« AnteriorContinuar »
is thought to have equalled Baronius only in the violence of his papal prejudices, the documents and other original pieces which enrich his pages have secured for them a high and permanent value.*
In the meantime, a crowd of epitomists extended the fame of Baronius and the influence of his work. Bzovius, Spondanus,t and Raynaldus, all abridged the work which they afterwards continued; and a multitude of other writers, whose names are less known to posterity, propagated, in similar compilations, the views inculcated in the Ecclesiastical Annals. Their charitable labours were not confined to the language of scholars. The unlearned were invited to avail themselves of the discoveries of the orthodox historian. The vernacular tongues were employed in celebrating the antiquity of Romanism, and in denouncing the protestant errors. Some of these epitomest were written in French, Italian, German, Polish, and even Arabic; and it would almost seem that the members of the church of Rome had begun to identify the very idea of ecclesiastical history with the work of Baronius.
At all events, for half a century, nothing but these continuations and abridgments was attempted by writers of that communion. It was not till 1653 that ANTOINE Godeau, Bishop of Vence, published a work on church-history ☆ of a somewhat different character. But though the “ Histoire de l'Eglise” of this writerly was a step in the progress of
The work of Raynaldus has been incorporated in the great edition of the Ecclesiastical Annals, in thirty-eigbt folios, edited by Mansi. Lucæ, 1738-59.
+ The Epitome of Spondanus had the sanction of Baronius himself. In a letter to Spondanus, dated the 31st of August, 1606, he writes: “Quod de Annalium nostrorum Epitome, operâ et studio tuo elaborata significâsti, non gratum mihi acceptumque esse non potuit. Etsi enim re verâ totum hoc breviandi genus probare vix solemus, rarumque sit ut ex animi sententiâ lectoribus procedat: ca tamen de prudentiâ, fide, ac diligentiâ tuâ, nostra est fiducia, ut quod abs te profectum sit, id omnibus placere posse arbitremur."-Spondani Epitom. Præf. p. 5.
# For the epitomes of Baronius it is sufficient to refer to Fabricius, Bibl. Græc, xii. 168.
§ Histoire de l'Eglise depuis Jesus Christ jusques à l'an 799, par M. Antoine Godeau, Eveque de Vence. Paris. 1653.
| Le principal (de ses ouvrages) est son Histoire Ecclesiastique, en trois tomes en folio, dont le premier parut en 1653, qui contiennent l'Histoire des huit premiers siècles. Il avoit travaillé à la continuation de cette Histoire, et ses Memoires sont entre les mains d'un Evêque de France; mais comme ils ne sont pas achevez, on ne les a point donnez au public. On est obligé à M. Godeau d'avoir le premier donné en François une Histoire Ecclesiastique, exacte, fidele, complete, et agréable à lire : quoique depuis lui plusieurs habiles gens aient travaillé sur le même sujet, l'Histoire de M. Godeau a, et aura toûjours, son mérite, que les années ni les autres histoires n'effaceront point.” Du Pin, Nouvelle Bibliotheque. Tome xvii. p. 287. It is a dangerous thing to make predictions : the work of Godeau has been long superseded and forgotten. It is said, that the fidelity of his first volume exposed the author to the charge of heresy; and that the intelligible threats of a powerful ecclesiastic induced him to write the remainder of his work with less impartiality.-I. A. Schmid. Supplem. Sagittar. Introd. in Hist. Eccles. p. 212. The good bishop was highly celebrated in his day for his devotional and poetical writings. An envious critic, however, ventured to question his right to a very elevated position on Par.
The naïveté of the passage in which Dupin refers to this unreasonable conduct is so exquisite that I must transcribe it. “Malgré la grande reputation qu'ont eù ses ouvrages, il s'est trouvé un homme assez temeraire pour solltenir que M. Godeau n'avoit aucun goût pour la poësie, dans un Libelle imprimé sous ce titre,
church-history, his materials were probably for the most part derived from Baronius, and his work had little influence on the labours of his successors.
Yet the protestants shewed no greater activity. The condition of church-history among the Lutherans continued to be much as I have already described it. The Reformed branch of the protestant body had hitherto contributed little to the cultivation of ecclesiastical studies. The work of John HENRY HOTTINGER, * which appeared between 1655 and 1667, was the first written by a member of that communion which betrayed an intimate acquaintance with the sources of ecclesiastical history. Even this treated but briefly of the events of the first fourteen centuries, and was minute only on what related to the circumstances of the Reformation; though the writer bas deservedly acquired distinction as one of the earliest who brought an extensive acquaintance with oriental learning to the illustration of the history of the church. The learned Calvinists of France were engaged chiefly in the defence of the presbyterian discipline. Some of them, as Blondel and Daillé, were men of great acuteness and considerable erudition, whose writings undoubtedly tended to the improvement of ecclesiastical criticism, and secured for them the more equivocal praise of founding an antipatristic school. But they seem to have considered it as their vocation not to construct, but to demolish; and none of them, at the period which we are now reviewing, have the slightest claim to be admitted among the ecclesiastical historians.
But we have now to notice a state of things very different. The obstacles which had hitherto impeded the progress of church-history gradually pass away, and we see it advance towards a perfection which it had never attained before. The rapid improvement which had been made in the study of ecclesiastical antiquities in the former half of this century by the scholars in communion with the church of Rome, very greatly contributed to the improvement of the history of the church. Petaut had traced the history of its doctrines, and L'Aubespine and Moring of its rites; and Leo Allatius had restored
aussi injurieux au caractere episcopal qu'à la personne de M. Godeau, Godellus utrum Poeta ?”
• Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ Novi Testamenti Enneas, seu Pars Prima. Quâ res Christianorum, Judæorum, Gentilium, Muhammedanorum, juxta novem, post natum Christum, primorum Seculorum seriem, breviter, succinctè et aphoristice primo propununtur; fusius deinde explicantur: capita etiam doctrinæ, tum veræ, per commodam et luculentam, uniuscujusque Seculi, Evußißaow; tum falsæ, per Eleyxov subjiciuntur, sicque ad multiplicem usum, necessariam rerum Ecclesiasticarum notitiam applicantur. Authore Joh. Henrico Hottingero, Tigurino. Hanoviæ, anno 1655. The first volume contains the history of the first nine cen. turies; the second, of the tenth and eleventh; the third, of the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth; and the remaining six volumes come down to the Council of Trent. The brevity of the earlier, compared with the later, part of the work, has led to an opinion, that the author gradually changed his plan.-Schmid. Supplem. Sagittar. Introd. in Hist. Eccles. p. 199.
† Dionysii Petavii Dogmata Theologica. Paris. 1643.
I Gabr. Albaspinæi de Veteribus Ecclesiæ Ritibus Observationum Libri II. Paris. 1623.
§ Joav. Morini Commentarius Ilistoricus de Disciplina in Administratione Sacrahis countrymen the Greeks to their due rank in the Christian commonwealth.* These and a host of other scholars had introduced a taste for real learning and criticism. The materials of history had been rendered more accessible. The works of the fathers and the ancient historians were, from time to time, published in a more correct and inviting form. The Bibliotheca Patrum of De la Bigne,t which, at the beginning of the century, the jesuit Possevin maintained that no one could retain in his possession with a clear conscience, had grown into seventeen folio volumes, and appeared in a seventh edition in 1654. Sirmond edited the writers of the middle ages, H, Valois the ancient ecclesiastical historians, and Combefis the later Greek divines; and in 1641 the Bollandists gave to the world the first-fruits of the gigantic undertakings which has not been completed by the labours of an hundred and fifty years, and the publication of fifty-three folios.
But without derogating from the merits of the many distinguished scholars whose labours so greatly contributed about this period to the advancement of historical knowledge, it is scarcely too much to say, that it was the efforts of a particular body which gave the great
menti Pænitentiæ xiii., primis sæculis in Ecclesia observata. Paris. 1651. Joan
De Libris Ecclesiasticis Græcorum Dissertationes duæ. 1645.
prio consensione. 1655. For an account of Leo Allatius, and a catalogue of his works, see Fabr. Bibl. Græc. X. 405-414.
† Sacra Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum supra ducentos, qua continentur, illorum de rebus Divinis opera omnia et fragmenta, quæ partim nunquam hactenus, partim ita ut raro jam extarent, excussa: vel ab Hæreticis corrupta : Nunc primùm Sacræ Facultatis Theologiæ Parisiensis censura satis gravi, sinc ullo novitatis aut erroris fuco in perfectissimum corpus coaluerunt. Distincta in Tomos octo: Epistolarum, Historiarum, Moralium, Liturgiarum, Disputationum contra Hæreses, Commen. tariorum, Homiliarum, Poematúmque sacrorum mixtim et Tractatuum in pene singula et fidei Christianæ, et Scripturæ sacræ loca: illustrata, Virorum doctissimorum Scholiis, Observationibus, accurate annotatis ad marginem Scripturæ Lectionibus, Vitis Authorum cum eorum cathalogo Alphabetario, et Chronologia : Biblicarum quoque Authoritatum, et Materiarum 'completissimis Indicibus : Per Margarinum de la Bigne, Theologum Doct. Parisiensem. Parisiis. 1575. This is the title of the first edition, a rare book, which I am bappy enough to possess. The second edition, in which a new arrangement was adopted, appeared in nine volumes, in 1589. Both of them grievously incurred the displeasure of Rome; and the second in particular is the very prey of the Roman and Spanish indices. Nevertheless, a third edition (castigated, however, in conformity with the directions of the famous Brasichellensis,) appeared in 1609; a fourth (the Cologne) in 1618 ; a fifth in 1624; and two more, both in seventeen volumes, respectively, in 1644 and 1654. The subsequent editions (or rather subsequent collections, with the same title, for the plan of De la Bigne was henceforth discarded,) belong to a period later than that referred to in the text. That of Lyons appeared in 1677; and that of Venice in 1765–88.
# I learn this from Ittigius, (De Bibliothecis Patrum, p. 87.) Ridiculus est Jesuita Possevinus cum in apparatu suo Tom. ii. p. 66, neque primam neque secundam Bignæanæ Patrum bibliothecæ editionem salva conscientia à
quoquam retineri posse pronunciat.
Acta Sanctorum, quotquot toto orbe coluntur, &c. Antverpiæ. 1643. The last volume (1794) comes down to the 11th of October.
stimulus, and produced the second or French school of ecclesiastical history. The erection of the congregation of St. Maur, in 1621, was an event of no small importance in the bistory of ecclesiastical learning. The superiors of that distinguished community, from its very first establishment, * directed the attention of their disciples to literary subjects; and the names of the Benedictines, Ménard and D'Achery, were soon enrolled among the most celebrated scholars of Europe. But though the Benedictines of St. Maur had already distinguished themselves by their learning by the middle of the seventeenth century, their high reputation, as a literary body, was chiefly due to the example and influence of an illustrious individual who appeared a few years later. JEAN MABILLON was born in 1632, and entered upon his splendid career of letters in 1667. In that year his edition of St. Bernard attracted the notice of ecclesiastical scholars, and furnished a sure pledge of the value of his future labours. By the publication of the “Acts of the Saints of the Order of St. Benedict,”+ (a collection already commenced by D’Achery,) and other ancient pieces, he largely contributed to the materials of history; his Treatise on Diplomaticf at once gave a new direction to historical studies; and his “ Benedictine Annals,”s on which he was engaged to the time of his death, deserves to be ranked among the most important works on the history of the church. Excited by the example and lessons of this great man, the Benedictines devoted themselves in an admirable spirit to the cultivation of ecclesiastical learning, and distinguished themselves in the republic of letters by a number of critical, philological, and antiquarian works, not more remarkable for their erudition than for their moderation and candour.
Though the series of Benedictine authors affords no one who wrote a general history of the church, it is not incorrect to describe the French writers who did so much for church-history in the latter part
Tassin, Histoire Littéraire de la Congregation de Saint-Maur, Ordre de S. Benoît. Préface. p. v. et seq.
+ Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicti in Sæculorum classes distributa: sæcu. lum I. quod est ab anno Christi D. ad DC. Collegit Domnus Lucas d'Achery, Congregationis Sancti Mauri Monachus, ac cum eo edidit D. Joannes Mabillon, ejusdem Congregationis, qui et universum Opus Notis, Observationibus, Indicibusque necessariis illustravit. Lutetiæ Parisiorum, 1668. The ninth volume, the last which appeared, was published in 1701.
De re Diplomatica libri vi. in quibus quidquid ad veterum instrumentorum Antiquitatem, Materiam, Scripturam et Stilum ; quidquid ad sigilla, monogrammata, Subscriptiones ac notas chronologicas; quidquid indè ad antiquariam, historicam, furensemque disciplinam, explicatur et illustratur. Accedunt Commentarius de antiquis Regum Francorum Palatiis : Veterum scripturarum varia specimina, tubulis LX, comprehensa : Nova ducentorum et amplius, monumentorum Collectio. Opera et studio Dompi Johannis Mabillon, Presbyteri et Monachi Ordinis Sancti Benedicti, è Congregatione S. Mauri. Lutetiæ Parisiorum, 1681.
§ Annales Ordinis S. Benedicti Occidentalium Monachorum Patriarchæ. In quibus non modo res monasticæ, sed etiam ecclesiasticæ historiæ non minima pars continetur. Auctore Domno Johanne Mabillon, &c. Lutetiæ Parisiorum, 1703. The fourth voluine, the last of which Mabillon himself superintended the publication, extends to the year 1066, and appeared in 1707. Massuet completed and published the fifth volume in 1713. Martene completed the sixth, which comes down to the year 1157, and which was not published till 1739.
of the seventeenth century, as the Benedictine school. They were all penetrated with a sincere respect for Mabillon and his fellowlabourers; they all endeavoured, according to their respective ability, to pursue their researches in the same spirit; and they were all, more or less, distinguished from the Roman-catholic writers of other countries by an independence of thought and feeling, and a zealous desire to defend the liberties of the Gallican church.
The political and literary condition of France, under the vigorous rule of Louis XIV., had no inconsiderable influence on the ecclesiastical learning of the period. That magnificent prince determined to be the king of all his subjects. He was led, alike by inclination and policy, to humble the pride of Rome, by encouraging the clergy of his dominions to assert with boldness the privileges of the national church. The patronage he afforded to literature in general was not denied to learned churchmen. The example of the sovereign and his ministers communicated to the nobility and prelates of France a disposition to appreciate and reward professional merit; and, accordingly, ecclesiastical studies flourished not less than other branches of learning in the Augustan age of French literature.
T'he first writer of the new school who produced a general history of the church was the learned Dominican, Noel ALEXANDRE. His work* on the ecclesiastical history of the first sixteen centuries originally appeared in octavo volumes, between 1676 and 1687, and was reprinted in folio, with considerable additions, in 1699. Though decided in his attachment to the doctrines of his own communion, he distinguished himself by a bold advocacy of the Gallican principles, and an open hostility to the extravagant pretensions of the see of Rome. His work, accordingly, was condemned by Innocent XI. ; though, with an inconsistency not easily reconcileable with papal infallibility, the censures were removed by Benedict XIII.T It occupies a high place among similar works : some have not hesitated to say, that it is the best ecclesiastical history written by a member of the church of Rome; and the publication of three editions within the last sixty years would lead us to suppose that it still retains considerable popularity.
Few writers on ecclesiastical subjects have attained more extensive celebrity than LOUIS ELLIES Du Pin, whose “ Library of the Eccle
• R. P. Natalis Alexandri Ordinis FF. Prædicatorum, in sacra Facultate Parisiensi Doctoris et emeriti Professoris, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Novique Testamenti, ab Orbe condito an annum post Christum natum millesimum sexcentesimum: et in loca ejusdem insignia Dissertationes historicæ, chronologicæ, criticæ, dogmaticæ, in octo divisa tomos : ante quidem per partes, nunc autem conjunctum et aceuratius edita ; Rerum novarum accessione, scholiis et indicibus locupletissimis aucta, illustrata, ornata.
+ Walch, Bibl. Theol. iii. 166.
* Quod dedit Alexander, opus historiæ ecclesiasticæ insigne est ac merito inter scripta pontificiorum de rebus civitatis christianæ principatum tuetur.- Walch, Bibl. Theol. iii. 167. Sie ist das gelehrteste und beste Werk das man bis auf unsere Zeiten über die gesammte Kirchenhistorie, von einem römischkatholischen Sehriftsteller erhalten hat. -Schröckh, Kirchengeschichte, i. 244.
Vol. XIII.-Jan. 1838.