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.

The AUTHOR'S ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.

THE greater the Excellence was of the Ecclesiastical Writers in the fourth and fifth Ages, the more it discovers the weakness of those in the following Centuries: For the former were like great Lights, whose Meridian Splendor darken'd the little Lustre, and discover'd the defects of the latter. Yet there were some still in the sixth Age who were Men of Merit. St. Gregory is admirable as to what concerns Morality and Discipline: St. Fulgentius and some other Fathers, retain'd also something of the Sublime Thought of the Ancients, and the Councils of this Age left us very excellent Canons; but it must be confess'd that the gust of the Time begun to be deprav'd. Men pleased themselves with starting a great many unprofitable Que∣stions, with explaining Mysteries by the Principles of Logick, and disputing with Dog∣matical stiffness about things of small consequence. Moreover, too great Credulity begun to possess the minds of the more Learned and Wise. There was nothing then heard of, but Miracles, Visions, and Apparitions; the Veneration due to Saints and their Relicks was advanc'd beyond just bounds, and a mighty bustle was made about some very indifferent Ceremonies. Altho the Councils continually renewed the An∣cient Canons, yet Discipline now grew remiss, and the rigor of the ancient Laws about Penance, was now very much abated. The Riches of the Church begun to be bur∣densom to it, because its Ministers consider'd them as their own peculiar Possessions, whereas before they were look'd upon only as the Patrimony of the Poor. This oblig'd the Councils of this Age to make so great a number of Canons about the distribution and preservation of these Possessions; which was a matter wholly new, about which there were never any Canons made before this time. In the Latin Church the obliga∣tion to live in Celibacy, was extended as low as to Sub-deacons; but to free their be∣haviour from all suspicion, she was forc'd to renew very often, and with particular cir∣cumstances, the ancient Canons, which forbid Clergy-men to keep strange Women in their Houses. Contests and Canvassings for obtaining Bishopricks were very common, and many were promoted to them, who had neither Knowledge, Merit, nor Capacity. The Church of Rome was thrice disturb'd with the Schisms of Anti Popes, and the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch were frequently the Prey of the Ambitious. The Eastern and Western Churches begun to be divided; some Popes pretended to such Rights and Prerogatives as their Predecessors never thought of, and there wanted not Flatterers, who endeavour'd to perswade them, that they were independent upon, and superior to Councils: But the more Holy rejected these false Maxims, and asserted their greatest Glory to consist in maintaining the Laws of the Church.

Yet it cannot be deny'd but this Age had also its own peculiar advantages. In it the Doctrine of the Church was explain'd with all possible exactness; the African Bishops defended the Faith with a Constancy and Boldness equal to that of the Primitive Bi∣shops: The Popes in it show'd much Prudence, Conduct and Charity in the most dif∣ficult

times; and the Eastern Bishops discover'd great subtilty and sharpness of Wit in the Disputes they had among themselves, and with the Occidentalists. The Western Councils made very good Laws concerning the Discipline of the Church, which are still observ'd to this day. They regulated the Ceremonies and Rites of Divine Service, the Degrees of Consanguinity within which 'tis unlawful to contract Marriage, the Qualifications requisite for entring into Orders, the Impediments which render Per∣sons uncapable of receiving them, and many other things of this nature. Lastly, The Monastical Order was perfected in the East by the Laws of the Emperors, and di∣vers pious Writings; and in the West by many Rules, and particularly by that of St. Benedict, whose Order in a littletime spread, not only into Italy, but also into France and England.

I should here conclude this Advertisement, but that I think my self oblig'd to pre∣caution the Reader against a Doubt which has been started since the Impression of this Tome against some Authors contain'd in it, whose Works all the Criticks have hither∣to received as most authentick Monuments. 'Tis in a Writing, entituled, A Defence of the Letter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 St. Chrysostom to C••sarius, p. 78. He has also, says the Author of this Writing, added •…•…over Facundus He has explain'd his Words agreeably to the Sentiments of the African Chu••••h, because he who forg'd this Work under his Name, would not have it thought that he was of any other Judgment. Yet P. H. was convinc'd from thence, that it was a forg'd Piece, tho he chose rather to follow for some time the common Opinion, because he must be reserv'd in declaring who is the genuine Author of a Work. But since I know the original of his Secret and his Proofs, I am willing to make you now my Confident in this particular. Know then, that Facundus, Liberatus, Marius Mercator, Victor of Tunona, Cassiodorus, to whom so many Works are attributed, excepting only his Formularies, the Treatise of the Soul, and his Commentaries upon the Psalms, and Isidore, who is thought to be the Author of the Book of Ecclesiastical Writers: Know then, I say, that all these pretended Africans, Italians, Spaniards, with some others, were born in France, and are not near so old as they are believ'd to be. I will tell you at some time hereafter the Reasons I have to reckon them among forg'd Writings.

If he to whom this Opinion is attributed were an ordinary Person, his Judgment might be despis'd as not being founded upon any proof: But because P. H. is an Author famous for Learning and Worth, whose Reputation may make some Impression upon the mind of the Reader, it will be convenient to produce the Proofs, upon which the Monuments, which he is said to reject, are founded.

We shall begin with the Treatise of Illustrious Men, written by Isidore of Sevil, which gives testimony to the truth of the Books of Facundus, and of the Chronicle of Victor of Tunona. Never was Book attested to be genuine by Authors more worthy of credit. The first of them is Braulio Bishop of Saragosa, the Friend and Cotemporary of Isidore: This Bishop surviving him made his Elogy, and the Catologue of his Works, and there he has reckon'd among the rest, The Book of Illustrious Men, to which we have added, says he, what I said just now about it. The authority of the Witness cannot be rejected, nor can his testimony be call'd in question; the former is unquestionable, and the other has all the Characters of Truth that can be desir'd. He speaks of the Works of St. Isidore, as one that was very well acquainted with them; He observes that it was at his request that this Author undertook the Book of Etymologies, that he had left it imperfect, and only divided it into Titles: He speaks of Isidore also in such a manner, as sufficiently discovers that he had seen him, and had been his Friend.

The second Witness for this Book of Isidore of Sevil, is Ildephonsus of Toledo, who may haveseen Isidore; for Isidore died in 636, and Ildephonsus was ordain'd Bishop in 658. This last wrote a Book of Illustrious Men, in the Preface to which he observes, that he did it to continue the Works of St. Jerom, Gennadius and Isidore. To these two Wit∣nesses may be added Honorius of Autun, who abridg'd the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Wri∣ters, and their Works, and transcribe from St. Jerom in the first Book, from Gennadius in the second, and from Isidore in the third. I do not relate the testimony of the Chronicle of Isidore of Paca concerning this Work, because it is not an unquestionable Monument.

If we should set aside these Witnesses, and consult the Book it self of Isidore, we must judge very favourably of it; for it has not any mark of Forgery; the stile of it is not different from that of his other Works, it contains nothing but what agrees with Hi∣story; the Author's mention'd in it are genuine, the greatest part of the Books which it

mentions are still extant. It cannot be said to be the Work of an Author born in France, since it appears, that he chiefly insists upon the Writers of Spain, and that the History and People of that Country are best known to him. He relates also some Particulars concerning the Writers of his own time, which no ways appear to be fabulous, and which could not be known but by an Author of that time and Country. You need only read the last Writers he mentions to be convinc'd of this. Lastly, the Manuscripts of this Work were found in Spain, from which Garcias publish'd it. There are many of them yet extant; there was one at Coria, into which was inserted by a mistake the Work of another Author, who made a Catalogue of twelve Writers: But the other Manuscripts contain nothing but the Books of Illustrious Men by Isidore and Ildephon∣sus, with their Names at the beginning. These are all the Proofs that can be had that any Work is genuine.

It seems that they had never call'd in question the Authority of Isidore, but that they might have some pretence to reject the Writings of Facundus, and the Chronicle of Victor of Tunona, which are mention'd by Isidore. They saw well enough, that if the Book of Isidore was genuine, they could not doubt but these Monuments were Au∣thentical: And for the same reason they should have carried on their Conjectures to Ildephonsus also; but either they durst not, or they forgot it, and so the Authority of Isidore stands good still, and consquently that of Victor of Tunona and Facundus cannot be question'd. But tho we could imagine, that Isidore's Book of Illustrious Men is sup∣posititious, yet I believe they dare not say the same of his Books, call'd Origines. Now in the last Chapter of the fifth Book of this Work, he mentions the Chronicle of Victor of Tunona. Ado Bishop of Vienna does also mention it in the beginning of his Chronicle, and Otho Frisingensis in his History, Book 5. cap. 4. But that which determines this matter, is this, That John Abbot of Biclarum, an Author of the same time, has continued the Chronicle of Victor of Tunona, as he himself assures us, at the beginning of his Chronicle▪ There are no Witnesses more worthy of credit, than those who give testimony to the Authors who wrote before them upon the same Subjects: For they having carefully enquired about them, speak not at a venture, nor upon the Credit of another. Gennadius gives testimony to St. Jerom by conti∣nuing his Work of Illustrious Men, St. Isidore to Gennadius, and Ildephonsus to St. Isidore: St. Jerom also gave testimony to the Chronicle of Eusebius, by continuing it. Prosper followed them, after him came Victor of Tunona, and lastly, John Abbot of Bicla∣rum, who gives testimony to those who preceded him. Honorius of Aut•••• and Ado of Vienna, undertake after these Authors to write upon the same Subjects; they fol∣low them, and give testimony to them, as well as those who come after. 'Tis not easie to break this Chain, and to give the Lie to so certain a Tradition. Lastly, If we should refer our selves wholly to the reading of the Chronicle of Victor of Tunona, we shall find nothing in it, which appears either feign'd or fabulous. On the con∣trary, we find in it the most notable Transactions related with their proper Circum∣stances, which do perfectly agree with other Histories: There are many things in it which concern the Church of Afric, and particularly Victor of Tunona; and every where there are Marks of Ingenuity and Sincerity, which are not to be met with in the Works of Impostors.

We have now re-establish'd the Authority of two Witnesses, who Depose in favour of the Books of Facundus; for both Victor and Isidore of Sevil make honourable mention of them. Cassiodorus also speaks of this Author in his Commentary upon Psalm 138. a Work which is excepted out of the number of those which are falsly attributed to Cassio∣dorus. 'Tis true, he speaks not there of the Twelve Books, but of two others ad∣dressed to Justinian, which are probably the same that are mentioned in the Preface of the Twelve. But this testimony however informs us, that there was an African Bishop call'd Facundus, who dedicated some Works to Justinian; that this Author wrote briskly and subtilly, Haereticorum penetrabili subtilitate destructor, a Character which agrees very well to the Twelve Books of his which still remain.

But without searching for Witnesses, we need only consult the Work it self, to be perswaded that it is serious and genuine, and that it cannot be the Fiction of an Im∣postor. 'Tis plain, that he who was the Author of it, wrote at such a time, when the Controversie about the three Chapters was very fresh and warmly debated: He speaks of it himself with much heat, as a Person extreamly addicted to one side; he

appears to be throughly inform'd of all that pass'd, and he takes a great deal of pains to gather together every thing that might justifie his Cause. His Exhortation alone to the Emperor Justinian, with which he concludes, sufficiently discovers that this Emperor was then alive, and that this Work is not a Fiction: The Preface also con∣firms the same thing. Lastly, If ever a Work had the Infallible Marks of being ge∣nuine, this is certainly such. I know not, whether they had also a design to questi∣on the Letter of the same Facundus to Mocianus or Mucianus, but I can assure them that there is the strongest Evidence that this is not the Work of an Impostor. It has the same stile with the Twelve Books, and this stile is peculiar to this Author. There is no Writer that came after him who resembles it; it is an Original in its kind. In a word, it is as clear as the day, that these Works are a Bishops of Africk, who was ba∣nish'd into the East, and liv'd in the time of Justinian, and who was one of the most zealous Defenders of the three Chapters. This Truth cannot be call'd in question, but you must overturn all the Rules of good Criticism, and render all things liable to doubts. The very same almost is to be said of the Works of Marius Mercator, and Liberatus. 'Tis true the Ancients have not mentioned these Works, but they have such plain Marks of being genuine, and contain some Transactions so particular and re∣markable, that no question can be made of Receiving them, upon the credit of the ancient Manuscripts, from which they were publish'd. They have been made use of for clearing up many Points of Ecclesiastical History, which were unknown before these Authors came to light. The learned Criticks thought they had made a great Discovery by lighting upon them. Now these Men who reject them would deprive us of all that Light and clearer Knowledge which they have given us, and throw us back into the same Darkness in which we were before. This indeed is not to endea∣vour the Advancement of Learning.

As to Cassiodorus, since they acknowledge for genuine the Formularies, the Commen∣tary upon the Psalms, and the Treatise of the Soul, I cannot see how they can reject the other Treatises which we have ascribed to him, which have the same stile, and chief∣ly the Book of Divine Learning, which is so perfectly like for Method and Stile to his Treatise of the Soul, and where he discovers himself in so many places, that none but he who does wilfully blind himself, can doubt but it is his. To which we may add the Testimonies of Sigibert, of Gemblours, and of other Library-keepers, and the Authority of many very good and ancient Manuscripts.

The Proofs which we have alledg'd are more then sufficient to establish the genu∣ineness of those Works, which the Author of The Defence of the Letter of Caesarius, would have us to doubt of, upon the Opinion of P. H. I know not whe∣ther it will be confess'd by this Learned Man; but this I know, that if he would op∣pose the Testimonies and Proofs which I have produc'd, he must draw from the Works themselves Demonstrations to the contrary. Now there is not the least proba∣bility, if there were any such thing, that they should have escap'd the Notice of Fa∣ther Sirmondus, Labbee, Garnier, Geberon, and Mr. Baluzius, and so many other able Criticks, who have examined these Authors with all possible exactness.

But the Boldness wherewith he rejects these Monuments, is nothing in comparison of the Judgment which is given of the Works of St. Justin. ['Tis alledg'd that some heard a little while ago from P. H. that which is not to be found in Mr. Prior, That of all the Works which go under the Name of Justin, there is none but the Dialogue with Tryphon which is truly his, and that all the rest are supposititious.] It was not necessary to seek out this Instance, for proving that P. H. knew some things that are not in Mr. Prior. Many other things might have been produced which had been less liable to beblam'd, and many People could rather wish that nothing were said but what is in Mr. Prior, then that such a strange Paradox as this should be asserted. The two Apologies of St. Justin, cited by Eusebius, St. Jerom, and by all the Ancients, being so Authentick and so Famous, that no Person ever doubted of them, what greater Assurance can we have of the Genuineness of the Dialogue with Tryphon, then we have of these two Apologies. It seems to me, that if there were any room for doubting of the one or the other of these two Monuments, one should rather doubt of the Dialogue then of the two Apologies, whereof the one has at the beginning the Name of Justin, and of his Father, and the place of his Birth; and the other does plainly describe him. In it he mentions the Snares that were laid by him for the Philosopher Crescens, who

was at last the Cause of his Death; as Tatianus, a Disciple of St. Justin, relates it in his Book to the Gentiles, where he manifestly alludes to the words of St. Justin, and cites also what he had said in this place concerning the Delusions of Demons. Caius, or another ancient Author who wrote against the Ebionites, cited by Eusebius, Book 5. cap. 12. of his History, places St. Justin in the number of the Apologists for Religion, and cites at the same time Tatianus. Lastly, Methodius in his Book of the Resurrection, transcribes what St. Justin had said of his own Country in the beginning of his Apo∣logy to Antoninus.

These are Witnesses as Authentical as can be desired, and there are but few Monu∣ments of Antiquity, for which the same Proofs can be alledg'd. For the most part men satisfie themselves with the Testimony of Eusebius and St. Jerom, without ascend∣ing higher: But here we find witnesses cotemporary, Tatian the Disciple of the Au∣thor, of whom the Question is, and two other Authors who followed very quickly after him. If there can be any doubt, whether the Apologies of St. Justin be genu∣ine or no, there is not any Monument in Antiquity which may not be made to pass for supposititious.

I know that the Author of the Defence adds, That to his knowledge P. H. has very good proofs to show, that these Pieces, together with Aristeas, were contriv'd at the end of the second Century. These Proofs must be founded either upon the Testimony of the An∣cients, or the difference of Stile, or upon the Matters of Fact related in these Pieces, which cannot be reconciled to the History of that time. But it does not appear, that he can have any of these Proofs. All ancient Authors make St. Justin the Author of the two Apologies, not one doubts of it, but it passes for a thing most evident a∣mong them. Tho there should be some difference between the Dialogue and the A∣pologies, it were a thing not to be wondred at, since these Works are of different na∣tures: But on the contrary, 'tis plain that the Stile and Doctrine of these two Works agree very well together. There remains therefore only the Historical Matters which can be alledg d against them; but we have prov'd that the Emperors named at the beginning of these Apologies, and the Matters of Fact related in them, agree very well with the History of the Time in which St. Justin flourish'd. Besides, P. H. could not find in the Pieces themselves any Proofs of their Novelty, since he confesses that they were written at the end of the second Age. Upon what grounds therefore can this so new an Opinion be founded, which robs the Church of one of the most excellent Monuments which it has to justifie the Antiquity of its Liturgy.

I shall add no more, and perhaps what I have said may be too much. All the fa∣vour which I desire of him who is said to be of that Opinion which I have opposed, is to believe that I have not done it upon any design to offend him, but only upon the account of defending the Works which I think to be most genuine. The Republick of Learning ought to enjoy an entire and perfect Liberty, and the Spirit of Tyranny and Domineering ought to be banish'd out of it. Whatever Rank some hold in it, we ought never to be offended because others are not of our Opinion, especially when it is new. 'Tis a bad way for any man to defend himself, by treating his Adversary with contempt, by compairing him to Zoilus, and calling himself a Homer. He must bring good Proofs of his Opinion, and refute solidly the reasons of others, without bit∣terness, passion, and reproach. Thus ought those to do who seek not their own Glory, in attacking the Reputation of others, but only endeavour to find out the Truth, and to maintain Charity.