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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 't is 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 't is 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 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 CONDEMNATION OF Monsieur Du PIN HIS HISTORY OF Ecclesiastical Authors BY THE ARCHBISHOP of PARIS Together with his own RETRACTATION Translated out of French LONDON Printed for Charles Brome and William Keblewhite at the East-End of St. Paul's and at the Swan in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1696. ADVERTISEMENT TO offer any Account of the History of Ecclesiastical Writers by Monsieur Du Pin or to give a Character of it would be Labour to no purpose seeing it is so well known here by the accurate Translation of it which hath been Published Monsieur Du Pin's Performance in that Work as well as Undertaking did at first receive the Approbation of many Learned Roman Catholicks as they have still the general Applause amongst Protestants But the Esteem which the latter had of this Work tended to the Prejudice of the Author raising Jealousies in those of his own Communion as if he intended to betray the Church and to weaken the Foundation upon which it pretends to stand What chiefly recommended him to Protestants was his Ingenuity in declaring both his own Sentiments and the Sentiments of the Fathers But this very Thing displeased the Heads of his own Church where even Truth it self is not allowed to be spoken but when it may serve their Interest Nay the more Moderate charged him with Imprudence in delivering Truths very unseasonably for while they were extirpating the Opinions of Protestants as damnable Heresie it was no ways proper to Publish a Book which yields great Advantage to Protestants and which shews that their Sentiments are more agreeable to what the Primitive Church and Fathers held than the present Tenets and Practices of the Church of Rome These Prejudices and Objections were managed by some who did bear Monsieur Du Pin a Personal Grudge and by this means he was complained upon publickly and a publick Censure of his Person and Books was demanded which the Circumstances of the French King also required and made necessary that thereby he might soften the Pope dispose him to a Reconciliation and either engage him to side with France against the Confederate Princes or at least to abide Neutral For it was generally believed that that Confederacy did first spring from the Pope who suspected that the French King designed to throw off his Authority and who was highly displeased with him upon the account of those Propositions relating to the Papal Jurisdiction which the Assembly of the Clergy had Concerted and Published Anno 1682. Thus Policy and Interest required the Condemnation of Monsieur Du Pin's Works but some desired to save himself which could be done no other ways than by a Retractation which he long struggled with but at last was prevailed upon by the Example of the Gallican Church which it is said the Archbishop of Paris urged upon him very much saying that it was no shame for him a single Person to make a Retractation when a whole Church had done it to prevent the inconveniences which might otherwise follow The Translator of these Works of Monsieur Du Pin in his Preface to the Third Volume taketh notice of the Condemnation and Censure that were past upon them but also saith that he was not able to procure either a Copy of them or of Du Pin's Retractation which hath moved me to Publish them believing that they will be acceptable to the Curious and useful to those who have bought the Books themselves which are not to be the less esteemed because they are thus Condemned And notwithstanding the Author's Retractation it doth appear that the Protestants have Antiquity on their side for as the Retraction was not voluntary but forced from Du Pin so it doth not flatly contradict any material point in his Books but is merely to be considered as a Prudent and Political Defence to save himself from the Consequences of being judged guilty of what was esteemed Heresie Having said that Monsier Du Pin was prevailed upon to make his Retraction by the example of the French Church who considering the present Circumstances of their King did also Retract the above-mentioned Propositions of the Assembly 1682. which were so offensive to the Pope I Judge it will not be unacceptable to set down their Retraction which I suppose is not not very common and it is as followeth Ad pedes Sanctitatis Vestrae provoluti declaramus nos vehementer supra id quod dici potest ex corde dolore super rebus gestis in Comitiis praefatis quae Sanctitati vestrae ejusque Decessoribus valde displicuerunt ac proinde quod ibidem circa Ecclesiasticam ac pontificiam authoritatem sive in praejudicium Ecclesiarum quod à mente nostrâ prorsus alienum esse testamur deliberatum decretumque videri potest pro non decreto non deliberato habemus habendum esse declaramus The Pope was not pleased with the words circa and videri potest he judged them too soft and general and therefore would not accept of this submission of the Clergy of France untill they were changed into contra and fuit It is to be remembered that the Quotations in the following Retractation are marked according to the English Translation of Du Pin's Works The Remarks mentioned by Du Pin are Critical Observations upon his History which were never Translated nor yet his Answers to them and therefore the Quotations out of them are according to the Paris Edition of them 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. By Monsieur ELLIES Du PIN Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris Printed by Andrew Pralard FRANCIS by the Grace of GOD and of the Holy Apostolick See Archbishop of Paris Duke and Peer of France Commander of the King's Orders Provisor of the House of Sorbonne and Superior of that of Navarre to all who shall see these present Letters Salvation and Blessing 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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