A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

S. COELESTINE.

ST. COELESTINE was chosen Bishop of Rome after the Death of Boniface, in the beginning of * November, in 423. This Election was made without contending and * 1.1 division; and he governed the Church of Rome peaceably, till April anno 432. The Business of Nest••rius, and the assembling the Council of Ephesus have made his Popedom famous, and * 1.2 given him occasion to write several Letters, of which we shall deferr to speak, till we come to the History of the Council of Ephes••s, where they have a more fit Place; so that we have nothing more to speak of here, save Three Letters, which have no relation to the Busi∣ness of Nestorius.

The First was written in 431. after the Death of S. Austin, and is addressed, To Venerius Bishop of Milan, Leontius Bishop of ••••esus, and some other of their neighbouring French Bishops, who tolerated and also favoured those who opposed some of the Opinions of S. Austin, concerning Predestination and Grace: S. Prosper and Hilarius, Scholars of S. Austin, and close Adherents to his Doctrine, finding themselves the weaker Side among the French, went to Rome, to complain to Pope Coelestine;

That the Priests of their Country were suffered to raise Disputes and Divisions in the French Church, and to Maintain, That S. Austin and his Scholars had promoted Opinions contrary to the Truth.

Coelestine blames the Bishops,

Who ought, saith he, to hinder these Disputes, and not allow these Persons to take upon them to teach: That the Silence which the Bishops kept, upon this occasion, might pass for a kind of Approbation: That it was enough to declare their own Opinions, not to suffer others to speak; so that upon such like occasions Silence is a strong Presum∣ption, because the Truth could not but oppose it self to Error, if Error it self did not please: Lastly, That the Bishops themselves were guilty of the Error which they favoured by their Co••nivance and remaining in Silence.

He admonishes the Bishops, in the next Place,

To reprove those who ve••••ed their new Doctrines, contrary to the Opinions of S. Austin. Let them not be permitted, saith he, to speak for the future according to their own Fancy: Let not Novelty be so bold as to oppose Antiquity: Let those unquiet Spirits not trouble the Peace of the Church: 'Tis your Business to keep your Churches quiet. Let those Priests know, That they ought to be subject to you: Let those that do not teach the Truth, know, That they ought to learn, and not pretend to teach. What Power have you in your Churches, if they are Masters to teach what they please? But it is no Wonder, adds S. Coelestine, if they are not afraid to attempt such things against the Living, since they dare assault the Memory of our Brethren after their Death. We have always had S. Austin, of blessed Memory, in our Communion, whose Life and Merit is very well known; his Fame hath not received the least Blemish, and his Knowledge is so well known, that my Predecessors have looked upon him as one of the most excellent Doctors of the Church. All Orthodox Christians have ever thought well of him; he hath been generally honoured and reverenced through the whole World. Resist therefore the Enemies of his Memory, whose Number increaseth every Day. Suffer not those Religious Persons who defend him to be afflicted and persecuted: He that is attacked by such a Novelty, suffers in the Cause of the Universal Church. Shew, That those that displease us displease you; which you will appear to us to do, if having imposed Silence upon such Offenders, you cause that there be no future Complaints upon this Account.

To this Letter of S. Coelestine is usually joyned a Collection of the Decisions of the Popes, Coelestine's Predecessors, and of the Councils of Africa, upon the principal Points touching Grace and Free-will, entituled, The Authorities or Sentences of the ancient Bishops of the Holy Apostolick See, concerning Grace and Free-will. It is also called, Rules of the Holy Apostolick See: But the most common Name which is given it, is, Articles or Aphorisms about Grace. This Writing is cited under the Name of S. Coelestine, in the beginning of the Sixth Age; for Dionys•••• Exiguus hath put it into his Collection, among the Decrees of this Pope: And Petrus Diaconus, writing to S. Fulgentius about the Year 519. cites a Passage of it, as taken out of the Decrees of this Pope. Cresconius Bishop of Africk, who wrote toward the end of the same Age, attributes it also to S. Coelestine. And ever since it hath always been cited

under the Name of this Pope, as by the Church of Lyon; by 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by Lupus of Ferrara, by Remigi••s of Lyons, by 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and many others. It is very probable, that it is this Collection of Testimonies, of which Pope Hormis••••••s speaks in his Letter to Possessor, written in 520, where he says, That tho' it is easily known, what is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching Grace and Man's Free-will, by the Writings of S. Austin, yet ••e hath more ex∣press and plain Articles in his Church-Registry, which he will send him, to whom he writes, if he hath them not, and thinks it necessary.

These Authorities seem to prove very strongly, That this Collection is the Work of Pope Coelestine. Yet this Opinion is opposed by so many Conjectures, that almost all the Criticks in these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 times have abandoned i••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. It is affirmed, That these Aphorisms are not of the same Style with the Epistle of S. C••lestine▪ 2. This Epistle, concluding with these words, Deus vos ••ncolumes custodiat. Fratres ch••rissimi. The Lord preserve you in Safety, dear Bre∣thren. Altho' S. Coelestine doth not say, That he added nothing more, yet it is not credible that these Articles were any part of it or were added by way of Postscript. 3. The Author of these Sentences doth not speak as in Pope, he doth not give his Judgment or Advice wit•• Authority: He declares, That he had no other design but to collect the Judgments of the Bi∣shops of the Holy See, or of the African Councils, which the Holy See had made hers by he•• Approbation. 4. Speaking of the Popes, he always calls them the Bishops of the Holy Apost•…•… See, without giving them the Name of his Predecessors, which no Bishop of Rome would have omitted. 5. S. Prosper bringing the Decisions of the Popes concerning Grace and Free-will against Cassian, cites ••itly S. Coelestine's ••••tter, but says nothing of these Sentences? Is it cre∣dible that he would have forgot them, if they were this Popes? This was a most decretory piece. Photius and Vi••centius Lirinensi•• make mention of this Letter of S. Coelestine, but speak nothing of the Aphorisms of Grace. Besides; Is it credible, that Vincentius Lirinensis would have cited S. Coelestine's Letter for the defence of the Semi-pelagian Party, if this Pope had condem ned them so manifestly? 6. If we consider the manner how these Aphorisms are▪ in∣serted in the Dionysian Code, we shall easily guess, that he did not attribute them to Pope Coelestine, as some think; for altho' he puts them at the end of his Letter, yet he distin∣guishes them by this Title: Here begin the Authorities of the Bishops of the Holy See▪ concerning Grace. And the same Remark is added to the end, ••ero ends, &c. These are the Conjectures which may balance the Authorities which seem to prove that this Collection is S. Coelestine's. And by these have the Criticks been obliged to search out some other Author of them, than this Pope, and having found none to whom this Work agrees better than S. Prosper, many have con∣fidently attributed it to him, altho' they have neither MSS. nor ancient Author for them. It is true, that they quote a Passage of Hincmarus, taken out of a Book he made against this Ex∣pression, Trina Deitas, The three-fold Godhead, where he says, that S. Prosper by the Order of S. Coelestine did confute and overthrow the Heresie which began to spread among the French, as well by the Authority of Scripture as by the Doctrine of S. Austin. They suppose, that it is of this Writing that Hincmarus speaks, and conclude from thence, That it was S. Prosper that wrote it by the Order of S. Coelestine. But this Proof doth not seem to me to be solid: 1. Be∣cause Hincmarus could not be a very good Author of a fact of this nature. 2. Because the same Hincmarus attributes the Aphorisms to S. Coelestine. 3. Because 'tis not certain, that the Work spoken of in that place is the Collection of Authorities, nor is it indeed certain that he speaks of any particular Work. 4. If he speaks of any particular 'tis likely to be some other, for what he says of it, That S. Prosper did overthrow the Heresie which began to spread among the French, by the Authority of Holy Scripture and the Doctrine of S. Austin, doth not agree to our Aphorisms, in which the Author contents himself to relate the Decisions of the Popes and Councils, without disputing with the Enemies of S. Austin, and where not so much as one Passage of S. Austin is alledged. But say they, it can't be said, that any other Work of S. Prosper was written by the Order of Coelestine. It appears by his Works themselves that he wrote them as a private Author, and as a Person who defended the Doctrines he thought true, without condemning any Man. It cannot therefore be said, That it was by the Order of the Pope, and as Hincmarus says, Ex delegatione Pontificis, by the Pope's Commission, that he wrote them. There is none but the Aphorisms that it agrees to; he speaks therefore of these. This is the sum of the Objection. They confirm it by a Passage of S. Prosper taken out of his Answers to the Objections of Vincentius, where he says, That he recites the very words of the Faith and Opinions, which he defended against the ••elagians by the Authority of the Holy See. Propositis sigillatim sexd••cim capitulis sub unoquoque eorum Sensus nostri & Fidei, quam contr•• Pelagianos ex Apostolicae S••dis Auctoritate defendimus, verba ponemus; Having propounded six∣teen Heads severally, we will set down under every one of them the words of our Sence and Faith, which we have defended by the Authority of the Holy See. Which referrs, say they▪ to the Aphorisms of Grace written against the Pelagians. It may be answered to all this, That they take the words of Hincmarus too strictly, and perhaps S. Prosper's too. The first never affirmed, That S. Prosper had an express Command from S. Coelestine to write some particular Work about Grace. His meaning only is, That this Pope had approved what he wrote for the defence of S. Austin's Doctrine; and this is evident from S. Coelestine's own Letter. S. Pro∣sper boasts so of defending S. Austin's Doctrine by the Authority of the Holy See, because he was certain, That it was approved by the Holy See, and that the Semi-pelagians would destroy the

Principles which he had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is not necessary to ••••∣derstand the Passage of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Answer 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Objections of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, of any pre∣ceeding work. It refers 〈…〉〈…〉 Work of the Answer to Vincen∣tius, as the Passage 〈…〉〈…〉 quoque eorum Sensus 〈…〉〈…〉 de∣fendimus, 〈…〉〈…〉 agnoscant impiarum profanarum{que} opinionum nullum 〈…〉〈…〉 blas∣phemi•• 〈…〉〈…〉 debere puniri; Having 〈…〉〈…〉 down under every one of them the words of our Sence and Faith, which we have defended by the Authori•••• of the Holy See, that they who will 〈…〉〈…〉 in reading these things, may openly acknowledge, That there are 〈…〉〈…〉 and prophane Opinions in our Hearts, and may judge those Blasphemies which they se•• condemned in our Confession, worthy to be punished in the Inventors of them. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of this Discourse makes it evident, that when 〈…〉〈…〉 against the Pelagians by the Authority of the Holy See, he speaks of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 things, which he says in his Answers 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and not of those, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 spoken of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 another Work. He doth not send his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to what he hath written else-where, but he exh••r••s him to read the Answers which he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Objections of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, to know what is the true Doctrine approved by the Holy See which S. Austin •…•…. It must be confessed then, That there is no probability that he speaks in that place of the Aphorisms attributed to S. Coelestine.

But they bring yet other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to fasten 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••pon S. Prosper. They say, That 'tis his 〈◊〉〈◊〉; That no Person, at that time, had a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 opportunity to make this Collection than S. Prosper, That 'tis his Doctrine, and lastly, That there is so great an agreement between the Opinions and Expressions of the Author of these Aphorisms and S. Prosper's, that 'tis hard not to acknowledge him the Author of them. A•••• this a Modern Critick pretends to prove, by comparing the Aphorisms wi••h 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Passages of S. Prosper's Works. F. Quesnel also finding in S. Leo's Works some Expressions like to those which are met with in these Aphorisms, scru∣p••es not to attribute them to this Father * 1.3; which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 how the Judgments of Learned Men do sometimes differ about the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Style. These two Criticks, who had both of them read S. Leo, S. Prosper and the Aphorisms well, the one finds no two things more like than the Style of the Aphorisms and S. Prosper's; the other can find no resemblance between them, and thinks he perceives some Lines more like in S. Leo's Works. They both produce Words and Expressions of their Author like those of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. But to speak the Truth, it is very ••ard in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and incoheren•• a Work, as these Aphorisms are, to find out the Author cer∣tainly by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Style.

As for my 〈◊〉〈◊〉, I have much a do to leave the Testimony of the Ancients, who attribute the Aphorisms, to Pope Coelestine. It is certain, that they relate to his Letter, That they were framed at the same time, and evidently given to S. Prosper; and from that time there hath been a Copy of them preserved in the Registry of Rome; That an hundred years after they were quoted under 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Name of this Pope, and have ever since continued under his Name to this our Age.

But perhaps it may be said, That it was not S. Coelestine that composed them himself, but he caused them to be framed, either by S. Prosper, who was the Pope's Secretary, as some say, or S. Leo, whom the Office of Archdeacon of the Church of Rome, seems to have engaged in that Business. But these are bare Conjectures, which not being supported with the Testimony of any Author worthy of Credit, cannot be of any great weight. And, besides, if it were true, that S. Coelestine himself did not compose these Aphorisms, but caused them to be framed by some other, yet they may lawfully be attributed to him always, since it is confessed, That they were framed by his Order; That he approved them, and sent them with his Letter; and last∣ly, That he caused them to be put into the Registry of the Church of Rome, as an Authentick Monument of his Doctrine.

The Reasons which they alledge to shew the contrary, prove well enough, that these Apho∣risms are no part of this Pope's Letter, nor are a solemn definition of the Roman Bishop; but they do not evince, that they are not Precepts of Instruction composed by this Pope, or at least by his order, upon the account of which he wrote his Letter, and perhaps sent them with it. This is most probable in this Matter.

S. Prosper and S. Hilary seeing that the Doctrine of S. Austin was openly opposed in France, and that he was accused of going too far, went to Rome to implore the Pope S. Coelestine to take it into his Protection. The Pope did two things: The First was to write to the Bishops, that he might oblige them to stop the Discourse of those that defamed the Doctrine of S. Au∣stin. The Second was, to make a Collection of the Principles approved by the Authority of the Holy See, that he might draw some Consequences from them against those who did not ap∣prove S. Austin's Doctrine, altho▪ they condemned Coelestius and Pelagius, and professed to hold the Decisions of the Holy See against their Error.

The First of these Articles imports, That all Men have lost their Innocency in the Person of Adam, and their natural ability of doing good, and that no Man can be delivered out of this profound Abyss of Perdition by the strength of his Free-will, if he be not raised by the Grace of the God of Mercy.

The Second imports, That no Man is good of himself, if God, who is only good, doth not communicate his goodness to him.

The Third is, That no Man can conquer the Temptations of the Devil and the Motions of the Flesh, if he doth not receive continual assistance from God, and if he have not the Gift of Perseverance: Which ought to be understood also of those who have been renewed by the Grace of Baptism.

The Fourth is, That no Man knows how to make good use of his Free-will, but by the Grace of Jesus Christ. These three Articles are confirmed by the Testimony of S. Inno∣cent.

The Fifth is, That all the Good righteous Men do ought to be referred to the Glory of God, because no Man can please him but by the Gifts of his Grace. Pope Zosimus and the Council of Africa have also delivered this Maxim.

The Sixth is, That God acts after such a manner in the Free-will of Man, that the Holy Thoughts, Pious Intentions, and all the good Motions of his Will proceed from him. Pope Zosimus also suggests this Principle.

The Seventh Aphorism contains the Decrees of the Council of Carthage, which hath deter∣mined the absolute necessity of Grace to do good.

The Eighth makes use of the Prayers of the Church, to shew, That all the good that we do from the first Motion of Conversion to our final Perseverance, is the effect of the Grace of Jesus Christ.

The Ninth shews, That the Exorcisms and Sufflations which the Church useth before Bap∣tism, to drive away evil Spirits, are a clear proof of the necessity of Grace to deliver us from the Tyranny of the Devil.

He concludes these Principles, That God is the Author of all the good Motions, good Acti∣ons, and all the Vertues by which we tend to him from the beginning of the Faith, insomuch that he goes before all our Deserts, and makes us will and do that which is good.

He adds, That the Divine Assistance doth not deprive us of our Free-will, but it delivers it, and dispells its former darkness; of crooked and perverse it makes it right, of distempered it renders it sound, and instead of Ignorance and Error it implants Wisdom and Prudence.

For the Goodness of God is so great, saith he, That he is willing to look upon his own Gifts as our Merits, and to give an eternal Reward for those good Works, of which he is the Author. He makes us to will and to do what pleaseth him, and he leaves not those Graces useless, which he hath wrought in us. Lastly, he declares, That in respect of the deep and perplexing Difficulties, which may arise from the Questions which have been formed and have been treated on by those who have opposed the Hereticks, he dare not really con∣temn them, but that he thought it not necessary to stay there, because it is sufficient to acknowledge the Grace of Jesus Christ, to the Efficacy and Merit of which all the good which we do ought to be attributed, it is sufficient to hold whatsoever is conformable to the definitions of the Holy See, which he believes so true, that he scruples not to assure us, That whatever is contrary to these Rules is not Catholick and true Doctrine.

It may be demanded what the Author of these Aphorisms means by these deep and per∣plexing Difficulties. Some affirm, That they are Questions which relate to the efficacy of Grace and gratuitous Predestination. But it seems evident to me that the Author of these Aphorisms lays down the first Doctrine in many of his Articles, and supposes the other, which makes me to think that he means some other Questions, which S. Austin hath disputed on in his Works against the Pelagians; as when he asks, Wherein consisteth Original Sin? After what manner is it propagated to the Posterity of Adam? What is the Original of the Soul? What is the Punishment of Children which die unbaptized? In what consisteth Concupiscence? and many other Difficulties of that Nature, which have been treated on by S. Austin. I do not affirm for all that, That the efficacy of Grace and gratuitous Predestination are Articles of Faith, and I believe we may truly enough own, That the Author of these Aphorisms did look upon them as implicitly contained (if I may use that Term) in the Decisions of the Popes and Councils of Africa. Besides, it being certain, as it is, That the Adversaries of the Doctrine of S. Austin did principally oppose those two points, this Author, whose purpose it was to confute them, could not but maintain that Doctrine. To be convinced of this, we need only read the Objections of Vincent, and the Answers of S. Prosper, which will discover that all the Objections of the Adversaries of S. Austin de•…•…lve themselves upon these two Points, and that his Scholars maintain them, as having a necessary relation to the Doctrine of the Holy See, against the Pelagians.

The Second Letter of S. Coelestine ought to be set before this, of which we have already spoken, since it was written in the Year 428. It is directed to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienna and Narbonne. He tells them in the beginning of this Letter, That he could wish that he had cause to rejoyce with them for the good Order he did observe in their Churches, rather than be obliged, as he is, to tell them the Grief that he hath, because they did things

contrary to the Discipline of the Church; but being appointed by God to watch over his Church, he is obliged by his Charge to restrain all evil Practices, and order what ought to be observed; for his Pastoral Care ought to have no Bounds, but is extended to all Places, where the Name of Jesus Christ is known.

The First Practice which he reproves, is that of some Bishops, who apparelled themselves after a particular manner, in wearing a Cloak and a Girdle. The thing seems in it self to be indifferent, but S. Coeestine finds the finest Arguments in the World to condemn that Usage.

We must, saith he, make our selves remarkable for our Wisdom, Prudence and Purity, not by our Garo and Cloathing. We must teach the Faithful, and give them a good Example by our Lives, and not impose upon them by outward Shews. We ought not to seek how to please their Eyes, but to fill their Minds with Divine Precepts.

Nevertheless he doth not blame those who cloathed themselves so in the Places where such a Custom was settled, but those who through a Superstitious Affectation would change and alter the manner of Cloath∣ing which was then in use.

The Second Disorder concerns the Administration of Penance. There were among the French some severe Rules of the ancient Church Discipline, which obliged them to deny Absolution to Sinners, who requested it at the Point of Death: S. Coelestine condemns that Rigor, and maintains that they ought not to deny Absolution to Sinners at any time, when they demand it.

The Third respects the Qualifications of those who may be ordained Bishops: S. Coelestine complains, That Lay-men were made Bishops, not having passed through the inferior Orders. Which, tho it was contrary to the Rule, and against all Reason; yet he adds, That they were contented to ordain Lay-men, but it happened likewise, that they did chuse such Persons for Bishops as were guilty of open Crimes. He gives an Example of one named Daniel, who having been Head of a Monastery of Virgins in the East, was come to retire himself in France. All the Monastery, where he lived, accused him of scandalous Crimes, and sent the Informations of them to S. Coelestine, who dispatched a Letter by Fortunatus the Deacon to the Bishop of Arles, in which he summoned this Man to his Council, to answer to the Heads of Accusation brought against him. But at the same time that the Pope cited him, he was or∣dained Bishop. S. Coelestine discovers how much that Business troubled him: He blames him that had ordained him, and scruples not to say, That he had lost his Episcopal Dignity himself, by bestowing it upon a Person so unworthy. Lastly, he exhorts the Bishops, to whom he writes, To observe the Discipline of the Church exactly, which was not unknown to them, because many among them had lived sometime at Rome. But to put them in mind, he pre∣scribes them some Laws, which he thought most necessary.

The First, That every Province should suffer it self to be governed by its Metropolitan, and that no Bishop attempt any thing out of his own Province.

The Second, That when a Bishop is to be chosen, the Clergy of the same Church, whose Deserts are known, and who have already merited well, be preferred before Clergymen, who are Strangers and unknown.

The Third, That a Bishop be not imposed upon any Persons against their Consent, but that the Votes and Agreement of the Clergy, People and Magistrates be followed.

The Fourth, That no Clergyman be chosen out of another Diocess, when there is any in the same Church which may fitly be ordained.

The Fifth, That none be ordained Bishop who hath been married twice, nor hath married a Widow; which he ordains as a Rule not only for the future, but he requires, That the Or∣dinations already made, in prejudice of this Law, be looked upon as unlawful Ordinations, which may not be allowed in Force.

As to that Daniel, whom we mentioned above, he commands, That he shall be separated from the Communion of the Bishops, until he be freed from his Accusation before him. And as to the Bishop of Marseille, who was accused of being an Accessary in the Death of his Brother, he leaves the Judgment of him to the Bishops, to whom he directed that Letter.

The Third Letter of S. Coelestine, written to the Bishops of Apulia and Calabria, begins with a general Advertisement to all Bishops; which imports that it is not allowable for any Bishop to be ignorant of, nor do any thing contrary to the Laws of the Church; for, saith he, In what a Case shall we be, if Liberty be allowed to private Men to change the Form of the Holy Decrees, according to the Will and Fancy of the People?

Upon this Ground he forbids them to ordain ••uch Lay-men Bishops as the People demand. He advises the Bishops, not to follow the People's Judgment in this, but to oppose themselves courageously against what they desire, when 'tis contrary to the Rules. This Letter is dated, July 19th. in the Year 429.

This Pope writes in an earnest and close way. His Style is full of Sentences and intricate.

Notes

• * 1.1

  S. Coelestine
• * 1.2

  Septemb. 16.
• * 1.3

  [And therefore hath printed them at the beginning of his Edition of S. Leo's Works at Paris, 1675]