Sidor som bilder

siastical Authors"* must not be omitted in a notice like the present. Various attempts had already been made to illustrate the literary history of the church. Sixtus of Sienna, Bellarmine, Possevin, Miræus, and Labbe, had given accounts of the ecclesiastical writers. But these early attempts were all more or less chargeable with excessive brevity and incorrectness, and they were at once well nigh superseded by the almost simultaneous publication of the learned works of Oudinus, Cave, and Du Pin. The last of these, with whom we are now concerned, was the earliest writer who employed a modern language in writing a systematic work on a subject connected with the higher departments of ecclesiastical information. Yet it was in spite of himself that he became an ecclesiastical historian. The work which he projected and commenced was merely a literary history. But the manner in which he executed the first eight centuries induced the celebrated Bossuet to interrupt his labours. He was forbidden to proceed.† In order to evade this prohibition he continued his undertaking under a different form and title; henceforth interweaving an account of the ecclesiastical writers with a general history of the church. At the time at which it was written, it was undoubtedly an important work. The author was a man of extensive and various learning, and of an independent and candid mind. But he seems to have been a person of little originality. His liberality, too, frequently appears to be mere indifferentism; and his book affords throughout evident marks of carelessness and haste. The writer of these remarks feels grateful to an early guide; but it is his duty to warn the student against supposing that the work of Du Pin exhibits the present state of ecclesiastical knowledge.

The works of the learned Franciscan, ANTOINE PAGI, of which the

• Nouvelle Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, contenant l'Histoire de leur vie, le catalogue, la critique, et la chronologie de leurs ouvrages; le sommaire de ce qu'ils contiennent un jugement sur leur style, et sur leur doctrine; et le denombrement des differentes editions de leurs œuvres. Par Mre. L. Ellies Du Pin, Docteur de la Faculté de Paris, et Professeur Royal en Philosophie.



Ittig. Hist. Eccles. Sel. Cap. Præfat. § lxv.—Walch, Bibl. Theol. iii. 395—

The new title in the Paris edition was, Histoire des Controverses et des Matieres Ecclesiastiques traitées dans le Neuvième Siecle. 1694. In the Amsterdam reprint, the original title was continued throughout all the volumes.

$ Critica Historico-Chronologica in universos Annales Ecclesiasticos Eminentissimi et Reverendissimi Cæsaris Cardinalis Baronii, in qua Rerum Narratio defenditur, illustratur, suppletur, Ordo Temporum corrigitur, innovatur, et Periodo Græco-Romana nunc primùm concinnata munitur, Auctore R. P. Antonio Pagi, Doct. Theol., Ordinis Minorum Convent. S. Francisci. Opus Posthumum, Quatuor Tomis distinctum; ab Adventu Domini nostri Jesu Christi ad Annum MCXCVIII. perductum; non solum Annales Ecclesiasticos, Horumque Epitomen legentibus; sed etiam omnibus Antiquitatis Studiosis necessarium. Accedunt Catalogi decem Veterum Summorum Pontificum hactenus inediti. Studio et curâ R. P. Francisci Pagi, Auctoris Nepotis, ejusdem Ordinis Doctoris Theologi. Cum Indicibus locupletissimis. Editio novissima accuratior, ab ipsomet Auctoris Nepote plurimis in locis emendata, cui accessit Dissertatio Hypatica, seu de Consulibus Cæsareis. Antverpiæ. 1727. This is the title of the second edition of the whole work. The volume published at Paris in 1689 contained only the first four cen

first volume was published in 1689, was a valuable contribution to church-history. It was written to correct the faults, and supply the omissions, of Baronius; and is deservedly regarded as the most important work which has ever appeared on ecclesiastical chronology.


But scarcely any scholar of this period did more for church-history than the excellent and admirably learned LOUIS-SEBASTIEN LE NAIN DE TILLEMONT. His writings, which were mostly published after his death, may be said to have exhausted the sources of history which had hitherto come to light, and to exhibit all that was then known of the empire and the church during the first six centuries. But his great work is correctly described by its title; it is a magazine of materials, selected, arranged, and labelled, rather than a history. It is a book less suitable to be read than to be consulted. It is, however, a perfect model of historical research, not less admirable for its tone and spirit than for its accuracy and learning. The scholar always turns to the pages of Tillemont with satisfaction, and the thoughtful student of ecclesiastical history cannot but revere the memory of one in whom, after allowing for the peculiarities of a pious Romanist, he ever finds liberality without latitudinarianism, and candour without scepticism.

No French work on the history of the church is better known than the "Histoire Ecclesiastique" of CLAUDE FLEURY ; the first volume of which appeared in 1691. It was intended by its authors rather as a popular account of the subject on which it is written, than as a work

turies. The complete work was first published after the author's death, by his nephew, François Pagi, in 1705.

L'Histoire des Empereurs et des autres Princes qui ont regné durant les six premiers Siecles, &c. 1690, et seq.

+ Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire Ecclesiastique des six premiers Siecles, justifiés par les citations des Auteurs Originaux; avec une Chronologie, où l'on fait un abregé de l'Histoire Ecclesiastique et Profane, et des Notes pour éclaircir les difficultez des faits et de la Chronologie. A Paris. 1693-1712.

Histoire Ecclesiastique par M. Fleury, Prêtre, Abbé du Loc-Dieu, SousPrécepteur de Monseigneur le Duc de Bourgogne et de Monseigneur le Duc d'Anjou. A Paris. 1691. The last volume, (the twentieth,) which appeared in 1720, brought down the history to 1414.

He thus states the object of his work: "J'écris pour les Chrétiens, qui aiment leur religion, qui veulent s'instruire de plus en plus, et la reduire en pratique. Je n'écris pas toutefois pour les theologiens et les gens de lettres: ils apprendront mieux l'histoire ecclesiastique dans les auteurs originaux dont je l'ay tirée. Si ce n'est que quelqu'un encore nouveau dans cette étude veüille s'aider de mes citations, pour trouver plus facilement les pieces qu'il doit consulter. J'écris principalement pour ceux de quelque condition qu'ils soient, qui n'ont ni les connoissances necessaires, ni le loisir, ni la commodité de lire tant de livres; mais qui ont de la foi, du bons sens, de l'amour pour la verité; qui lisent pour apprendre des verités utiles et en devenir meilleurs : qui veulent connoître le Christianisme grand et solide comme il est; et en separer tout ce que l'ignorance et la superstition y ont voulu méler de temps en temps. Je voy bien que cette histoire ne plaira pas aux petits esprits attachés à leurs préjugés, et toûjours prests à condamner ceux qui les veulent desabuser : détournant leurs oreilles de la verité pour se tourner à des fables; cherchant des docteurs selon leurs desirs. Ils ne trouveront que trop d'autres livres selon leur goust. C'est pour me rendre utile au commun des personnes sensées que j'écris en François, au hasard de ne pas assés bien exprimer la force du Latin et du Grec, et de ne m'écarter de la pureté de ma langue."-Préface.

of research and erudition. But he is a writer of no ordinary merit. He has expressed, in an easy and pleasing manner, the result of the inquiries of the great scholars of his time; and though he cannot be praised for any important discoveries or original investigations, he made church-history a branch of polite literature, and produced an instructive and entertaining work, which fairly exhibited the state of ecclesiastical knowledge in the church of Rome at the beginning of the eighteenth century. I. G. D.


I HAVE taken a good deal of trouble, and occupied much space, in vain, if I have not shewn by the preceding letter that what I object to in the spirit and style of Fox's work is not coarseness of phraseology, or anything that can be met by talking of an unpolished age, or the language of Fox's contemporaries. I am not complaining of his calling St. Francis an ass, or a rude idiot who found fools that followed his doltish religion, though I do not particularly admire such language, or see why it should be reprinted by those who would not use it; but, in fact, I am not speaking of language at all, except as it is an indication (as indeed it is the vehicle) of spirit and feeling; and by "style" I mean the mode in which the work is executed, under the influence of that spirit and feeling, rather than anything relating to taste or literary composition. I mean the light in which persons and events are placed, the constant occurrence of ill-natured insinuation and petulant remark, the incessant mocking, bantering, and insulting of the papists, not merely as if they were enemies, (for they might claim some charity, or at least some compassion, from a Christian,) but as if they were creatures whom it was quite proper to loathe and to deride. All that was said or done by papists, even before there were protestants, seems to have been, in Fox's view, a fair subject for sarcasm, banter, and ridicule. He appears to have thought that the proceedings of "the wicked and cursed trains of these Romish rakehells," 367, 393, could not be recorded in language too contemptuous and abusive. Even the most solemn acts of devotion, (or hypocrisy -they must have been one or the other,) if performed by the "shaven rabble," the "mischievous progeny of Antichrist," 333, were subjects for raillery; and very rich, though rather coarse fun might be extracted from "the shavelings who, with small devotion or none at all, patter and chatter a new-found song, 'Secundum usum Sarum,' iii. 289. He seems to have delighted to represent whatever they did in the most invidious and hateful light; and were it not that I postpone the inquiry about correctness, I should feel bound here to add something more than a mere allusion to a species of colouring which I know not how to reconcile with common honesty.

To recur to the instance of St. Francis. What can be more childish or more ill-natured than to insinuate that, by drawing up a rule for his followers, he intended to supersede, or represent as imperfect, the gos

pel of Christ as the rule of Christians? or pretending that there was any "derogation" of the gospel in the matter at all, or that "his presumptuous testament" was "wrought, no doubt, by Satan, to diminish and obscure the Testament of Jesus Christ"? It is very curious and illustrative that Fox, who seems so scandalized at St. Francis's publishing a work under such a title, and who, on the ground of its mere name, represents it as an undoubted work of the devil, should elsewhere give us a treatise, written by William Thorpe, "under the name and title of his testament," iii. 282. He does not pretend to know what was in the work of St. Francis, but he sets forth the very name as a reason why we should count him an enemy of Christ. He gives Thorpe's treatise at full length, and tells us that he was a "good man, and blessed servant of God." We may suppose that he saw some peculiar merit in the work, which overcame his dislike to its profane title. He thought it "not meet to be left out;" and there are those who think that it ought to be now reprinted; and, therefore, (though it is rather anticipating,) I will here transcribe Collier's account of it, which may shew that I am not quite singular in my "personal dislike" of some of the doctrines contained in Fox's work.

"This historian transcribes another discourse of this Lollard's; 'tis called Thorp's Testament: 'tis a violent invective against the hierarchy, and discovers a great deal of heat, ignorance, and enthusiasm. He falls blindly upon the whole order, without reserve or exception: he insists mainly upon reforming the church to apostolical poverty, would have the bishops and priests work for their livings; and when they were past their labour, to subsist upon the charity of the people. He addresses all kings and emperors, lords and ladies, to reduce the clergy to a state of beggary and dependence. In short, he endeavours to raise the government upon the church; presses destructive expedients, charges the people to forsake the public communion, and pretends to foretel, that unless the clergy are thus harass'd and renounc'd, they'l draw down the judgments of heaven upon the kingdom, and the nation will be destroy'd with pestilence and famine. His reason for exhorting the people to desert the communion of the then church is founded upon the misbehaviour of the clergy: but this ground is clearly indefensible. To argue in this manner is to make the validity of the sacraments depend upon the qualifications of the priest, and not upon the institution of our Saviour, which doctrine is a contradiction to catholic belief, and expressly condemned in the Articles of the church of England. However, after all this furious zeal, false reasoning, and intemperate railing, Fox gives Thorp the character of 'a good man and blessed servant of God.'"-Eccl. Hist. i. 625.

Further as to St. Francis-if my former letter had not been so long, and I had been able when I sent it conveniently to refer to the edition

* When I noticed this in my preceding letter, I asked, "Would it not be quite as fair to say that Fox's Acts were wrought by Satan to obscure and diminish the Acts of the Apostles?" I was not then aware (though I think Fox must have been) that the title had been seriously objected to on these very grounds. He made a great deal of use of Crispin's " Actiones et monimenta Martyrum," in which the compiler says, in the" Admonitio," prefixed to the edition of Geneva, 1560, "Erunt fortasse Critici, qui inscriptionem aliam aliquam quam aut Actorum aut Actionum desyderent (quam tamen inscriptionem, et in priore olim editione, et in hac posteriore sequuti sumus) quoniam nomen illud augustum, singulari quodam ac proprio quorumdam minime malorum hominum prejudicio solis apostolis attributum, rerum publice gestarum publicam et popularem memoriam potius, quam privatæ rei rationem aliquam contineat. Quibus criticis ut aliquid darem, et interim instituti nostri rationem etiam habere videremur, Actiones libenter, quæ quibusque vel rebus vel personis accommodari possunt inscribere maluimus."

of 1583, and to see whether my recollection was accurate, I should not have let pass what Fox says of the difficulty of making a martyr of St. Francis, without pointing it out as a specimen of the spirit in which the work is written. It is, he says, hard to make a martyr of him who is no true confessor. But on what ground does he assume that Francis was not a true confessor? merely the civility of the sultan; he does not pretend to have any other ground for representing him as one who did not confess Christ, though he admits that he went to the sultan with full knowledge of the risque which he was incurring, "so desirous was he of martyrdom." Of course I do not mean that Fox ought to have represented him as a martyr; but I mean that it was inconsistent, and illustrative of the spirit of the writer, thus pointedly to deny to a man who really sought martyrdom a name which he was so ready to confer upon anybody who could by the utmost stretch be made to appear an enemy of Rome, or a sufferer by the practising of proud prelates. I say nothing at present of cases which have been questioned as to fact, and in which it is promised that Fox shall be vindicated; but what more complete illustration could I give than his contriving to "make a martyr" of Fluentius, whom the pope forbade to preach about Antichrist? Supposing, as those who make out a line of witnesses, without regard to common sense, would have us, that, by preaching the actual birth of Antichrist, he meant any allusion to the pope or the papacy-suppose that calling the pope Antichrist, while he acknowledged him as his ecclesiastical superior, was the sum and substance of the gospel, and the true way of preaching it-suppose all this, which is, I believe, entirely absurd and groundless, yet is it not deluding the Christian church to set forth this man as one of the noble army of martyrs, because his acknowledged ecclesiastical superior, without doing him the least injury in person or property, told him to hold his tongue ?*

I have said that Fox seems to have considered everything done by the papists as a fit subject for raillery; and having mentioned Collier, I will here transcribe his testimony on that point, before I proceed to some other proofs. He says

*If the reader refers to the new edition, ii. 172, he will see, "About the same time, A.D. 1101, the bishop of Fluence began to teach and to preach of Antichrist then to be born and to be manifest, as Sabellicus testifieth; whereupon Paschal assembling a council, put to silence the said bishop, and condemned his books. In this council at Trecas, priests who were married were condemned for Nicolaitans." We may observe by the way that the "general reader" would suppose that the condemnation of Fluentius had taken place at the council of Trecas; but let this pass; the point to be noticed is, that the Editor has omitted Fox's statement in distinct terms that Fluentius was a martyr. The marginal note, "The Bishop of Fluence a martyr," (196) is not to be found in the new edition. Why? It may have been merely put out by the printer for his convenience, as interfering with the date at the top of page 173: but everybody who knows that a main part of the controversy about the value of Fox's work has turned upon the charge that he could "make a martyr" with too great facility, must see that such an omission is important, and that if it is to be attributed (as I really believe it should be) to ignorance and carelessness, rather than to any intention of dishonest suppression, it shews that, even on points which have been most controverted, we must not trust to the new edition for a full and faithful representation of Fox's statements.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »