me to give, to what is obscure in that Work, the Illustrations which he hath judged, and which I may self have perceived necessary, to mollify the Expressions which are too hard, and to make an Authentick Declaration concerning those which may bear an Ill Sense, that it may appear that my Sentiments are Orthodox, and that I have transgressed only by inadvertency, not sufficienly considering [Page 10] the Terms used, nor the Consequences which might be drawn from them.
To keepthe same Order which my Lord the Archbishop himself observed, when he required an Account of all these Places.
I. I do first acknowledge, as I have always owned for Sacred and Canonical Books, all those which are contained in the Canon of the Council of Trent, Sess. 4. in all their Parts. I am persuaded that they were all written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost; that it is not lawful in any wise to doubt of their Canonicalness, after the Decision of the Church; and tho' some were not received as Canonical at first by some particular Churches, it is nevertheless true that they were owned in the first Ages of the Church, for Books of Holy Scripture, and quoted as such by many Fathers. Therefore these indefinite Expressions in my Book, The Antient Christians followed the Jewish Canon in the Books of the Old Testament (Prel. Dissert. p. 27.) they did not own any other Canonical Books of the Old Testament, but those which were in the Canon of the Jews, Tom. 1. p. 181. ought not to be understood generally of all Churches, nor of all the Fathers in the Three first Centuries. My Intention being only, tho' my Terms seem more general, to distinguish the Books which have been always received as Canonical through all Churches, and of which there was never any Ground to doubt in any Church, called for this cause Proto-Canonical, from those who have not always been received as such through all the Churches, and of whose Canonicalness some have doubted, named therefore Deutero Canonical.
I did think that I might hold with Sixtus Senensis, that the Canonicalness of the six last Chapters of Esther might be called in question, and that I might say with him, that it was an Addition to the Book of Esther, not comprehended in the Canon of the Council of Trent. But seeing they have convinced me, that we ought not to apply this Solution to the precise Terms of the Council, which admits all these Books contained in its Catalogue for Canonical, both in whole, and in all their Parts, as they have been in use to be read in the Catholick Church; Libros integros cum omnibus suis partibus prout in Ecclesia legi Catholici consueverunt. I have [Page 11] therefore changed my Sentiment, and do now own them for Canonical, and so much the rather, because the Church hath taken out of them Epistles and Prayers to be said in its Office; and Origen, St. Augustin, St. Jerom, and other Fathers do quote Passages out of them. The most part of the Reasons which I formerly brought, do only prove that these Chapters have another Author than the rest of the Book of Esther, except as to some apparent Contradictions in Chronology or History which may be easily reconciled.
II. As to the second Article which concerns Tradition, of which the Fathers are Witnesses, and their Writings the Channel by which it is conveyed to us. I confess that I have forsaken some Fathers in Points of Faith, in which I ought to have defended them, as St. Justin and St. Irenaeus, concerning the Immortality of the Soul, and the Eternal Punishments of the damned, because of two difficult Passages which ought to be explained by a great many others, where they do acknowledge the Immortality of the Soul, and the Eternal Punishments of the damned, as I have remarked of St. Justin in the Note x, p. 54 by quoting the Passages of this Father, where he calls the Punishments of the damned, Eternal, opposing this word Eternal to the Punishments which should once have an end: And as we can prove from St. Irenaeus by many of his Passages, and particularly by that of the 47th. Chapter of the Third Book, where he saith, That the Punishment of those who believe not the Gospel, is not only Temporal but also Eternal; non solum temporalis sed & aeterna. I have not ascribed the same Sentiment to St. Hilary, nor yet to St. Cyril; for when I said that St. Hilary asserted, that the wicked should be annihilated by the Fire of Hell, Tom. 2. p. 76. This, as this Father saith, is not that they should be totally annihilated, but that they are reduced to an Estate which approacheth to nothing; non in nihilum dissoluti, sed in inane ac leve aridumque protriti. And as to St. Cyril, I confess, that by a mistake, I have slipt into the Version of his Passage, the Name of Jesus Christ instead of that of God, translating the Soul is immortal because of Jesus Christ who gave it immortality, where it should be translated, because of God who gave it immortality; but I had no intention to ascribe to him by this, any Error concerning the Immortality of the Soul.
[Page 12] As to Original Sin, I acknowledge it's a Doctrine of Faith which hath always been believed in the Church, it is a Truth of which none shall find that I ever doubted, but when I asserted, that St. Cyprian was the first that had spoken very clearly of it, Tom. 1. p. 142. that the Fathers of the three first Ages seem not to be all agreed, whether Children were born in sin and worthy of damnation, p. 180. I did not pretend by this, to deny that the first Fathers did own it, but I intended only that they had not spoke so clearly of it as St. Cyprian. However, because this may be brought against the Tradition of this Doctrine, and that moreover I have found that St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, do speak very clearly of Original Sin; I do declare that I will not maintain these Propofitions, nor insist upon the Answers which I have given to the Passages of these Authors, to prove that they did not teach Original Sin so clearly as St. Cyprian. I acknowledge also, that St. Chrysostom believed Original Sin, even as St. Augustin hath explained it since, excepting the Punishment of Sense for Children dead without Baptism, and that he hath not made this Sin consist in the inclination to Evil only, but also in the Guilt which is the Principle of it. In this Sense is to be understood what I have said of the Agreement of his Opinion with that of Divines (Tom. 3. Part. I. p. 35.) which I would not oppose to that of St. Augustin as to the main, but only as to the way of speaking; and as to that Punishment of Sense inflicted on Children dead without Baptism; I would have it acknowledged, that these Two Fathers are entirely agreed as to the main Point of Doctrine, and that both of them taught, that Children were born in Sin, and that they were purged of it by Baptism.
I acknowledge that the Name of the Mother of God, which the Church giveth to the Virgin, is of Apostolical Tradition, and that it is not only an Expression Innocent, but Sacred in all times of the Church, and that not only we may, but also that we ought to call the Virgin the Mother of God, seeing she is so really; and whereever I have used the Term Innocent upon the Occasion of this Name of the Mother of God; I have not intended that it had no more but this Quality, but designed to shew how far the Obstinacy and Error of Nestorius reached, who denied, not only that [Page 13] we ought to use this expression, but even also that we might do it lawfully.
I do profess to own the Doctrine of Purgatory as it is held in the Church, and as it hath been defined in the Councils of Florence and Trent, and that it is a Tenet well established upon the Doctrines of the Fathers of the three first Ages, and so it must not be said Universally, as I have done in my Answer to the Remarks, P. 61 and 64. that we find nothing of it positively in the Fathers of the first three Ages, and that they have not taught, by their Writings, the Doctrine of Purgatory as we have it now. Expressions which I only designed in reference to some Circumstances of Purgatory differently explained by Divines, and which should not prejudice the Faith of the Church, nor the Substance of the Doctrine Defined in the Council of Trent, disowning whatsoever other Sense may be put upon it.
What I have said in the Answer to the Remarks, P. 144. of the New System which St. Augustin formed about Grace and Predestination, ought to be understood only of the manner how Grace operateth by it self, and of the free Predestination for Glory, and of some other Questions which are still debated amongst Catholick Divines, about which the Church hath determined nothing; and not of the necessity of Grace, which I have acknowledged always to have been believed in the Church, Ibid. P. 145. And in the abridgment of the Doctrine of the three first Ages. It is true, I have said in one place that St. Cyprian is the first who spoke very clearly of the necessity of the Grace of Jesus Christ; but I have not pretended that others did not speak clearly of it, seeing I my self have remarked, when speaking of the Works of St. Justin, St. Irenoeus, St. Clement, and many other Fathers, that they taught it. I therefore only intended to say that St. Cyprian spoke of it more strongly and more frequently than any other.
When relating the Sentiments of the Semipelagians, I did not sufficiently distinguish their Errors, from some Catholick Truths, which they also Taught, such as the Death of Jesus Christ for the Salvation of all Men, I am therefore obliged to advertise that I never intended to confound the one with the other. It has also happened in relating diverse Propositions of St. Augustin, that I have sometimes used Terms, [Page 14] which takenstrictly might lead to Error, as taking free and voluntary for the same thing, and opposing only the necessity of constraint to liberty; which is very far from my Thoughts, my design being to keep by the Definition of the Church, and the Papal Constitutions received by it.
I acknowledg I was deceived when I said, That commonly in the three first Ages, they did not give the name of Altar to the Sacred Table, upon which they Celebrated the Eucharist.
I believe concerning the Sacrament of Penance, That in the Ancient Church they distinguished three sorts of Sins; Crimes great, hainous, and known subjected to Publick Pennance; Sins Venial and very light, which may be remitted by inward Repentance alone; and Sins Mortal less hainous than the first, because Secret, which yet it is necessary to bring under the Discipline of the Church, without which the Remission of a Mortal sin cannot be obtained; for Confession and Absolution are of Divine Institution, and have always been believed necessary for the Remission of all Mortal Sins. So that I disown all the Consequences and contrary Instances, which may be drawn from what I have said of Publick and dayly Repentance, Tom. 3. Part 1. Part 2. Tom 2. and when I have said Tom. 5. p. 9. That Confession of all sorts of Sins was a Pious Practice, very common amongst Christians in the sixth Age. I do not pretend thereby that it was not in use before for Venial Sins also, but only that the Confessions of these Sins were at that time become more frequent than formerly.
I acknowledg all that is contained in the seventh Canon of the twenty fourth Session of the Council of Trent, and even as it is distinguished there: that is to say, the Sentence which Anathematizes those who believe the Church Errs in the Point of the indissolubility of Marriage as an Article of Faith; and that Marriage cannot be so dissolved, even in the case of Adultery, as that it should be lawful for either Party to Marry whilst the other is living, as being a Doctrin received in the Church from the beginning, and which agrees with the Doctrin of the Evangelists and Apostles. And tho there be some Divines, who from the observation of Palavicin, upon the Remonstrance of the Venetian Ambassadors, [Page 15] occasioned by the Greeks, to the Council, while they were forming this Article, do believe that what is said in the Canon, That the Church hath taught, and doth teach, agreeably to the Doctrin of the Gospel, and of the Apostle concerning the indissolubility of Marriage even in the Case of Adultery, is not an Article of Faith, yet I think my self obliged to follow what the Council said. And tho it may be thought that I have spoke against it, Tom. 1. p. 182. in my Answer to the Remarks, p. 71. and in many other places, yet I do declare that I had no design of denying that this Doctrin was Evangelical and Apostolical, but only to observe, that some did practise contrary thereunto; and if I were to handle this matter over again, I should apply my self as much to prove this Sentiment as I have seemed to neglect it.
When I bring in Jobius the Monk, speaking of the difference of the Procession of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and saying, Tom. 4. p. 37. That the one is called the Son, and the other the Holy Ghost, because such has been the custom, and that Men do express as they can the differences of the Divine Persons, tho they do not comprehend them, which Sentiment I have commended. I had no design to lay that difference merely upon our way of speaking and thinking, as if there was not a very real one, and altogether independent from our Thoughts and Expressions, betwixt the Generation of the Word and the Procession of the Holy Ghost; the first of which is truly a Generation, and the other is not, but only the mind of Man can neither conceive nor imagin wherein it consists.
I had no Reason to commend that of Socrates as a judicious Observation, when he saith, that the Question About the day of the Celebration of Easter was of small Consequence, seeing the Church hath made it a Capital Head of Discipline.
III. As to the third Head which concerns Councils, I do protest that I have always had in my Heart a sincere and true respect, such as every Catholick ought to have, for Councils, and I have considered the Decrees of General Councils, in Matters of Doctrin, as Articles of Faith. I have always acknowledged the advantage, and also on some occasions the necessity of assembling them; being persuaded [Page 16] that this is the most proper and most effectual means, and sometimes also necessary to suppress Error, to establish the Catholick Doctrin, and to remedy the disorders and abuses which the Enemies of the Church would introduce into the world. Thus, Councils in themselves must always have a good end, and produce good effects: but it happens sometimes through the malice of Men, and the obstinacy of Hereticks, that they do not presently give Peace, but Debates continue, and the Enemies of the Church oppose their Violence and Error to Justice and Truth, which nevertheless hath always the Victory in the end, by the particular Protection which God gives to his Church, against which the Gates of Hell, that is to say, Heresies and Errors shall never prevail. It is in this Sense that I would have understood what I have said, viz. That it is very seldom that General Councils, held upon matters of Faith, procure the Churches Peace by their determination. Which is not, because Councils are not a means of Peace, or do not always espouse the Party which they ought to take, but it is through the blindness and fury of Hereticks, who, being incensed and confounded to see themselves justly condemned, do their utmost endeavours against the Orthodox Doctrin Established infallibly; as I fully explained it by the instances of the Arians, and of the Adversaries of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. But notwithstanding all the Attacks and Oppositions of Hereticks, the Definitions of Councils are the Rule of Faith, and all those who will not acknowledge them are without the Church, all Catholicks should submit unto them, and all those who do not submit are Hereticks. So that the Church is at Peace within it self, and is only troubled from without by the Persecution, the Attacks, and Violence of those who are not of it. It is thus that I would have my words taken, having never had any intention to maintain, nor even to say, that after the Definition of Faith by a General Council, those who do not submit to it could belong to the Church.
The distinction which I have used in many places, Tom. 1. of Articles Fundamental and not Fundamental, Principal and not Principal, is very different from the Sense which Hereticks give to these Terms; for by Articles Fundamental and Principal, I understand those which we are obliged to believe [Page 17] Explicitely, or which are contained in the Creed and not in the Sense of Hereticks, who pretend that there may be Articles framed by the Church which may be denied.
Tho I believe not that I have given any occasion of doubting the Orthodoxy of my Faith concerning the Hypostatical Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ; however, because a Catholick Doctor cannot be far enough from all sort of suspition of Heresie, I protest before God, that I do believe firmly that there are in Jesus Christ two Natures, united in one only Person by an Hypostatical Union, to wit, the Divine Nature and the Humane; that Jesus Christ is both true God, and true Man together, and that I am ready to defend this Catholick Truth even to the last drop of my blood. That I do Anathematize the Error of Nestorius, his Person, and Party, and that I have a sincere and true respect for the Holy Council of Ephesus. And because some have judged, that without any design, there has escaped me, in my Relation, things which may give a disadvantageous Idea of that Affair, and Omitted Matters of Fact which may be to its advantage. I thought it my duty to make here a short review for taking away all occasion of Scandal and Complaint. Having said, Tom. 3. Part 2. p. 191. That St. Cyril did advertise the Monks of Egypt, that it were better not to move these kinds of abstracted questions, which could not be of any use. This ought not to be applied to the Defenders of the Catholick Doctrin against Nestorius, but to that Heretick and his Party who excited these Debates, by sowing their Novelties, and publishing their Errors.
That Expression which I used, p. 192. viz. St. Cyril fearing that those of his Party: having given occasion to some to think that I did consider St. Cyril as the Head of a Party like to that of Nestorius, this obligeth me to declare that there is nothing farther from my Thought, and that on the contrary I do consider St. Cyril as a Defender of the Catholick Doctrin, and Nestorius as the Head of a Heresie. And therefore if any think, that the word Party cannot be taken in a good Sense, I beg Pardon for having used it in that place, and elsewhere, declaring that it was never my Thought to compare or to put into the Ballance the Cause of the Church, of which St. Cyril was the Defender, with that of Nestorius, who [Page 18] was in Heresie. I forgot to advertise, that the Reproaches, contained in the Letter of the Emperor to St. Cyril, related p. 195. were not true, and that this Prince was surprised by the Enemies of this Saint.
I have observed in two different places, p. 196. and p. 214. That the Council was lawfully held before the arrival of those from the East, seeing the time of its Indiction was passed, and that they themselves believed that they might begin it without them. I add now, that as the Letter of St. Cyril to the Emperor imports, they could not put off the Council longer, because there were Bishops who could not stay longer in a Country so far from their own; that many Bishops were in danger of dying, because the Air of Ephesus did not agree with them; that some were already Dead, and that all demanded that the Council might be held as soon as possible. Having observed, p. 196. That the Bishops did assemble themselves, altho the Legats from the Holy See were not come, and notwithstanding the opposition of threescore and eight Bishops, yet I intended not by this to insinuate, that they were in the wrong for assembling themselves; nor that there was any regard due to that opposition. As to the number of the Bishops of the Council, having said That the Subscriptions prove one hundred and sixty. I justifie sufficiently what the Council saith, viz. That they were near two hundred, and do shew the falshood of what is alledged by the Easterns that they were only fourscore.
P. 196. Having related that Candidian. said, That he had read his Commission against his will; it must be remarked, that this bribed Officer is not to be believed in this matter, and that 'tis only a pretence which he hath since invented.
P. 197. Having related all that passed in the first Session of the Council of Ephesus: I had no intention to accuse that Council of Precipitation in its Judgment; and I do acknowledge truly that there was none, because the matter was wholly prepared, and, as I have said elsewhere, 'tis evident that Nestorius was in an Error.
When I said, That there were in the Subscriptions of the Letters from the Easterns more than fifty Bishops, tho St. Cyril only observes thirty six. I intended not to accuse St. Cyril of falshood, but it may be that the Easterns might [Page 19] get some Bishops, who were not present, to sign afterwards.
All that is said by Candidian deserves no Credit, being related by a Man suspected and Bribed: nor ought we to give any more Faith to what the Easterns write in their Letters, nor to what Acacius of Berea saith of the Corruption of the Emperors Officers by John the Physician, and Friend of St. Cyril, of which I have spoken.
Having▪ said That the event of what passed at Ephesus, was, if I may so say, under the Power of the Emperor, and that the success of the Council depended upon the Resolutions the Court should take, I did not thereby intend, that the Definition of the Council of Ephesus, and the Condemnation of Nestorius depended on the Will of the Emperor, as to the Right and Obligation of submitting thereto, but only as to the External Execution and Publication. For it must have happened, if the Emperor had continued to be deceived, that he would have Persecuted the Catholicks, opposed the Truth, and protected Violence and Error for sometime; but this is nothing to the Validity of the Council, or the Solidity of its Decision, which no ways depended on the Judgment of the Emperor, nor on the Resolutions of the Court.
Having said P. 201. That the Emperor consented to the deprivation of Nestorius, and to that of St. Cyril and Memnon, because of their Caballing. I designed not to approve this Conduct of the Emperor, nor to accuse St. Cyril of Caballing, but only to mark, that the Emperor was prepossessed falsly by Acacius of Berea, that St. Cyril and Memnon had Caballed together.
Tho it seems to me, that I have given very solid Answers to the Objections, which I have brought against the Council of Ephesus; nevertheless, because some have been offended at the Objections, I agree with them, that I had done better not to have related them in a Frenck Book. We may also add to the Answers, that there was nothing done in the Council with Precipitation. That all the Matter was prepared and discussed beforehand. That St. Cyril held it not only at the time when it ought to have been held, but that it was morally impossible to delay it. That the Zeal which actuated this Father was commendable and according to knowledge. That there came Bishops from the farthest parts who arrived much before John of Antioch. That 'tis certain that John of Antioch [Page 20] designed not to come to the Council; and that he was very glad to have it begun, that he might have a pretext for keeping away from it. That Nestorius was sufficiently convinced out of his own Writings of not admitting a real and Hypostatical Union in Jesus Christ. That there is no regard to be had to the Judgment of Isidorus Dam. who only spoke by confused Reports. That the Error of Nestorius was so evident, and so horrible, that it was just to Condem it in such Terms as might denote the horror which we ought to have for his Heresie, such as these, Nestorius another Judas, Tom. 3. Part 2. p. 2 14. That they did examin carefully, and related faithfully the Extracts of Nestorius's Books in this Synod; and lastly, that all was transacted there Legally and Canonically. As to the Sentiment of Nestorius, it is true that he never durst openly say, that there were two Christs and two Persons, but he said what was equivalent, denying the Hypostatical Union of the two Natures, admitting only a Moral Union betwixt them, as appears by a great many passages in his Writings. He held not the Error of Paulus Samosatenus, and of Arius concerning the Divinity of the Word, who did not admit of any Union of the Divine Nature with the Human, as Father Garner hath observed before me, but he erred expresly, and in formal Terms, concerning this Union, admitting only, betwixt the two Natures, an Union Moral and Apparent, and not Real and Substantial: of which Error it was easie to convince him by his Writings, tho he disguised it in some places. So when I say. Tom. 3. Part 2. p. 42. That if we appeal to his Writings, it doth appear that he hath maintained, that the Word was united with the Humane Nature by a very intimate and strict union. However, this is not to to be understood of his true Sentiment, nor of all that he hath said, but only of some places in which he hath affected, as Hereticks do, the use of Catholick Terms. For in many other place he discovers visibly his Error, as I have marked Page 43. p. 215. and if their be any Expressions in my Work which may give another Idea of him, I declare that 'tis against my intention, and I do beseech the Reader to take them in this Sense. And when Isaid p. 42. That he always said that he could not own that God was born, that God suffered, that God died, and that his Error [Page 21] consisted only in this; I in no wise pretend to make it consist only in the refusal which he made of these Expressions, acknowledging that he did really admit a Moral Union betwixt the two Natures, and that he would have two Persons in Jesus Christ, which was the reason why he would not admit the Consequences of the Unity of one Person alone.
These words in the beginning of the History of the Council of Chalcedon, Tom. 3. Part 2. p. 230. That this Assembly had turned into a confused Rout, if the Commissaries of the Emperor had not put a stop to the tumultuary Exclamations which were made there, by advertising the Bishops that it was unworthy of them to behave themselves after such a manner. I say, these words not appearing respectful enough to that Council which I honour, I wish I had not used them, tho' I did it innocently, and without any bad intention.
When I said, Tom. 4. pag. 146. That it had been better not to have moved the affair of the three Chapters, I designed that this Censure should only fall upon what preceded the time of the Council, and on the Person of Theodorus, who stirred up Justinian to push on this Affair. As to the Council, I acknowledge that as Affairs stood then, and seeing how far the Assembly was carried on, that it was absolutely necessary for the good of the Church to pass the Condemnation of the three Chapters, and that all the Catholicks ought to have submitted to it; that they had reason to condemn Theodorus after his Death, and that that Conduct of Anathematizing the Dead may be followed, as the Church hath often done since; that they had reason also to condemn the Letter of Ibas, and the Writings of Theodoret, thus I disown what I have said to the contrary, p. 146. and what follows.
As to the matter of Images, the Worship of which is determined in the second Council of Nice. I acknowledge that this Council is a General and Lawful one, and that therefore there is a perfect submission due to it, acknowledging for an Article of Faith all which it hath decreed, and that all its Proofs are not drawn from supposed Monuments, and Apocryphal Passages of the Scripture and Fathers which prove nothing; that there are there very solid Proofs and unanswerable, drawn either from Scripture, or the Writings of the Fathers, or other Pieces of Antiquity. I did not intend to [Page 22] make any comparison betwixt this Council and the false Council of Constantinople against Images, nor to speak of them as two opposite Parties. I believe very firmly in the one, what I detest in the other, acknowledging with the first, a Worship Relative, True and Sincere to be paid to Images, out of Respect to what they represent, according as it is explained in the Council of Trent. And when I said, Tom. 5. p. 146. That Image-worship was established by the simpler and weaker sort, who seeing the Saints drawn upon Tables for the Instruction of those who could not read, could not forbear to testify by external Signs, the Veneration which they had for the things they represented; and that this worship of Images thus established, was moreover fortified by the Miracles which were ascribed to them. I did not intend that this was the only Origin of the worship of Images, nor the reason of the Progress which it made, which was established and approved by the Church for very good Reasons; and I do acknowledge, that to give it no other Origin, nor any other Progress than this, should be to lessen the Respect we have for them, and very far from promiting it as I ought.
What I have said, page 147. That we cannot condemn as Hereticks, those who will not admit Image-worship for some particular Reasons, either because the Practice of their Church is otherways, or because they fear those outward Duties should be mistaken for Adoration; or Lastly, Because they do not believe the Worship of Images to be sufficiently warranted, seeing to prove it they have alledged a great number of false Pieces, or of impertinent Passages that prove nothing. And what I have said in the same place, Moreover the proceeding of those Persons could not be blamed, who to settle Peace in the Church, and to re-unite two opposite Parties; of which, the one were for breaking down all Images, and the other for honouring of them, endeavouring to make their own usage to be received every where, and wrote to the Pope respectfully about it. I say, these are Expressions which have escaped me, which I wish I had not uttered; because besides that, they are too indefinite, and that taking them in the ut-most extent, they may give ground to think that we ought not at this time to condemn any who should refuse by some one of these Reasons to honour Images, tho' my intention was to apply them only to the Church of France in the time of Charlemain, to which I have [Page 23] afterwards fixed them. Besides this, they may give occasion to think that we may consider the Iconolasts, as a Party tolerated in the Church, and whom the French did not condemn as Hereticks, tho' it be certain that these Enemies of the Orthodox Faith have always been looked upon as such by all Catholicks, and that it is certain that the Iconoclasts and Claudius of Turin, who was of their Sentiment, were considered as Hereticks, even by those of our French who did not own the Adoration of Images. Therefore left my words be so taken, I am here obliged to say, that I never believed that these very Persons, who do not yet acknowledge the Second Council of Nice for lawful, should consider the Iconoclasts as being within the Church, or that they should tolerate them in it. And when I said, p. 133. That the Emperor Constantine Copronimus designed to have his Discipline received every where, speaking of his Design to break down Images, I did not understand it of the Heretical Doctrine of the Iconoclasts, nor did I intend that it should be thought no Heresy to use Images after that manner.
When I said, p. 148. That it were fitting to suffer no Image of the Deity and Trinity, I did not intend to condemn these Images, and I have spoken too generally, that all the most zealous Defenders of Images have condemned them, which is only to be found in some. I do acknowledge that the Celibacy of Priests and Deacons is a Practice very Holy and most Praise worthy, commonly observed in the Church from the first three Centuries: and I did not intend to say any thing to the contrary, Tom. 1. p. 183. Tom. 2. p. 248, &c.
IV. As to the fourth Article which concerns the Primacy of the Holy See, I ought to have collected with more Care what the Councils, the Fathers, and other Ecclesiastical Authors have said of the Primacy of the Holy See, and of the Greatness of the Church of Rome, and to have taken occasion to remark to the Reader the extent of this Primacy, its Divine Institution, and its Jurisdiction in all the Church, without doing prejudice to the true Priviledges of particular Churches, and to the Rights of Bishops. This did not happen because I do not believe, or have not always believed this Primacy of Jurisdiction over all the Church to be of Divine [Page 24] Institution, as I have observed it, Tom. 2. p. 90. and elsewhere, in these very Terms, The Bishop of the Church if Rome was in possession of the Primacy, which he received from Jesus Christ, as being Successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles: This Primacy was given him with great Priviledges and great Prerogatives in all the Church, for maintaining in it the Faith, and for causing the Holy Canons to be observed. But I should have insisted more upon it, and ought to have spoken of it oftner, to confirm it by greater Proofs, and not to have neglected the doing of this as I may seem to have done, either by omitting very fair Passages of Antiquity upon this Head, or not giving these Passages all their force in my Translations; as when I bring the Passage of the 53 Epistle of St. Cyprian to Pope Cornelius, I have omitted these words; Nec cogitare eos esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo predicante laudata est, & ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum, and to some other Passages which are of the same Subject. Speaking of the Condemnation of Nestorius by the Council of Ephesus, I have translated these words, Coacti per sacros Canones & Epistolam Celestini, thus we have been constrained according to the Letter of Celestine, which ought to have been literally translated thus, We have been constrained by the Holy Canons, and by the Letter of Celestine. As also the Council of Calcedon speaking of the re establishment of Theodoret in his Bishoprick by Pope St. Leo; I have used an Expression which doth not give the Terms of the Council all their force; for, restituit ei Episcopatum, is translated thus, he owned him for Bishop.
When I said in the Advertisement of Tom. 5. That the missions served to enlarge the Authority of the Pope; these words ought to be understood of the actual extent of his Jurisdiction, and not of his right of Primacy.
When I made mention of the Complements, Tom. 3. Part 1. and Part 2. which St. Augustin and Theodoret gave to the greatness of the Church of Rome, when writing to the Popes, I did not design Complements which are not founded upon Truth, but do acknowledge that these Praises are very true.
I cannot but disapprove the Liberty which I have taken to speak of some Holy Popes with very little respect, and [Page 25] amongst others, of Pope St. Cornelius, whom I have too much accused of Weakness in the Defence of St. Cyprian; of Pope St. Stephen, whom I have taxed with excessive Passions, Heat,and Fierceness. Tom. 1. p. 118, &c. and of whom I said, That it was very probable that he fell into the Error of Re-baptizing all Hereticks, however they had been baptized; of Pope Zosimus,by saying, That he had a design to enlarge his Authority, for which cause it was that he entered upon the defence of Celestius; of St. Innocent, by observing that he was very jealous of the Greatness and Authority of the Church of Rome, and very tenacious of his Rights, and that he wrote tolerably well; of St. Leo, of whom I said, Tom. 3. Part 2 p. 110. That he sought all occasions to shew his Authority; and of what I may have said in some other places.
V. As to the fifth Article, which concerns Heresy and Hereticks, I may in some places have spoken of them, tho' contrary to my intention, in such a manner as does not seem to beget a due aversion to them, and which doth not sufficiently preserve the Reader, treating too gently those who furthered or supported them. I wish I had not said of Eusebius That we cannot refuse him the Quality of a Saint without rashness, after having asserted that he never approved the Term Consubstantial, altho' he established a perfect equality betwixt the Father and the Son.
I did only translate the Passage of Gennadius about Vigilantius, and as he said, That this Man had advanced Frivola, I have heedlesly translated this Term by Bagatels, tho' it may bear another signification, and point out Errors which have no foundation: But I do not pretend by this, any ways to excuse Vigilantius from Errors which he hath advanced against the Invocation of Saints, and the Veneration of Relicks, nor yet to approve wholly the Sentiment of Gennadius.
VI. As to the Sixth Article which concerns the Advertisements which I have given to the fourth and fifth Tome. I acknowledge that in the three first Pages there are Expressions very hard, and if they be taken literally and generally, and not according to my Intention, they are capable of offending [Page 26] Pious Persons, therefore I wish these Pages were torn out. But however Protestantss would be in the wrong to draw from them any Consequence to the prejudice of the Church, which I do acknowledge immoveable in her Faith and in her Manners, tho' she may change in her Discipline. I do acknowledge in particular, that to celebrate the Mass every Day, is a practice Holy and Commendable which I never design to disapprove no more than the frequent Confession of Venial Sins.
VII. As to the seventh Head which concerns the Fathers, I acknowledge that I have spoke of some of them in Terms which testify too little respect for them; as relating, Tom. 1. p. 60. The Judgment of Phocius upon the Works of St. Irenaeus, where I should have remarked, that what Phocius said in this place had a respect to other Works than those we now have. It seems to me that I have drawn the Picture of Novatian too favourably, and that that of Pope St. Cornelius is not favourable enough. I cannot approve of what I have said of St. Gregory Nazianzen, That he had much Piety, but little Conduct and Policy in Business; that he undertook readily great Matters, but repented himself presently of having undertaken them; that he had in his Life-time there Bishopricks, and nevertheless it cannot be said that he was lawful Bishop of any one; that his Humour was Chagrine and Satirical; that he loved Raillery and spared no body. I wish I had not said of St. Epiphanius, that he had no Judgment, nor Conduct, nor Policy. As I approve of what I say of St. Jerome, that he was without doubt the most learned of all the Fathers, so I disapprove of what I said afterwards, p. beginning with these words; that he turned his Adversaries into ridicule, &c. When I said of Severus Sulpitius, that he was too credulous of Miracles; and of St. Paulinus, that he was too much inclined to believe Miracles, and to have a veneration for Relicks. I did not design to obstruct the Belief of Miracles well confirmed, nor the Veneration due to Relicts well attested. By what I have said of St. Augustin, it doth appear how much I esteem this Father, whom I own to be one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, and most observant of Tradition, which he hath only illustrated in all that he hath written concerning the Doctrines of Faith, therefore it should not be taken in ill [Page 27] part what I have said, p. Tom. 3. Part 1. that be very often runs away from the Sentiments of those who preceded him to follow a way altogether New, whether in the Explication of Scripture, or in the Opinions of Divinity. Here I did not understand Matters of Faith, but some Questions which are only regarded by Divines as simple Opinions. In the Character which I have given of this Father, there may be Expressions which are very hard above all in these Pages.
I have spoke with very little respect of St. Cyril his stile and manner of Expression, when I said, Tom. 3. Part 2. p. and that it is easy to write great quickly Volumes of this nature, &c. And to what I have observed of him to his disadvantage drawn from Phocius, I should have added what the same Author says in his favour, that he pressed Hereticks so strongly by Texts of Scripture, and by Logical Reasonings, that they knew not where to turn themselves. I have testified sufficiently the Respect and Esteem which I have for St. Leo; and when I said, that he was not very fertile upon the points of Morality, which he treated very drily, and after a manner which rather diverted than affected. I designed only to mark that he did not treat Matters of Morality so largely and so much as other Fathers, tho' I do acknowledge that his Sermons are very useful, and his manner of expressing things as capable to persuade as to please.
In the Elogy which I have given to St. Chrysologus, I should have stopt at what I said, p. without adding, that he had nothing great or high to merit the Name of Chrysologus. When I said, speaking of the Book of the Celestial Hierarchy, and of that of Mystical Divinity, that nothing solid, profitable, or agreeable could be drawn from them; I have spoken so only in reference to Popular Instructions, acknowledging that there are in this Book things very good and very profitable for Divinity.
Finally, if there be any other place in my History which may be contrary to the respect due to the Holy Fathers, or any Terms which may be construed to their disadvantage, it is against my Intention.
VIII. As to the Eighth Article, which concerneth Penitentials, Casuists, and Scholastick Divines; what I have said of the two first in the Advertisement of the 5 Tom. p. I did not [Page 28] mean of all Penitentials, nor of all Casuists acknowledging that there are of them who are profitable and good. As also when I said in my answer to the Remarks, that Scholastick Divines would forget nothing of all that might have a reference to their Metaphysical Questions, whereas these good Divines, &c. I intended not here to oppose good Divines to good Scholasticks, but only to those Scholasticks who insist too much upon subtile Questions and Logical Difficulties, without applying themselves to the Study of the Scriptures and Tradition, acknowlegding, that there are good Scholastick Divines and that this Science is useful.
When I said, that St. Thomas quoted Fathers carelesly, and with little Judgment, I intended only that this Saint, as well as many Writers of his time, did not quote the Authors with any critical exactness, which was the Effect of the Age he lived in, rather than a personal Fault.
IX. As to the Ninth Article which concerns the Extracts I have given of Authors; it is true, that I have not set my self sufficiently to distinguish what is good from what is amiss in them, nor to answer the difficult Passages for enabling the Readers how to guard themselves.
X. As to the Tenth Article, which concerneth Critical Questions, I own that we ought to regard the Apostles Creed as a formulary of Faith, drawn up by them as to the Substance, tho' some Terms were not the same in all Churches And as to the Institution of Lent, that we ought to say with St. Leo, St. Jerom, and other Fathers, that it is of Apostolical Institution, and that the Passages, which I have related, do not prove the contrary.
XI. As to the Eleventh Article, which concerneth Miracles, Revelations, Apparitions, and pious Practices; when I said that [...]t was surprising, that Eusebius never spoke of the Invention of the Cross; I did not intend by this to call in question this Matter of Fact which is attested by contemporary Authors, nor to doubt of the Miracles which they have related, of which I ought to have spoken more confidently than I have done, Tom. 2. Part. 1: p. [...]as well as of the Revelation made to St. Cyprian to retire, Tom. 1. p. [...] And of the Miracle of Healing of Leo III. related by Anastasius the Library Keeper, Tom. 5. [...].
[Page 29] Speaking of the Wax Candles which they light in honour of the Martyrs, and relating a passage of St. Jerom, Tom. 3. Part 1. p. When I remarked That in the times of this Father it was not the custom to light them at Noon, I intended not to blame the present Custom of the Church, nor to take from it the Authority which it hath from Antiquity. It must be added that St. Jerom does not condemn those who lighted Wax Candles at Noon out of Devotion, and he testifies that they did it in the East in all Churches while the Gospel was a reading.
XII. Finally, As to the last Head, which concerneth some passages, where I seem not to have comprehended the Sense of the Authors; I make no difficulty of acknowledging that this may have happened many times, it being very hard not to be deceived in so great a Work, and to keep always an equal application in reading so many great Volumes. But as I have only done it through inadvertency, so I shall be always obliged to those who will advertise me of it, and be ready to set me right.
In particular, I do acknowledg that, Tom. 3. Part 2. p. 52. I have ill understood the Sentiment of Philostorgius on the Second Book of Maccabees, who doth not say that it is of less Authority than the First, but of another Author. That Hipatius doth not say in the Conference with the Severians, That we must not regulate our selves by what every Apostle hath Written and Practised concerning the Observation of Legal Ceremonies, but only by what every one hath Practised. That the passage of Cassian related Tom. 3. Part 2. p. 13 should not be understood of the Law and Obligation to observe Lent, but of the Reason of its Institution. That St. Jerom said not in the one hundred and twenty ninth Letter That some Churches, both Greek and Latin received not the Epistle to the Hebrews, nor the Revelation, but only that some Latin Churches did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews no more than some Greek Churches the Revelation, notwithstanding that it is authorized by the Testimony of the Antients, and after this manner the Extract of that Letter must be rectified, p. Tom. 3. Part 1. Behold the principal things which have been observed to me; if there be yet any other thing in my Works which causes any difficulty, [Page 30] I shall he always ready to clear it, to change it, to correct it, and even to revoke it, if need be; my only design, in Writing, being to seek the Truth, and to Edifie the Church. I acknowledge with St. Augustin, that it is a great favour which God doth to Authors, when he giveth them the means of rendering their Works more learned and more exact, by the Censures of those who read them and examin them; and I do very readily apply to my self these words; Ego autem cum per eos qui meos labores legunt non solum doctior verumetiam emendatior fio, propitium mihi Deum agnosco, & hoc per Ecclesiae Doctores maxime expecto, si & in ipsorum manus venit, dignanturque nosse quod scribo. St. Aug. De dono Pers. circa finem. But I do consider it as the greatest happiness which could befal me, to have for my Judge the most able and learned Prelate of the Kingdom, to whose Judgment I shall ever think it my glory to submit, as I am obliged to it, without Restriction and without Reservation.
An Extract out of the Registers of the Parliament of Paris, Saturday, April, 25. 1693.
THIS day the Kings Council entered the Court, and by Monsieur Chrestien Francois de la Moignon, Advocate to our Lord the King, did acquaint them, that they thought it was their Duty to inform them, that the Archbishop of Paris had lately Condemned a Book Entituled Novelle Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, written by Monsieur Ellies Du Pin, Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, because it contained Propositions contrary to sound Doctrin. That the Cognizance of every thing that relates to the Faith, belonging to the Church, and the decision of these Matters to the Bishops within their respective Diocese. The suppression of the Books which they Condemn, and the afflictive punishment of those who persist in Opinions which haue been [Page 31] Censured by the Bishops, belongs to the King's Officers, and chiefly to this Court, which is the Depository of Sovereign Justice. That they had nothing to object against the Author of this Book, because he has submitted himself to the Judgment of his Bishop; and because it appears by a Writing which he has published, that he has retracted some of those Propositions which had advanced, and explained the rest in such a manner as frees them from all suspition of Error; that they are willing to believe, that the Faults which Monsieur Ellies Du Pin fell into, and which deserved the Censure pronounced against him, proceeded rather from the greatness of the Work which he undertook, than from any formed design of introducing new Opinions; and besides, that there is a great deal of Learning in his Books. That they were obliged to take notice to this Court upon this occasion, of the care, the application, and vigilauce, which Monsieur the Archbishop of Paris shews to preserve sound Doctrine in his Diocese, and to stiffle every thing in the beginning which may disturb the Peace and Tranquility of the Church. And therefore that they could omit nothing in those Stations in which they had the Honour to be placed, that was necessary to second such good Designs; upon which account they were obliged to demand of this Court, that those Books, which the Archbishop had condemned, might be suppressed, and that all Booksellers should be forbidden to sell them, till they shall be Corrected according to the Writing of the said Du Pin, annexed to Monsieur the Archbishop's Censure; and that the Corrections shall have been approved by him. The King's Learned Council withdrawing, the Matter was taken into deliberation, and the Court did forbid all Booksellers, and others, to sell or keep by them any Copies of the said Books, which have hitherto been Printed. And it was ordered, that they should be brought forthwith into the Office of this Court to be suppressed, with very express Prohibitions to all Persons to Reprint that Book in any manner whatsoever for the time to come, without the Advice and Consent of the Archbishop of Paris.