Vincent of Lérins: ADVERSUS PROFANAS OMNIUM NOVITATES HAERETICORUM COMMONITORIUM CUM NOTIS

I. Dicente Scriptura et monente,Interroga patres tuos, et dicent tibi; seniores tuos, et adnuntiabunt tibi, et item, Verbis sapientium adcommoda aurem tuam, et item, Fili mi, hos sermones ne obliviscaris, mea autem verba custodiat cor tuum, videtur mihi minimo omnium servorum Dei Peregrino quod res non minimae utilitatis, Domino adjuvante, futura sit, si ea quae fideliter a sanctis patribus accepi litteris comprehendam, infirmitati certe propriae pernecessaria, quippe cum adsit in promptu unde imbecillitas memoriae meae adsidua lectione reparetur.

1. With Scripture speaking and admonishing,Ask your fathers, and they will tell you; your elders, and they will announce it to you, and likewise, Lend your ear to the words of the wise, and likewise, My son, do not forget these discourses; but let your heart keep my words, it seems to me, Peregrinus, the least of all the servants of God, that it will be a matter of no small utility, with the Lord helping, if I comprehend in letters those things which I have faithfully received from the holy fathers—certainly most necessary for my own infirmity—since there is at hand a ready source whence the imbecility of my memory may be repaired by assiduous reading.

Ad quod me negotium non solum fructus operis, sed etiam consideratio temporis et opportunitas loci adhortatur.

To which business not only the fruit of the work, but also the consideration of the time and the opportunity of the place exhorts me.

Tempus: propterea quod cum ab eo omnia humana rapiantur, et nos ex eo aliquid invicem rapere debemus quod in vitam proficiat aeternam; praesertim cum et appropinquantis divini Judicii terribilis quaedam exspectatio augeri efflagitet studia Religionis, et novorum Haereticorum fraudulentia multum curae et attentionis indicat.

Time: for this reason, that since by it all human things are snatched away, we in turn ought to snatch from it something which may profit unto eternal life; especially since a certain terrible expectation of the approaching divine Judgment demands that the studies of Religion be augmented, and the fraudulence of new Heretics indicates much care and attention.

Locus

Place

[1] autem, quod urbium frequentiam turbasque vitantes, remotioris

[1] however, because, avoiding the frequency of cities and the crowds, of a more remote

[2] villulae et in ea secretum monasterii incolamus habitaculum, ubi absque magna distractione fieri possit illud quod canitur in psalmo:Vacate, inquit, et videte quoniam ego sum Dominus. Sed et propositi nostri ratio in id convenit; quippe qui cum aliquandiu variis ac tristibus secularis militiae turbinibus volveremur, tandem nos in portum Religionis, cunctis semper fidissimum, Christo adspirante condidimus; ut ibi depositis vanitatis ac superbiae flatibus, Christianae humilitatis sacrificio placantes Deum, non solum praesentis vitae naufragia, sed etiam futuri seculi incendia vitare possimus.

[2] of a little villa, and in it we inhabit the secluded dwelling of the monastery, where without great distraction that may be done which is sung in the psalm:“Be still,” he says, “and see that I am the Lord.” But also the rationale of our purpose agrees with this; indeed, since for some time we were being whirled by the various and sad whirlwinds of the secular militia, at length, Christ favoring, we established ourselves in the harbor of Religion, most faithful above all; so that there, the gusts of vanity and pride laid aside, by the sacrifice of Christian humility appeasing God, we may be able to avoid not only the shipwrecks of the present life, but also the conflagrations of the future age.

Sed jam in nomine Domini quod instat adgrediar, ut scilicet a majoribus tradita et apud nos deposita describam, relatoris fide potius quam auctoris praesumptione; hac tamen scribendi lege servata, ut nequaquam omnia, sed tantum necessaria quaeque perstringam, neque id ornato et exacto sed facili communique sermone, ut pleraque significata potius quam explicata videantur. Scribant ii laute et accurate qui ad hoc munus vel ingenii fiducia vel officii ratione ducuntur. Me vero sublevandae recordationis vel potius oblivionis meae gratia Commonitorium

But now, in the name of the Lord, I will address what is at hand, namely, that I may describe the things handed down by the elders and deposited among us, with the relator’s good faith rather than an author’s presumption; yet with this law of writing observed, that by no means all things, but only whatever is necessary, I shall merely touch upon—and not in an ornate and exact style, but in an easy and common speech—so that most things may seem signified rather than explicated. Let those write elegantly and accurately who are led to this task either by confidence of genius or by reason of office. But for my part, for the sake of supporting my recollection—or rather my forgetfulness—I compose a Commonitorium

[3] mihimet parasse suffecerit: quod tamen paulatim, recolendo quae didici, emendare et implere quotidie, Domino praestante, conabor. Atque hoc ipsum idcirco praemonui, ut si forte elapsum nobis, in manus sanctorum devenerit, nihil in eo temere reprehendant, quod adhuc videant promissa emendatione limandum.

[3] to have prepared it for myself will have sufficed: which, however, little by little, by recollecting the things I have learned, to emend and to fill up daily, with the Lord granting, I will strive. And this very thing I have therefore premonished, that if by chance, having slipped from us, it should come into the hands of the saints, they may blame nothing in it rashly, which they may see still needing to be smoothed by the promised emendation.

II. Saepe igitur magno studio et summa attentione perquirens a quamplurimis sanctitate et doctrina praestantibus viris quonam modo possim certa quadam et quasi generali ac regulari via catholicae fidei veritatem ab haereticae pravitatis falsitate discernere, hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli, quod sive ego, sive quis alius vellet exsurgentium haereticorum fraudes deprehendere laqueosque vitare, et in fide sana sanus atque integer permanere, duplici modo munire fidem suam, Domino adjuvante, deberet: primum scilicet divinae legis auctoritate, tum deinde Ecclesiae catholicae traditione. Hic forsitan requirat aliquis: Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum Canon, sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat, quid opus est ut ei Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae jungatur auctoritas?

2. Therefore, often with great zeal and the highest attention, inquiring from very many men outstanding in sanctity and doctrine by what manner I might be able, by a certain and, as it were, general and regular way, to discern the truth of the catholic faith from the falsity of heretical pravity, I have almost always brought back from nearly all this kind of answer: that whether I, or anyone else, should wish to detect the frauds of up‑rising heretics and avoid the snares, and to remain sound and entire in sound faith, he ought, with the Lord helping, to fortify his faith in a twofold way: first, namely, by the authority of the divine law, then thereafter by the tradition of the catholic Church. Here perhaps someone may ask: Since the Canon of the Scriptures is perfect, and by itself is sufficient, enough and more than enough for all things, what need is there that the authority of ecclesiastical understanding be joined to it?

Quia videlice Scripturam sacram pro ipsa sua altitudine non uno eodemque sensu universi accipiunt, sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atque aliter alius atque alius interpretatur; ut pene quot homines sunt, tot illinc sententiae erui posse videantur. Aliter namque illam Novatianus, aliter Sabellius, aliter Donatus exponit, aliter Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius; aliter Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillianus, aliter Jovinianus, Pelagius, Caelestius; aliter postremo Nestorius. Atque idcirco multum necesse est, propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus, ut propheticae et apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici et Catholici sensus normam dirigatur.

Because, namely, sacred Scripture, on account of its very altitude, is not received by all in one and the same sense, but the utterances of the same are interpreted now this way now that by one and another; so that almost as many opinions seem able to be drawn from there as there are men. For Novatian expounds it otherwise, Sabellius otherwise, Donatus otherwise; Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius otherwise; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian otherwise; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius otherwise; finally, Nestorius otherwise. And therefore it is very necessary, because of such great windings of so various an error, that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed according to the norm of the ecclesiastical and catholic sense.

In ipsa item Catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc est etenim

In the very Catholic Church, it must be attended to greatly that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, which always, which by all. For this is indeed

[4] vere proprieque catholicum, quod ipsa vis nominis ratioque declarat, quae omnia fere universaliter comprehendit. Sed hoc ita demum fiet, si sequamur universitatem, antiquitatem, consensionem. Sequemur autem universitatem hoc modo, si hanc unam fidem veram esse fateamur quam tota per orbem terrarum confitetur Ecclesia;

[4] truly and properly catholic, as the very force and rationale of the name declare, which universally comprehends almost everything. But this will come about only thus, if we follow universality, antiquity, consensus. We shall follow universality in this way, if we admit that this one faith is true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses;

antiquitatem vero ita, si ab his sensibus nullatenus recedamus quos sanctos majores ac patres nostros celebrasse manifestum est: consensionem quoque itidem, si, in ipsa vetustate, omnium vel certe pene omnium sacerdotum pariter et magistrorum definitiones sententiasque sectemur.

antiquity indeed thus, if we in no way depart from those senses which it is manifest that our holy elders and our fathers have celebrated: consent likewise in the same way, if, in that very antiquity, we follow alike the definitions and opinions of all, or at least nearly all, the priests and the teachers.

III. Quid igitur tunc faciet Christianus catholicus, si se aliqua Ecclesiae particula ab universalis fidei communione praeciderit?

3. What then will the catholic Christian do, if some small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith?

Quid utique nisi ut pestifero corruptoque membro sanitatem universi corporis anteponat?

What, of course, except that he prefer the health of the entire body to the pestiferous and corrupted member?

Quid si novella aliqua contagio non jam portiunculam tantum, sed totam pariter Ecclesiam commaculare conetur?

What if some new contagion should attempt to maculate not now only a small portion, but the whole Church alike?

Tunc item providebit ut antiquitati inhaereat, quae prorsum jam non potest ab ulla novitatis fraude seduci. Quid si in ipsa vetustate, duorum aut trium hominum, vel certe civitatis unius aut etiam provinciae alicujus error deprehendatur?

Then likewise he will take care to adhere to antiquity, which now altogether can no longer be seduced by any fraud of novelty. What if in antiquity itself an error of two or three men, or certainly of a single city or even of some province, should be detected?

Tunc omnino curabit ut paucorum temeritati vel inscitiae, si qua sunt, universaliter antiquitus universalis Ecclesiae

Then he will altogether take care that, rather than the temerity or the ignorance of a few, if there are any, there be followed, universally and from antiquity, that of the universal Church

[5] decreta praeponat.

[5] let him prefer the decrees.

Quid si tale aliquid emergat ubi nihil hujusmodi reperiatur?

What if something of such a kind should emerge where nothing of this sort is found?

Tunc operam dabit ut collatas inter se majorum consulat interrogetque sententias, eorum duntaxat qui diversis licet temporibus et locis, in unius tamen Ecclesiae Catholicae communione et fide permanentes, magistri probabiles exstiterunt;

Then he will give diligence to consult and interrogate the judgments of the elders, collated among themselves, namely of those who, although at diverse times and places, yet remaining in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, have stood forth as approved masters;

et quicquid non unus aut duo tantum, sed omnes pariter uno eodemque consensu aperte, frequenter, perseveranter tenuisse, scripsisse, docuisse cognoverit, id sibi quoque intelligat absque ulla dubitatione credendum.

and whatever he shall have ascertained that not one or two only, but all alike with one and the same consensus have openly, frequently, perseveringly held, written, and taught, let him understand that this is to be believed by himself also without any doubt.

IV. Sed ut planiora fiant quae dicimus, exemplis singillatim illustranda sunt et paulo uberius exaggeranda; ne immodicae brevitatis studio rapiantur rerum pondera orationis celeritate. Tempore Donati

4. But, that the things which we say may become more plain, they must be illustrated by examples severally and somewhat more copiously exaggerated; lest, by a zeal for immoderate brevity, the weights of the matters be snatched away by the celerity of the discourse. In the time of Donatus

[6], a quo Donatistae, cum sese

[6], from whom the Donatists, when they themselves

[7] multa pars Africae in erroris sui furias praecipitaret, cumque immemor nominis, religionis, professionis, unius hominis sacrilegam temeritatem Ecclesiae Christi praeponeret, tunc quicumque per Africam constituti, profano schismate detestato, universis mundi Ecclesiis adsociati sunt, soli ex illis omnibus intra sacraria catholicae fidei salvi esse potuerunt; egregiam profecto relinquentes posteris formam, quemadmodum scilicet deinceps, bono more, unius aut certe paucorum vesaniae universorum sanitas anteferretur. Item quando Arianorum venenum non jam portiunculam quamdam, sed pene orbem totum contaminaverat, adeo ut prope cunctis Latini sermonis Episcopis partim vi, partim fraude deceptis, caligo quaedam mentibus offunderetur, quidnam potissimum in tanta rerum confusione sequendum foret, tunc quisquis verus Christi amator et cultor exstitit, antiquam fidem novellae perfidiae praeferendo, nulla contagii ipsius peste maculatus est. Cujus quidem temporis periculo satis superque monstratum est quantum invehatur calamitatis novelli dogmatis inductione.

[7] many a part of Africa was hurling itself headlong into the furies of its error, and, forgetful of its name, religion, and profession, was preferring the sacrilegious temerity of one man to the Church of Christ; then whoever, being established throughout Africa, detested the profane schism and were associated with all the Churches of the world, they alone out of all those were able to be safe within the sanctuaries of the catholic faith; indeed leaving to posterity an excellent model, namely, that thereafter, by good custom, the health of all should be preferred to the madness of one or at least of a few. Likewise, when the venom of the Arians had now contaminated not merely some small portion, but nearly the whole orb, so that, with almost all the bishops of the Latin tongue partly by force, partly by fraud deceived, a certain gloom was poured over minds as to what especially ought to be followed in so great a confusion of affairs, then whoever stood forth as a true lover and worshiper of Christ, by preferring the ancient faith to the novel perfidy, was stained by no plague of that contagion itself. In the danger of that time it was more than sufficiently shown how much calamity is brought in by the induction of a novel dogma.

Hunc siquidem non solum parvae res, sed etiam maximae labefactatae sunt. Nec enim tantum adfinitates, cognationes, amicitiae, domus, verum etiam urbes, populi, provinciae, nationes, universum postremo Romanum Imperium funditus concussum et emotum est. Namque cum prophana ipsa Arianorum novitas, velut quaedam Bellona aut furia, capto primo omnium Imperatore, cuncta deinde palatii culmina egibus novis subjugasset, nequaquam deinceps destitit universa miscere atque vexare, privata ac publica, sacra prophanaque omnia, nullum boni et veri gerere discrimen, sed quoscumque conlibuisset, tanquam de loco superiore percutere.

By this indeed not only small things, but even the greatest have been made to totter. For not only affinities, cognations, friendships, households, but also cities, peoples, provinces, nations, finally the entire Roman Empire was shaken to its foundations and stirred. For when the profane novelty of the Arians themselves, like a certain Bellona or Fury, having first of all seized the Emperor, then had subjugated all the summits of the palace by new edicts, thereafter it by no means ceased to commingle and vex all things—private and public, sacred and profane alike—making no discrimination of the good and the true, but striking whomsoever it pleased, as from a higher place.

Tunc temeratae conjuges, depullatae viduae, prophanatae virgines, monasteria demolita, disturbati clerici, verberati levitae, acti in exilium sacerdotes, oppleta sanctis ergastula, carceres, metalla: quorum pars maxima, interdictis urbibus, protrusi atque extorres, inter deserta, speluncas, feras, saxa, nuditate, fame, siti affecti, contriti et tabefacti sunt. Atque haec omnia numquid ullam aliam ob causam, nisi utique dum pro coelesti dogmate humanae superstitiones introducuntur, dum bene fundata antiquitas scelesta novitate subruitur, dum superiorum instituta violantur, dum rescinduntur scita patrum, dum convelluntur definita majorum, dum sese intra sacratae atque incorruptae vetustatis castissimos limites prophanae ac novellae curiositatis libido non continet?

Then violated wives, despoiled widows, profaned virgins, monasteries demolished, clerics disturbed, levites flogged, priests driven into exile, ergastula, prisons, and mines filled with saints: the greater part of whom, the cities being interdicted to them, thrust out and exiled, among deserts, caves, wild beasts, and rocks, afflicted by nakedness, hunger, and thirst, were crushed and wasted away. And were all these things for any other cause, if not assuredly while, for a heavenly dogma, human superstitions are being introduced, while well-founded antiquity is undermined by wicked novelty, while the institutes of superiors are violated, while the enactments of the fathers are rescinded, while the determinations of the ancestors are torn up, while the lust of profane and novel curiosity does not keep itself within the most chaste limits of sacred and incorrupt antiquity?

V. Sed forsitan odio novitatis et amore vetustatis haec fingimus. Quisquis hoc aestimat, beato saltem credat Ambrosio, qui, in secundo ad Imperatorem Gratianum libro, acerbitatem temporis ipse deplorans, ait:Sed jam satis, inquit, omnipotens Deus, nostro exilio nostroque sanguine Confessorum neces, exilia Sacerdotum, et nefas tantae impietatis eluimus. Satis claruit eos qui violaverint fidem tutos esse non posse. Item in tertio ejusdem operis libro: Servemus igitur, inquit, praecepta majorum, nec haereditaria signacula ausi rudis temeritate violemus.

5. But perhaps, from a hatred of novelty and a love of antiquity, we are inventing these things. Whoever thinks this, let him at least believe blessed Ambrose, who, in the second book to the Emperor Gratian, himself lamenting the bitterness of the time, says:But now enough, he says, Almighty God, by our exile and by our blood we have washed away the killings of the Confessors, the exiles of the Priests, and the nefarious crime of so great impiety. It has been sufficiently made clear that those who have violated the faith cannot be safe. Likewise in the third book of the same work: Let us therefore keep, he says, the precepts of the elders, and let us not with untutored rashness dare to violate the hereditary seals.

Librum signatum illum propheticum non Seniores, non Potestates, non Angeli, non Archangeli aperire ausi sunt: soli Christo explanandi ejus praerogativa servata est. Librum sacerdotalem quis nostrum resignare audeat, signatum a Confessoribus, et multorum jam martyrio consecratum? Quem qui resignare coacti sunt

The prophetic sealed book neither the Elders, nor the Powers, nor the Angels, nor the Archangels dared to open: the prerogative of explaining it was reserved to Christ alone. Who among us would dare to unseal the sacerdotal book, sealed by the Confessors, and already consecrated by the martyrdom of many? Those who were compelled to unseal it

[8] postea tamen damnata fraude signarunt; qui violare non ausi sunt, Confessores et martyres exstiterunt. Quomodo fidem eorum possumus denegare quorum victoriam praedicamus?»

[8]afterwards, however, when the fraud had been condemned, they sealed; those who did not dare to violate became Confessors and Martyrs. How can we deny the faith of those whose victory we proclaim?»

Praedicamus plane, inquam, oh, venerande Ambrosi! Praedicamus plane, laudantesque miramur. Nam quis ille tam demens est qui eos, etsi adsequi non evaleat, non exoptet sequi quos a defensione fidei majorum nulla vis depulit, non minae, non blandimenta, non vita, non mors, non palatium, non satellites, non Imperator, non imperium, non homines, non daemones?

We plainly proclaim, I say, O venerable Ambrose! We plainly proclaim, and, praising, we marvel. For who is so demented that he does not long to follow them, even if he cannot attain to them—those whom no force drove from the defense of the faith of our forefathers: not threats, not blandishments, not life, not death, not the palace, not the bodyguards, not the Emperor, not the empire, not men, not demons?

quos, inquam, pro religiosae vetustatis tenacitate tanto munere Dominus dignos judicavit ut per eos prostratas restauraret Ecclesias, exstinctos spiritales populos vivificaret, dejectas sacerdotum coronas, reponeret, nefarias illas novellae impietatis non litteras, sed lituras, infuso coelitus Episcopis fidelium lacrymarum fonte, deleret, universum postremo jam pene mundum saeva repentinae haereseos tempestate perculsum ad antiquam fidem a novella perfidia, ad antiquam sanitatem a novitatis vesania, ad antiquam lucem a novitatis caecitate revocaret. Sed in hac divina quadam Confessorum

whom, I say, on account of the tenacity of religious antiquity the Lord judged worthy of so great a munus, that through them he might restore Churches laid prostrate, vivify spiritual peoples that had been extinguished, replace the cast-down crowns of priests, delete those nefarious not letters but erasures of novel impiety, the fount of the tears of the faithful having been poured from heaven into the Bishops; and, finally, recall almost the whole world, smitten by the savage tempest of sudden heresy, from novel perfidy to the ancient faith, from the madness of novelty to ancient sanity, from the blindness of novelty to the ancient light. But in this certain divine ... of the Confessors

[9] virtute illud est etiam nobis vel maxime considerandum, quod tunc apud ipsam Ecclesiae vetustatem non partis alicujus, sed universitatis ab iis est suscepta defensio. Neque enim fas erat, ut tanti ac tales viri unius aut duorum hominum errabundas sibique ipsis contrarias suspiciones tam magno molimine adsererent, aut vero pro alicujus provincio lae temeraria quadam conspiratione certarent, sed omnium sanctae Ecclesiae sacerdotum apostolicae et catholicae veritatis haeredum decreta et definita sectantes, maluerunt semetipsos quam vetustae universitatis fidem prodere. Unde et ad tantam gloriam pervenire meruerunt, ut non solum Confessores, verum etiam Confessorum principes jure meritoque habeantur.

[9] by virtue we must consider this also, and indeed most of all: that then, with the very antiquity of the Church, the defense undertaken by them was not of some party, but of the universality. For it was not lawful that men so great and of such a kind should assert with so great an exertion the wandering and mutually self-contradictory suspicions of one or two men, or indeed should contend for the province of some person by a certain rash conspiracy; but, following the decrees and definitions of all the priests of the holy Church, heirs of apostolic and catholic truth, they preferred to betray themselves rather than the faith of ancient universality. Whence also they deserved to attain to so great glory that they are held by right and by merit not only as Confessors, but even as princes of the Confessors.

VI. Magnum hoc igitur eorumdem beatorum exemplum, planeque divinum, et veris quibusque Catholicis indefessa meditatione recolendum, qui modum septemplicis candelabri septenâ sancti Spiritus luce radiante, clarissimam posteris formulam praemonstrarunt quonam modo deinceps per singula quaeque errorum vaniloquia, sacratae vetustatis auctoritate prophanae novitatis conteratur audacia.

6. Therefore this great example of those same blessed men, plainly divine, and to be recollected with untiring meditation by all true Catholics, who, after the manner of the sevenfold candelabrum with the sevenfold light of the Holy Spirit shining, pre-demonstrated to posterity a most luminous formula by what method thereafter, through each and every vain-babblings of errors, the audacity of profane novelty may be crushed by the authority of hallowed antiquity.

Neque hoc sane novum. Siquidem mos iste semper in Ecclesia viguit ut quo quisque foret religiosor, eo promptius novellis adintentionibus contrairet. Exemplis talibus plena sunt omnia.

Nor indeed is this new. Since this custom has always flourished in the Church, that the more religious anyone was, by so much the more promptly he would oppose novel inventions. All things are full of such examples.

Sed ne longum fiat, unum aliquod, et hoc ab Apostolica potissimum Sede sumemus; ut omnes luce clarius videant beatorum Apostolorum beata successio quanta vi semper, quanto studio, quanta contentione defenderit susceptae semel Religionis integritatem. Quondam igitur venerabilis memoriae Agrippinus Carthaginensis

But, lest it become long, we will take some one example, and this most especially from the Apostolic See; so that all may see more clearly than light how the blessed succession of the blessed Apostles has always defended, with how great force, with how great zeal, with how great contention, the integrity of the Religion once undertaken. Once, therefore, Agrippinus of Carthage, of venerable memory

[10] Episcopus, primus omnium mortalium contra divinum Canonem, contra universalis Ecclesiae regulam, contra sensum omnium consacerdotum, contra morem atque instituta majorum, rebaptizandum esse censebat. Quae praesumptio tantum mali invexit, ut non solum Haereticis omnibus formam sacrilegii, sed etiam quibusdam Catholicis occasionem praebuerit erroris. Cum ergo undique ad novitatem rei cuncti reclamarent, atque omnes quaquaversum sacerdotes pro suo quisque studio retinerentur, tunc beatae memoriae Papa Stephanus

[10] The Bishop, first of all mortals, against the divine Canon, against the rule of the universal Church, against the sense of all his fellow-priests, against the custom and institutions of the elders, judged that there should be re-baptizing. Which presumption brought in so great an evil that it furnished not only to all Heretics a form of sacrilege, but also to certain Catholics an occasion of error. Therefore when on every side all cried out against the novelty of the matter, and all the priests everywhere were being held, each by his own zeal, then Pope Stephen of blessed memory

[11] apostolicae Sedis antistes, cum caeteris quidem collegis suis, sed tamen prae caeteris restitit, dignum, ut opinor, existimans si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione vinceret quantum loci auctoritate superabat. Denique in Epistola

[11] the prelate of the Apostolic See, indeed with his other colleagues, yet nevertheless stood firm before the rest, deeming it worthy, as I think, that he should surpass all the others in devotion of faith by as much as he excelled them in the authority of his place. Finally, in the Epistle

[12] quae tunc ad Africam missa est, his verbis sanxit: Nihil novandum nisi quod traditum est. Intelligebat etenim vir sanctus et prudens nihil aliud rationem pietatis admittere, nisi ut omnia, qua fide a patribus suscepta forent, eadem fide filiis consignarentur; nosque Religionem, non qua vellemus ducere, sed potius qua illa duceret sequi oportere; idque esse proprium Christianae modestiae et gravitatis, non sua posteris tradere, sed a majoribus accepta servare. Quis ergo tunc universi negotii exitus?

[12] which was then sent to Africa, he sanctioned with these words: Nothing is to be innovated except what has been handed down. For the holy and prudent man understood that the reason/principle of piety admits nothing else, except that all things which had been received by the fathers in faith should be consigned to the sons in the same faith; and that it is proper for us not to lead Religion where we wish, but rather to follow where it leads; and that this is the distinctive mark of Christian modesty and gravity, not to hand down one’s own things to posterity, but to preserve what was received from the elders. What, then, was the outcome of the whole business?

Quis utique nisi usitatus et solitus?

Who indeed, if not the usual and the accustomed?

Retenta est scilicet antiquitas, explosa novitas. Sed forte tunc ipsi novitiae adinventioni patrocinia defuerunt? Imo vero tanta vis ingenii adfuit, tanta eloquentiae flumina, tantus adsertorum numerus, tanta verisimilitudo, tanta divinae legis oracula, sed plane novo ac malo more intellecta, ut mihi omnis illa conspiratio nullo modo destrui potuisse videatur nisi sola tanti moliminis causa ipsa illa suscepta, ipsa defensa, laudata novitatis professio destituisset.

Antiquity was, to be sure, retained; novelty was exploded. But perhaps then the very patronage and defenses for the newfangled invention were lacking? Nay rather, so great a force of ingenuity was present, such rivers of eloquence, so great a number of asserters, such verisimilitude, such oracles of the divine law, but plainly understood in a new and evil fashion, that to me all that conspiracy seems in no way to have been able to be destroyed, unless the sole cause of so great an undertaking, the very profession of novelty itself, once undertaken, once defended, once praised, had failed.

Quid postremo? Ipsius Africani Concilii

What, finally? Of the African Council itself

[13] sive decreti quae vires?

[13] or what force has the decree?

Donante Deo, nullae; sed universa tanquam somnia, tanquam fabulae, tanquam superflua, abolita, antiquata calcata sunt.

God granting, none; but all things, as if dreams, as if fables, as if superfluities, have been abolished, antiquated, trampled underfoot.

Et, o rerum mira conversio! Auctores ejusdem opinionis Catholici, consectatores vero Haeretici judicantur; absolvuntur magistri, condemnantur discipuli; conscriptores librorum filii regni erunt, adsertores vero gehenna suscipiet.

And, o wondrous conversion of things! The authors of the same opinion are judged Catholic, but the followers Heretics; the masters are absolved, the disciples condemned; the writers of the books will be sons of the kingdom, but gehenna will receive the asserters.

Nam quis ille tam demens est qui illud sanctorum omnium et Episcoporum et Martyrum lumen beatissimum Cyprianum cum caeteris collegis suis in aeternum dubitet regnaturum esse cum Christo?

For who is so demented that he would doubt that that most blessed light of all the saints and bishops and martyrs, Cyprian, together with his other colleagues, will reign forever with Christ?

Aut quis tam contra sacrilegus qui Donatistas et caeteras pestes, quae illius auctoritate Concilii rebaptizare se jactitant, in sempiternum neget arsuros esse cum diabolo?

Or who is so, contrariwise, sacrilegious as to deny that the Donatists and the other plagues, who boast of re-baptizing by the authority of his Council, will burn forever with the devil?

VII. Quod quidem mihi divinitus videtur promulgatum esse judicium propter eorum maxime fraudulentiam qui cum sub alieno nomine haeresim concinnare machinentur, captant plerumque veteris cujuspiam viri scripta paulo involutius edita, quae pro ipsa sui obscuritate dogmati suo quasi congruant; ut illud nescio quid quodcunque proferunt, neque primi neque soli sentire videantur. Quorum ego nequitiam duplici odio dignam judico, vel eo quod haereseos venenum propinare aliis non pertimescunt, vel eo etiam quod sancti cujusque viri memoriam tanquam sopitos jam cineres prophana manu ventilant, et quae silentio sepeliri oportebat, rediviva opinione diffamant, sequentes omnino vestigia auctoris sui Cham, qui nuditatem venerandi Noe non modo operire neglexit, verum quoque irridendam caeteris enuntiavit. Unde tantam laesae pietatis meruit offensam ut etiam posteri ipsius peccati sui maledictis obligarentur, beatis illis fratribus multum longeque dissimilis, qui nuditatem ipsam reverendi patris neque suis temerare oculis, neque alienis patere voluerunt, sed aversi, ut scribitur, texerunt eum: quod est erratum sancti viri nec approbasse nec prodidisse

7. That judgment seems to me indeed to have been promulgated divinely, especially on account of the fraudulence of those who, while they machinate to concinnate heresy under another’s name, for the most part angle for the writings of some man of old set forth a little more involutedly, which by their very obscurity seem as it were to be congruent with their dogma; so that the whatever-it-is which they bring forward, they may appear neither to be the first nor the only ones to hold. The wickedness of whom I judge worthy of a double hatred, both because they do not fear to proffer to others the venom of heresy, and also because they waft with a profane hand the memory of any holy man like ashes now asleep, and by a redivive opinion defame the things which ought to have been buried in silence, following altogether the footprints of their author Cham (Ham), who not only neglected to cover the nakedness of the venerable Noah, but even announced it to the others to be mocked. Whence he merited so great an offense of lacerated piety that even his descendants were bound with the maledictions of his sin, very far and much unlike those blessed brothers, who were unwilling either to profane with their own eyes the nakedness of their reverend father or to expose it to others, but, turned away, as it is written, covered him: which is neither to have approved nor to have betrayed the error of a holy man

[14]; atque idcirco beata in posteros benedictione donati sunt. Sed ad propositum redeamus. Magno igitur metu nobis immutatae fidei ac temeratae religionis piaculum pertimescendum est; a quo nos solum constitutionis Ecclesiasticae disciplina, sed etiam censura Apostolicae deterret auctoritatis.

[14]; and on that account they were endowed with a blessed benediction for their posterity. But let us return to the proposition. Therefore with great fear the piacle of a changed faith and a profaned religion is to be dreaded by us; from which not only the discipline of the Ecclesiastical constitution, but also the censure of Apostolic authority deters us.

Scitum enim cunctis est quam graviter, quam severe, quam vehementer invehatur in quosdam beatus Apostolus Paulus, qui mira levitate nimium cito translati fuerant ab eo qui eos vocaverat in gratiam Christi, in aliud Evangelium, quod non est aliud, qui coacervarant sibi magistros ad sua desideria, a veritate quidem auditum avertentes, conversi vero ad fabulas, habentes damnationem quod primam fidem irritam fecissent; quos deceperant ii de quibus ad Romanos fratres scribit idem Apostolus: Rogo autem vos, fratres, ut observetis eos qui dissentiones et offendicula, praeter doctrinam quam ipsi didicistis, faciunt; et declinate ab illis. Hujusmodi enim Christo Domino non serviunt, sed suo ventri, et per dulces sermones et benedictiones seducunt corda innocentium. Qui intrant per domos, et captivas ducunt mulierculas oneratas peccatis, quae ducuntur variis desideriis; semper discentes, et ad scientiam veritatis nunquam pervenientes. Vaniloqui et seductores, qui universas domos subvertunt, docentes quae non oportet, turpis lucri gratia.

For it is known to all how gravely, how severely, how vehemently the blessed Apostle Paul inveighs against certain persons, who with marvelous levity had been too quickly transferred from him who had called them into the grace of Christ, to a different Gospel, which is not another; who had heaped up for themselves teachers according to their own desires, turning their hearing indeed away from the truth, but turned to fables, having condemnation because they had made void their first faith; whom those had deceived of whom to the brothers at Rome the same Apostle writes: Now I beseech you, brethren, to observe those who make dissensions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you yourselves learned; and turn away from them. For such as these do not serve Christ the Lord, but their own belly, and by sweet speeches and blessings they seduce the hearts of the innocent. Who enter into houses and lead captive little women weighed down with sins, who are led by various desires; always learning, and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. Vain-talkers and seducers, who overturn whole households, teaching what is not fitting, for the sake of filthy gain.

Homines corrupti mente, reprobi circa fidem, superbi, et nihil scientes, sed languentes circa quaestiones et pugnas verborum; qui veritate privati sunt, existimantes quaestum esse pietatem: simul autem et otiosi discunt circumire domos; non solum autem otiosi, sed et verbosi, et curiosi loquentes quae non oportet: qui bonam conscientiam repellentes, circa fidem naufragaverunt: quorum prophana vaniloquia multum proficiunt ad impietatem, et sermo eorum ut cancer serpit

Men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith, proud, and knowing nothing, but languishing about questions and battles of words; who have been deprived of truth, reckoning gain to be piety: and at the same time the idle learn to go around houses; not only idle, moreover, but also verbose and curious, speaking things which are not fitting: who, repelling a good conscience, have made shipwreck concerning the faith: whose profane vain-talk makes much progress toward impiety, and their discourse spreads like a cancer

[15]. Bene autem quod de iis item scribitur:Sed ultra non proficient. Insipientia enim eorum manifesta erit omnibus, sicut et illorum fuit.

[15]. Well, however, that concerning them likewise it is written:But they will not make further progress. For their folly will be manifest to all, just as also that of those men was.

VIII. Cum ergo tales quidam circumeuntes provincias et civitates, atque errores venalitios circumferendo, etiam ad Galatas devenissent, cumque his auditis Galatae nausea quadam veritatis affecti, Apostolicae Catholicaeque doctrinae manna revomentes, haereticae novitatis sordibus oblectarentur, ita sese Apostolicae potestatis exeruit auctoritas, ut summa cum severitate decerneret:Sed licet nos, inquit, aut angelus de coelo evangelizet vobis praeterquam quod evangelizavimus vobis, anathema sit

8. Therefore, when certain such men, going around the provinces and cities and by carrying about venal errors, had even come to the Galatians, and when, these things having been heard, the Galatians, affected with a certain nausea toward the truth, vomiting back the manna of Apostolic and Catholic doctrine, were being delighted by the filths of heretical novelty, the authority of Apostolic power so exerted itself that with the utmost severity it decreed:But even if we, he says, or an angel from heaven should evangelize to you beyond what we have evangelized to you, let him be anathema

[16]. Quid est quod ait, Sedlicet nos? Cur non potius: Sed licet ego? Hoc est: Etiamsi Petrus, etiamsi Andreas, etiamsi Joannes, etiamsi postremo omnis Apostolorum chorus evangelizet vobis praeterquam quod evangelizavimus, anathema sit. Tremenda districtio, propter adserendam primae fidei tenacitatem, nec sibi, nec caeteris coapostolis pepercisse! Parum est: Etiamsi angelus, inquit, de coelo evangelizet vobis, praeterquam quod evangelizavimus, anathema sit. Non suffecerat ad custodiam traditae semel fidei, humanae conditionis commemorasse naturam, nisi angelicam quoque excellentiam comprehendisset. Licet nos, inquit, aut angelus de coelo.

[16]. What is it that he says, Buteven if we? Why not rather: But even if I? This is: Even if Peter, even if Andrew, even if John, even if at last the whole chorus of the Apostles should evangelize to you other than what we have evangelized, let him be anathema. A tremendous strictness, for the sake of asserting the tenacity of the first faith, that he spared neither himself nor the other co-apostles! It is not enough: Even if an angel, he says, from heaven should evangelize to you other than what we have evangelized, let him be anathema. It would not have sufficed for the custody of the once-delivered faith to have made mention of the nature of the human condition, unless he had also encompassed angelic excellence. Even if we, he says, or an angel from heaven.

Non quia sancti coelestesque angeli peccare jam possint; sed hoc est quod dicit: Si etiam, inquit, fiat quod non potest fieri, quisquis ille traditam semel fidem mutare tentaverit, anathema sit. Sed haec forsitan perfunctorie praelocutus est, et humano potius effudit impetu, quam divina ratione decrevit. Absit.

Not because the holy and celestial angels can now sin; but this is what he says: If even, he says, that should be done which cannot be done—whoever should attempt to change the once-delivered faith—let him be anathema. But perhaps he spoke these things perfunctorily by way of preface, and poured them out by human impulse rather than decreed them by divine reason. Far be it.

Sequitur enim, et hoc ipsum ingenti molimine iteratae insinuationis inculcat: Sicut praediximus, et nunc iterum dico: Si quis vobis evangelizaverit, praeterquam quod accepistis, anathema sit. Non dixit: Si quis vobis annuntiaverit praeterquam quod accepistis, benedictus sit, laudetur, recipiatur; sed, anathema sit, inquit, id est, separatus, segregatus, exclusus, ne unius ovis dirum contagium innoxium gregem Christi venenata permixtione contaminet.

For it follows, and he inculcates this very thing with a huge exertion of iterated insinuation: As we have fore-said, and now again I say: If anyone should evangelize to you, other than what you have received, let him be anathema. He did not say: If anyone should announce to you other than what you have received, let him be blessed, let him be praised, let him be received; but, let him be anathema, he says, that is, separated, segregated, excluded, lest the dire contagion of a single sheep contaminate the innocuous flock of Christ by a poisoned commixture.

IX. Sed forsitan Galatis ista tantum praecepta sunt. Ergo et illa solis Galatis imperata sunt quae in ejusdem Epistolae sequentibus commemorantur: qualia sunt haec:Si vivimus spiritu, spiritu et ambulemus. Non efficiamur inanis gloriae cupidi, invicem provocantes, invidentes, et reliqua.

9. But perhaps these precepts were for the Galatians alone. Therefore those things too were commanded to the Galatians alone which are commemorated in the subsequent parts of the same Epistle: such as these:If we live by the spirit, by the spirit also let us walk. Let us not become desirers of vain glory, provoking one another, envying, and the rest.

Quod si absurdum est, et omnibus ex aequo imperata sunt, restat ut sicut haec morum mandata, ita etiam illa quae de fide cauta sunt omnes pari modo comprehendant, et sicut nemini licet invicem provocare aut invidere invicem, ita nemini liceat, praeter id quod Ecclesia Catholica usquequaque evangelizat accipere. Aut forsitan tunc jubebatur, si quis annuntiasset praeterquam quod annuntiatum fuerat, anathematizari; nunc vero jam non jubetur. Ergo et illud quod item ibi ait: Dico autem, spiritu ambulate, et desiderium carnis non perficietis, tunc tantum jubebatur, modo vero jam non jubetur.

But if that is absurd, and they were enjoined upon all equally, it remains that just as these mandates of morals, so also those things which are cautious concerning faith should likewise include all in equal manner; and just as it is allowed to no one to provoke one another or to envy one another, so it is allowed to no one to receive anything besides that which the Catholic Church everywhere evangelizes. Or perhaps then it was being ordered that, if anyone had announced other than what had been announced, he be anathematized; now, however, it is no longer ordered. Therefore that too which likewise he says there: But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not perfect the desire of the flesh, then only was being ordered; but now indeed it is no longer ordered.

Quod si impium pariter et perniciosum est ita credere, necessario sequitur ut sicut haec cunctis aetatibus observanda sunt, ita illa quoque quae de non mutanda fide sancita sunt cunctis aetatibus imperata sint. Annuntiare ergo aliquid Christianis catholicis, praeter id quod acceperunt nunquam licuit, nusquam licet, nunquam licebit; et anathematizare eos qui annuntiant aliquid praeterquam quod semel acceptum est, nunquam non oportuit, nusquam non oportet, nunquam non oportebit. Quae cum ita sint, estne aliquis vel tantae audaciae qui praeter id quod apud Ecclesiam annuntiatum est annuntiet, vel tantae levitatis qui praeter id quod ab Ecclesia accepit accipiat?

But if it is impious and equally pernicious to believe thus, it necessarily follows that, just as these things are to be observed in all ages, so also those things which have been sanctioned concerning not changing the faith are to be enjoined upon all ages. Therefore to announce anything to Catholic Christians beyond what they have received has never been permitted, is permitted nowhere, will never be permitted; and to anathematize those who announce anything other than what has once been received has never not been proper, is nowhere not proper, will never not be proper. Since these things are so, is there anyone either of such audacity as to announce beyond what has been announced in the Church, or of such levity as to accept beyond what he has received from the Church?

Clamat et repetendo clamat, et omnibus, et semper, et ubique per litteras suas clamat ille, ille vas electionis, ille magister gentium, ille Apostolorum tuba, ille terrarum praeco, ille coelorum conscius, ut si quis novum dogma annuntiaverit, anathematizetur. Et contra reclamant ranae quaedam, et cyniphes, et muscae

He cries out and by repeating he cries out, and to all, and always, and everywhere through his letters that one cries out—that chosen vessel, that teacher of the nations, that trumpet of the Apostles, that herald of the earth, that intimate of the heavens—that if anyone should announce a new dogma, let him be anathematized. And in opposition certain frogs, and gnats, and flies

[17] moriturae, quales sunt Pelagiani, et hoc Catholicis: Nobis, inquiunt, auctoribus, nobis principibus, nobis expositoribus, damnate quae tenebatis, tenete quae damnabatis, rejicite antiquam fidem, paterna instituta, majorum deposita; et recipite: quaenam illa tandem? horreo dicere: sunt enim tam superba, ut mihi non modo afirmari, sed ne refelli quidem sine aliquo piaculo posse videantur.

[17]doomed to die, such as the Pelagians, and this to Catholics: With us, they say, as authors, with us as chiefs, with us as expositors, condemn what you were holding, hold what you were condemning, reject the ancient faith, the paternal institutes, the deposits of the elders; and receive: what, then, are those? I shudder to say: for they are so over-proud that, to me, they seem able not only to be affirmed, but not even to be refuted without some piacular offense.

X. Sed dicet aliquis: Cur ergo persaepe divinitus sinuntur excellentes quaedam personae in Ecclesia constitutae res novas Catholicis annuntiare?

10. But someone will say: Why then are certain eminent personages, established in the Church, very often permitted divinely to announce new things to Catholics?

Recta interrogatio et digna quae diligentius atque uberius pertractetur: cui tamen non ingenio proprio, sed divinae legis auctoritate, Ecclesiastici magisterii documento satisfaciendum est.

A right interrogation and one worthy to be treated more diligently and more abundantly: to which, however, satisfaction must be given not by one’s own genius, but by the authority of divine law, by the document of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium.

Audiamus ergo sanctum Moysen; et ipse nos doceat cur docti viri, et qui propter scientiae gratiam ab Apostolo etiam prophetae nuncupantur, proferre interdum permittantur nova dogmata, quae vetus Testamentum allegorico sermone deos alienos appellare consuevit, eo quod scilicet ita ab haereticis ipsorum opiniones sicut a gentibus dii sui observentur.

Let us therefore hear the holy Moses; and let he himself teach us why learned men, and those who on account of the grace of knowledge are even by the Apostle named prophets, are sometimes permitted to bring forth new dogmas, which the Old Testament is accustomed, in allegorical speech, to call foreign gods, for the reason, namely, that their opinions are observed by heretics just as the Gentiles observe their own gods.

Scribit ergo in Deuteronomio beatus Moyses: Si surrexerit, inquit, in medio tui propheta, aut qui somnium vidisse se dicat

Therefore blessed Moses writes in Deuteronomy: “If there should arise,” he says, “in the midst of you a prophet, or one who says that he has seen a dream”

[18], id est, magister in Ecclesia constitutus, quem discipuli vel auditores sui ex aliqua revelatione docere arbitrentur. Quid deinde?et praedixerit, inquit, signum atque portentum, et evenerit quod locutus est. Magnus profecto nescio quis signatur magister et tantae scientiae qui sectatoribus propriis non solum quae humana sunt nosse, verum etiam quae supra hominem sunt praenoscere posse videatur; quales fere discipuli sui jactitant fuisse Valentinum, Donatum, Photinum, Apollinarem, caeterosque ejusmodi.

[18], that is, a master appointed in the Church, whom his disciples or his auditors suppose to teach from some revelation. What then?and shall have foretold, he says, a sign and a portent, and what he has spoken has come to pass. Assuredly some great I-know-not-what master is designated, and of such great science, who to his own followers seems able not only to know the things that are human, but even to foreknow the things that are above man; such as, for the most part, their disciples boast Valentinus, Donatus, Photinus, Apollinaris, and others of that kind to have been.

Quid postea? Et dixerit, inquit, tibi: Eamus, et sequamur deos alienos quos ignoras, et serviamus eis. Qui sunt dii alieni, nisi errores extranei quos ignorabas, id est, novi et inauditi? Et serviamus eis, id est, credamus eis, sequamur eos.

What next? And he says, “to you: Let us go, and let us follow alien gods whom you do not know, and let us serve them”. Who are alien gods, if not extraneous errors which you were ignorant of, that is, new and unheard-of? And let us serve them, that is, let us believe them, let us follow them.

Quid ad extremum? Non audies, inquit, verba prophetae illius aut somniatoris. Et quare, oro te, a Deo non prohibetur doceri quod a Deo prohibetur audiri? Quia, inquit, tentat vos Dominus Deus vester, ut palam fiat utrum diligatis eum an non, in toto corde et in tota anima vestra. Luce clarius aperta causa est cur interdum divina Providentia quosdam Ecclesiarum magistros nova quaedam dogmata praedicare patiatur.

What, in the end? You shall not listen, he says, to the words of that prophet or dreamer. And why, I beg you, is it not forbidden by God to be taught that which is forbidden by God to be heard? Because, he says, the Lord your God is testing you, so that it may become manifest whether you love him or not, with your whole heart and with your whole soul. The reason is clearer than light why Divine Providence sometimes allows certain masters of the Churches to preach certain new dogmas.

Ut tentet vos, inquit, Dominus Deus vester. Et profecto magna tentatio est cum ille quem tu prophetam, quem prophetarum discipulum, quem doctorem et adsertorem veritatis putes, quem summa veneratione et amore complexus sis, is subito latenter noxios subinducat errores, quos nec cito deprehendere valeas, dum antiqui magisterii duceris praejudicio, nec facile damnare fas ducas, dum magistri veteris praepediris affectu.

That he may test you, he says, the Lord your God. And indeed it is a great temptation when the one whom you think a prophet, a disciple of the prophets, a doctor and asserter of truth, whom you have embraced with the highest veneration and love, suddenly and secretly insinuates noxious errors—errors which you are not able to detect quickly, while you are led by the prejudice of the ancient magisterium, nor do you deem it right to condemn easily, while you are hampered by affection for the old master.

XI. Hic forsitan efflagitet aliquis ut ea quae sancti Moysi verbis adserta sunt, Ecclesiasticis aliquibus demonstrentur exemplis. Aequa expostulatio, nec diu differenda. Nam ut a proximis et manifestis incipiam, qualem fuisse nuper tentationem putamus, cum infelix ille Nestorius, subito ex ove conversus in lupum, gregem Christi lacerare coepisset, cum eum hi ipsi qui rodebantur ex magna adhuc parte ovem crederent, ideoque morsibus ejus magis paterent?

11. Here perhaps someone will exact that the things asserted by the words of holy Moses be demonstrated by some ecclesiastical examples. A fair expostulation, nor to be deferred long. For, that I may begin from what is proximate and manifest, what sort of temptation do we suppose it was lately, when that unhappy Nestorius, suddenly converted from a sheep into a wolf, had begun to lacerate the flock of Christ, while those very ones who were being gnawed believed him still for the most part to be a sheep, and therefore the more lay open to his bites?

Nam quis eum facile errare arbitraretur quem tanto Imperii judicio electum, tanto sacerdotum studio prosecutum videret; qui cum magno sanctorum amore, summo populi favore celebraretur, quotidie palam divina tractabat eloquia, et noxios quosque Judaeorum et Gentilium confutabat errores? Quo tandem iste modo non cuivis fidem faceret se recta docere, recta praedicare, recta sentire, qui ut uni haeresi suae auditum patefaceret, cunctarum haereseon blasphemias insectabatur? Sed hoc erat illud quod Moyses ait: Tentat vos Dominus Deus vester si diligatis eum an non. Et ut Nestorium praetereamus, in quo plus semper admirationis quam utilitatis, plus famae quam experientiae fuit, quem opinione vulgi aliquamdiu magnum humana magis fecerat gratia quam divina, eos potius commemoremus qui multis profectibus multaque industria praediti non parvae tentationi Catholicis hominibus exstiterunt.

For who would easily think him to err, whom he saw chosen by so great a judgment of the Empire, and attended by so great a zeal of the priests; who, celebrated with a great love of the saints and the highest favor of the people, daily in public handled the divine utterances, and confuted the noxious errors of Jews and Gentiles? By what means, then, would this man not persuade anyone that he teaches rightly, preaches rightly, thinks rightly—who, in order to open a hearing for his single heresy, was assailing the blasphemies of all the heresies? But this was that which Moses says: The Lord your God tests you, whether you love him or not. And to pass over Nestorius, in whom there was always more admiration than usefulness, more fame than experience—whom for a while the favor of men rather than of God, by the opinion of the crowd, had made great—let us rather commemorate those who, endowed with many advances and much industry, proved no small temptation to Catholic men.

Velut apud Pannonias majorum memoria Photinus Ecclesiam Sirmitanam tentasse memoratur: ubi cum magno omnium favore in sacerdotium fuisset ascitus, et aliquandiu tanquam Catholicus administraret, subito, sicut malus ille propheta aut somniator quem Moyses significat, creditam sibi plebem Dei persuadere coepit ut sequeretur deos alienos, id est, errores extraneos, quos antea nesciebat. Sed hoc usitatum. Illud vero perniciosum, quod ad tantum nefas non mediocribus adminiculis utebatur.

For instance, among the Pannonian regions it is recounted in the memory of the elders that Photinus assailed the Church of Sirmium: where, having been advanced into the priesthood with the great favor of all, and for some time administering as though a Catholic, suddenly, like that evil prophet or dreamer whom Moses signifies, he began to persuade the people of God entrusted to him to follow alien gods—that is, foreign errors—which previously it did not know. But this is commonplace. What was truly pernicious was that, for so great a wickedness, he employed no mediocre supports.

Nam erat et ingenii viribus valens et doctrinae opibus exemplo istius Ecclesiasticae tentationis periculum discimus, et simul ad observandae diligentius fidei custodiam commonemur. Etenim ipse auditoribus suis magnos aestus

For he was strong by the powers of intellect and by the resources of doctrine; from the example of this Ecclesiastical temptation we learn the peril, and at the same time we are admonished to a more diligent custody of the faith to be observed. For indeed he himself caused his hearers great agitations

[19] et magnas generavit angustias; quippe cum eos huc Ecclesiae traheret auctoritas, huc magistri retraheret consuetudo; cumque inter utraque nutabundi et fluctuantes, quid potius sibi seligendum foret non expedirent. Sed forsitan ejusmodi ille vir erat qui dignus esset facile contemni. Imo vero tantus ac talis cui nimium cito in plurimis crederetur.

[19] and he generated great straits; for on the one hand the authority of the Church drew them hither, on the other the master’s custom drew them back; and, wavering and fluctuating between the two, they did not make clear what ought rather to be selected for themselves. But perhaps that man was of such a sort as to be worthy to be easily contemned. Nay rather, so great and such a one that he would be too quickly believed by very many.

Nam quid illo praestantius, acumine, exercitatione, doctrina? Quam multas ille haereses multis voluminibus oppresserit, quot inimicos fidei confutaverit errores, indicio est opus illud triginta non minus librorum, nobilissimum ac maximum, quo insanas Porphyrii calumnias magna probationum mole confudit. Longum est universa ipsius opera commemorare; quibus profecto summis aedificatoribus Ecclesiae par esse potuisset, nisi prophana illa haereticae curiositatis libidine novum nescio quid adinvenisset quo et cunctos labores suos velut cujusdam leprae admixtione foedaret et committeret ut doctrina ejus non tam aedificatio, quam tentatio potius Ecclesiastica diceretur.

For what was more preeminent than he—in acumen, in exercise, in doctrine? How many heresies he crushed in many volumes, how many errors inimical to the faith he confuted, that work is evidence, of not less than 30 books, most noble and greatest, in which he confuted the insane calumnies of Porphyry with a great mass of proofs. It is a long task to recount all his works; by which indeed he could have been equal to the highest builders of the Church, if he had not, by that profane lust of heretical curiosity, invented I know not what new thing, whereby he both defiled all his labors with the admixture of a certain leprosy, and brought it about that his doctrine should be called not so much an edification as rather an ecclesiastical temptation.

XII. Hic a me forsitan deposcatur ut horum quos supra commemoravi haereses exponam, Nestorii scilicet, Apollinaris, et Photini. Hoc quidem ad rem de qua nunc agimus non attinet.

12. Perhaps it will be demanded of me that I expound the heresies of those whom I mentioned above, namely Nestorius, Apollinaris, and Photinus. This indeed does not pertain to the matter about which we are now engaged.

Propositum etenim nobis est, non singulorum errores persequi, sed paucorum exempla proferre, quibus evidenter ac perspicue demonstretur illud quod Moyses ait, quia scilicet si quando Ecclesiasticus aliquis magister, et ipse interpretandis prophetarum mysteriis propheta, novi quiddam in Ecclesiam Dei tentet inducere, ad tentationem id nostram fieri Providentia divina patiatur.

For our purpose is, not to pursue the errors of individuals, but to bring forth the examples of a few, by which that which Moses says may be demonstrated evidently and perspicuously: namely, that if ever some ecclesiastical teacher—himself, in interpreting the mysteries of the prophets, a prophet—should attempt to introduce something new into the Church of God, Divine Providence allows this to be done for our temptation.

Utile igitur fuerit, in excursu, quid supra memorati haeretici sentiant breviter exponere, id est, Photinus, Apollinaris, Nestorius. Photini ergo secta haec est. Dicit Deum singulum esse et solitarium, et more Judaico confitendum.

It will therefore be useful, in an excursus, briefly to set forth what the above-mentioned heretics think, that is, Photinus, Apollinaris, Nestorius. Therefore the sect of Photinus is this. He says that God is single and solitary, and must be confessed in Judaic fashion.

Trinitatis plenitudinem negat, neque ullam Dei Verbi aut ullam Spiritus sancti putat esse personam. Christum vero hominem tantummodo solitarium adserit, cui principium adscribit ex Maria: et hoc omnimodis dogmatizat, solam nos personam Dei Patris et solum Christum hominem colere debere. Haec ergo Photinus.

He denies the plenitude of the Trinity, nor does he think the Word of God or the Holy Spirit to be any person. Christ, however, he asserts to be a man only, solitary, to whom he ascribes a beginning from Mary: and he dogmatizes this in every way, that we ought to worship only the person of God the Father, and only Christ as man. Such, then, is Photinus.

Apollinaris vero in unitate quidem Trinitatis quasi consentire se jactitat, et hoc ipsum non plena fidei

Apollinaris, however, indeed boasts that he, as it were, agrees with the unity of the Trinity, and even this not with full faith

[20] sanitate; sed in Domini incarnatione aperta professione blasphemat. Dicit enim in ipsa Salvatoris nostri carne aut animam humanam penitus non fuisse, aut certe talem fuisse cui mens et ratio non esset. Sed et ipsam Domini carnem non de sanctae Virginis Mariae carne susceptam, sed de coelo in Virginem descendisse dicebat; eamque nutabundus semper et dubius modo coaeternam Deo Verbo, modo de Verbi divinitate factam praedicabat.

[20] soundness; but in the Lord’s Incarnation he blasphemes with open profession. For he says that in the very flesh of our Savior there either was not at all a human soul, or at any rate it was such as to have neither mind nor reason. And he also said that the Lord’s very flesh was not assumed from the flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, but had descended from heaven into the Virgin; and this he, always wavering and doubtful, would proclaim now coeternal with God the Word, now made from the divinity of the Word.

Nolebat enim in Christo esse duas substantias, unam divinam, alteram humanam, unam ex Patre, alteram ex matre; sed ipsam Verbi naturam putabat esse discissam, quasi aliud ejus permaneret in Deo, aliud vero versum fuisset in carnem; ut cum veritas dicat ex duabus substantiis unum esse Christum, ille contrarius veritati ex una Christi divinitate duas adserat factas esse substantias. Haec itaque Apollinaris.

NFor he did not want there to be two substances in Christ, one divine, the other human, one from the Father, the other from the mother; but he supposed that the very nature of the Word was torn asunder, as if one part of it remained in God, but another had been turned into flesh; so that, while truth says that from two substances Christ is one, he, contrary to truth, asserts that from the one divinity of Christ two substances have been made. Such, then, are the things of Apollinaris.

Nestorius autem contrario Apollinari morbo, dum sese duas in Christo substantias distinguere simulat, duas introducit repente personas, et inaudito scelere duos esse vult filios Dei, duos Christos, unum Deum, alterum hominem, unum qui ex Patre, alterum qui sit generatus ex matre. Atque ideo asserit sanctam Mariam non Theotocon, sed Christotocon esse dicendam: quia scilicet ex ea non ille Christus qui Deus, sed ille qui erat homo, natus sit. Quod si quis eum putat in litteris suis unum Christum dicere et unam Christi praedicare personam, non temere credat. Aut enim istud fallendi arte machinatus est, ut per bona facilius suaderet et mala, sicut ait Apostolus: Per bonum mihi operatus est mortem

Nestorius, however, with a malady contrary to Apollinaris, while he pretends to distinguish two substances in Christ, suddenly introduces two persons, and with unheard-of wickedness wants there to be two sons of God, two Christs, one God, the other man, one who is from the Father, the other who is begotten from the mother. And therefore he asserts that holy Mary is to be called not Theotocon but Christotocon: because, namely, from her there was born not that Christ who is God, but that one who was man. But if anyone thinks that in his letters he says one Christ and proclaims one person of Christ, let him not believe it rashly. For either he has contrived this by an art of deceiving, so that by means of good things he might more easily persuade even the bad, as the Apostle says: Through good it worked death for me

[21]. Aut ergo, ut diximus, fraudulentiae causa quibusdam in locis scriptorum suorum unum Christum et unam Christi personam credere se jactitat, aut certe post partum jam Virginis ita in unum Christum duas perhibet convenisse personas, ut tamen conceptus seu partus Virginei tempore, et aliquanto postea duos Christos fuisse contendat; ut cum scilicet Christus homo communis primum et solitarius natus sit, et necdum Dei Verbo personae unitate sociatus, postea in eum adsumentis Verbi persona descenderit; et licet nunc in Dei gloria maneat adsumptus, aliquandiu tamen nihil inter illum et caeteros homines interfuisse videatur.

[21]. Either therefore, as we have said, for the sake of fraudulence he vaunts in certain places of his writings that he believes one Christ and one person of Christ; or at least, after the Virgin had already given birth, he affirms that two persons have come together into one Christ in such a way that nevertheless, at the time of the Virginal conception or birth, and for some while thereafter, he contends there were two Christs; since, namely, Christ as a common man was first born solitary, and not yet united to the Word of God by the unity of person, afterward the person of the assuming Word descended into him; and although now, assumed, he remains in the glory of God, yet for some time he seems to have differed in nothing from the rest of men.

XIII. Haec ergo Nestorius, Apollmaris, Photinus adversus Catholicam fidem rabidi canes latrant: Photinus, Trinitatem non confitendo; Apollinaris, convertibilem Verbi dicendo naturam, et duas in Christo substantias non confitendo, et aut totam Christi animam aut certe mentem atque rationem in anima denegando, et adserendo pro sensu mentis fuisse Dei Verbum; Nestorius, duos Christos aut semper esse, aut aliquandiu fuisse adseverando. Ecclesia vero Catholica et de Deo et de Salvatore nostro recta sentiens, nec in Trinitatis mysterio nec in Christi incarnatione blasphemat.

13. Therefore these — Nestorius, Apollinaris, Photinus — like rabid dogs bark against the Catholic faith: Photinus, by not confessing the Trinity; Apollinaris, by saying the nature of the Word is convertible, and by not confessing two substances in Christ, and by denying either the whole soul of Christ, or at least the mind and reason in the soul, and by asserting that, in place of the mind’s sense, there was the Word of God; Nestorius, by averring that there are two Christs, either always, or for a time. But the Catholic Church, thinking rightly both about God and about our Savior, blasphemes neither in the mystery of the Trinity nor in the incarnation of Christ.

Nam et unam divinitatem in Trinitatis plenitudine et Trinitatis aequalitatem in una atque eadem majestate veneratur, et unum Christum Jesum, non duos, eumdemque Deum pariter atque hominem confitetur. Unam quidem in eo personam, sed duas substantias; duas substantias, sed unam credit esse personam: duas substantias, quia mutabile non est Verbum Dei, ut ipsum verteretur in carnem; unam personam, ne duos profitendo filios, quaternitatem videatur colere, non Trinitatem.Sed operae pretium est ut id ipsum etiam atque etiam distinctius et expressius enucleemus. In Deo una substantia, sed tres personae; in Christo duae substantiae, sed una persona.

For it both venerates one divinity in the plenitude of the Trinity and the equality of the Trinity in one and the same majesty, and confesses one Christ Jesus, not two, and the same equally God as well as man. One person indeed in him, but two substances; two substances, but one it believes to be the person: two substances, because the Word of God is not mutable, so that it itself should be turned into flesh; one person, lest by professing two sons it may seem to worship a Quaternity, not the Trinity. But it is worth the work that we elucidate this very thing again and again more distinctly and more expressly. In God one substance, but three persons; in Christ two substances, but one person.

In Trinitate alius atque alius, non aliud atque aliud; in Salvatore aliud atque aliud, non alius atque alius.

In the Trinity, another and another, not another thing and another thing; in the Savior, another thing and another thing, not another and another.

Quomodo in Trinitate alius atque alius, non aliud atque aliud?

How, in the Trinity, is it “another and another,” not “another thing and another thing”?

Quia scilicet alia et persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus sancti; sed tamen Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti non alia et alia, sed una eademque natura.

Because, to wit, the person of the Father is one, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit; yet nevertheless the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not other and other things, but one and the same nature.

Quomodo in Salvatore aliud atque aliud, non alius atque alius?

How is it that in the Savior there is one thing and another, not one person and another?

Quia videlicet altera substantia divinitatis, altera humanitatis; sed tamen deitas et humanitas non alter et alter, sed unus idemque Christus, unus idemque filius Dei, et unius ejusdemque Christi et filii Dei una eademque persona; sicut in homine aliud caro, et aliud anima, sed unus idemque homo anima et caro.

Because, namely, one substance of divinity, another of humanity; but yet deity and humanity are not one and another, but one and the same Christ, one and the same Son of God, and of the one and the same Christ and Son of God, one and the same person; just as in a man flesh is one thing and soul another, yet one and the same man is soul and flesh.

In Petro et Paulo aliud anima, aliud caro; nec tamen duo Petri, caro et anima; aut alter Paulus anima, et alter caro; sed unus idemque Petrus, unus idemque Paulus, ex duplici diversaque subsistens animi corporisque natura. Ita igitur in uno eodemque Christo duae substantiae sunt; sed una divina, altera humana; una ex Patre Deo, altera ex matre Virgine; una coaeterna et aequalis Patri, altera ex tempore et minor Patre; una consubstantialis Patri, altera consubstantialis matri; unus tamen idemque Christus in utraque substantia.

In Peter and Paul one thing is the soul, another the flesh; yet not two Peters, flesh and soul; nor one Paul the soul and another the flesh; but one and the same Peter, one and the same Paul, subsisting from the double and diverse nature of soul and body. Thus therefore in one and the same Christ there are two substances; but one divine, the other human; one from the Father God, the other from the mother Virgin; one coeternal and equal to the Father, the other from time and lesser than the Father; one consubstantial with the Father, the other consubstantial with the mother; yet one and the same Christ in both substances.

Non ergo alter Christus Deus, alter homo; non alter increatus, alter creatus; non alter impassibilis, alter passibilis; non alter aequalis Patri, alter minor Patre; non alter ex Patre, alter ex matre; sed unus idemque Christus Deus et homo, idem non creatus et creatus, idem incommutabilis et impassibilis, idem commutatus et passus, idem Patri et aequalis et minor, idem ex Patre ante secula genitus, idem in seculo ex matre generatus, perfectus Deus, perfectus homo.

Therefore, not one Christ God, another man; not one uncreated, another created; not one impassible, another passible; not one equal to the Father, another lesser than the Father; not one from the Father, another from the mother; but one and the same Christ, God and man, the same uncreated and created, the same immutable and impassible, the same changed and having suffered, the same with respect to the Father both equal and lesser, the same begotten from the Father before the ages, the same in time born from the mother, perfect God, perfect man.

In Deo summa divinitas, in homine plena humanitas. Plena, inquam, humanitas: quippe quae animam simul habeat et carnem, sed carnem veram, nostram, maternam, animam vero intellectu praeditam, mente ac ratione pollentem.

In God the supreme divinity, in man full humanity. Full, I say, humanity: namely that which has the soul and the flesh together, but flesh that is true, ours, maternal, and a soul indeed endowed with intellect, potent in mind and reason.

Est ergo in Christo verbum, anima, caro; sed hoc totum unus est Christus, unus filius Dei, et unus Salvator ac Redemptor noster.

Therefore in Christ there is the Word, soul, flesh; but this whole is one Christ, one Son of God, and one our Savior and Redeemer.

Unus autem, non corruptibili nescio qua divinitatis et humanitatis confusione, sed integra et singulari quadam unitate personae.

One, however, not by some I-know-not-what corruptible confusion of divinity and humanity, but by an integral and a certain singular unity of person.

Neque enim illa conjunctio alterum in alterum convertit atque mutavit (qui est error proprius Arianorum)

For that conjunction did not convert the one into the other and change it (which is the proper error of the Arians)

[22], sed ita in unum potius utrum que compegit, ut manente semper in Christo singularitate unius ejusdemque personae, in aeternum quoque permaneat proprietas uniuscujusque naturae; quo scilicet nec unquam Deus corpus esse incipiat, nec aliquando corpus, corpus esse desistat.

[22], but rather he has compacted both into one in such a way that, with the singularity of the one and the same person always remaining in Christ, the property of each nature also remains into eternity; whereby, namely, neither does God ever begin to be a body, nor at any time does a body cease to be a body.

Quod etiam humanae conditionis demonstratur exemplo.

Which also is demonstrated by an example of the human condition.

Neque enim in praesenti tantum, sed in futuro quoque, unusquisque hominum ex anima constabit et corpore, nec tamen unquam aut corpus in animam aut anima vertetur in corpus; sed unoquoque hominum sine fine victuro, in unoquoque hominum sine fine necessario utriusque substantiae differentia permanebit.

Nor indeed in the present only, but also in the future, each of humankind will consist of soul and body, nor yet will either the body ever be turned into soul or the soul into body; but, with each human being to live without end, in each human being without end the difference of both substances will necessarily remain.

Ita in Christo quoque utriusque substantiae sua cuique in aeternum proprietas, salva tamen personae unitate, retinenda est.

Thus in Christ too the propriety of each of the two substances, its own to each, must be retained unto eternity, yet with the unity of the person kept safe.

XIV. Sed cum personam saepius nominamus, et dicimus quod Deus per personam homo factus sit, vehementer verendum est ne hoc dicere videamur quod Deus verbum sola imitatione actionis quae sunt nostra susceperit, et quidquid illud est conversationis humanae, quasi adumbratus, non quasi verus homo fecerit; sicut in theatris fieri solet, ubi unus plures effingit repente personas, quarum ipse nulla est.

14. But when we more often name “person,” and say that God through the person became man, it is greatly to be feared lest we seem to say this: that God the Word had assumed, by sole imitation, the actions that are ours, and whatever there is of human conversation (conduct), as if adumbrated, not as a true man; just as is wont to be done in the theaters, where one man suddenly fashions several persons, of which he himself is none.

Quotiescumque etenim aliqua suscipitur imitatio actionis alienae, ita aliorum officia aut opera patrantur, ut tamen hi qui agunt, non sint ipsi quos agunt.

For whenever some imitation of another’s action is undertaken, the offices or works of others are thus accomplished, yet those who act are not themselves the ones whom they play.

Neque enim (ut, verbi gratia, secularium et Manichaeorum

For neither (as, for example, of the seculars and of the Manichaeans

[23] utamur exemplis), cum actor tragicus Sacerdotem effingit aut regem, sacerdos aut rex est.

[23] let us use examples), when a tragic actor depicts a Priest or a king, he is not a priest or a king.

Nam desinente actu simul et ea quam susceperat persona desistit. Absit hoc a nobis nefarium scelestumque ludibrium.

For when the act ceases, at once also the persona which he had assumed ceases. Far be this nefarious and criminal mockery from us.

Manichaeorum sit ista dementia; qui phantasiae praedicatores, aiunt Filium Dei Deum, personam hominis non substantia extitisse, sed actu putativo quodam et conversatione simulasse.

Let this be the dementia of the Manichaeans; who, preachers of phantasy, say that the Son of God, God, did not exist as a man’s person in substance, but simulated it by a certain putative act and by conversation.

Catholica vero fides ita Verbum Dei hominem factum esse dicit, ut quae nostra sunt, non fallaciter et adumbrate, sed vere expresseque susciperet, et quae erant humana, non quasi aliena imitaretur, sed potius ut sua gereret; et prorsus quod agebat, hoc etiam esset.

But the Catholic faith says that the Word of God was made man in such a way that he would assume what is ours not fallaciously nor adumbratively, but truly and expressly, and that the things which were human he would not imitate as if alien, but rather conduct as his own; and altogether what he was doing, this he also would be.

Sicut ipsi nos quoque in eo quod loquimur, sapimus, vivimus, subsistimus, non imitamur homines, sed sumus.

Just as we ourselves also, in that we speak, are sapient, live, and subsist, we do not imitate men, but are.

Neque enim Petrus et Joannes, ut eos potissimum nominem, imitando erant homines, sed subsistendo. Neque enim Paulus simulabat Apostolum, aut fingebat Paulum; sed erat Apostolus, et subsistebat Paulus.

For neither Peter and John—so that I may name them especially—were men by imitating, but by subsisting. For neither was Paul simulating an Apostle, or feigning Paul; but he was an Apostle, and Paul subsisted.

Ita etiam Deus Verbum adsumendo et habendo carnem, loquendo, faciendo, patiendo per carnem, sine ulla tamen suae corruptione naturae, hoc omnino praestare dignatus est ut hominem perfectum non imitaretur aut fingeret, sed exhiberet, ut homo verus non videretur aut putaretur, sed esset atque subsisteret. Igitur sicut anima connexa carni, nec in carnem tamen versa, non imitatur hominem, sed est homo, et homo non per simulationem, sed per substantiam, ita etiam Verbum Deus, absque ulla sui conversione, uniendo se homini, non confundendo, non imitando factus est homo, sed subsistendo.

Thus also God the Word, by assuming and having flesh, by speaking, doing, suffering through the flesh, yet without any corruption at all of his nature, deigned altogether to accomplish this: that he should not imitate or feign a perfect man, but exhibit one; that a true man should not merely seem or be thought, but should be and subsist. Therefore, just as the soul, connected to the flesh yet not turned into flesh, does not imitate a man but is a man—and a man not by simulation, but by substance—so also the Word God, without any conversion of himself, by uniting himself to man, not by confounding, not by imitating, was made man, but by subsisting.

Abjiciatur ergo tota penitus personae illius intelligentia quae fingendo imitatione suscipitur, ubi semper alius est et aliud simulatur, ubi ille qui agit, nunquam is est quem agit.

Therefore let the whole, utterly, understanding of that persona be cast away, which is assumed by feigning imitation, where always it is another and something else is simulated, where he who acts is never the one whom he plays.

Absit etenim ut hoc fallaci modo Deus Verbum personam hominis suscepisse credatur; sed ita potius ut incommutabili sua manente substantia, et in se perfecti hominis suscipiendo naturam, ipse caro, ipse homo, ipse persona hominis existeret, non simulatoria, sed vera, non imitativa, sed substantiva, non denique quae cum actione desisteret, sed quae prorsus in substantia permaneret.

Far be it indeed that God the Word be believed to have assumed the persona of man in this fallacious mode; but rather thus, that with his own incommutable substance remaining, and by assuming in himself the nature of a perfect man, he himself should exist as flesh, himself as man, himself as the persona of man—not simulatorial, but true; not imitative, but substantive; not, finally, such as would cease with the action, but such as would altogether remain in substance.

XV. Haec igitur in Christo personae unitas nequaquam post Virginis partum, sed in ipso Virginis utero compacta atque perfecta est. Vehementer enim praecavere debemus, ut Christum non modo unum, sed etiam semper unum confiteamur: quia intoleranda blasphemia est ut etiamsi nunc eum unum esse concedas, aliquando tamen non unum, sed duos fuisse contendas, unum scilicet post tempus baptismatis, duos vero sub tempore nativitatis. Quod immensum sacrilegium non aliter profecto vitare poterimus nisi unitum hominem Deo, sed unitate personae, non ab ascensu, vel resurrectione, vel baptismo, sed jam in matre, jam in utero, jam denique in ipsa virginali conceptione fateamur: propter quam personae unitatem indifferenter atque promiscue et quae Dei sunt propria tribuuntur homini, et quae carnis propria adscribuntur Deo.

15. Therefore this unity of person in Christ was by no means after the Virgin’s childbirth, but was compacted and perfected in the Virgin’s very womb. For we must most vehemently take precautions, that we confess Christ not only one, but also always one: because it is an intolerable blasphemy that, even if you now concede him to be one, you nevertheless contend that at some time he was not one but two—one, namely, after the time of baptism, but two at the time of birth. This immense sacrilege we shall assuredly be able to avoid in no other way, unless we confess the man united to God, but by a unity of person, not from the ascension, or the resurrection, or baptism, but already in the mother, already in the womb, finally even in the very virginal conception: on account of which unity of person, indifferently and promiscuously both the things proper to God are attributed to the man, and the things proper to the flesh are ascribed to God.

Inde est enim quod divinitus scriptum est et filium hominis descendisse de coelo, et Dominum majestatis crucifixum in terra. Inde etiam est ut carne Domini facta, carne Domini creata, ipsum Verbum Dei factum, ipsa sapientia Dei impleta, scientia creata dicatur; sicut in praescientia manus ipsius et pedes ejus fossi esse referuntur. Per hanc, inquam, personae unitatem illud quoque similis mysterii ratione perfectum est, ut carne Verbi ex integra matre nascente, ipse Deus Verbum natus ex Virgine catholicissime credatur, impiissime denegetur.

For from this it is that it has been divinely written both that the son of man has descended from heaven, and that the Lord of Majesty has been crucified on earth. From this also it is that, with the flesh of the Lord made, with the flesh of the Lord created, the very Word of God is said to have been made, the very Wisdom of God to have been fulfilled, “created science” to be spoken of; just as in prescience his hands and his feet are reported to have been pierced. Through this, I say, unity of person, that too has been brought to perfection by a rationale of a similar mystery: that, with the flesh of the Word being born from an intact mother, God the Word himself is most catholicly believed to have been born of the Virgin, and is most impiously denied.

Quae cum ita sint, absit ut quisquam sanctam Mariam divinae gratiae privilegiis et speciali gloria fraudare conetur. Est enim singulari quodam Domini ac Dei nostri, Filii autem sui, munere verissime ac beatissime theotocos confitenda; sed non eo modo theotocos quo impia quaedam haeresis suspicatur, quae adserit eam Dei matrem sola appellatione dicendam, quod eum scilicet pepererit hominem qui postea factus est Deus; sicut dicimus Presbyteri matrem, aut Episcopi matrem, non jam Presbyterum aut Episcopum pariendo, sed eum generando hominem qui postea Presbyter vel Episcopus factus est.

Since these things are so, far be it that anyone should attempt to defraud holy Mary of the privileges of divine grace and of special glory. For by a certain singular gift of the Lord and our God—yet her Son—she is most truly and most blessedly to be confessed theotocos; but not theotocos in that manner which a certain impious heresy surmises, which asserts that she is to be called Mother of God by appellation alone, because, namely, she bore a man who afterward was made God; just as we say “the mother of a Presbyter” or “the mother of a Bishop,” not by bearing already a Presbyter or a Bishop, but by generating the man who afterward was made a Presbyter or a Bishop.

Non ita, inquam, sancta Maria theotocos, sed ideo potius quoniam, ut supra dictum est, jam in ejus sacrato utero sacrosanctum illud mysterium perpetratum est, quod propter singularem quamdam atque unicam personae unitatem, sicut Verbum in carne caro, ita homo in Deo, Deus est.

Not thus, I say, is holy Mary theotocos, but rather for this reason: because, as said above, already in her consecrated womb that sacrosanct mystery was accomplished, which, on account of a certain singular and unique unity of person, just as the Word in flesh is flesh, so the man in God is God.

XVI. Sed jam ea quae supra de memoratis haeresibus vel de catholica fide breviter dicta sunt renovandae causa memoriae brevius strictiusque repetamus; quo scilicet et intelligantur iterata plenius, et firmius inculcata teneantur. Anathema igitur Photino non recipienti plenitudinem Trinitatis, et Christum hominem tantummodo solitarium praedicanti.

16. But now let us, for the sake of renewing memory, more briefly and more tightly repeat the things which above were said about the aforementioned heresies or about the catholic faith; so that, namely, by being repeated they may be understood more fully, and by being inculcated they may be held more firmly. Anathema therefore to Photinus, who does not receive the plenitude of the Trinity, and proclaims Christ as a man only, solitary.

Anathema Apollinari adserenti in Christo conversae divinitatis corruptionem, et auferenti perfectae humanitatis proprietatem. Anathema Nestorio neganti ex Virgine Deum natum, adserenti duos Christos, et explosa Trinitatis fide, quaternitatem nobis introducenti. Beata

Anathema to Apollinaris asserting in Christ the corruption of converted divinity, and removing the property of perfect humanity. Anathema to Nestorius denying that God was born from the Virgin, asserting two Christs, and, the faith of the Trinity having been exploded, introducing to us a quaternity. Blessed

[24] vero Catholica Ecclesia, quae unum Deum in Trinitatis plenitudine et item Trinitatis aequalitatem in una Divinitate veneratur; ut neque singularitas substantiae personarum confundat proprietatem, neque item Trinitatis distinctio unitatem separet Deitatis. Beata, inquam, Ecclesia, quae in Christo duas veras perfectasque substantias, sed unam Christi credit esse personam, ut neque naturarum distinctio unitatem personae dividat, neque item personae unitas differentiam confundat substantiarum. Beata, inquam, Ecclesia, quae ut unum semper Christum esse et fuisse fateatur, unitum hominem Deo, non post partum, sed jam in ipso matris utero confitetur.

[24] indeed the Catholic Church, which venerates one God in the fullness of the Trinity and likewise the equality of the Trinity in one Divinity; so that neither the singularity of substance confounds the property of the persons, nor likewise the distinction of the Trinity separates the unity of the Deity. Blessed, I say, the Church, which in Christ acknowledges two true and perfect substances, but believes there to be one person of Christ, so that neither the distinction of natures divides the unity of the person, nor likewise does the unity of the person confound the difference of the substances. Blessed, I say, the Church, which, in order that it may avow that Christ is and has been always one, confesses the man united to God, not after birth, but already in the very womb of the mother.

Beata, inquam, Ecclesia, quae Deum factum hominem non conversione naturae, sed personae ratione intelligit, personae autem non simulatoriae et transeuntis, sed substantivae ac permanentis. Beata, inquam, Ecclesia, quae hanc personae unitatem tantam vim habere praedicat ut propter eam miro ineffabilique mysterio et divina homini et Deo adscribat humana. Nam propter eam et hominem de coelo secundum Deum descendisse non abnegat, et Deum secundum hominem credit in terra factum, passum, et crucifixum.

Blessed, I say, the Church, which understands God made man not by a conversion of nature, but by reason of person; and of a person not feigned and transient, but substantive and permanent. Blessed, I say, the Church, which proclaims that this unity of person has such force that on account of it, by a wondrous and ineffable mystery, it ascribes divine things to man and human things to God. For on account of it, it does not deny that the Man, according to God, descended from heaven, and it believes that God, according to man, was made on earth, suffered, and was crucified.

Propter ea denique et hominem Dei filium et Deum filium Virginis confitetur. Beata igitur ac veneranda, benedicta, et sacrosancta, et omnino supernae illi angelorum laudationi comparanda confessio, quae unum Dominum Deum trina sanctificatione glorificat. Idcirco etenim vel maxime unitatem Christi praedicat, ne mysterium Trinitatis excedat.

On account of these things, finally, it confesses both the man as the Son of God and God as the Son of the Virgin. Therefore blessed and venerable, blessed, and sacrosanct, and altogether to be compared with that supernal laudation of the angels, is the confession which glorifies the one Lord God with threefold sanctification. For this reason indeed, most especially, it preaches the unity of Christ, lest it exceed the mystery of the Trinity.

Haec in excursu dicta sint, alias, si Deo placuerit, uberius tractanda et explicanda. Nunc ad propositum redeamus.

Let these things have been said in excursus, to be handled and explicated more fully elsewhere, if it shall have pleased God. Now let us return to the proposed matter.

XVII. Dicebamus ergo in superioribus quod in Ecclesia Dei tentatio esset populi, error magistri, et tanto major tentatio quanto ipse esset doctior qui erraret. Quod primum Scripturae auctoritate, deinde ecclesiasticis docebamus exemplis, eorum scilicet commemoratione qui cum aliquandiu sanae fidei forent habiti, ad extremum tamen aut in alienam decidissent sectam, aut ipsi suam haeresim condidissent.

17. We said, then, in the foregoing that in the Church of God there would be the temptation of the people, the error of the teacher, and that the temptation is so much the greater, the more learned is he who errs. This we taught first by the authority of Scripture, then by ecclesiastical examples, namely by the commemoration of those who, although for some time they had been held to be of sound faith, yet in the end either had fallen into an alien sect, or themselves had founded their own heresy.

Magna profecto res, et ad discendum utilis, et ad recolendum necessaria; quam etiam atque etiam exemplorum molibus illustrare atque inculcare debemus; ut omnes vere Catholici noverint se cum Ecclesia doctores recipere, non cum doctoribus Ecclesiae fidem deserere debere. Sed ego ita arbitror, quod cum multos in hoc tentandi genere proferre valeamus, nemo pene sit qui Origenis tentationi valeat comparari; in quo plura adeo praeclara, adeo singularia, adeo mira exstiterunt, ut inter initia habendam cunctis adsertionibus ejus fidem quivis ille facile judicaret. Nam si vita facit auctoritatem, magna illi industria, magna pudicitia, patientia, tolerantia.

A great matter indeed, useful for learning and necessary for recollection; which we ought again and again to illustrate and to inculcate with masses of examples; so that all who are truly Catholics may know that they ought to receive the doctors with the Church, not to desert the faith with the doctors. But I for my part think thus: although we can bring forward many in this kind of testing, hardly anyone is there who can be compared to the trial of Origen; in whom there appeared so many things so distinguished, so singular, so marvelous, that at the outset anyone would easily judge that faith should be given to all his assertions. For if life makes authority, he had great industry, great pudicity (chastity), patience, and tolerance.

Si genus vel eruditio, quid eo nobilius saepius, ut ferunt, adfligeretur. Neque vero haec in illo sola erant quae cuncta postea tentationi forent, sed tanta etiam vis ingemi, tam profundi, tam acris, tam elegantis ut omnes pene multum longeque superaret; tanta doctrinae ac totius eruditionis magnificentia ut pauca forent divinae, pene fortasse nulla humanae philosophiae quae non penitus adsequeretur: cujus scientiae cum graeca concederent, hebraea quoque elaborata sunt.Eloquentiam vero quid memorem, cujus fuit tam amoena, tam lactea, tam dulcis oratio ut mihi ex ore ipsius non tam verba quam mella quaedam fluxisse videantur? Quae non ille persuasu difficilia disputandi viribus elimpidavit, quae factu ardua non ut facillima viderentur effecit?

If lineage or erudition—what was nobler than his?—was often, as they say, afflicted. Nor, indeed, were these the only things in him which afterward would all be for a trial, but there was also so great a force of genius, so profound, so acute, so elegant, that he surpassed almost all by much and by far; such magnificence of doctrine and of total erudition that there were few things of divine, perhaps almost none of human, philosophy which he did not thoroughly attain: while the Greeks yielded to his science, the Hebrews too were cultivated were.Eloquence, in truth, why should I recount, whose speech was so pleasant, so milky, so sweet that to me there seemed to have flowed from his mouth not so much words as a kind of honey? What things difficult to persuade did he not clarify by the forces of disputation, what things arduous to do did he not make appear most easy?

Sed forsitan argumentorum tantummodo nexibus adsertiones suas texuit? Imo plane nemo unquam magistrorum fuit qui pluribus divinae legis uteretur exemplis. Sed, credo, pauca conscripsit?

But perhaps he wove his assertions only by the nexuses of arguments? Nay indeed, plainly no one ever among the teachers used more examples of the divine law. But, I suppose, he wrote only a few things?

Nemo mortalium plura; ut mihi sua omnia non solum non perlegi, sed ne inveniri quidem posse videantur: cui ne quicquam ad scientiae instrumenta deesset, etiam plenitudo exabundavit aetatis

No mortal more; so that to me all his works not only have I not read through, but seem not even able to be found: for whom, lest anything should be lacking to the instruments of science, even the plenitude of age overflowed

[25]. Sed forsitan discipulis parum felix? Quis unquam felicior? Nempe innumeri ex sinu suo doctores, innumeri sacerdotes, confessores et martyres extiterunt.

[25]. But perhaps [he was] little fortunate in disciples? Who ever more fortunate? Surely innumerable doctors from his bosom, innumerable priests, confessors, and martyrs have stood forth.

Jam vero quanta apud omnes illius admiratio, quanta gloria, quanta gratia fuerit, quis exsequi valeat? Quis non ad eum paulo religiosor ex ultimis mundi partibus advolavit? Quis Christianorum non pene ut prophetam, quis philosophorum non ut magistrum veneratus est?

But now, who could set forth how great the admiration for him among all, how great his glory, how great his grace was? Who, being even a little more religious, did not fly to him from the farthest parts of the world? Who among the Christians did not almost venerate him as a prophet, who among the philosophers did not venerate him as a master?

Quam autem non solum privatae conditioni, sed ipsi quoque fuerit reverendus imperio declarant historiae, quae eum a matre eius, qui primus Romanorum Principum Christianus fuit, Christiani magisterii auctoritate conscripsi. De cujus incredibili quadam scientia si quis referentibus nobis Christianum non accepit testimonium, saltem testificantibus philosophis gentilem recipiat confessionem. Ait namque impius ille Porphyrius

How greatly he was to be reverend not only to private condition but even to the empire itself, the histories declare, which I have composed, by the authority of the Christian magistery, from the mother of him who was the first of the Princes of the Romans to be a Christian. Concerning his certain incredible knowledge, if anyone does not accept a Christian testimony from us as we report, let him at least receive a gentile confession from the philosophers who testify. For that impious Porphyry says

[26] excitum se fama ipsius Alexandriam puerum fere perrexisse, ibique eum vidisse jam senem, sed plane talem tantumque qui arcem totius scientiae condidisset. Dies me citius defecerit quam ea quae in illo viro praeclara exstiterunt vel ex minima saltem parte perstringam: quae tamen omnia non solum ad Religionis gloriam, sed etiam ad tentationis magnitudinem pertinebant. Quotus enim quisque tanti ingenii, tantae doctrinae, tantae gratiae virum aut facile deponeret, ac non illa potius uteretur sententia, se cum Origene errare malle, quam cum aliis vera sentire?

[26] that, stirred up by his fame, he, almost a boy, went to Alexandria, and there saw him already an old man—but plainly such and so great a one as had founded the citadel of all science. The day would sooner fail me than that I should even in the least part merely touch upon the things which were most illustrious in that man: which yet all pertained not only to the glory of Religion, but also to the magnitude of temptation. For how few, indeed, would either easily set aside a man of such genius, such doctrine, such grace, and not rather employ that sentence, that he would prefer to err with Origen than to think true things with others?

et quid plura? Eo res decidit ut tantae personae, tanti doctoris, tanti prophetae, non humana aliqua, sed, ut exitus docuit, nimium periculosa tentatio plurimos a fidei integritate deduceret. Quamobrem hic Origenes tantus ac talis, dum gratia Dei insolentius abutitur, dum ingenio suo nimium indulget, sibique satis credit, cum parvi pendit antiquam Christianae Religionis simplicitatem, dum se plus cunctis sapere praesumit, dum ecclesiasticas traditiones et veterum magisteria contemnens, quaedam Scripturarum capitula

and why say more? The matter came down to this: that the temptation—not some human one, but, as the outcome taught, excessively perilous—of so great a person, so great a doctor, so great a prophet, led very many away from the integrity of the faith. Wherefore this Origen, so great and such, while he abuses the grace of God with more insolence, while he indulges his own genius too much, and trusts himself enough, when he sets at little the ancient simplicity of the Christian Religion, while he presumes to be wiser than all, while, despising the ecclesiastical traditions and the magisteria of the ancients, certain chapters of the Scriptures

[27] novo more interpretatur, meruit ut de se quoque Ecclesiae Dei diceretur: Si surrexerit in modio tuî propheta. Et paulo post: Non audies, inquit, verba prophetae illius. Et item: Quia tentat vos, inquit, Dominus Deus vester utrum diligatis eum an non.

[27] he interprets in a new manner, he merited that it should be said of him also in the Church of God: If a prophet shall arise in your midst. And a little later: You shall not listen, he says, to the words of that prophet. And likewise: Because the Lord your God is testing you, he says, whether you love him or not.

Vere non solum tentatio, sed etiam magna tentatio deditam sibi atque in se pendentem Ecclesiam admiratione ingenii, scientiae, eloquentiae, conversationis, et gratiae, nihil de se suspicantem, nihil verentem, subito a veteri Religione in novam prophanitatem sensim paulatimque traducere. Sed dicet aliquis corruptos esse Origenis libros. Non resisto; quin potius et malo.

Truly, not only a temptation, but even a great temptation, could, by admiration of his ingenuity, science, eloquence, conversation (way of life), and grace, translate the Church devoted to him and hanging upon him—suspecting nothing of him, fearing nothing—suddenly from the old Religion into a new profaneness, gradually and little by little. But someone will say that Origen’s books have been corrupted. I do not resist; nay rather, I even prefer it.

Nam id a quibusdam et traditum et scriptum est, non Catholicis tantum, verum etiam Haereticis. Sed illud est quod nunc debemus advertere etsi non ipsum, libros tamen sub nomine suo editos, magnae esse tentationi: qui multis blasphemiarum vulneribus scatentes, non ut alieni, sed quasi sui et leguntur et amantur; ut etsi in errore concipiendo Origenis non fuit sensus, ad errorem tamen persuadendum Origenis auctoritas valere videatur.

For this has by some been both handed down and written, not by Catholics only, but even by Heretics. But this is what we ought now to advert to: although not he himself, yet the books published under his name are a great temptation; which, teeming with many wounds of blasphemies, are read and loved not as alien, but as if his own; so that even if Origen’s sense was not in the conceiving of the error, nevertheless for persuading to error the authority of Origen seems to avail.

XVIII. Sed et Tertulliani quoque eadem ratio est Nam sicut ille apud Graecos, ita hic apud Latinos nostrorum omnium facile princeps judicandus est. Quid enim hoc viro doctius, quid in divinis atque humanis rebus exercitatius?

18. But the same account applies also to Tertullian. For as that man among the Greeks, so this one among the Latins is to be adjudged, of us all, easily the foremost. For what is more learned than this man, what more exercised in divine and human matters?

Nempe omnem philosophiam et cunctas philosophorum sectas, auctores, adsertoresque sectarum, omnesque eorum disciplinas, omnem historiarum ac studiorum varietatem mira quadam mentis capacitate complexus est. Ingenio vero nonne tam gravi ac vehementi excelluit ut sibi nihil pene ad expugnandum proposuerit quod non aut acumine inruperit, aut pondere eliserit? Jam porro orationis suae laudes quis exsequi valeat, quae, tanta nescio qua rationum necessitate concerta est ut ad consensum sui quos suadere non potuerit impellat; cujus quot pene verba, tot sententiae sunt; quot sensus, tot victoriae.

Assuredly he embraced all philosophy and all the sects of philosophers, the authors and assertors of the sects, and all their disciplines, the whole variety of histories and studies, with a certain wondrous capacity of mind. And did he not excel by a genius so grave and vehement that he scarcely proposed to himself anything to be stormed which he did not either break into by acumen or dash to pieces by weight? Moreover, who could adequately set forth the praises of his oration, which is so—by I know not what necessity of reasons—compactly knit, that it impels to assent those whom it has not been able to persuade; of which almost as many words as there are, so many sentences; as many senses, so many victories.

Sciunt hoc Marciones, Apelles, Praxeae, Hermogenes, Judaei, Gentiles, Gnostici, caeterique; quorum ille blasphemias multis ac magnis voluminum suorum molibus, velut quibusdam fulminibus, evertit. Et tamen hic quoque post haec omnia, hic, inquam, Tertullianus, catholici dogmatis, id est, universalis ac vetustae fidei parum tenax, ac disertior multo quam felicior, mutata deinceps sententia, fecit ad extremum quod de eo beatus confessor Hilarius quodam loco scribit: Se quenti, inquit, errore detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem

They know this, the Marcionites, the Apelleans, the Praxeans, the Hermogenians, the Jews, the Gentiles, the Gnostics, and the rest; the blasphemies of whom he overthrew by many and great masses of his own volumes, as if by certain thunderbolts. And yet this man too after all these things—this man, I say, Tertullian—too little tenacious of the catholic dogma, that is, of the universal and ancient faith, and much more eloquent than successful, with his opinion thereafter changed, did in the end what the blessed confessor Hilary writes somewhere about him: By following error, says he, he diminished by plausible writings his authority

[28]. Et fuit ipse quoque in Ecclesia magna tentatio. Sed de hoc nolo plura dicere. Hoc tantum commemorabo, quod contra Moysi praeceptum exsurgentes in Ecclesia novellas Montani furias et insana illa insanarum mulierum novitii dogmatis somnia

[28]. And he himself also was in the Church a great temptation. But about this I do not wish to say more. This only will I commemorate: that, contrary to Moses’ precept, rising up in the Church, the novel Furies of Montanus and those insane dreams of insane women of a novel doctrine

[29] veras prophetias adseverando, meruit ut de se quoque et scripturis suis diceretur:Si surrexerit in medio tui propheta. Et mox: Non audies verba prophetae illius. Quare? Quia, inquit, tentat vos Dominus vester utrum diligatis eum an non.

[29] by asserting them to be true prophecies, he earned that it should be said about himself also and his writings:If a prophet should arise in your midst. And presently: You shall not listen to the words of that prophet. Why? Because, he says, your Lord is testing you, whether you love him or not.

XIX. His igitur tot ac tantis caeterisque ejusmodi Ecclesiasticorum exemplorum molibus evidenter advertere, et secundum Deuteronomii leges luce clarius intelligere debemus, quod si quando aliquis Ecclesiasticus magister a fide aberraverit, ad tentationem id nostram fieri Providentia divina patiatur, utrum diligamus Deum an non in toto corde et in tota anima nostra.

19. By these therefore, so many and so great, and other such, masses of ecclesiastical examples, we ought plainly to take heed, and, according to the laws of Deuteronomy, to understand more clearly than light that, if ever some ecclesiastical teacher should stray from the faith, divine Providence allows it to occur for our testing—whether we love God or not with our whole heart and with our whole soul.

XX. Quae cum ita sint, ille est verus et germanus Catholicus qui veritatem Dei, qui Ecclesiam, qui Christi corpus diligit, qui divinae Religioni, qui catholicae fidei nihil praeponit, non hominis cujuspiam auctoritatem, non amorem, non ingenium, non eloquentiam, non philosophiam; sed haec cuncta despiciens, et in fide fixus, stabilis, permanens, quicquid universaliter antiquitus Ecclesiam Catholicam tenuisse cognoverit, id solum sibi tenendum credendumque decernit; quicquid vero ab aliquo deinceps uno praeter omnes vel contra omnes sanctos novum et inauditum subindici senserit, id non ad Religionem sed ad tentationem potius intelligit pertinere, tum praecipue beati Apostoli Pauli eruditus eloquiis: hoc est enim quod in prima ad Corinthios Epistola scribit:Oportet, inquit, et haereses esse, ut probati manifesti fiant in vobis; ac si diceret: Ob hoc haereseon non statim divinitus eradicantur auctores, ut probati manifesti fiant, id est, ut unusquisque quam tenax et fidelis et fixus catholicae fidei sit amator appareat. Et revera, cum quaeque novitas ebullit, statim cernitur frumentorum gravitas et levitas palearum; tunc sine magno molimine excutitur ab area quod nullo pondere intra aream tenebatur. Namque alii illico prorsus avolant; alii vero tantummodo excussi, et perire metuunt, et redire erubescunt saucii, semineces ac semivivi; quippe qui tantam veneni hauserint quantitatem quae nec occidat nec digeratur, nec mori cogat nec vivere sinat, heu miseranda conditio!

20. Since these things are so, he is the true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the body of Christ, who prefers nothing to the divine Religion, to the Catholic faith—neither the authority of any man, nor affection, nor talent, nor eloquence, nor philosophy; but despising all these, and fixed in faith, stable, abiding, whatever he has come to know that the Catholic Church universally and of old has held, this alone he decrees for himself to be held and to be believed; but whatever thereafter he shall feel to be insinuated by some single person, apart from all or against all the saints, as something new and unheard-of, he understands this to pertain not to Religion but rather to temptation—then especially, taught by the sayings of the blessed Apostle Paul: for this is what he writes in the First Epistle to the Corinthians:“It is necessary,” he says, “that even heresies exist, that the approved may become manifest among you”; as if he were saying: For this reason the authors of heresies are not immediately eradicated by God, that the approved may become manifest, that is, that each one may appear how tenacious and faithful and fixed a lover of the Catholic faith he is. And indeed, whenever any novelty bubbles up, straightway the weight of the grains and the lightness of the chaff are discerned; then, without great effort, that is shaken off from the threshing-floor which was held within the floor by no weight. For some forthwith fly away entirely; others, however, merely shaken, both fear to perish and are ashamed to return—wounded, half-dead and half-alive; inasmuch as they have quaffed such a quantity of poison as neither kills nor is digested, neither forces to die nor allows to live—alas, a pitiable condition!

quantis illi curarum aestibus, quantis turbinibus exagitantur?

by what surges of cares, by what whirlwinds are they driven?

Nunc etenim, qua ventus impulerit, incitato errore rapiuntur; nunc in semetipsos reversi, tanquam contrarii fluctus, reliduntur, nunc temeraria praesumptione et ea quae incerta videntur adprobant; nunc irrationali metu, etiam quae certa sunt expavescunt; incerti qua eant, qua redeant, quid adpetant, quid fugiant, quid teneant, quid dimittant.

Now indeed, where the wind has driven them, they are swept away, their error incited; now, turned back into themselves, like contrary waves, they are dashed back; now, with temerarious presumption, they approve even the things that seem uncertain; now, with irrational fear, they are terrified even at things that are certain; uncertain where they go, where they return, what they seek, what they flee, what they hold, what they let go.

Quae quidem dubii et male penduli cordis afflictio divinae erga se miserationis est medicina, si sapiant. Idcirco etenim extra tutissimum catholicae fidei portum diversis cogitationum quatiuntur, verberantur, ac pene enecantur procellis, ut excussa in altum elatae mentis vela deponant, quae male novitatum ventis expanderant, seseque intra fidissimam stationem placidae ac bonae matris reducant et teneant, atque amaros illos turbulentosque errorum fluctus primitus revomant, ut possint deinceps vivae et salientis aquae fluenta potare. Dediscant bene quod didicerant non bene; et ex toto Ecclesiae dogmate quod intellectu capi potest capiant, quod non potest credant.

The affliction of a dubious and ill‑poised heart is a medicine of the divine compassion toward them, if they be wise. For this reason indeed, outside the most secure harbor of the catholic faith, they are shaken, buffeted, and almost slain by the storms of thoughts, so that they may lower the sails of the mind, shaken and borne aloft into the deep, which they had ill spread to the winds of novelties, and may bring themselves back and hold themselves within the most trustworthy station of a calm and good mother, and at the first vomit back those bitter and turbulent waves of errors, so that thereafter they may be able to drink the streams of living and leaping water. Let them unlearn well what they had learned not well; and from the whole dogma of the Church let them grasp by intellect what can be grasped, and what cannot, let them believe.

XXI. Quae cum ita sint, iterum atque iterum eadem mecum revolvens et reputans, mirari satis nequeo tantam quorumdam hominum vesaniam, tantam excaecatae mentis impietatem, tantam postremo errandi libidinem ut contenti non sint tradita semel et accepta antiquitus credendi regula, sed nova ac nova in diem quaerant, semperque aliquid gestiant Religioni addere, mutare, detrahere; quasi non coeleste dogma sit quod semel revelatum esse sufficiat, sed terrena institutio, quae aliter perfici nisi assidua emendatione, imo potius reprehensione non possit, cum divina clament oracula:Ne transferas terminos quos posuerunt patres tui; et: Super judicantem ne judices; et: Scirdentem sepem mordebit eum serpens, et illud apostolicum, quo omnes omnium haereseon sceleratae novitates velut quodam spiritali gladio saepe truncatae semperque truncandae sunt: O Timothee, depositum custodi, devitans prophanas vocum novitates et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae, quam quidam promittentes, circa fidem exciderunt. Et post haec inveniuntur aliqui tanta inveteratae frontis duritia, tanta impudentiae incude, tanto adamante pertinaciae, qui tantis eloquiorum coelestium molibus non succumbant, tantis ponderibus non fatiscant, tantis malleis non conquassentur, tantis postremo fulminibus non conterantur?

21. Since these things are so, turning over and reconsidering the same matters with myself again and again, I cannot marvel enough at the madness of certain men, at the impiety of a blinded mind, and, finally, at so great a lust for erring that they are not content with the rule of believing once delivered and of old received, but seek newer and newer things day by day, and are always eager to add, to change, to detract something from Religion; as though it were not a celestial dogma which, once revealed, should suffice, but a terrestrial institution, which could not otherwise be perfected save by assiduous emendation—nay rather, by reprehension—while the divine oracles cry out:Do not shift the landmarks which your fathers set; and: Do not judge over the judge; and: He who tears down the hedge, the serpent will bite him; and that apostolic word, by which all the criminal novelties of all heresies have often been lopped off and are ever to be lopped off as by a certain spiritual sword: O Timothy, guard the deposit, avoiding profane novelties of words and the oppositions of knowledge falsely so called, which some professing have swerved from the faith. And after these things there are found some with such hardness of an inveterate brow, such an anvil of impudence, such an adamant of pertinacity, that they do not succumb to such masses of heavenly utterances, are not wearied by such weights, are not shaken to pieces by such hammers, are not, finally, crushed by such thunderbolts?

Devita, inquit, prophanas vocum novitates: Non dixit antiquitates, non dixit vetustates; imo plane quid e contrario sequeretur ostendit.

Avoid, he says, profane novelties of words: He did not say antiquities, he did not say ancientness; nay rather, he plainly showed what would follow on the contrary.

Nam si vitanda est novitas, tenenda est antiquitas; et si prophana est novitas, sacrata est vetustas. Et oppositiones, inquit, falsi nominis scientiae. Vere falsum nomen apud doctrinas Haereticorum; ut ignorantia scientiae, et caligo serenitatis, et tenebrae luminis appellatione fucentur. Quam quidam, inquit, promittentes, circa fidem exciderunt. Quid promittentes exciderunt, nisi novam nescio quam ignoratamque doctrinam?

For if novelty is to be avoided, antiquity must be held; and if novelty is profane, ancientness is consecrated. And the oppositions, he says, of science falsely so called. Truly a false name among the doctrines of the Heretics; so that ignorance is painted over with the name of science, and gloom with serenity, and darkness with the appellation of light. Which certain men, he says, promising, have fallen away concerning the faith. What was it they were promising and fell away for, if not some novel, I-know-not-what and unknown doctrine?

Audias etenim quosdam ipsorum dicere: Venite, o insipientes et miseri, qui vulgo Catholici vocitamini, et discite fidem veram, quam praeter nos nullus intelligit, quae multis ante seculis latuit, nuper vero revelata et ostensa est; sed discite furtim atque secretim: delectabit enim vos. Et item: Cum didiceritis, latenter docete; ne mundus audiat, nec Ecclesia sciat: paucis namque concessum est tanti mysterii capere secretum.

For indeed you may hear certain of them say: Come, O insensate and miserable ones, who are commonly called Catholics, and learn the true faith, which apart from us no one understands, which lay hidden for many ages, but recently has been revealed and shown; but learn it stealthily and secretly: for it will delight you. And likewise: When you have learned, teach covertly; lest the world hear, nor the Church know: for to few has it been granted to grasp the secret of so great a mystery.

Nonne haec verba sunt illius meretricis quae apud Salomonis Proverbia vocat ad se praetereuntes viam qui dirigunt iter suum? Qui est, inquit, vestrum insipientissimus, divertat ad me. Inopes autem sensu exhortatur dicens: Panes occultos libenter attingite, et aquam dulcem furtim bibite. Quid deinde? At ille, inquit, nescit quoniam terrigenae apud eam pereunt. Qui sunt isti terrigenae? Exponat Apostolus: Qui circa fidem, inquit, exciderunt.

Are not these the words of that harlot who in the Proverbs of Solomon calls to herself those passing by the way, who direct their path? Who is, she says, the most foolish of you? let him turn aside to me. But she exhorts those poor in sense, saying: Willingly taste the occult breads, and drink sweet water by stealth. What then? But he, she says, does not know that the earthborn perish with her. Who are these earthborn? Let the Apostle expound: Those who, he says, have fallen away concerning the faith.

XXII. Sed operae pretium est totum ipsum Apostoli capitulum diligentius pertractare.O Timothee, inquit, depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates. O! Exclamatio ista et praescientiae est pariter et charitatis.

22. But it is worth the effort to examine more carefully that whole chapter of the Apostle himself.O Timothy, he says, guard the deposit, avoiding profane novelties of words. O! That exclamation is at once of prescience and of charity.

Praevidebat enim futuros, quos etiam praedolebat, errores.

For he was foreseeing the future errors, which he was even grieving over beforehand.

Quis est hodie Timotheus nisi vel generaliter universa Ecclesia, vel specialiter totum corpus Praepositorum, qui integram divini cultus scientiam vel habere ipsi debent vel aliis infundere?

Who is Timothy today if not either generally the whole Church, or specially the whole body of Prelates, who ought either themselves to have the entire science of divine worship or to infuse it into others?

Quid est, depositum custodi? Custodi, inquit, propter fures, propter inimicos, ne dormientibus hominibus, superseminent zizania super illud tritici bonum semen quod seminaverat filius hominis in agro suo. Depositum, inquit, custodi. Quid est depositum? id est, quod tibi creditum est, non quod a te inventum; quod accepisti, non quod excogitasti; rem non ingenii, sed doctrinae, non usurpationis privatae, sed publicae traditionis; rem ad te perductam, non a te prolatam: in qua non auctor debes esse, sed custos; non institutor, sed sectator; non ducens, sed sequens. Depositum, inquit, custodi; catholicae fidei talentum inviolatum illibatumque conserva. Quod tibi creditum, hoc penes te maneat, hoc a te tradatur. Aurum accepisti, aurum redde: nolo mihi pro aliis alia subjicias: nolo pro auro aut impudenter plumbum aut fraudulenter aeramenta supponas: nolo auri speciem, sed naturam plane. O Timothee, O Sacerdos, O Tractator, O Doctor, si te divinum munus idoneum fecerit, ingenio, exercitatione, doctrina, esto spiritalis tabernaculi Beseleel, pretiosas divi dogmatis gemmas exsculpe, fideliter coapta, adorna sapienter, adjice splendorem, gratiam, venustatem.

What is, guard the deposit? Guard, he says, because of thieves, because of enemies, lest, while men are sleeping, they oversow tares over that wheat, the good seed which the Son of Man had sown in his field. The deposit, he says, guard. What is the deposit? that is, what has been entrusted to you, not what was found by you; what you received, not what you devised; a matter not of ingenuity, but of doctrine, not of private usurpation, but of public tradition; a thing brought to you, not brought forth by you: in which you ought to be not an author, but a custodian; not an institutor, but a follower; not leading, but following. The deposit, he says, guard; preserve the talent of the catholic faith inviolate and unblemished. What has been entrusted to you, let this remain with you, let this be handed on by you. You received gold, give back gold: I do not want you to put one thing in place of another: I do not want, instead of gold, either impudently to put lead or fraudulently to substitute brass: I want not the appearance of gold, but plainly the nature. O Timothy, O Priest, O Expounder, O Doctor, if the divine gift has made you fit, by ingenuity, by exercise, by doctrine, be the Bezalel of the spiritual tabernacle; carve the precious gems of the divine dogma, fit them faithfully, adorn them wisely, add splendor, grace, charm.

Intelligatur, te exponente illustrius, quod ante obscurius credebatur. Per te posteritas intellectum gratuletur quod ante vetustas non intellectum venerabatur. Eadem tamen quae didicisti doce, ut cum dicas nove, non dicas nova.

Let it be understood, by your expounding more clearly, what before was believed more obscurely. Through you let posterity congratulate itself on the understanding of what formerly antiquity venerated without understanding. Yet teach the same things which you have learned, so that when you speak in a new way, you do not say new things.

XXIII. Sed forsitan dicit aliquis: Nullusne ergo in Ecclesia Christi profectus habebitur Religionis?

23. But perhaps someone says: Will therefore no progress of Religion be had in the Church of Christ?

Habeatur plane, et maximus. Nam quis ille est tam invidus hominibus, tam exosus Deo, qui istud prohibere conetur? Sed ita tamen ut vere profectus sit ille fidei, non permutatio.

Let there be, plainly, and the greatest. For who is so envious to men, so hateful to God, as to try to prohibit this? But only so that it be truly a progress of faith, not a permutation.

Siquidem ad profectum pertinet ut in semetipsum unaquaeque res amplificetur; ad permutationem vero, ut aliquid ex alio in aliud transvertatur.

For indeed, it pertains to progress that each thing be amplified into itself; but to permutation, rather, that something be turned from one thing into another.

Crescat igitur oportet et multum vehementerque proficiat tam singulorum quam omnium, tam unius hominis quam totius Ecclesiae, aetatum ac seculorum gradibus, intelligentia, scientia, sapientia, sed in suo duntaxa: genere, in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia. Imitetur animarum religio rationem corporum: quae licet annorum processu numeros suos evolvant et explicent, eadem tamen quae erant permanent.

Let it grow, therefore, and let it make much and very vehement progress—both of individuals and of all, both of one man and of the whole Church—by the steps of ages and centuries, in intelligence, science (knowledge), wisdom; but only in its own, duntaxa: kind, that is to say, in the same dogma, the same sense, and the same judgment. Let the religion of souls imitate the rationale of bodies: which, although in the process of years they evolve and explicate their numbers, yet remain the same which they were.

Multum interest inter pueritiae florem et senectutis maturitatem; sed iidem tamen ipsi fiunt senes qui fuerant adolescentes; ut quamvis unius ejusdemque hominis status habitusque mutetur, una tamen nihilominus eademque natura, una eademque persona sit. Parva lactentium membra, magna juvenum, eadem ipsa sunt tamen.

There is much difference between the flower of boyhood and the maturity of old age; but the very same become old who had been adolescents; so that, although the status and habitus of one and the same man be changed, nevertheless one and the same nature, one and the same person remains. The small limbs of sucklings, the large of youths, are nevertheless the very same.

Quot parvulorum artus, tot virorum; et si qua illa sunt quae aevi maturioris aetate pariuntur, jam in seminis ratione proserta sunt; ut nihil novum postea proferatur in senibus quod non in pueris jam ante latitaverit. Unde non dubium est hanc esse legitimam et rectam proficiendi regulam, hunc ratum atque pulcherrimum crescendi ordinem, si eas semper in grandioribus partes ac formas numerus detexat aetatis quas in parvulis Creatoris sapientia praeformaverat. Quod si humana species in aliquam deinceps non sui generis vertatur effigiem, aut certe addatur quippiam membrorum numero vel detrahatur, necesse est ut totum corpus vel intercidat, vel prodigiosum fiat, vel certe debilitetur: ita etiam Christianae Religionis dogma sequatur has decet profectuum leges, ut annis scilicet consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate, incorruptum tamen illibatumque permaneat, et universis partium suarum mensuris cunctisque quasi membris ac sensibus propriis plenum atque perfectum sit, quod nihil praeterea permutationis admittat, nulla proprietatis dispendia, nullam definitionis sustineat varietatem.

As many the limbs of little children, so many the limbs of men; and if there are any things which are brought forth by the age of more mature years, already in the rationale of the seed they have been put forth, so that nothing new is afterwards produced in the old which had not before lain hidden in the young. Whence it is not doubtful that this is the legitimate and right rule of advancing, this the ratified and most beautiful order of growing, if the number of the years always unveils in the greater those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had pre-formed in the little ones. But if the human species be thereafter turned into any effigy not of its own kind, or if indeed something be added to or taken away from the number of its members, it must needs be that the whole body either perishes, or becomes prodigious, or at least is debilitated: so also let the dogma of the Christian Religion follow these fitting laws of progresses, namely, that it be consolidated by years, dilated by time, exalted by age, yet remain incorrupt and undefiled, and, with all the measures of its parts and, as it were, with all its proper members and senses, be full and perfect, so that it admit nothing further of permutation, incur no losses of propriety, sustain no variety of definition.

Exempli gratia: Severunt majores nostri antiquitus in hac ecclesiastica segete triticeae fidei semina: iniquum valde et incongruum est ut nos eorum posteri pro germana veritate frumenti subdititium zizaniae legamus errorem.

For example: Our forefathers of old sowed in this ecclesiastical harvest-field the seeds of triticeous faith; it is very iniquitous and incongruous that we, their posterity, should reap, in place of the genuine verity of the wheat, the spurious error of the tares.

Quin potius hoc rectum et consequens est ut primis atque extremis sibimet non discrepantibus, de incrementis triticeae institutionis triticei quoque dogmatis frugem demetamus; ut cum aliquid ex illis seminum primordiis accessu temporis evolvatur, et nunc laetetur et excolatur, nihil tamen de germinis proprietate mutetur: addatur licet species, forma, distinctio, eadem tamen cujusque generis natura permaneat.

Rather this is right and consequent: that, the first things and the last not disagreeing among themselves, from the increments of the wheaten institution we also reap the fruit of wheaten dogma; so that when something from those beginnings of the seeds is evolved by the access of time, and now is made luxuriant and is cultivated, nevertheless nothing is changed of the property of the germ: let species, form, distinction be added, yet the same nature of each genus remain.

Absit etenim ut rosea illa catholici sensus plantaria in carduos spinasque vertantur.

Far be it indeed that those roseate nurseries of catholic sense be turned into thistles and thorns.

Absit inquam, ut in isto spiritali paradiso de cinnamomi et balsami surculis lolium repente atque aconita proveniant. Quodcumque igitur in hac Ecclesia Dei agricultura fide patrum satum est, hoc idem filiorum industriâ decet excolatur et observetur, hoc idem floreat et maturescat, hoc idem proficiat et perficiatur. Fas est etenim ut prisca illa coelestis philosophiae dogmata processu temporis excurentur, limentur, poliantur; sed nefas est ut commutentur, nefas ut detruncentur, ut mutilentur.

Far be it, I say, that in that spiritual paradise, from the shoots of cinnamon and balsam there should suddenly spring up darnel and aconites. Whatever therefore in this agriculture of the Church of God has been sown by the faith of the fathers, this same it is fitting should be cultivated and observed by the industry of the sons; this same should blossom and ripen, this same should make progress and be perfected. For it is lawful that those ancient dogmas of the heavenly philosophy, in the process of time, be elaborated, be filed, be polished; but it is unlawful that they be changed, unlawful that they be lopped, that they be mutilated.

Accipiant, licet, evidentiam, lucem, distinctionem; sed retineant necesse est plenitudinem, integritatem, proprietatem. Nam si semel admissa fuerit haec impiae fraudis licentia, horreo dicere quantum exscindendae atque abolendae Religionis periculum consequatur. Abdicata etenim qualibet parte catholici dogmatis, alia quoque atque item alia, ac deinceps alia et alia, jam quasi ex more et licito, abdicabuntur.

Let them receive, to be sure, evidence, light, distinction; but it is necessary that they retain plenitude, integrity, propriety. For if once this license of impious fraud shall have been admitted, I shudder to say how great a danger for the rooting out and abolishing of Religion will follow. For with any part of the catholic dogma abdicated, another also and likewise another, and thereafter another and another, now as if by custom and as if lawful, will be abdicated.

Porro autem sigillatim partibus repudiatis, quid aliud ad extremum sequetur, nisi ut totum pariter repudietur? sed e contra, si novitia veteribus, extranea domesticis, et profana sacratis admisceri coeperint, proserpat hic mos in universum necesse est ut nihil posthac apud Ecclesiam relinquatur intactum, nihil illibatum, nihil integrum, nihil immaculatum, sed sit ibidem deinceps impiorum ac turpium errorum lupanar ubi erat antea castae et incorruptae sacrarium veritatis. Sed avertat hoc a suorum mentibus nefas divina pietas, sitque hic potiùs impiorum furor.

Moreover, with parts repudiated one by one, what else in the end will follow, except that the whole together be repudiated? but on the contrary, if novelties begin to be admixed to the old, extraneous things to the domestic, and profane things to the sacred, this custom must creep forth universally, so that nothing henceforth in the Church be left untouched, nothing un-libated (unblemished), nothing integral, nothing immaculate, but that there be there thereafter a brothel of impious and foul errors where previously there had been the sacrarium of chaste and incorrupt truth. But may divine piety avert this impiety from the minds of its own, and let this rather be the frenzy of the impious.

Christi vero Ecclesia, sedula et cauta depositorum apud se dogmatum custos, nihil in his unquam permutat, nihil minuit, nihil addit, non amputat necessaria, non apponit superflua, non amittit sua, non usurpat aliena; sed omni industria hoc unum studet ut vetera fideliter sapienterque tractando, si qua sunt illa antiquitus informata et inchoata, accuret et poliat; si qua jam expressa et enucleata consolidet, firmet; si qua jam confirmata et definita, custodiat; denique quid unquam aliud Conciliorum decretis enisa est nisi ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur, hoc idem postea diligentius crederetur, quod antea lentius praedicabatur, hoc idem postea instantius praedicaretur, quod antea securius colebatur, hoc idem postea sollicitiùs excoleretur?

But truly the Church of Christ, the sedulous and cautious custodian of the dogmas deposited with her, never in these things changes anything, diminishes anything, adds anything; she does not amputate what is necessary, she does not append superfluities, she does not lose her own, she does not usurp what is another’s; rather with every industry she strives for this one thing: that by treating the old things faithfully and wisely—if there are any that were in ancient times formed and begun—she may make them accurate and polish them; if there are any already expressed and enucleated, she may consolidate and firm them; if there are any already confirmed and defined, she may guard them. Finally, what ever else have Councils by their decrees endeavored, except that what before was believed simply, this same thing afterward should be believed more diligently; what before was preached more slowly, this same thing afterward should be preached more insistently; what before was cultivated more securely, this same thing afterward should be cultivated more solicitously?

Hoc, inquam semper, neque quicquam praeterea, Haereticorum novitatibus excitata, conciliorum suorum decretis catholica perfecit Ecclesia, nisi ut quod prius a Majoribus sola traditione susceperat, hoc deinde posteris etiam per Scripturae chirographum consignaret, magnam rerum summam paucis litteris comprehendendo, et plerumque, propter intelligentiae lucem, non novum fidei sensum

This, I say, always, and nothing besides, when stirred by the novelties of heretics, has the Catholic Church accomplished by the decrees of her councils, except that what previously she had received from the Elders by tradition alone, this thereafter she also would seal for posterity through the chirograph of Scripture, comprehending the great sum of matters in few letters, and for the most part, on account of the light of understanding, not a new sense of faith

[30] novae appellationis proprietate signando.

[30] marking by the property of a new appellation.

XXIV. Sed ad Apostolum redeamus.O Timothee, inquit, depositum custodi, devitans prophanas vocum novitates.

24. But let us return to the Apostle.O Timothy, he says, guard the deposit, avoiding profane novelties of words.

Devita, inquit, quasi viperam, quasi scorpionem, quasi basiliscum, ne te non solum tactu, sed etiam visu afflatuque percutiant. Quid est devitare? cum hujusmodi nec cibum sumere. Quid est, devita? Si quis, inquit, venit ad vos, et hanc doctrinam non affert. Quam doctrinam, nisi catholicam et universalem, et unam eamdemque per singulas aetatum successiones incorrupta veritatis traditione manentem, et usque in secula sine fine mansuram? Quid tum?

Avoid, he says, as a viper, as a scorpion, as a basilisk, lest they strike you not only by touch, but even by sight and by breath. What is to avoid? not even to take food with such as these. What is, avoid? If anyone, he says, comes to you, and does not bring this doctrine. Which doctrine, unless the catholic and universal one, and one and the same, remaining through each succession of ages by the uncorrupt tradition of truth, and destined to remain unto the ages without end? What then?

Nolite, inquit, recipere eum in domum, nec ave ei dixeritis. Qui enim dicit illi ave, communicat operibus ejus malignis. Prophanas, inquit, vocum novitates. Quid est prophanas? Quae nihil habent sacri, nihil religiosi, ab Ecclesiae penetralibus, quae est templum Dei, penitus extraneas.

Do not, he says, receive him into the house, nor say ave to him. For whoever says ave to him shares in his evil works. Profane, he says, of words novelties. What is profane? Those which have nothing of the sacred, nothing of the religious, wholly alien from the penetralia of the Church, which is the temple of God.

Prophanas, inquit, vocum novitates. Vocum, id est, dogmatum, rerum, sententiarum novitates, quae sunt vetustati atque antiquitati contrariae: quae si recipiantur, necesse est ut fides beatorum patrum, aut tota, aut certe magnâ ex parte violetur; necesse est ut omnes omnium aetatum fideles, omnes sancti omnes casti, continentes, virgines, omnes clerici, levitae et sacerdotes, tanta confessorum millia, tanti martyrum exercitus, tanta urbium, tanta populorum celebritas et multitudo, tot insulae, provinciae, reges, gentes, regna, nationes, totus postremo jam pene terrarum orbis, per catholicam fidem Christo capiti incorporatus, tanto seculorum tractu ignorasse, errasse, blasphemasse, nesciisse quid crederet, pronuntietur. Prophanas, inquit, vocum novitates devita: quas recipere atque sectari nunquam Catholicorum, semper vero Haereticorum fuit.

“Profane,” he says, “novelties of words.” Novelties of words, that is, of dogmas, of things, of opinions—novelties which are contrary to age and to antiquity: which, if they be received, it is necessary that the faith of the blessed fathers be violated, either wholly or at least in great part; it is necessary that all the faithful of all ages, all the saints, all the chaste, the continent, the virgins, all clerics, deacons and priests, so many thousands of confessors, so great an army of martyrs, so great a celebrity and multitude of cities, so great of peoples, so many islands, provinces, kings, tribes, realms, nations, finally well-nigh the whole circle of the lands, incorporated through the catholic faith to Christ the head, be pronounced to have for so long a tract of ages been ignorant, to have erred, to have blasphemed, to have not known what they should believe. “Profane,” he says, “novelties of words avoid: which to receive and to follow has never been the part of Catholics, but always indeed of Heretics.”

Et revera, quae unquam haeresis nisi sub certo nomine, certo loco, certo tempore ebullivit? Quis unquam haereses instituit nisi qui se prius ab Ecclesiae catholicae universitatis et antiquitatis consensione discreverit? Quod ita esse luce clarius exempla demonstrant.

And in truth, what heresy ever boiled up except under a certain name, in a certain place, at a certain time? Who ever instituted heresies except one who had first separated himself from the consensus of the universality and antiquity of the Catholic Church? That this is so, examples demonstrate more clearly than light.

Quis enim unquam ante profanum illum Pelagium tantam virtutem liberi praesumpsit arbitrii ut ad hoc in bonis rebus per actus singulos adjuvandum necessariam Dei gratiam non putaret? Quis ante prodigiosum discipulum ejus Coelestium

For who ever before that profane Pelagius presumed such a power of free will that he did not think the grace of God necessary for this—to be aided in good matters, in each single act? Who before his prodigious disciple, Celestius

[31] reatu praevaricationis Adae omne humanum genus denegavit adstrictum? Quis ante sacrilegum Arium trinitatis unitatem discindere, quis ante sceleratum Sabellium unitatis Trinitatem confundere ausus est? Quis ante crudelissimum Novatianum

[31] denied that the whole human race is bound by the guilt of Adam’s transgression? Who before the sacrilegious Arius dared to rend the unity of the Trinity, who before the wicked Sabellius to confound the Trinity into a unity? Who before the most cruel Novatian

[32] crudelem Deum dixit, eo quod mallet mortem morientis quam ut revertatur et vivat? Quis ante magum Simonem, apostolica districtione percussum (a quo vetus ille turpitudinum gurges usque in novissimum Priscillianum

[32] called God cruel, on the ground that he would prefer the death of the one dying rather than that he should return and live? Who before Simon the Magus, smitten by apostolic severity (from whom that old whirlpool of turpitudes down to the most recent Priscillian

[33] continua et occulta successione manavit) auctorem malorum

[33] (flowed down in a continuous and hidden succession) the author of evils

[34], id est, scelerum, impietatum, flagitiorumque nostrorum ausus est dicere creatorem Deum? Quippe quem adserit talem hominum manibus ipsam suis creare naturam, quae proprio quodam motu et necessariae cujusdam voluntatis impulsu nihil aliud possit, nihil aliud velit nisi peccare, eo quod furiis vitiorum omnium exagitata et inflammata in omnia turpitudinum barathra inexhausta cupiditate rapiatur. Innumera sunt talia, quae brevitatis studio praetermittimus: quibus tamen cunctis satis evidenter perspicueque monstratur hoc apud omnes fere haereses quasi solemne esse ac legitimum, ut semper profanis novitatibus gaudeant, antiquitatis scita fastidiant, et per oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae a fide naufragent.

[34], that is, of crimes, impieties, and of our shameful deeds, did he dare to call the Creator God? Indeed, he asserts that He with His own hands creates the very nature of men such as this, which, by a certain motion proper to itself and by the impulse of a certain necessary will, can do nothing else and wills nothing else except to sin, for the reason that, harried and inflamed by the furies of all vices, it is snatched into all the abysses of turpitude by an insatiable desire. Innumerable are such things, which we pass over for the sake of brevity: yet by all these it is shown sufficiently clearly that this is, among almost all heresies, as it were a solemn and lawful custom, that they always rejoice in profane novelties, disdain the enactments of antiquity, and, through the oppositions of the science falsely so called, make shipwreck from the faith.

Contra vero Catholicorum hoc vere proprium, deposita sanctorum patrum et commissa servare, damnare profanas novitates, et sicut dixit atque iterum praedixit Apostolus, si quis annuntiaverit praeterquam quod acceptum est, anathema sit.

On the contrary, this is truly proper to Catholics: to preserve the deposits and commissions of the holy fathers, to condemn profane novelties, and, as the Apostle said and again pre‑said, if anyone should announce anything other than what has been received, let him be anathema.

XXV. Hic fortasse aliquis interroget an et Haeretici divinae Scripturae testimoniis utantur. Utuntur plane.

25. Here perhaps someone may ask whether even the Heretics make use of the testimonies of Divine Scripture. They do indeed.

et vehementer quidem. Nam videas eos volare per singula quaeque sanctae legis volumina, per Moysi, per Regum libros; per Psalmos, per Apostolos, per Evangelia, per Prophetas. Sive enim apud suos, sive alienos, sive privatim, sive publice, sive in sermonibus, sive in libris, sive in conviviis, sive in plateis, nihil unquam pene de suo proferunt quod non etiam Scripturae verbis

and indeed very vehemently. For you may see them flying through each and every volume of the holy law—through Moses, through the Books of Kings; through the Psalms, through the Apostles, through the Gospels, through the Prophets. Whether among their own or among others, whether privately or publicly, whether in discourses or in books, whether at banquets or in the streets, they scarcely ever bring forward anything from their own which they do not also with the words of Scripture

[35] adumbrare conentur.

[35] they try to adumbrate.

Lege Pauli Samosateni opuscula, Priscilliani, Eunomii, Joviniani, reliquarumque pestium; cernas infinitam exemplorum congeriem, prope nullam omitti paginam quae non novi aut veteris Testamenti sententiis fucata et colorata sit. Sed tanto magis cavendi et pertimescendi sunt, quanto occultius sub divinae legis umbraculis latitant. Sciunt enim faetores suos nulli fere cito esse placituros, si nudi et simplices exhalentur; atque idcirco eos coelestis eloquii velut quodam aromate aspergunt, ut ille qui humanum facile despiceret errorem, divina non facile contemnat oracula. Itaque faciunt quod hi solent

Read the little works of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian, of Eunomius, of Jovinian, and of the remaining plagues; you may see an infinite heap of examples, scarcely any page omitted which is not painted and colored with sentences of the New or of the Old Testament. But by so much the more are they to be guarded against and greatly feared, by how much more secretly they lurk under the umbrage of the divine law. For they know that their stenches will scarcely be pleasing to anyone, if they are exhaled naked and simple; and therefore they sprinkle them with celestial eloquence as with a certain aroma, so that he who would easily look down upon human error may not easily despise the divine oracles. And so they do what those are wont to do

[36], qui parvulis austera quaedam temperaturi pocula, prius oras melle circumlinunt, ut incauta aetas cum dulcedinem praesenserit, amaritudinem non reformidet. Quod etiam iis curae est qui mala gramina et noxios succos medicaminum vocabulis praecolorant, ut nemo fere ubi suprascriptum legerit remedium, suspicetur venenum. Inde denique et Salvator clamabat:Attendite vobis a pseudoprophetis, qui veniunt ad vos in vestitu ovium, ab intus autem sunt lupi rapaces. Quid est vestitus ovium, nisi Prophetarum et Apostolorum proloquia, quae iidem, ovili quadam sinceritate, agno illi immaculato, qui tollit peccatum mundi, tanquam vellera quaedam texuerunt?

[36], who, when about to temper certain austere draughts for little ones, first smear the rims with honey, so that, when incautious age has sensed the sweetness, it does not shrink from the bitterness. This also is a concern for those who pre-color evil herbs and noxious juices with the vocabularies of medicaments, so that hardly anyone, when he has read the superscription remedy, suspects poison. From this, finally, even the Savior cried aloud:Beware for yourselves of the pseudo-prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but within are rapacious wolves. What is the clothing of sheep, if not the utterances of the Prophets and Apostles, which the same men, with a certain sheepfold sincerity, for that immaculate Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, have woven like certain fleeces?

Qui sunt lupi rapaces, nisi sensus Haereticorum feri et rabidi, qui caulas Ecclesiae semper infestant et gregem Christi quaqua possunt dilacerant? Sed ut fallacius incautis ovibus obrepant, manente luporum ferocia, deponunt lupinam speciem, et sese divinae legis sententiis velut quibusdam velleribus obvolvunt, ut cum quisque lanarum mollitiem praesenserit, nequaquam aculeos dentium pertimescat. Sed quid ait Salvator?

Who are the rapacious wolves, if not the wild and rabid minds of the Heretics, who always infest the folds of the Church and tear the flock of Christ to pieces wherever they can? But, in order to creep upon the unsuspecting sheep more deceitfully, with the ferocity of the wolves remaining, they lay aside the lupine appearance, and wrap themselves in the sentences of the divine law as if with certain fleeces, so that when someone has sensed the softness of the wools, he by no means dreads the points of the teeth. But what does the Savior say?

Ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos: id est, cum coeperint divinas illas voces non jam proferre tantum, sed etiam exponere, nec adhuc jactare solum, sed etiam interpretari, tunc amaritudo illa, tunc acerbitas, tunc rabies intelligetur, tunc novitium virus exhalabitur, tunc profanae novitates aperientur; tunc primum scindi sepem videas, tunc transferri patrum terminos, tunc Catholicam fidem caedi, tunc Ecclesiasticum dogma lacerari. Tales erant ii quos percutit Apostolus Paulus in secunda ad Corinthios Epistola, dicens: Nam ejusmodi, inquit, pseudoapostoli, sunt operarii subdoli, transfigurantes se in Apostolos Christi? Quid est transfigurantes se in Apostolos Christi? Proferebant Apostoli divinae legis exempla; proferebant et illi.

From their fruits you will know them: that is, when they begin not now merely to utter those divine voices, but also to expound them, and not still only to vaunt them, but also to interpret them, then that bitterness, then that acridity, then that fury will be understood; then the novice poison will be exhaled; then profane novelties will be laid open; then for the first time you may see the hedge being cleft, then the boundaries of the fathers being shifted, then the Catholic faith being hewn down, then ecclesiastical dogma being lacerated. Such were those whom the Apostle Paul smites in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, saying: For such men, he says, are pseudo-apostles, deceitful workers, transfiguring themselves into Apostles of Christ? What is transfiguring themselves into Apostles of Christ? The Apostles proffered examples of the divine law; they too proffered them.

Proferebant Apostoli psalmorum auctoritates; proferebant et illi. Proferebant Apostoli sententias Prophetarum; et illi nihilominus proferebant. Sed cum ea quae similiter protulerant, interpretari non similiter coepissent, tunc simplices a subdolis, tunc infucati a fucatis, tunc recti a perversis, tunc postremo veri Apostoli a falsis Apostolis discernebantur.

The Apostles brought forward the authorities of the psalms; they too brought them forward. The Apostles brought forward the sentences of the Prophets; and they nonetheless brought them forward. But when they began not to interpret in like manner the things which they had produced in like manner, then the simple were distinguished from the crafty, then the unpainted from the painted, then the straight from the perverse, then at last the true Apostles from the false Apostles.

Et non mirum, inquit. Ipse enim Satanas transfigurat se in angelum lucis. Non est ergo magnum si ministri ejus transfigurantur sicut ministri justitiae. Ergo secundum Apostoli Pauli magisterium, quotiescumque vel pseudoapostoli vel pseudoprophetae vel pseudodoctores divinae legis sententias proferunt, quibus male interpretatis errores suos adstruere conentur, non dubium est quin auctoris sui callida machinamenta sectentur, quae ille nunquam profecto comminisceretur, nisi sciret omnino nullam esse ad fallendum faciliorem viam, quam ut ubi nefarii erroris subinducitur fraudulentia, ibi divinorum verborum praetendatur auctoritas.

And no wonder, he says. For Satan himself transfigures himself into an angel of light. It is therefore no great thing if his ministers are transfigured as ministers of justice. Therefore, according to the teaching of the Apostle Paul, whenever either pseudoapostles or pseudoprophets or pseudodoctors bring forward the sentences of the divine law, which, being ill interpreted, they try to adstruate in support of their errors, there is no doubt that they follow the cunning machinations of their author, which he would never, to be sure, contrive, unless he knew that there is absolutely no easier way to deceive than that where the fraud of nefarious error is insinuated, there the authority of divine words is pretended and put forward.

XXVI. Sed dicet aliquis: Unde probatur quia sacrae legis exemplis Diabolus uti soleat?

26. But someone will say: Whence is it proved that the Devil is wont to use the examples of the sacred law?

Legat Evangelia, in quibus scribitur: Tunc assumpsit illum Diabolus, id est, Dominum Salvatorem, et statuit illum super pinnam templi, et dixit ei: Si filius Dei es, mitte te deorsum. Scriptum est enim quod angelis suis mandavit de te ut custodiant te in omnibus viis tuis; in manibus tollent te, ne forte offendas ad lapidem pedem tuum. Quid hic faciet misellis hominibus qui ipsum Dominum majestatis Scripturarum testimoniis appetivit? Si, inquit, filius Dei es, mitte te deorsum. Quare?

Let him read the Gospels, in which it is written: Then the Devil took him up—that is, the Lord Savior—and set him upon the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him: If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written that he has commanded his angels concerning you, that they should guard you in all your ways; on their hands they will bear you up, lest perhaps you strike your foot against a stone. What will he do here to poor wretches of men, he who assailed the very Lord of majesty with the testimonies of the Scriptures? If, he says, you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. Why?

Scriptum est enim, inquit. Magnopere nobis doctrina loci istius attendenda atque retinenda est, ut tanto evangelicae auctoritatis exemplo, quando aliquos apostolica seu prophetica verba proferre contra catholicam fidem viderimus, diabolum per eos loqui minime dubitemus. Nam sicut tunc caput capiti, ita nunc quoque membra membris loquuntur, membra scilicet diaboli membris Christi, perfidi fidelibus, sacrilegi religiosis, Haeretici postremo Catholicis.

For it is written, he says. The doctrine of this locus is to be greatly attended to and retained by us, so that, by so great an example of evangelical authority, whenever we have seen some persons bringing forth apostolic or prophetic words against the Catholic faith, we may by no means doubt that the Devil is speaking through them. For just as then head to head, so now also members to members speak: namely, the members of the Devil to the members of Christ, the perfidious to the faithful, the sacrilegious to the religious, Heretics, finally, to Catholics.

Sed quid tandem dicunt? Si, inquit, filius Dei es, mitte te deorsum; hoc est, si filius esse vis Dei et haereditatem regni coelestis accipere, mitte te deorsum, id est, ex istius te sublimis Ecclesiae, quae etiam templum Dei putatur, doctrina et traditione demitte. Ac si quis interroget quempiam haereticorum sibi talia persuadentem: Unde probas, unde doces quod Ecclesiae Catholicae universalem et antiquam fidem dimittere debeam? statim ille: Scriptum est enim. Et continuo mille testimonia, mille exempla, mille auctoritates parat de lege, de Psalmis, de Apostolis, de Prophetis, quibus novo et malo more interpretatis, ex arce catholica in haereseos barathrum infelix anima praecipitetur.

But what, then, do they say? If, he says, you are the Son of God, cast yourself down; that is, if you wish to be a son of God and to receive the inheritance of the celestial kingdom, cast yourself down, that is, lower yourself from the doctrine and tradition of this lofty Church, which is also reckoned the temple of God. And if someone should ask any one of the heretics persuading him of such things: From what do you prove, from what do you teach that I ought to abandon the universal and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? immediately he: For it is written. And forthwith he prepares a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities from the Law, from the Psalms, from the Apostles, from the Prophets, by which, interpreted in a new and evil manner, the unhappy soul is hurled headlong from the Catholic citadel into the barathrum of heresy.

Jam vero illis quae sequuntur promissionibus miro modo incautos homines Haeretici decipere consueverunt. Audent etenim polliceri et docere quod in Ecclesia sua, id est, in communionis suae conventiculo, magna et specialis ac plane personalis quaedam sit Dei gratia, adeo ut sine ullo labore, sine ullo studio, sine ulla industria, etiamsi nec petant, nec quaerant, nec pulsent, quicumque illi ad numerum suum pertinent, tamen ita divinitus dispensentur ut angelicis evecti manibus, id est, angelica protectione servati, nunquam possint offendere ad lapidem pedem suum, id est, nunquam scandalizari.

Now indeed, by the promises which follow, Heretics have been accustomed in a wondrous way to deceive unwary men. For they dare to promise and to teach that in their own Church, that is, in the conventicle of their communion, there is a certain great and special and plainly personal grace of God, to such an extent that without any labor, without any zeal, without any industry, even if they neither ask nor seek nor knock, whoever belong to their number are nevertheless so divinely dispensed that, borne aloft by angelic hands, that is, kept safe by angelic protection, they can never dash their foot against a stone, that is, never be scandalized.

XXVII. Sed dicet aliquis: Si divinis eloquiis, sententiis, promissionibus et Diabolus et discipuli ejus utuntur, quorum alii sunt pseudoapostoli, alii pseudoprophetae et pseudomagistri, et omnes ex toto Haeretici, quid facient Catholici homines et matris Ecclesiae filii? Quonam modo in Scripturis sanctis veritatem a falsitate discernent?

27. But someone will say: If both the Devil and his disciples make use of the divine oracles, sentences, and promises—some of whom are pseudo-apostles, others pseudo-prophets and pseudo-masters, and all of them altogether Heretics—what will Catholic men and the sons of Mother Church do? In what way will they discern in the holy Scriptures the truth from falsity?

Hoc scilicet facere magnopere curabunt, quod in principio Commonitorii istius sanctos et doctos viros nobis tradidisse scripsimus, ut divinum Canonem secundum universalis Ecclesiae traditiones et juxta Catholici dogmatis regulas interpretentur; in qua item Catholica et apostolica Ecclesia sequantur necesse est universitatem, antiquitatem, consensionem. Et si quando pars contra universitatem, novitas contra vetustatem, unius vel paucorum errantium dissensio contra omnium vel certe multo plurium Catholicorum consensionem rebellaverit, praeferant partis corruptioni universitatis integritatem: in qua eadem universitate, novitatis profanitati antiquitatis religionem, itemque in ipsa vetustate, unius sive paucissimorum temeritati primum omnium generalia, si qua sunt, universalis Concilii decreta praeponant; tunc deinde, si id minus est, sequantur quod proximum est, multorum atque magnorum consentientes sibi sententias magistrorum. Quibus, adjuvante Domino, fideliter, sobrie, sollicite observatis, non magna difficultate noxios quosque exsurgentium Haereticorum deprehendemus errores.

They will take great care to do this, namely, what we wrote at the beginning of this Commonitory that holy and learned men handed down to us: that they interpret the divine Canon according to the traditions of the universal Church and according to the rules of Catholic dogma; and in the same Catholic and apostolic Church it is necessary that they follow universality, antiquity, consent. And if ever a part rebels against universality, novelty against antiquity, the dissension of one or a few erring persons against the consent of all, or certainly of very many, Catholics, let them prefer to the corruption of a part the integrity of universality; and within that same universality, to the profanity of novelty the religion of antiquity; and likewise within antiquity itself, to the temerity of one or of very few, before all things let them set in front the general decrees, if there are any, of a universal Council; then thereafter, if that is insufficient, let them follow what is next, the mutually consenting opinions of many and great masters. By which things, with the Lord helping, observed faithfully, soberly, diligently, we shall with no great difficulty detect the harmful errors of whatever heretics arise.

XXVIII. Hic jam consequens esse video ut exemplis demonstrem quonam modo prophanae Haereticorum novitates prolatis atque collatis veterum magistrorum concordantibus sibimet sententiis et deprehendantur et condemnentur. Quae tamen antiqua sanctorum patrum consensio non in omnibus divinae legis quaestiunculis, sed solum certe praecipue in fidei regula magno nobis studio et investiganda est et sequenda.

28. Here now I see it to be consequent that I should demonstrate by examples in what way the profane novelties of the Heretics, by bringing forward and comparing the concordant opinions of the ancient masters, may both be detected and condemned. Yet this ancient consensus of the holy Fathers is not, in all the little questionings of the divine law, but only—certainly and especially—in the rule of faith, to be investigated by us with great zeal and to be followed.

Sed neque semper neque omnes haereses hoc modo impugnandae sunt, sed novitiae recentesque tantummodo, cum primum scilicet exoriuntur, ante quam infalsare vetustae fidei regulas ipsius temporis vetantur angustiis, ac priusquam manante latius veneno, majorum volumina vitiare conentur. Caeterum dilatatae et inveteratae haereses nequaquam hac via adgrediendae sunt, eo quod prolixo temporum tractu longa iis fruendae veritatis patuerit occasio. Atque ideo quascumque illas antiquiores vel schismatum vel haereseon profanitates nullo modo nos oportet nisi aut sola, si opus est, Scripturarum auctoritate convincere, aut certe jam antiquitus universalibus sacerdotum catholicorum Conciliis convictas damnatasque vitare.

But neither always nor all heresies are to be impugned in this manner, but only the novel and recent ones, namely when first they arise, before the straits of the time forbid them to falsify the rules of the ancient faith, and before, as the poison flows more widely, they attempt to vitiate the volumes of the elders. Moreover, heresies that have been spread and have become inveterate are by no means to be approached by this route, for the reason that, in the prolonged tract of times, a long occasion of the truth to be enjoyed has lain open to them. And therefore whatever older profanities, whether of schisms or of heresies, we ought in no way to deal with save either to convict by the sole authority of the Scriptures, if need be, or certainly to avoid those already long ago convicted and condemned by the universal Councils of Catholic priests.

Itaque, cum primum mali cujusque erroris putredo erumpere coeperit, et ad defensionem sui quaedam sacrae legis verba furari, eaque fallaciter et fraudulenter exponere, statim interpretando Canoni majorum sententiae congregandae sunt; quibus illud quodcumque exsurget novitium, ideoque profanum et absque ulla ambage prodatur, et sine ulla retractatione damnetur. Sed eorum duntaxat patrum sentententiae conferendae sunt, qui in fide et communione Catholica sancte, sapienter, constanter viventes

And so, as soon as the putrescence of any evil error has begun to burst forth, and to steal certain words of the sacred law for its own defense, and to expound them fallaciously and fraudulently, at once the judgments of the elders are to be assembled by interpreting the Canon; by which whatever novelty shall arise, and therefore as profane, may be exposed without any circumlocution, and be condemned without any reconsideration. But only the opinions of those fathers are to be compared, who, living holily, wisely, steadfastly in the faith and Catholic communion

[37], docentes, et permanentes, vel mori in Christo fideliter vel occidi pro Christo feliciter meruerunt. Quibus tamen hac lege credendum est ut quicquid vel omnes vel plures uno eodemque sensu manifeste, frequenter, perseveranter, velut quodam consentiente sibi magistrorum concilio, accipiendo, tenendo, tradendo firmaverint, id pro indubitato, certo, ratoque habeatur.

[37], teaching, and remaining steadfast, they merited either to die in Christ faithfully or to be slain for Christ happily. To whom, however, credence is to be given under this law: that whatever either all or many, with one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, perseveringly, as by a certain council of masters consenting among themselves, by receiving, holding, handing down they shall have confirmed—let that be held as indubitable, certain, and ratified.

Quicquid vero, quamvis ille sanctus et doctus, quamvis Confessor et Martyr, praeter omnes aut etiam contra omnes senserit, id inter proprias et occultas et privatas opiniunculas a communis et publicae ac generalis sententiae auctoritate secretum sit; ne cum summo aeternae salutis periculo, juxta sacrilegam Haereticorum et Schismaticorum consuetudinem, universalis dogmatis antiqua veritate dimissa, unius hominis novitium sectemur errorem.

Whatever, moreover, although he be holy and learned, although a Confessor and a Martyr, he may have thought besides all or even against all, let that be kept secluded, among his own private and hidden little opinions, from the authority of the common and public and general judgment; lest, with the utmost peril of eternal salvation, according to the sacrilegious custom of the Heretics and Schismatics, the ancient truth of the universal dogma having been dismissed, we should follow the novel error of one man.

Quorum beatorum patrum sanctum catholicumque consensum, ne quis sibi temere contemnendum forte arbitretur, ait in prima ad Corinthios Apostolus: Et quosdam quidem posuit Deus in Ecclesia primum Apostolos (quorum ipse unus erat), secundo Prophetas (qualem in Actibus Apostolorum legimus Agabum), tertio Doctores, qui tractatores nunc appellantur, quos hic idem Apostolus etiam Prophetas interdum nuncupat, eo quod per eos Prophetarum mysteria populis aperiantur.

The holy and catholic consensus of those blessed fathers, lest anyone perhaps should deem it rashly to be contemned for himself, the Apostle says in the First to the Corinthians: And God indeed set some in the Church, first Apostles (of whom he himself was one), second Prophets (such as Agabus, whom we read in the Acts of the Apostles), third Doctors, who are now called tractators, whom this same Apostle also sometimes entitles Prophets, because through them the mysteries of the Prophets are opened to the peoples.

Hos ergo in Ecclesia Dei divinitus per tempora et loca dispensatos quisquis in sensu catholici dogmatis unum aliquid in Christo sentientes contempserit, non hominem contemnit, sed Deum: a quorum veridica unitate ne discrepet, impensius obtestatur idem Apostolus dicens: Obsecro autem vos, fratres, ut id ipsum dicatis omnes, et non sint in vobis schismata, sitis autem perfecti in eodem sensu et in eadem sententia

Whoever, therefore, has despised these men—divinely dispensed in the Church of God through times and places—who, in the sense of catholic dogma, think one and the same thing in Christ, does not despise a man but God; lest he depart from their truth-bearing unity, the same Apostle more earnestly adjures, saying: But I beseech you, brothers, that you all say the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you, but that you be perfected in the same sense and in the same judgment

[38].

Quod si quis ab eorum sententiae communione desciverit, audiet illud ejusdem Apostoli: Non est Deus dissensionis, sed pacis, (id est, non ejus qui a consentiendi unitate defecerit, sed eorum qui in consentiendi pace permanserint) sicut in omnibus, inquit, Ecclesiis sanctorum doceo, id est, Catholicorum: quae ideo sanctae sunt, quia in fidei communione persistunt.

But if anyone has seceded from the communion of their judgment, he will hear that of the same Apostle: Not a God of dissension, but of peace, (that is, not of him who has defected from the unity of consenting, but of those who have remained in the peace of consenting) as in all, he says, I teach in the Churches of the saints, that is, of the Catholics: which for that reason are holy, because they persist in the communion of faith.

Et ne quis forsitan, praetermissis caeteris, se solum audiri, sibi soli credi adrogaret, paulo post ait. An a vobis, inquit, verbum Dei processit, aut in vos solos devenit? Et ne hoc quasi perfunctorie acciperetur, adjecit: Si quis, inquit, videtur propheta esse aut spiritalis, cognoscat quae scribo vobis, quia Domini sunt mandata. Quae utique mandata, nisi ut si quis est propheta aut spiritalis, id est, spiritalium rerum magister, summo studio aequalitatis et unitatis cultor existat; ut scilicet neque opiniones suas caeteris praeferat

And lest perhaps anyone, the rest having been passed over, should arrogate to himself that he alone be heard, that he alone be believed, a little later he says. From you, he says, did the word of God proceed, or did it come to you alone? And lest this be taken, as it were, perfunctorily, he added: If anyone, he says, seems to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things I write to you are mandates of the Lord. What mandates, to be sure, if not that, if anyone is a prophet or spiritual—that is, a master of spiritual things—he should be with the highest zeal a cultivator of equality and unity; namely, that he neither prefer his own opinions to the rest

[39], et ab universorum sensibus non recedat.

[39], and let him not depart from the consensus of all.

Cujus rei mandata qui ignorat, inquit, ignorabitur: id est, qui aut nescita non discit, aut scita contemnit, ignorabitur, hoc est, indignus habebitur qui inter unitos fide et exaequatos humilitate divinitus respiciatur: quo malo nescio an quicquam acerbius cogitari queat.

He says, whoever is ignorant of the mandates of this matter will be ignored: that is, whoever either does not learn what is unknown, or despises what is known, will be ignored, that is, will be held unworthy to be regarded by God among those united by faith and equalized by humility: than which evil I know not whether anything more bitter can be conceived.

Quod tamen juxta apostolicam comminationem Pelagiano illi provenisse cernimus Juliano

Yet we discern that, according to the apostolic commination, this has befallen that Pelagian, Julian

[40], qui se collegarum sensui aut incorporare neglexit, aut excorporare praesumpsit.

[40], who either neglected to incorporate himself with the sense of his colleagues, or presumed to excorporate himself.

Sed jam tempus est ut pollicitum proferamus exemplum, ubi et quomodo sanctorum patrum sententiae congregatae sint, ut secundum eas ex decreto atque auctoritate Concilii ecclesiasticae fidei regula figeretur.

But now it is time that we bring forward the promised example, where and how the sentences of the holy fathers were gathered together, so that, according to them, by the decree and authority of the Council, the rule of ecclesiastical faith might be fixed.

Quod quo commodius fiat, hic sit jam hujus Commonitorii modus; ut caetera quae sequuntur, ab alio sumamus exordio.

So that this may be done more commodiously, let this now be the method of this Commonitory; and let us take up the rest which follow from another exordium.

SECUNDUM COMMONITORIUM

SECOND COMMONITORIUM

Interlapsum est

An interval has elapsed

[41], neque ex eo amplius quicquam quam postrema particula remansit, id est, sola recapitulatio, quae et subjecta est.

[41], and from it there remained nothing more than the last little part, that is, only the recapitulation, which also is subjoined.

XXIX. Quae cum ita sint, jam tempus est ut ea quae duobus his Commonitoriis dicta sunt, in hujus secundi fine recapitulemus.

29. Since these things are so, now it is time that we recapitulate, at the end of this second, the things which have been said in these two Commonitories.

Diximus in superioribus hanc fuisse semper et esse hodieque Catholicorum consuetudinem, ut fidem veram duobus his modis adprobent, primum divini Canonis auctoritate, deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione; non quia Canon solus non sibi ad universa sufficiat, sed quia verba divina pro suo plerique arbitratu interpretantes, varias opiniones erroresque concipiant, atque ideo necesse sit ut ad unam ecclesiastici sensus regulam Scripturae coelestis intelligentia dirigatur, in his duntaxat praecipue quaestionibus quibus totius Catholici dogmatis fundamenta nituntur. Item diximus in ipsa rursus Ecclesia universitatis pariter et antiquitatis consensionem spectari oportere; ne aut ab unitatis integritate in partem schismatis abrumpamur, aut a vetustatis religione in haereseon novitates praecipitemur.

We have said above that this has always been, and is even today, the custom of Catholics: to approve the true faith by these two modes, first by the authority of the divine Canon, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church; not because the Canon alone does not suffice for all things, but because many, interpreting the divine words by their own arbitrium, conceive various opinions and errors, and therefore it is necessary that the understanding of the celestial Scripture be directed to the single rule of ecclesiastical sense, at least especially in those questions on which the foundations of the whole Catholic dogma rest. Likewise we have said that in the Church itself in turn the consensus of universality and of antiquity alike ought to be regarded; lest either we be broken off from the integrity of unity into a party of schism, or be headlong precipitated from the religion of antiquity into novelties of heresies.

Item diximus in ipsa Ecclesiae vetustate duo quaedam vehementer studioseque observanda, quibus penitus inhaerere deberent quicumque haeretici esse nollent: primum, si quid esset antiquitus ab omnibus Ecclesiae Catholicae sacerdotibus universalis Concilii auctoritate decretum; deinde si qua nova exsurgeret quaestio, ubi id minime reperiretur, recurrendum ad sanctorum patrum sententias, eorum duntaxat qui suis quisque temporibus et locis in unitate communionis et fidei permanentes, magistri probabiles exstitissent, et quicquid uno sensu atque consensu tenuisse invenirentur, id Ecclesiae verum et catholicum absque ullo scrupulo judicaretur.

Likewise we said that in the very antiquity of the Church two certain things are to be observed vehemently and studiously, to which those who would not wish to be heretics ought to adhere utterly: first, if anything had been decreed of old by all the priests of the Catholic Church by the authority of a universal Council; then, if some new question should arise where that is by no means to be found, recourse must be had to the judgments of the holy fathers—those, namely, who in their respective times and places, remaining in the unity of communion and of faith, had stood forth as approved teachers—and whatever they are found to have held with one sense and consensus, that should be judged true and catholic for the Church without any scruple.

Quod ne praesumptione magis nostra quam auctoritate ecclesiastica promere videremur, exemplum adhibuimus sancti Concilii quod ante triennium

Lest we might seem to bring forth by our own presumption rather than by ecclesiastical authority, we adduced the example of the holy Council which three years earlier

[42] ferme in Asia apud Ephesum celebratum est Basso Antiochoque Consulibus: ubi cum de sanciendis fidei regulis disceptaretur, ne qua illic forsitan profana novitas in modum perfidiae Ariminensis obreperet, universis sacerdotibus, qui illo ducenti fere numero

[42] in Asia, at Ephesus, it was held, in the consulship of Bassus and Antiochus: where, when there was discussion about the sanctioning of the rules of faith, lest perhaps any profane novelty might there creep in after the manner of the perfidy of Ariminum, to all the priests, who there, about two hundred in number

[43] convenerant, hoc catholicissimum, fidelissimum, atque optimum factu visum est ut in medium sanctorum patrum sententiae proferrentur, quorum alios martyres, alios confessores, omnes vero catholicos sacerdotes fuisse et permansisse constaret; ut scilicet rite atque solemniter ex corum consensu atque decreto antiqui dogmatis religio confirmaretur et prophanae novitatis blasphemia condemnaretur.

[43] had assembled, this seemed most catholic, most faithful, and best to do: that into the midst the opinions of the holy fathers be brought forward, of whom some were martyrs, others confessors, but all were evident to have been and to have remained catholic priests; so that, namely, rightly and solemnly by their consensus and decree the religion of the ancient dogma might be confirmed and the blasphemy of profane novelty condemned.

Quod cum ita factum foret, jure meritoque impius ille Nestorius catholicae vetustati contrarius, beatus vero Cyrillus sacrosanctae antiquitati consentaneus judicatus est.

When this had thus been done, by right and by merit that impious Nestorius was judged contrary to Catholic antiquity, but blessed Cyril was judged consentaneous with sacrosanct antiquity.

Et ut ad fidem rerum nihil deesset, tam nomina et numerum (licet ordinem fuissemus obliti) edidimus eorum patrum juxta quorum ibidem concinentem sibi concordemque sententiam et legis sacrae proloquia exposita sunt, et divini dogmatis regula constabilita est: quos, ad confirmandam memoriam, hic quoque recensere nequaquam superfluum est.

And so that nothing might be lacking for the credibility of the matters, we published both the names and the number (although we had been forgetful of the order) of those fathers, according to whose consonant and concordant judgment in that same place the oracles of the sacred law were expounded, and the rule of the divine dogma was established: whom, to confirm remembrance, it is by no means superfluous to enumerate here as well.

XXX. Sunt ergo hi viri quorum in illo Concilio vel tanquam judicum vel tanquam testium scripta recitata sunt. Sanctus Petrus

30. Therefore these are the men whose writings in that Council were read either as of judges or as of witnesses. Saint Peter

[44] Alexandrinus Episcopus doctor praestantissimus et martyr beatissimus.

[44] the Alexandrian Bishop, a most preeminent doctor and a most blessed martyr.

Sanctus Athanasius, ejusdem civitatis antistes, magister fidelissimus et confessor eminentissimus. Sanctus Theophilus

Saint Athanasius, bishop of the same city, a most faithful master and a most eminent confessor. Saint Theophilus

[45], ejusdem item urbis Episcopus, vir fide, vita, scientia satis clarus, cui successit venerandus Cyrillus, qui nunc Alexandrinam illustrat Ecclesiam.

[45], likewise Bishop of the same city, a man quite renowned for faith, life, and science, to whom the venerable Cyrillus succeeded, who now illuminates the Alexandrian Church.

Et ne forsitan unius civitatis ac provinciae doctrina haec putaretur, adhibita sunt etiam illa Cappadociae lumina, Sanctus Gregorius Episcopus et confessor de Nazianzo; Sanctus Basilius, Caesareae Cappadociae Episcopus et confessor; Sanctus item alter Gregorius Nyssenus Episcopus, fidei, conversationis, integritatis et sapientiae merito, fratre Basilio dignissimus.

And lest perhaps this doctrine be thought that of one city and province, those lights of Cappadocia were also brought in: Saint Gregory, Bishop and Confessor of Nazianzus; Saint Basil, Bishop and Confessor of Caesarea of Cappadocia; likewise another Saint Gregory, the Bishop of Nyssa—by the merit of faith, conversation, integrity, and sapience—most worthy, brother to Basil.

Sed ne sola Graecia aut Oriens tantum, verum etiam Occidentalis et Latinus orbis ita semper sensisse adprobaretur, lectae sunt quoque ibi quaedam ad quosdam Epistolae sancti Felicis martyris et sancti Julii, urbis Romae Episcoporum. Et ut non solum caput orbis, verum etiam latera illi judicio testimonium perhiberent, adhibitus est a Meridie beatissimus Cyprianus Episcopus Carthaginensis et martyr; a Septentrione sanctus Ambrosius Mediolanensis Episcopus.

But, in order that it might be proved that not Greece or the East only, but that the Western and Latin world as well had always felt thus, there too were read certain epistles to certain persons of Saint Felix the martyr and Saint Julius, bishops of the city of Rome. And that not only the head of the world, but also its sides might bear witness to that judgment, from the South the most blessed Cyprianus, bishop of Carthage and martyr, was adduced; from the North Saint Ambrose, bishop of Milan.

Hi sunt igitur omnes apud Ephesum sacrato Decalogi numero magistri, consiliarii, testes, judicesque producti; quorum beata illa Synodus doctrinam tenens, consilium sequens, credens testimonio, obediens judicio, absque taedio, praesumptione, et gratia de fidei regulis pronuntiavit.

These, therefore, all at Ephesus, in the sacred number of the Decalogue, were brought forward as masters, counselors, witnesses, and judges; whose doctrine that blessed Synod holding, whose counsel following, whose testimony believing, and whose judgment obeying, without tedium, presumption, and favor, it pronounced concerning the rules of faith.

Quanquam multo amplior majorum numerus adhiberi potuerit, sed necesse non fuit; quia neque multitudine testium negotii tempora occupari oportebat, et decem illos non aliud vere sensisse quam caeteros omnes collegas suos nemo dubitabat.

Although a much more ample number of the elders could have been adduced, yet there was no need; because neither ought the time of the business to be occupied by a multitude of witnesses, and no one doubted that those ten had truly held nothing other than what all their other colleagues held.

XXXI. Post quae omnia, adjecimus etiam beati Cyrilli sententiam, quae gestis ipsis ecclesiasticis continetur. Namque cum lecta esset Sancti Capreoli

31. After all these things, we also appended the sentence of blessed Cyril, which is contained in the very ecclesiastical acts. For indeed, when that of Saint Capreolus had been read

[46], Episcopi Carthaginensis Epistola, qui nihil aliud intendebat et precabatur nisi ut, expugnata novitate, antiquitas

[46], the Epistle of the Bishop of Carthage, who purposed and prayed for nothing else save that, the novelty having been overthrown, antiquity

[47] defenderetur, ita Episcopus Cyrillus prolocutus est et definivit. Quod hic quoque interponere non abs re videtur. Ait enim in fine gestorum: Et haec, inquit, quae lecta est Epistola venerandi et multum religiosi Episcopi Carthaginensis Capreoli, fidei gestorum inseretur; cujus aperta sententia est.

[47] might be defended, thus Bishop Cyril spoke forth and defined. Which does not seem out of place to interpose here as well. For he says at the end of the proceedings: And this, he says, the Epistle which has been read of the venerable and very religious Carthaginian Bishop Capreolus, will be inserted into the acts of the faith; whose clear judgment is.

Vult etenim antiquae fidei dogmata confirmari, novitia vero et superflue adinventa et impie promulgata, reprobari atque damnari. Omnes Episcopi adclamaverunt: Hae omnium voces sunt, haec omnes dicimus, hoc omnium votum est. Quae tandem omnium voces, aut quae omnium vota, nisi ut quod erat antiquitus traditum teneretur, quod adinventum nuper, exploderetur? Post quae admirati sumus et praedicavimus quanta Concilii illius fuerit humilitas et sanctitas, ut tot numero sacerdotes, pene ex majori parte Metropolitani, tantae eruditionis tantaeque doctrinae ut prope omnes possent de dogmatibus disputare, quibus propterea ipsa in unum congregatio audendi ab se aliquid et statuendi addere videretur fiduciam, nihil tamen novarent, nihil praesumerent, nihil sibi penitus adrogarent, sed omnimodis praecaverent ne aliquid posteris traderent quod ipsi a patribus non accepissent, et non solum in praesenti rem bene disponerent, verum etiam post futuris exempla praeberent ut et ipsi scilicet sacratae vetustatis dogmata colerent, profanae vero novitatis adinventa damnarent.

For he desires the dogmas of the ancient faith to be confirmed, but the novelties superfluously devised and impiously promulgated to be reproved and condemned. All the bishops acclaimed: These are the voices of all, this we all say, this is the vow of all. Which, then, are the voices of all, or what the vows of all, except that what was handed down of old be held, what was lately devised be exploded? After which we marveled and proclaimed how great was the humility and sanctity of that Council, that so many in number of priests, almost for the greater part Metropolitans, of such erudition and such doctrine that almost all could dispute concerning dogmas, to whom therefore the very gathering together into one seemed to add confidence for daring something and for determining from themselves, yet they innovated nothing, presumed nothing, arrogated nothing at all to themselves, but in every way took precautions lest they hand down to posterity anything which they themselves had not received from the fathers; and they not only set the matter well in order for the present, but also furnished examples for those to come, that they too, to wit, might honor the dogmas of consecrated antiquity, and might condemn the inventions of profane novelty.

Invecti etiam sumus in Nestorii sceleratam praesumptionem, quod sacram Scripturam se primum et solum intelligere, et omnes eos ignorasse jactaret, quicumque ante se, magisterii munere praediti, divina eloquia tractavissent, universos scilicet sacerdotes, universos confessores et martyres, quorum alii explanassent Dei legem, alii vero explanantibus consensissent vel credidissent, totam postremo etiam nunc errare et semper errasse adseveraret Ecclesiam, quae, ut ipsi videbatur, ignaros erroneosque doctores et secuta esset et sequeretur.

We also inveighed against the criminal presumption of Nestorius, namely that he claimed himself to be the first and only one to understand Holy Scripture, and boasted that all those had been ignorant—whoever before him, endowed with the office of teaching, had handled the divine oracles—namely all priests, all confessors and martyrs, of whom some had explained the law of God, others indeed had assented to or believed those explaining; and he averred that the whole Church even now was in error and had always erred, which, as it seemed to him, both had followed and would follow ignorant and erring teachers.

XXXII. Quae omnia licet cumulate abundeque sufficerent adprofanas quasque novitates obruendas et exstinguendas, tamen ne quid deesse tantae plenitudini videretur, ad extremum adjecimus geminam Apostolicae Sedis auctoritatem, unam scilicet sancti Papae Sixti qui nunc Romanam Ecclesiam venerandus illustrat, alteram decessoris sui beatae memoriae Papae Coelestini, quam hic quoque interponere necessarium judicavimus. Ait itaque sanctus Papa Xystus in Epistola quam de causa Nestorii Antiocheno misit Episcopo: Ergo, inquit, quia, sicut ait Apostolus, fides una est, quae evidenter obtinuit, dicenda credamus et tenenda dicamus.

32. Although all these things, piled up and abundantly sufficient, would suffice to overwhelm and extinguishwhatever profane novelties , nevertheless, lest anything seem to be lacking to so great a plenitude, at the end we added the twin authority of the Apostolic See, namely one of holy Pope Sixtus, who now, venerable, illumines the Roman Church, the other of his predecessor, Pope Celestine of blessed memory, which also here we judged it necessary to interpose. Therefore holy Pope Xystus says in the Epistle which he sent concerning the cause of Nestorius to the Bishop of Antioch: Therefore, he says, since, as the Apostle says, there is one faith, which has plainly prevailed, let us believe the things to be said and let us say the things to be held.

Quae sunt tandem illa credenda et dicenda? Sequitur, et ait: Nihil ultra, inquit, liceat novitati, quia nihil addi convenit vetustati. Perspicua majorum fides et credulitas nulla coeni permixtione turbetur. Omnino apostolice: ut majorum credulitatem perspicuitatis lumine ornaret, novitias vero profanitates coeni permixtione describeret. Sed et sanctus Papa Coelestinus pari modo eademque sententia.

Which, then, are those things to be believed and to be said? It follows, and he says: Let nothing further, he says, be permitted to novelty, because it is fitting that nothing be added to antiquity. Let the perspicuous faith and credence of the elders be disturbed by no admixture of mud. Altogether apostolically: so that he might adorn the elders’ credence with the light of perspicuity, but might describe the novel profanations with an admixture of mud. But also holy Pope Celestine in like manner and with the same judgment.

Ait enim in Epistola quam Gallorum sacerdotibus misit, arguens eorum conniventiam quod antiquam fidem silentio destituentes, profanas novitates exsurgere paterentur: Merito, inquit, causa nos respicit, si silentio foveamus errorem. Ergo corripiantur hujusmodi; non sit his liberum habere pro voluntate sermonem. Hic aliquis fortasse addubitet quinam sint illi quos habere prohibeat liberum pro voluntate sermonem, vetustatis praedicatores, an novitatis adinventores. Ipse dicat, dubitationem legentium ipse dissolvat.

For he says in the Epistle which he sent to the priests of the Gauls, accusing their connivance because, abandoning the ancient faith by silence, they allowed profane novelties to arise: Rightly, he says, does the cause concern us, if by silence we foster error. Therefore let men of this sort be corrected; let it not be free for them to have discourse at their pleasure. Here perhaps someone may hesitate who those are whom he forbids to have discourse free at their pleasure—preachers of antiquity, or inventors of novelty. Let him himself speak; let him himself dissolve the readers’ doubt.

Sequitur enim: Desinat, inquit, si ita res est (id est, si ita est ut apud me quidam urbes et provincias vestras criminantur, quod eas quibusdam novitatibus consentire noxia dissimulatione faciatis), desinat itaque, inquit, si ita res est, incessere novitas vetustatem.

For it follows: Let it cease, he says, if the matter is so (that is, if it is so that, as certain persons in my presence accuse your cities and provinces, you by harmful dissimulation make them consent to certain novelties), let it cease therefore, he says, if the matter is so, that novelty assail antiquity.

Ergo haec fuit beati Coelestini beata sententia, ut non vetustas cessaret obruere novitatem, sed potius novitas desineret incessere vetustatem.

Therefore this was the blessed judgment of blessed Celestine, that it should not be antiquity that ceased to overwhelm novelty, but rather that novelty should cease to assail antiquity.

XXXIII. Quibus apostolicisque catholicis decretis quisquis refragatur, insultet primum omnium necesse est memoriae sancti Coelestini, qui statuit ut desineret incessere novitas vetustatem, deinde irrideat definita sancti Xysti, qui censuit ne ultra quicquam liceat novitati, quia nihil addi convenit vetustati, sed et beati Cyrilli statuta contemnat, qui venerandi Capreoli zelum magna praedicatione laudavit quod antiqua fidei dogmata confirmari cuperet, novitia vero adinventa damnari, Ephesinam quoque synodum, id est, totius pene Orientis sanctorum Episcoporum judicata proculcet, quibus divinitus placuit nihil aliud posteris credendum decernere nisi quod sacrata sibique in Christo consentiens sanctorum patrum tenuisset antiquitas, quique etiam vociferantes et adclamantes, uno ore testificati sunt has esse omnium voces, hoc omnes optare, hoc omnes censere; ut sicut universi fere ante Nestorium haeretici, contemnentes vetustatem, et adserentes novitatem, damnati fuissent, ita ipse quoque Nestorius, auctor novitatis, et impugnator vetustatis, condemnaretur. Quorum sacrosanctae et coelestis gratiae munere inspirata consensio si cui displicet, quid aliud sequitur, nisi ut profanitatem Nestorii adserat non jure damnatam?

33. Whoever contradicts these apostolic and catholic decrees must, before all else, insult the memory of Saint Celestine, who established that novelty should cease from assailing antiquity; next, let him deride the determinations of Saint Sixtus, who judged that nothing further should be permitted to novelty, because it is fitting that nothing be added to antiquity; let him also contemn the statutes of blessed Cyril, who with great proclamation praised the zeal of the venerable Capreolus, in that he desired the ancient dogmas of the faith to be confirmed, but the new inventions to be condemned; likewise let him trample upon the Ephesian synod, that is, the judgments of the holy Bishops of almost the whole East, to whom it pleased, by divine prompting, to decree that nothing else be believed by posterity except what antiquity, consecrated and agreeing with itself in Christ, had held by the holy fathers, and who also, shouting and acclaiming, with one voice testified that these are the voices of all, that all desire this, that all judge this; namely, that just as nearly all heretics before Nestorius, scorning antiquity and asserting novelty, had been condemned, so also Nestorius himself, author of novelty and assailant of antiquity, should be condemned. If the consensus of these men, inspired by the gift of most-holy and heavenly grace, displeases anyone, what else follows, except that he asserts that the profaneness of Nestorius was not justly condemned?

Ad extremum quoque universam Christi Ecclesiam et magistros ejus Apostolos et prophetas, praecipueque tamen beatum Apostolum Paulum, velut quaedam purgamenta contemnat; illam, quod a Religione colendae et excolendae semel sibi traditae fidei nunquam recesserit; illum vero, qui scripserit: O Timothee, depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates, et item: Siquis vobis annuntiaverit praeterquam quod accepistis, anathema sit. Quod si neque apostolica definita neque ecclesiastica decreta temeranda sunt, quibus secundum sacrosanctam universitatis et antiquitatis consensionem cuncti semper haeretici, et ad extremum Pelagius, Coelestius, Nestorius, jure meritoque damnati sunt, necesse est profecto omnibus deinceps Catholicis, qui sese Ecclesiae matris legitimos filios probare student, ut sanctae sanctorum Patrum fidei inhaereant, adglutinentur, immoriantur, profanas vero profanorum novitates detestentur, horrescant, insectentur, persequantur.

At the last, too, let him despise as certain sweepings the whole Church of Christ and its teachers, the Apostles and prophets, and especially indeed the blessed Apostle Paul; her, because she has never receded from the Religion of the faith once delivered to her to be cultivated and refined; him, who wrote: O Timothy, guard the deposit, avoiding profane novelties of words, and likewise: If anyone should announce to you other than what you have received, let him be anathema. But if neither apostolic definitions nor ecclesiastical decrees are to be violated, by which, according to the sacrosanct consensus of universality and antiquity, all heretics always, and at last Pelagius, Celestius, Nestorius, have been condemned by right and with due desert, it is surely necessary for all Catholics henceforth, who strive to prove themselves the legitimate sons of mother Church, that they adhere to the holy faith of the holy Fathers, be agglutinated to it, die in it, but the profane novelties of the profane let them detest, shudder at, assail, and pursue.

Haec sunt fere quae duobus Commonitoriis latius disserta, aliquanto nunc brevius recapitulandi lege constricta sunt; ut memoria mea, cui adminiculandae ista confecimus, et commonendi assiduitate reparetur, et prolixitatis fastidio non obruatur.

These are, for the most part, the things which in two Commonitoria were more broadly discussed, now somewhat more briefly constrained by the rule of recapitulation; so that my memory, for the aiding of which we have put these things together, may both be restored by the assiduity of reminding, and not be overwhelmed by a distaste for prolixity.

[1] Insula Lerina vel Lirinus, quae jacet Lat. 43o 30' 6" Long. 24o 42' 55". Lerina hodie nomen S. Honorati habet, qui celeberrimi quondam totius Galliae monasterii in illa insula auctor fuit et conditor.

[1] The island Lerina or Lirinus, which lies at Lat. 43o 30' 6" Long. 24o 42' 55". Lerina today bears the name of St. Honoratus, who on that island was the author and founder of the once most celebrated monastery of all Gaul.

[2] Ergo in insula illa, praeter monasterium, erat aliqua habitatio hominum secularium. Remotiorem porro villulam vocavit Lirinum: quia cum insula esset in mari Mediterraneo, manifestum erat eam remotam esse ab urbibus et oppidis.

[2] Therefore on that island, besides the monastery, there was some habitation of secular men. Moreover, he called the remoter little villa Lirinus; because, since it was an island in the Mediterranean Sea, it was manifest that it was remote from cities and towns.

[3] Vincentii tempestate in usu erat Commonitorii vox: tum ad significanda mandata legatis scripto data, ut a Theodosio Commonitorium Elpidio comiti datum Ephesum proficiscenti ad Synodum, et alterum a Zosimo Faustino consignatum, quum in Africam missus fuit. Frequentius tamen sumebatur pro lege a mandante praescripta, ut exsequatur, quod constat ex Epist. Innocentii Papae pro Joanne Chrysostomo.

[3] In the time of Vincent, the word Commonitorium was in use: then to signify mandates given in writing to legates, as, for example, a Commonitorium given by Theodosius to Elpidius the count, when he was setting out to Ephesus for the Synod, and another consigned by Zosimus to Faustinus when he was sent into Africa. More frequently, however, it was taken as a law prescribed by the mandator, to be executed, as is evident from the Epistle of Pope Innocent on behalf of John Chrysostom.

Hic vero, ut recte observat Baluzius in notis, significat scriptionis genus cujusmodi sunt adversaria ad sublevandam memoriam.

Here indeed, as Baluzius rightly observes in the notes, it signifies a kind of writing, of which sort adversaria are, to lighten the memory.

[4] Proprietate catholici nominis usi sunt Patres ad refellendos haereticos, quoniam juxta Prophetarum vaticinia per Orbem diffundenda erat Ecclesia, et non coarctanda in angulum parvae regionis, vel in Terrae particulam; alioquin ut recte arguit Optatus lib. 2 de Schism. Donatist.

[4] The Fathers made use of the propriety of the Catholic name to refute the heretics, since, according to the vaticinations of the Prophets, the Church was to be diffused through the world, and not coarctated into the corner of a small region, or into a particle of the Earth; otherwise, as Optatus rightly argues, book 2 On the Donatist Schism.

num. 1: «Ubi erit proprietas Catholici nominis, quum inde dicta sit Catholica, quod sit rationabilis et ubique diffusa.» Quod nomen quia honorificum, spemque salutis complectens, invident Haeretici nobis, conanturque eripere, ut olim Christiani nomen invidit Julianus Apostata. At Romanae Ecclesiae filiis convenire acute ex ipsa haereticorum mente demonstrat Augustinus lib.

num. 1: «Where will the propriety of the Catholic name be, since it is called Catholic from this, that it is rational and diffused everywhere?» Which name, because it is honorific and embraces the hope of salvation, the Heretics envy us and try to snatch away—just as once Julian the Apostate envied the Christian name. But Augustine, in a book, keenly demonstrates from the very mind of the heretics that it befits the sons of the Roman Church.

Op. Imperfecti num. 75: «Athanasianos, inquit, vel Homousianos Ariani Catholicos vocant, non et alii haeretici. Vos autem non solum a Catholicis, sed etiam ab Haereticis a vobis dissentientibus, et vobis similibus, Pelagiani vocamini: quemadmodum non tantum a Catholica, sed etiam ab haeresibus vocantur Ariani.

Opus Imperfectum no. 75: «The Arians, he says, call the Athanasians or Homoousians “Catholics,” but not so do the other heretics. But you are called “Pelagians,” not only by Catholics, but also by heretics dissenting from you and by those similar to you: just as the Arians are called [Arians] not only by the Catholic [Church], but also by the heresies.»

Vos vero soli nos appellatis Traducianos, sicut illi Homousianos, sicut Donatistae Macarianos, sicut Manichaei Pharisaeos, et caeteri haeretici diversis nominibus. Nec mirum esse debet, quod novi haeretici, catholicis a quibus exeunt novum nomen imponant (quod placuit etiam vanitati haereticorum nostri aevi). Hoc enim, et alii fecerunt, quando similiter exierunt.»

But you indeed alone call us Traducians, just as those call [their opponents] Homoousians, just as the Donatists [call them] Macarians, just as the Manichaeans [call them] Pharisees, and other heretics by various names. Nor ought it to be a wonder that new heretics impose a new name upon the Catholics from whom they depart (a thing which has also pleased the vanity of the heretics of our age). For others too have done this, when they similarly went out.»

[5] Vetustus Codex Regius habet, Universalis Concilii decreta. Baluzius.

[5] The ancient Royal Codex contains the decrees of the Universal Council. Baluze.

[6] Donatum Magnum hic intelligit Vincentius, a quo appellatos fuisse Donatistas in Divi Possidii Vita luculento Optati testimonio probatum est; quem locum consulat lector. Observare tamen oportet longa aetate post schisma invectum appellatos fuisse ex Donati parte ejus sectatores, quum primo dicerentur ex parte Majorini. Hinc in relatione Anulini Proconsulis ad Constantinum legitur: «Libellus Ecclesiae Catholicae criminum Caeciliani traditus a parte Majorini.» Similiter Augustinus dum de libello loquitur ait ablatum fuisse a parte Majorini.

[6] Vincentius here understands Donatus Magnus, from whom they are said to have been called Donatists, a point proved by the splendid testimony of Optatus in the Life of Saint Possidius; let the reader consult that passage. It should nevertheless be observed that long after the schism had been introduced, his followers were called “from the party of Donatus,” whereas at first they were said to be “from the party of Majorinus.” Hence, in the report of Anulinus the Proconsul to Constantine one reads: «The libellus (petition) of the Catholic Church concerning the crimes of Caecilian, delivered by the party of Majorinus.» Similarly Augustine, while speaking about the libellus, says that it had been taken away by the party of Majorinus.

At quia circa ann. Ch. 370, jam dicebatur Donati pars; «quasi vere, inquit Optatus, populum cum Deo divisisset, ut intrepide suam diceret partem:» propterea iste S. Vir lib. 3 de Schism.

But because around A.D. 370, “Donatus’s part” was already being said; “as if truly,” says Optatus, “he had divided the people with God, so that he might unflinchingly call his part his own:” therefore that Holy Man in book 3 On the Schism.

Donatist. num. 3, disserens de libello, quem Constantino dederunt Capito, Nasucius, Dignus, et caeteri Episcopi, vocat eos partis Donati, et non Majorini, forte substituendo notius nomen antiquo.

Donatist, no. 3, disserting about the libellus which Capito, Nasucius, Dignus, and the other bishops gave to Constantine, calls them the party of Donatus and not of Majorinus, perhaps substituting the more well-known name for the older.

At ingenue nihilominus Optati lapsum fateri debemus: quia ex tali libello infert Romae a Melchiade, et Concilio ab eodem celebrato proscriptum fuisse Donatum Magnum; quum in Collatione concesserint Catholici Praesules damnatum esse Donatum esse a Casis Nigris. Vide Augustinum in Brev. Collat.

But ingenuously we must nonetheless confess Optatus’s lapse: for from such a little book he infers that at Rome by Melchiades, and by a council celebrated by the same, Donatus the Great had been proscribed; whereas at the Conference the Catholic prelates conceded that Donatus had been condemned at Casae Nigrae. See Augustine in the Brev. Collat.

diei tertiae cap. 12 et 17, et in lib. Retract.

of the third day, chap. 12 and 17, and in the book of Retractions.

cap. 21.

chapter 21.

[7] Quarto seculo, Optato teste, major erat numerus Catholicorum in Africa, quum lib. 2, n. 1, Donatistis vix particulam concedat, dicens: «Ergo ut Ecclesia in particula Africae, in angulo parvae regionis, apud vos esse possit, apud nos in alia parte Africae non erit?» At eodem labente seculo ac vergente, longe plures erant Schismatici, ut refert Possidius in Augustini Vita cap. 7, dum ait: «Per sanctum illum virum, levare in Africa Ecclesia Catholica exorsa est caput, quae..... rebaptizante Donati parte majorem multitudinem Afrorum, seducta et oppressa jacebat.» Suspicor ita crevisse factionem, quia intra unius seculi spatium vix unus, et alter, Optatus nempe, et Augustinus, inventi sunt, qui scriptis illorum aperirent fraudes ac dolos, convincerentque insidias, quum interim Donatistae omnes per singula loca maledicis vocibus perstreperent, ut loquitur Optatus lib.

[7] In the fourth century, with Optatus as witness, the number of Catholics in Africa was greater, since in book 2, no. 1, he scarcely concedes even a particle to the Donatists, saying: «Therefore, that the Church can be with you in a particle of Africa, in a corner of a small region, will it not be with us in another part of Africa?» But in the same century, as it was waning and sinking, the Schismatics were far more numerous, as Possidius reports in the Life of Augustine, chapter 7, when he says: «Through that holy man, the Catholic Church in Africa began to lift its head, which..... with the party of Donatus rebaptizing the greater multitude of the Africans, had lain seduced and oppressed.» I suspect that the faction thus grew, because within the space of a single century scarcely one and another—namely Optatus and Augustine—were found who by writings would lay bare their frauds and deceits, and would confute their plots, while meanwhile the Donatists everywhere in each several place were making a din with slanderous voices, as Optatus says in book.

1, num. 4, quibus ipse ab aliqua occasione arrepta respondit. Quo modo, inquit Optatus, «satisfiet, et desideriis aliquorum.

1, num. 4, to which he himself responded, some occasion having been seized. ‘In what way,’ says Optatus, «will there be satisfaction, even to the desires of some?»

Nam a multis saepe desideratum est, ut ad eruendam veritatem, ab aliquibus defensoribus conflictus partium haberetur; et fieri potuit.».

For by many it has often been desired that, to unearth the truth, a conflict of the parties be held by some defenders; and it could have been done.».

[8] Intelligit Ambrosius Episcopos Arimino lapsos anno Christi 359, quos fidem ejurare coegit Constantius die 10 Oct. ejusdem anni, dum paupertate, et aetate lassis Episcopis, reditum ad propria negat. Quae tantorum malorum fuerit causa Severus Sulpicius prodit lib.

[8] Ambrose understands the Bishops at Ariminum as having lapsed in the year of Christ 359, whom Constantius compelled to abjure the faith on 10 Oct. of the same year, while he denied to the Bishops, wearied by poverty and by age, a return to their own homes. What was the cause of such great evils Severus Sulpicius sets forth in his book.

2 Historiae sacrae, c. 41, disserens de legatis ad Imperatorem missis: «Ex parte nostrorum, inquit, leguntur homines adolescentes, parum docti et parum cauti: ab Arianis autem missi senes, callidi, et ingenio valentes, veterno perfidiae imbuti, qui apud Regem superiores facile exstiterunt.» At cognito dolo Ariminenses Episcopi contestabantur corpus Domini, et quidquid in Ecclesia sanctum est, se nihil mali fuisse suspicatos, quae flentes asserebant parati, et subscriptionem pristinam, et omnes Arianorum Blasphemias condemnare, ut loquitur Hieronymus in Dialogo cont. Luciferianos.

2 Sacred History, ch. 41, discussing the legates sent to the Emperor: «On our side,» he says, «are chosen young men, little learned and little cautious; but by the Arians are sent old men, crafty and strong in natural talent, steeped in the torpor of perfidy, who before the King easily proved superior.» But once the trick was known, the Ariminensian Bishops were calling to witness the body of the Lord, and whatever is holy in the Church, that they had suspected nothing evil—things which, weeping, they were asserting—being ready both to condemn their former subscription and all the blasphemies of the Arians, as Jerome says in the Dialogue against the Luciferians.

[9] Ita prorsus Codd. Regii, quum editiones haberent Confessionum. Baluzius.

[9] Exactly thus the Royal codices, while the editions had Confessionum. Baluzius.

[10] Secundus Carthaginensium praesulum, quorum memoria ad nos usque pervenit. Sub eo duo celebrata fuere Carthaginensia Concilia, primum de haereticis baptizandis ab Episcopis Proconsularis Africae ac Numidiae, in tertii seculi initio. NamTertullianus qui certo, ut fertur, lapsus est circa haereticorum baptisma, ait in libro de Baptismo edito post annum Chr.

[10] The second of the Carthaginian prelates whose memory has come down even to us. Under him two Carthaginian Councils were celebrated, the first on the baptizing of heretics, by the bishops of Proconsular Africa and Numidia, at the beginning of the 3rd century. ForTertullian, who certainly, as it is reported, lapsed concerning the baptism of heretics, says in the book On Baptism, published after the year of Christ.

200: «Circa haereticos sane quid custodiendum sit digne quis retractet? ad nos enim editum est;» quibus verbis ad Agrippini respexisse decretum concedet aequus lector. Hinc non satis recte a P. Harduino affixum est tale Concilium ann.

200: «Concerning heretics, indeed, who would worthily re-examine what must be kept? for it has been issued to us;» by which words an equitable reader will concede that he had reference to Agrippinus’s decree. Hence such a Council has not been quite rightly affixed to the year by P. Hardouin.

Chr. 215, praesertim quum Cyprianus in Ep. 73, ad Jubajanum data anno Chr. 254, dicat: «Apud nos non nova aut repentina res est, ut baptizandos censeamus eos, qui ab haereticis ad Ecclesiam veniunt, quando multi jam anni sunt, et longa aetas, ex quo sub Agrippino bonae memoriae viro convenientes in unum plurimi Episcopi hoc statuerunt.» Alterum Concilium, in quo sancitus canon: Ne clericus ullus tutelam, curamve susciperet, celebratum fuit circ.

A.D. 215, especially since Cyprian in Ep. 73, to Jubaianus, given in A.D. 254, says: «Among us it is not a new or sudden matter that we deem those who come to the Church from heretics to be to-be-baptized, since many years now, and a long time, from the point when, under Agrippinus, a man of good memory, very many bishops, coming together into one, established this.» The other Council, in which a canon was sanctioned: That no cleric should assume a guardianship or a curatorship, was held circ.

ann. Chr. 215.

A.D. 215.

[11] Celebrato a Cypriano III, Carthaginensi Concilio in causa rebaptizationis anno Chr. 255 vel 256, Kal. Sept.

[11] The 3rd Carthaginian Council, celebrated by Cyprian on the matter of rebaptization, in the year of Christ 255 or 256, on the Kalends of September.

cum Episcopis 87 Proconsularis Provinciae, Numidiae, ac Mauritaniae, graviter commotus est Stephanus, qui paulo ante Lucio successerat. Unde coacta anno 256, Romae synodo acres aculeatasque dedit ad Africam, ac Firmilianum, Helenum Tarsi, aliosque Apostolicas litteras, et si fidem habemus Dyonisio Alexandrino in Epist. ad Xystum, statuit «non communicandum esse his, qui rebaptizant; sed debere considerare magnitudinem rei, quia non, quicumque, sed permagni, et nobiles Episcopi viri sunt, quibus hoc visum est.».

with 87 Bishops of the Proconsular Province, of Numidia, and of Mauretania, Stephen was gravely stirred, who shortly before had succeeded Lucius. Whence, a synod having been convened at Rome in the year 256, he sent sharp and stinging Apostolic letters to Africa, and to Firmilianus, to Helenus of Tarsus, and to others; and—if we give credence to Dionysius of Alexandria in the Epist. to Sixtus—he decreed: «that there must be no communion with those who rebaptize; but that one ought to consider the magnitude of the matter, because it is not just whoever, but very great and noble Bishops, men to whom this has seemed.».

[12] Deperdita epistola sententiam servatam habemus in Ep. 74, Cypriani ad Pompeianum. Consultus enim a Pompeio Sabratensi Episcopo haec ex Stephani epistola decerpsit: «Si quis ergo a quacumque haeresi venerit ad nos, nihil innovetur, nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illi imponatur in poenitentiam; quum ipsi haeretici proprio alterutrum ad se venientes non baptizent, sed communicent tantum.» Non errasse Pontificem in rebaptizationis negotio tanta argumentorum luce probat Doctissimus Pater D. Constantius Coustant, tom. 1, Epist.

[12] We have the preserved judgement of the lost letter in Ep. 74 of Cyprian to Pompeianus. For, having been consulted by Pompeius, Bishop of Sabrata, he excerpted these from Stephen’s epistle: «If therefore anyone from whatever heresy shall have come to us, let nothing be innovated, except what has been handed down: that hands be laid upon him for penitence; since the heretics themselves do not baptize those coming to them from their own party one to another, but only communicate.» That the Pontiff did not err in the business of rebaptization the Most Learned Father Dom Constantius Coustant proves with such a light of arguments, vol. 1, Epist.

Pontif. a pag. 2217, ut nimium tardus, vel malignus sit, qui illis non suadetur.

Pontif. from page 2217, that he be too tardy, or malign, who is not persuaded by them.

[13] Tertium intelligit Africae universale, quod singulari modestia refellit Augustinus lib. 2 et 3, de Bapt. cont.

[13] He understands the third as an African universal, which Augustine refutes with singular modesty in books 2 and 3, On Baptism against the Donatists.

Donatist.

[14] Filios verenda patris sui superjecto dorsis pallio aversos operuisse est, ut Gregorius 25 Moral., cap. 22, loquitur, bonis subditis sic praepositorum suorum mala displicere, ut tamen haec ab aliis occultent: «Operimentum, inquit, aversi deferunt, quia judicantes factum et venerantes magisterium nolunt videre, quod tegunt.» Quod prudens optimi Pontificis ac Vincentii monitum, summopore commendat celebris ex Protestantium parte editor Cypriani Joannes Fellus Episcopus Oxoniensis; at aliis placet Patrum castigare errata, inter quos libenter nomen professus est suum Clericus; quam ob causam in Ep. 6 Crit. et Eccles.

[14] It is that the sons, turned away, covered their father’s shameful parts with a cloak cast upon their backs, as Gregory, Moralia 25, chapter 22, speaks, that the faults of their superiors should so displease good subjects, yet that they conceal these from others: «They carry the covering, he says, turned away, because, judging the deed and venerating the magisterium, they do not wish to see what they cover.» Which prudent admonition of the best Pontiff and of Vincent is most highly commended by John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, the celebrated editor of Cyprian from the Protestant side; but it pleases others to chastise the errors of the Fathers, among whom Le Clerc gladly professed his own name; for which cause in Ep. 6 Crit. et Eccles.

culpat dissimulationes omnes in Ecclesiastica historia ut illicitas. At demus magnorum hominum esse castiganda peccata, ne forte incauti illa sequantur; quo tamen modo id a quibusdam est praestitum, non dico christianum, sed nec ingenuum decet hominem, nempe cum amaritudine, rabie, acerbitate; dolose levia errata invidiosis vocibus exaggerando, praeteritis dissimulatisque ingentibus meritis. De tali ac tanta iniquitate graviter postulatus est Clericus ipse a viris probitate et doctrina conspicuis, quod opus fuit advertere, morem ipsi gerendo, ne quid notitia dignum dissimuletur in Ecclesiastica historia.

He blames all dissimulations in Ecclesiastical history as illicit. But grant that the sins of great men are to be castigated, lest the incautious perchance follow them; yet the manner in which this has been performed by some befits, I do not say a Christian, but not even a freeborn man—namely, with bitterness, rage, acerbity; dolously exaggerating slight errors with invidious words, while vast merits are passed over and dissembled. For such and so great iniquity the Cleric himself was gravely arraigned by men conspicuous for probity and doctrine, which it was needful to advert to, in paying deference to him, lest anything worthy of notice be dissimulated in Ecclesiastical history.

[15] 2 Tim. 2.

[15] 2 Timothy 2.

[16] Gal. 1.

[16] Galatians 1.

[17] Suspicatur P. Macedo respexisse Gelasium Pontificem ad hunc Vincentii locum, dum in Epist. ad Episcopos per Picenum constitutos, vocat delirum quemdam senem Pelagianum muscam morituram, quum vulgata lectio, ut ille loquitur, habeat muscae morientes; unde in Comment. Eccl.

[17] P. Macedo suspects that Gelasius the Pontiff looked back to this passage of Vincent, while in the Epistle to the bishops constituted throughout Picenum he calls a certain delirious old Pelagian “a dying fly,” whereas the vulgate reading, as he speaks, has “muscae morientes”; whence in the Ecclesiastical Comment.

Polem. cap. XI, infert Lirinensem non fuisse Pelagiana lue infectum.

Polem., chapter 11, infers that the Lérinian was not infected with the Pelagian pestilence.

Poterat addere, appellari etiam ranam a Gelasio. «Oblatus est nobis, inquit, miserabilis senex Seneca nomine, in Pelagianae voraginis coeno, sicut de quibusdam in Apocalypsi legimus, velut una ranarum imprudenter immersus. At Gelasio notum fuisse Vincentii opus, non credo: alioquin illi meritum rependisset honorem in recensione librorum, et testimonium illud Eccl.

PHe could have added that he is also called a frog by Gelasius. «He was presented to us,» he says, «a miserable old man by the name Seneca, in the mud of the Pelagian whirlpool, just as we read in the Apocalypse about certain ones, as though imprudently plunged in as one of the frogs.» But that Gelasius knew Vincent’s work, I do not believe: otherwise he would have repaid to him the deserved honor in the review of books, and that testimony of the Church.

10, v. 1, de muscis morituris forte legit in Optato Milevitano lib. 7, num. 4, vel Augustino lib.

10, v. 1, about dying flies he perhaps read in Optatus of Milevis, book 7, number 4, or in Augustine, book.

2 cont. Ep. Petiliani cap. X, ubi ait: «Propter numerositatem muscis arbitror esse comparatos; sed hi exterminant oleum suavitatis, qui non ipsam Dei gratiam, sed hominum mores intuentur.»

2 cont. Ep. of Petilian, chapter 10, where he says: «On account of their numerosity I judge them to be compared to flies; but these exterminate the oil of suavity, who look not to the grace of God itself, but to the mores of men.»

[18] Deut. 13.

[18] Deuteronomy 13.

[19] Haec est lectio Cod. Reg. Unde confirmatur conjectura Barthol.

[19] This is the reading of the Royal Codex. Whence the conjecture of Barthol. is confirmed.

Petri Duac., qui in margine edit. suae adnotavit hic legendum aestus pro eo quod editiones habebant actus. Baluzius.

Peter of Douai, who in the margin of his edition annotated that here one should read aestus instead of what the editions had, actus. Baluze.

[20] Miror doctissimum virum Dionysium Petavium tom. 5. Theolog. dogm.

[20] I marvel at the most learned man Dionysius Petavius, vol. 5 of the Dogmatic Theology.

lib. 1, cap. 6, n. 15, oppositum legere, quasi nempe Vincentius dixerit, et ipsum plena fidei sanitate, reclamantibus editionibus, ac contextu ipso: praesertim quia non latuit virum omnigena eruditione refertum a Basilio in Ep. 293, et a Gregorio Nazianzeno in Ep. 1, ad Cled.

I marvel that the most learned man Dionysius Petavius, vol. 5 of the Dogmatic Theology, book 1, chapter 6, no. 15, reads the opposite, as though indeed Vincent had said that he himself too was of full soundness of faith, the editions and the very context protesting: especially because it did not escape a man replete with omnigenous erudition that by Basil in Ep. 293, and by Gregory Nazianzen in Ep. 1, to Cled.

pag. 744, reprehensum fuisse Apollinarem, ut in Sabellii errorem inclinantem, cujus rei testes hic posterior affert libros illius. Hinc minime audiendus Leontius in lib.

page 744, Apollinaris is said to have been reprehended, as inclining toward the error of Sabellius, of which matter this latter here adduces his books as witnesses. Hence Leontius is by no means to be hearkened to in the book.

de sectis Act. 4, tom. 11, Bibl.

on the sects, Act. 4, vol. 11, Bibl.

PP. dum affirmat hominem non errare circa Trinitatem. «Tametsi, inquit, Gregorii ambo etiam hac in parte erroris illum arguant.» Sed praeter Gregorios exstat etiam Basilius et Lirinensis, ut alios omittam; unde suspicor non pervenisse ad Leontium Apollinaris libros, in quibus erratum deprehendit Nazianzenus: nisi forte quis dicere malit, hominem contraria dogmata vulgasse, quod accidere illi potuit, dum «in tractanda Theologia non e Scripturis, sed ex humanis inventis argumenta petebat,» quemadmodum ait Basilius.

PP. while he affirms that the man does not err concerning the Trinity. «Although,» he says, «both of the Gregories even in this part charge him with error.» But besides the Gregories there stand forth also Basil and the Lerinensian, to omit others; whence I suspect that the books of Apollinaris did not reach Leontius, in which Nazianzen detected the error: unless perhaps someone should prefer to say that the man published contrary dogmas, which could have happened to him, while «in handling Theology he sought arguments not from the Scriptures, but from human inventions,» as Basil says.

[21] Rom. 7.

[21] Romans 7.

[22] Ut Ariani facilius improvidis suaderent Verbum alterius esse a Patre substantiae, passum asseruere in carne; ac animae instar fuisse corpori divinitatem illam Verbi veluti secundariam aiebant; unde ex eorum mente in humanitatem quasi conversa erat divinitas, dum substantivae hominis formae in Christo locum tenuit. Hunc errorem assumptae humanitatis destruentem fidem praeter Lirinensem exprobat illis Leontius de sect. Act 2, Athanasius in lib.

[22] So that the Arians might more easily persuade the improvident that the Word is of another substance than the Father, they asserted that it suffered in the flesh; and they said that that divinity of the Word had been, for the body, in the likeness of a soul, as it were a secondary [principle]; whence, in their mind, the divinity was as if converted into humanity, while it held in Christ the place of the substantive form of man. This error, destroying the faith of the assumed humanity, besides the Lérinian, Leontius, On the Sects, Act 2, reproves in them, and Athanasius in a book.

de salutari Adventu, et in altero de incarnatione Christi: ac potissimum Hilarius in toto lib. X de Trinitate, unde numer. 9, ait: «Volunt plerique eorum ex passionis metu, et infirmitate patiendi, non in natura eum impassibilis Dei fuisse..... Sed inferioris a Deo Patre naturae, et humanae passionis trepidaverit metu, et ad corporalis poenae congemuerit atrocitatem.» Quae quum ita sint, jam sine ambiguitate ulla facile dirimitur tota controversia, quam Claudianus Mamertus, Berengarius ac Joannes quidam apud Philippum bonae spei Abbatem excitarunt Hilario, quasi humanas in Christo Passiones neganti num.

on the salvific Advent, and in another on the Incarnation of Christ: and most especially Hilarius in the whole book 10 on the Trinity, whence at number 9 he says: «Most of them wish, out of fear of the Passion and the infirmity of suffering, that he was not in the nature of the impassible God..... but that, of a nature inferior to God the Father, he trembled with fear of human passion, and groaned at the atrocity of bodily punishment.» Since these things are so, now without any ambiguity the whole controversy is easily settled, which Claudianus Mamertus, Berengarius, and a certain John, with Philip, Abbot of Good Hope, stirred up against Hilary, as though he denied human Passions in Christ no.

23 ejusdem libri dum inquit: «Passus quidem est Dominus Jesus Christus, dum caeditur, dum suspenditur, dum crucifigitur, dum moritur: sed in corpus Domini irruens Passio, nec non fuit Passio, nec tamen naturam Passionis exseruit, dum et poenali ministerio desaevit, et virtus corporis sine sensu poenae vim poenae in se desaevientis excepit.» Sensus ergo est: Passio qua caesus est Christus, fuit ex parte corporis, seu humanitatis a Verbo assumptae, quae sensu, dolore, tolerantia demutata est; sed vera non fuit ex parte Verbi, quod demutationis effectibus caruerit: et hoc est quod Hilarius inquit Filium Dei vim poenae in se desaevientis sine sensu poenae excepisse. Consulat Lect. generalem praefat.

23 of the same book, when he says: “The Lord Jesus Christ indeed suffered, when he is beaten, when he is suspended, when he is crucified, when he dies: but the Passion, rushing upon the body of the Lord, both indeed was a Passion, and yet did not exert the nature of Passion, while in its penal ministry it raged, and the power of the body, without sensation of pain, received in itself the force of the punishment raging against it.” The sense therefore is: the Passion by which Christ was struck was on the part of the body, that is, of the humanity assumed by the Word, which was altered by sensation, pain, endurance; but it was not true on the part of the Word, which lacked the effects of change: and this is what Hilarius says, that the Son of God received the force of the punishment raging against him without the sensation of pain. Let the Reader consult the general preface.

praemissam Operibus D. Hilarii Edit. P. Coustant. § III.

prefixed to the Works of St. Hilary, Ed. P. Coustant, § 3.

[23] Arbitratur Baluzius a sciolo quodam adjectam fuisse parenthesi Manichaeorum vocem: qui Vincentium non intelligens, putavit comparationem eam sumi a Manichaeis. Deinde ad voces Sacerdotem effingit, ait, tragoedos et comoedos induisse palam Episcopi personam, non secus ac aliorum hominum.

[23] Baluzius arbitrates that by a certain smatterer there had been added, in parenthesis, the term of the Manichaeans; who, not understanding Vincentius, thought that that comparison was taken from the Manichaeans. Then, with regard to the words “he portrays a Priest,” he says that tragedians and comedians have openly donned the person of a Bishop, no otherwise than that of other men.

[24] Quum tot, et tantae olim fuerint, quemadmodum et nunc sunt, otiosae haereticorum fraudulentiae contra Trinitatis Incarnationisque mysteria, stat nihilominus catholicae fidei integritas, tanquam rupes valida, et immota adversus omnes ventos, pluvias, torrentes, quia, inquit Hilarius lib. 2. de Trinit. numer.

[24] Although once there were so many and so great, as indeed now there are, the idle fraudulences of heretics against the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, nevertheless the integrity of the catholic faith stands, like a strong rock, and unmoved against all winds, rains, torrents, because, says Hilary, book 2 On the Trinity, num.

22. «Ut quaedam medicamentorum genera sunt ita comparata, ut non singulis tantum aegritudinibus utilia sint, sed omnibus in commune medeantur habeantque in se virtutem generalis auxilii; ita et fides catholica non adversus singulas pestes, sed contra omnes morbos opem medelae communis impertit; non infirmanda genere, non vincenda numero, non diversitate fallenda; sed una atque eadem adversum singula omniaque consistit. Magnum est enim, tot in una ea esse remedia, quot morbi sunt; et totidem veritatis esse doctrinas, quotidem erunt studia falsitatis. Contrahantur in unum nomina haereticorum, et omnes scholae prodeant: audiant unum ingenitum Deum patrem, et unum unigenitum Dei Filium perfecti Patris perfectam progeniem,» etc.

22. «Just as certain genera of medicaments are so constituted that they are useful not only for single ailments, but heal all in common and have within themselves the virtue of a general aid; so too the catholic faith does not impart the help of a common remedy against single plagues alone, but against all diseases; not to be enfeebled by kind, not to be conquered by number, not to be deceived by diversity; but one and the same it stands against each and against all. For it is a great thing that in that one there are as many remedies as there are diseases; and that there are just as many doctrines of truth as there will be pursuits of falsehood. Let the names of heretics be contracted into one, and let all the schools come forth: let them hear one unbegotten God the Father, and one only-begotten Son of God, the perfect progeny of a perfect Father,» etc.

quae sequuntur.

which follow.

[25] Vixit annos 69, quum labore confectum Tyri summum virum mors consumpsit ann. post Ch. ortum 254, quo anno Interamnae Gallus et Volusianus interfecti sunt. Eadem in urbe sepultus est, cujus sepulcri vestigia hodie superesse, qui loca illa lustrarunt, apud Huetium lib.

[25] He lived 69 years, when, worn out by toil, death consumed at Tyre the most eminent man, in the year A.D. 254, in which year at Interamna Gallus and Volusianus were slain. In the same city he was buried, the vestiges of whose sepulchre today survive, as those who have surveyed those places report, in Huetius, book.

1. Origen. cap. 4, num.

1. Origen. ch. 4, no.

7 et 9, referunt.

7 and 9 report.

[26] Valesius, et post illum Huetius ex hoc Porphyrii testimonio inferunt duos exstitisse Origenes, ambos Ammonii discipulos: nostrum, qui vulgo Adamantius est dictus, de quo Porphyrius tradit multam ex scriptis apud posteros gloriam fuisse consecutum, sibique adolescenti valde notum; alterum vero qui fuit Herennii, et Plotini condiscipulus, de quo frequens mentio in vita Plotini ab eodem Porphyrio scripta; nihilque posterorum memoriae reliquit praeter libellum de Daemonibus, ut constat ex Longino. Fuit autem hic condiscipulus, et aequalis Porphyrii Romae, si Eunapio fides. Verum, ut utriusque Origenis latum appareat discrimen, oportet advertere Adamantium imperantibus Gallo et Volusiano ex Eusebio obiisse: alterum vero ex Porphyrio in vita Plotini sub Gallieno in vivis fuisse, ac librum quemdam elaborasse.

[26] Valesius, and after him Huetius, from this testimony of Porphyry infer that there existed two Origenes, both disciples of Ammonius: our own, who was commonly called Adamantius, about whom Porphyry hands down that he had attained much glory among posterity from his writings, and that he himself, when a youth, knew him very well; and the other, who was Herennius’s, and a fellow‑student of Plotinus, of whom frequent mention is made in the Life of Plotinus written by the same Porphyry; and he left to the memory of posterity nothing except a little book On Daemons, as is evident from Longinus. Moreover, this man was a fellow‑student and contemporary of Porphyry at Rome, if Eunapius is to be trusted. But, that the broad difference of the two Origenes may appear, one must note that Adamantius, according to Eusebius, died under the emperors Gallus and Volusianus; whereas the other, according to Porphyry in the Life of Plotinus, was alive under Gallienus, and had composed a certain book.

[27] Quae fuerint haec Scripturarum capitula exponit Epiphanius in Anchoratu numer. 54 et 62, exordia scilicet Genesis: «Plerique, inquit, allegorice de Paradiso disputant, atque inter caeteros furiosus Origenes adumbratam nescio quam speciem pro veritate in mundum invexit.» Et posteriori num., «iterum: Redeo ad Originem (quod ipsi Deus ignoscat): absurdissimam aliam fabulam, et allegoriam fallendis hominibus proposuit, etc.» Vide S. Virum loc. laud.

[27] What these chapters of Scripture were, Epiphanius expounds in the Anchoratus, nos. 54 and 62, namely the beginnings of Genesis: «Many, he says, dispute allegorically about Paradise, and among the rest the frenzied Origen has brought into the world in place of truth some I-know-not-what adumbrated form.» And in the latter no., «again: I return to Origen (may God forgive him): he proposed another most absurd fable, and an allegory for deceiving men, etc.» See the holy man at the place cited.

Oportet tamen hic advertere, quod licet ab Origene peccatum sit ob frequentes allegorias, inter veteres tamen nemo accuratius illo etiam litteralem Scripturae sensum exposuit, ut probe notum est illis, qui ejus lucubrationes evolverunt. Hinc optandum sane est, ut paulo aequiores in Origenem fuissent nonnulli etiam ex veteribus; qui strenue quum usi essent hominis laboribus, graves postea ei lites excitarunt.

It ought nevertheless to be observed here that, although Origen may have erred on account of frequent allegories, yet among the ancients no one expounded even the literal sense of Scripture more accurately than he, as is well known to those who have perused his lucubrations. Hence it is truly to be wished that some, even among the ancients, had been a little more equitable toward Origen; who, though they had strenuously used the man’s labors, afterwards stirred up serious controversies against him.

[28] Hilarius in Matth. c. 5.

[28] Hilary on Matthew, chapter 5.

[29] Intelligit Priscillam et Maximillam, nobiles ac opulentas feminas, quae Ecclesias plures auro primum, deinde nefariis corrupere dogmatibus. De his ac Montano Prosper in Chronico ad Consulat. Cethegi et Clari, qui incidit in ann.

[29] He understands Priscilla and Maximilla, noble and opulent women, who corrupted several churches with gold first, then with nefarious dogmas. About these and Montanus, Prosper in the Chronicle under the consulship of Cethegus and Clarius, which falls in the year.

Christi 170: «Hâc tempestate pseudoprophetia, quae Cataphrygas nominatur, accepit exordium, Montano auctore, Prisca Maximillaque insanis vatibus. Nomen errori Provincia Phrygia dedit, quia inventores ejus illic primitus exstiterunt, ibique vixerunt, et nunc etiam in eisdem partibus populos habent. Adventum Spiritus Sancti a Domino promissum, in se potius, quam in Apostolos fuisse asserunt: secundas nuptias pro fornicationibus habent; et ideo dicunt eas permisisse Apostolum Paulum, quia ex parte sciebat, et ex parte prophetabat; nondum enim venerat quod perfectum est.

Christ 170: «At this time the pseudo-prophecy, which is named the Cataphrygians, took its exordium, with Montanus as author, and with Prisca and Maximilla as frenzied prophetesses. The province Phrygia gave its name to the error, because its inventors first arose there and lived there, and now even in those same parts they have peoples. The coming of the Holy Spirit promised by the Lord, they assert to have been in themselves rather than in the Apostles: they hold second marriages to be fornications; and therefore they say the Apostle Paul allowed them, because he knew in part and prophesied in part; for that which is perfect had not yet come.»

Hoc autem perfectum in Montanum, et in ejus prophetissas venisse delirant.» Vixit Tertullianus usque ad mediam aetatem Ecclesiae presbyter; «invidia postea, inquit Hieronymus in Catal. Scrip. Eccl.

But they rave that this perfection came into Montanus and into his prophetesses.» Tertullian lived, up to middle age, as a presbyter of the Church; «afterwards, out of envy,» says Jerome in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers.

cap. 53, et contumeliis Clericorum Romanae Ecclesiae, ad Montani dogma delapsus, in multis libris meminit novae prophetiae: specialiter autem adversum Ecclesiam texuit volumina: de pudicitia, de persecutione, de jejuniis, de Monogamia, de extasi libros sex, et septimum quem adversus Apollonium composuit.» Dolendus sane hominis lapsus, quia Hieronymo eodem teste in Epist. ad Magnum, inter Latinos nihil Tertulliano eruditius, vel acutius; quando Apologeticus ejus, et contra Gentes libri, cunctam seculi obtinent disciplinam.

chapter 53, and, through the insults of the Clerics of the Roman Church, having slipped down to the dogma of Montanus, in many books he makes mention of the new prophecy: but in particular he wove volumes against the Church: on pudicity, on persecution, on fasts, on Monogamy, on ecstasy six books, and a seventh which he composed against Apollonius.» Truly to be lamented is the man’s fall, because, with the same Jerome as witness in the Epistle to Magnus, among the Latins there is nothing more erudite or more acute than Tertullian; since his Apologeticus and his books Against the Gentiles comprise the entire learning of the age.

Fertur vixisse usque ad decrepitam aetatem.

He is said to have lived up to a decrepit age.

[30] Placuit Ecclesiae, ac bonis omnibus, ne fucus a desperatis hominibus veritati fieret; ut aliquando antiquus fidei sensus, novae appellationis proprietate signaretur; at indignati sunt nonnulli, inter quos Joannes Clericus, tomo primo Artis Criticae, ubi culpat voces ab Ecclesia sacratas, nempe Transubstantiationis, Consubstantialis, et similium quasi voces nihili: verum injusta est reprehensio, taliterque iste se gerit, ac si quis diceret, ut Hilarius loquitur libr. adv. Constantium Imperatorem num.

[30] It pleased the Church, and all good men, lest a disguise be put upon the truth by desperate men; that at length the ancient sense of the faith should be marked by the propriety of a new appellation; but some were indignant, among whom Joannes Clericus, in the first volume of the Art of Criticism, where he blames words consecrated by the Church, namely of Transubstantiation, of Consubstantial, and the like, as if words of nothing: but the censure is unjust, and this man conducts himself just as if someone were to say, as Hilary speaks, in the book against Constantius the Emperor, no.

16: «Nolo adversum nova venena novas medicamentorum comparationes, nolo adversum novos hostes nova bella, nolo adversum novas insidias concilia recentia.... Novitates vocum, sed prophanas devitare jubet Apostolus: tu cur pias excludis? quum praesertim ab eo dictum sit: Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est. Innascibilem, scriptum nunquam legis: numquid ex hoc negandum erit, quia novum est?

16: «I do not wish, against new poisons, new preparations of medicaments; I do not wish, against new enemies, new wars; I do not wish, against new ambushes, recent counsels.... The Apostle bids us to avoid novelties of words, but profane ones: why do you exclude pious ones? especially since it has been said by him: Every Scripture, divinely inspired, is useful. Innascible, you never read written: is it on this account to be denied, because it is new?

Decernis similem Patri Filium. Evangelia non praedicant: quid est, quod non refugis hanc vocem? In uno novitas eligitur, in alio submovetur.

You decree the Son similar to the Father. The Gospels do not proclaim it: why is it that you do not shrink from this word? In one case novelty is chosen, in another it is removed.

Ubi impietatis occasio, novitas admittitur: ubi autem religionis MAXIMA ET SOLA CAUTELA EST, excluditur.» Quare autem Clericus disserens de vocibus nihil significantibus in exemplum adducat voces illas ab Ecclesia sacratas, quis prudens intelligere potest, quando ex sensu et voluntate Ecclesiae jam legitimus illis vocibus affixus est sensus? quod fas semper fuit, eritque, licet frendentibus ferocioribus, et forte insanis Criticis, Poeta dicente: Licuit semperque licebit Signatum praesente nota procudere nomen.

Where there is an occasion of impiety, novelty is admitted: but where the GREATEST AND ONLY CAUTION of religion is, it is excluded.» Why moreover should a Cleric, discoursing about words signifying nothing, bring forward by way of example those words consecrated by the Church? Who that is prudent can understand this, when from the sense and will of the Church a legitimate sense has already been affixed to those words? which has always been lawful, and will be, though the more ferocious gnash their teeth, and perhaps the insane Critics, as the Poet says: It was permitted and will always be permitted to forge a name stamped with a present mark.

[31] Natu nobilis fuit, sed naturae vitio Eunuchus matris utero editus. An ob hanc causam á Lirinensi appelletur prodigiosus, incertum est; Patres tamen S. Mauri post Garnerium verisimile putant. Certe in Commonitorio Marii Mercatoris oblato Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae ac Theodosio, haec in illius exordio leguntur: Coelestius quidem Eunuchus matris utero editus].

[31] He was noble by birth, but by a defect of nature a Eunuch, born from his mother’s womb. Whether for this reason he is called prodigious by the Lirinensian is uncertain; however, the Fathers of St. Maur, following Garnerius, consider it likely. Certainly, in the Commonitorium of Marius Mercator, presented to the Church of Constantinople and to Theodosius, these words are read at its beginning: Coelestius indeed a Eunuch, born from his mother’s womb].

[32] Nemo ex his Vincentii verbis inferat, nullam osse pro peccantibus indulgentiam, remissionemque servatam dixisse Novatianum. Error namque ejus sequens fuit, quem antea defenderatTertullianus; inficiabatur fuisse Ecclesiae concessam potestatem, ut atrociora illa peccata, apostasiae nempe a fide, homicidii, ac fornicationis, per se remitteret, quum talium delictorum venia esset soli Deo reservata. Unde statuebat de illis perpetuo agendam esse poenitentiam.

[32] Let no one infer from these words of Vincent that Novatian said that no indulgence and remission was kept for sinners. For his subsequent error was the one which earlierTertullian had defended; he denied that power had been granted to the Church to remit by itself those more atrocious sins—namely apostasy from the faith, homicide, and fornication—since the pardon of such delicts was reserved to God alone. Whence he decreed that for them perpetual penance must be performed.

Pro minoribus vero peccatis agnovit in Ecclesia dimittendi facultatem. Vide Petavium, tom. IV. Theol.

But for lesser sins, indeed, he acknowledged in the Church the faculty of remitting. See Petavius, vol. 4, Theology.

dogm. lib. 3. Eccl.

Dogmatics, book 3. On the Church.

Hierar. cap. 12 num.

Hierarchy, chapter 12 number.

[33] Simonis impura, et nefanda dogmata, quae late describuntur ab Irenaeo, Epiphanio, et Theodoreto, discipulos defensoresque multos nacta sunt, ut Saturninum, Basilidem, hujusque filios Epiphanem, et Isidorum. Quorum infelices haeredes exstitere Cerdon, et Marcion, ac tertio Ecclesiae seculo Manichaei; his successere Priscillianistae, quos Manichaeorum cognatos appellat S. Leo in ep. olim 93, nunc 15, cap. 4. Unde Prosper in Chronico ad Coss.

[33] The impure and nefarious dogmas of Simon, which are widely described by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, found many disciples and defenders, such as Saturninus, Basilides, and his sons Epiphanes and Isidore. Their unhappy heirs were Cerdo and Marcion, and in the third century of the Church the Manichaeans; to these succeeded the Priscillianists, whom St. Leo, in his letter formerly 93, now 15, chapter 4, calls kin to the Manichaeans. Whence Prosper in the Chronicle under the Consuls.

Ausonium, et Olybrium: Ea tempestate Priscillianus Episcopus de Gallaecia, ex Manichaeorum et Gnosticorum dogmate, haeresim nominis sui condidit. Gnosticos autem a Simone sua habuisse exordia testis est Irenaeus.

Ausonius and Olybrius: At that time Priscillian, a bishop from Gallaecia, from the dogma of the Manichaeans and the Gnostics, founded the heresy of his own name. Moreover, that the Gnostics had their beginnings from Simon, Irenaeus is a witness.

[34] Optasse Simonem tanquam Deum ab omnibus glorificari, a multisque pro tali habitum, testis est Irenaeus lib. 1. adv. haer.

[34] That Simon desired to be glorified by all as a god, and was by many held as such, Irenaeus is a witness, Book 1, Against Heresies.

cap. 20 ex Edit. Erasmi; hinc non adeo facile exponi potest, quomodo dixerit, Dei creatoris impulsu et necessitate ferri homines ad malum.

chapter 20 from the edition of Erasmus; hence it cannot be expounded so easily how he said that, by the impulse and necessity of the creator God, men are borne to evil.

Ex Irenaeo autem haec habemus. Quum impius sublimissimam se profiteretur virtutem, ac Helenam quamdam, primam suae mentis conceptionem, per hanc dicebat angelos atque archangelos conditos; a quibus fabricatus Orbis ac praepostere moderatus, ad emendationem rerum, ut ipse veniret, compulerunt. Unde addebat, ut Irenaeus ait, «prophetas a mundi fabricatoribus Angelis inspiratos dixisse prophetias; quapropter monebat, ne ulterius curarent eos, hi qui in eum, et in Helenam ejus spem habebant, et ut liberos agere quae velint.

From Irenaeus, however, we have these things. When the impious man professed himself the most exalted Virtue, and a certain Helena, the first conception of his mind, he said that through her the angels and archangels were created; by whom the World was fabricated and, in an inverted way, governed, so that, for the emendation of affairs, they compelled that he himself should come. Whence he added, as Irenaeus says, «that the prophets, inspired by the Angels who are the fabricators of the world, spoke prophecies; wherefore he warned that those who had their hope in him and in his Helena should no longer care about them, and that they should act as free persons, to do what they wish.»

Secundum enim ipsius gratiam salvari homines, sed non secundum operas justas. Nec enim esse naturaliter operationes justas, sed ex accidentia, quemadmodum posuerunt qui mundum fecerunt Angeli, per hujusmodi praecepta in servitutem deducentes homines.» Propter haec forte Lirinensis dixit ex ejus mente necessitate impelli homines ad malum.

For men are saved according to his grace, but not according to just works. For neither are there naturally just operations, but from accident, just as the Angels who made the world laid these down, leading men into servitude through precepts of this kind." Because of these things, perhaps the Lérinian said that, in his mind, men are impelled by necessity to evil.

[35] Quae fuse hic et sequentibus numeris, de Scripturae abusu apud haereticos, ait Lirinensis, decerpta sunt ex lib. Tertulliani de Praescript., praesertim cap. 38, 39 et 40. Vide infra.

[35] What is set forth at length here and in the following numbers, concerning the abuse of Scripture among heretics, the Lerinensian says, is excerpted from Tertullian’s book On the Prescription, especially chapters 38, 39, and 40. See below.

[36] An haec de parvulis incaute austera pocula sorbentibus, decerpserit ex lib. 4 Lucretii de Natura rerum, definire non audeo; similia tamen sunt his, quae iste canit, dum praeter meritum se extollit:.... Pueris absinthia tetra medentes Quum dare conantur, prius oras pocula circum Contingunt mellis dulci flavoque liquore: Ut puerorum aetas improvida ludificetur Labrorum tenus, interea perpotet amarum Absinthi laticem, deceptaque non capiatur, Sed potius tali facto recreata valescat. At quia minime valescit, qui amarum obscoenumque ebibit errorem, licet colore multo obductum; propterea S. Vir consulto illorum profert exemplum, qui noxios succos medicaminum vocabulis praecolorant, ex quibus certa funestaque oritur mors.

[36] Whether he plucked these about little ones incautiously sipping austere cups from book 4 of Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, I do not dare to determine; yet they are similar to these which that fellow sings, while he exalts himself beyond his merit: .... When physicians try to give to boys the grim absinthe, first they touch the rims around the cups with honey, sweet and golden liquor: so that the improvident age of the boys may be trifled with up to the lips; meanwhile he drains to the full the bitter liquor of absinthe, and, though deceived, he is not captured, but rather, by such a deed, refreshed, he grows strong. But because he in no way grows strong who drinks down the bitter and foul error, though overlaid with much coloring, therefore the Holy Man advisedly brings forward the example of those who pre‑color noxious juices with the names of medicaments, from which a sure and deadly death arises.

[37] Ex hoc loco infert Dallaeus, in libro de Vero usu Patrum, inconstantes fuisse Patres in fidei doctrina. At Lirinensis haec mens est: quia per plura in superioribus ostenderat non raro divino judicio humanaque infirmitate accidere, ut Ecclesiastici viri magni meriti ac scientiae labantur, et contra Apostolum nova dogmata annuntient, quod probarat exemplis Photini,Apollinaris, Nestorii, Origenis, ac Tertulliani; ne quis praetextu auctoritatis horum perversa sectaretur dogmata, ut in fine 24, num. ait: hac de causa prudenter hic monet, haud audiendos esse illos, qui constanter non docuerunt, et vixerunt in Ecclesiâ. Unde in num.

[37] From this passage Dallaeus, in the book On the True Use of the Fathers, infers that the Fathers were inconstant in the doctrine of the faith. But this is the mind of the Lerinensian: because by many points in the foregoing he had shown that not rarely, by divine judgment and human infirmity, it happens that ecclesiastical men of great merit and knowledge slip, and announce new dogmas contrary to the Apostle—which he had proved by the examples of Photinus,Apollinaris, Nestorius, Origen, and Tertullian—lest anyone, under the pretext of the authority of these men, should follow perverse dogmas, as he says at the end of 24, num.: for this reason he prudently warns here that those are not to be listened to who did not teach consistently, though they lived in the Church. Whence in num.

45, loquens de Sacerdotibus, qui Ephesi convenerant, inquit: «Hoc optimum factu visum est ut in medium SS. Patrum sententiae proferrentur; quorum alios Confessores, omnes vero Catholicos, Sacerdotes fuisse, et permansisse constaret, ut scilicet rite atque solemniter ex eorum consensu atque decreto antiquum dogma firmaretur.»

45, speaking about the Priests who had convened at Ephesus, he says: «This seemed the best thing to do, that the judgments of the Holy Fathers be brought into the midst; of whom it would be established that some were Confessors, but all indeed Catholics, had been and had remained Priests, so that, namely, duly and solemnly by their consensus and decree the ancient dogma might be made firm.»

[38] 1 Cor. 1.

[38] 1 Corinthians 1.

[39] Apposite haec praescribit Lirinensis ex Apostoli sensu. Nam duo Corinthiis in laud. loco praecipit: primum, ut sacrarum litterarum interpres in priores spectet, a quibus Verbum Dei processit in posteros.

[39] Aptly does the Lérinian prescribe these things from the Apostle’s sense. For he prescribes two things to the Corinthians in the laud. passage: first, that the interpreter of the sacred letters should look to the former, by whom the Word of God has proceeded into the latter.

An, inquit, a vobis Verbum Dei processit? alterum, ne quisquam sensum suum tenaci contentione defendat, sed prius reliquos Ecclesiae Doctores consulat; ut si viderit omnibus probari id quod sentit, tuto jam teneat: sin reprobari, tuto jam deserat; quod innuit quum ait: Aut in vos solos pervenit. Consulat lector doctiss.

"Did the Word of God proceed from you?" he says; the second point: that no one defend his own sense with tenacious contention, but first consult the other Doctors of the Church; so that, if he has seen that what he understands is approved by all, he may now safely hold it; but if it is reprobated, he may now safely abandon it; which he intimates when he says: "Or did it come to you alone?" Let the most learned reader consult.

virum Melch. Canum liber 7 de locis Theol. cap.

the man Melchior Cano, book 7 of On Theological Places, chap.

[40] Inter haereticos, qui Ecclesiam turbare conati sunt, ac stylo fidei vexare sententias, praecipuus exstitit Julianus praesertim ex quo sub Zosimo ann. Chr. 418, ab Eclanensi dejectus est Episcopatu, imo pulsus ex Italia, vagus, et extorris nullibi sedem certam habens.

[40] Among the heretics who tried to disturb the Church, and to vex the sentences with the stylus of faith, Julian stood forth as preeminent, especially from the time when, under Zosimus, A.D. 418, he was cast down from the bishopric of Eclanum, nay, driven out of Italy, a wanderer and an exile, having nowhere a fixed seat.

Nam primo Constantinopolim fugit, sed ann. Chr. 431, vel 432, post Ephesinam Synodum ejectus in Gallias migravit.

For at first he fled to Constantinople, but in the year of Christ 431 or 432, after the Ephesian Synod, having been ejected, he migrated into the Gauls.

Anno vero 439, Xysto Papa sedente, seu per fraudem, seu per speciem voluit se ab errore vindicare, cujus dolis Leonis prudentia, et sagacitas restitit, Prospero teste in Chronico: «Hac tempestate, inquit, Julianus Eclanensis jactantissimus Pelagiani erroris assertor, quem dudum amissi Episcopatus intemperans cupido exagitabat multimoda arte fallendi correctionis speciem praeferens, molitus est in communionem Ecclesiae irrepere. Sed his insidiis Sixtus Papa Diaconi Leonis hortatu vigilanter occurrens, nullum aditum pestiferis conatibus patere permisit: et ita omnes Catholicos de rejectione fallacis bestiae fecit gaudere, quasi tunc primum superbissimam haeresim Apostolicus gladius detruncasset.» Et quoniam fallax hereticus novas turbas sub Leone jam Pontifice circa ann. Chr.

In the year 439, while Pope Sixtus sat, whether by fraud or by semblance he wished to vindicate himself from error, whose wiles Leo’s prudence and sagacity withstood, Prosper being witness in the Chronicle: «At this time,» he says, «Julian of Eclanum, the most vaunting assertor of the Pelagian error, whom an intemperate desire for the bishopric long since lost was goading, by manifold art of deceiving putting forward the appearance of correction, endeavored to creep into the communion of the Church. But to these ambushes Pope Sixtus, meeting them vigilantly at the exhortation of the deacon Leo, permitted no access to be open to the pestiferous attempts: and thus he made all Catholics rejoice at the rejection of the deceitful beast, as though the Apostolic sword had then for the first time lopped off the most arrogant heresy.» And since the deceitful heretic, with Leo now Pontiff, stirred new tumults around A.D.

444, ciebat: propterea adversus saucium fidei hostem, jamque multis debilitatum ictibus movit arma Leo, teste altero Prospero in op. de Promissionibus et Praedictionibus Dei cap. 6, part. 4. Addit Vignerius, et post cum PP. S. Mauri, hunc ipsum in felicem haereticum post longas hac illacque aberrationes, ob quas alter Cain profugus, et extorris a Fulgentio appellatur, ultimi denique perfugii loco viculum quemdam in Sicilia incoluisse; ubi suae sectae homines docens, factus est ex Episcopo ludimagister, quam occupationem longe ante ei destinarat Augustinus, ut genio et eruditioni ejus congruentem in lib.

444, he was stirring things up: therefore against the enemy of the faith, now already debilitated by many blows, Leo moved arms, as another Prosper attests in the work On the Promises and Predictions of God, chapter 6, part 4. Vignerius adds, and later with the Fathers of St. Maur, that this very unhappy heretic, after long wanderings here and there—on account of which he is called by Fulgentius another Cain, a fugitive and exile—at last, as a place of final refuge, inhabited a certain little village in Sicily; where, teaching men of his sect, he was made from a Bishop a schoolmaster, which occupation Augustine had long before destined for him, as congruent to his genius and erudition, in the book.

2. Op. imper. num. 51: «Loqueris de homonymis, et aequivocis: quomodo ergo te ipsi saltem Pelagiani intellecturi sunt nisi prius ad scholas Dialecticorum, ubicumque terrarum potuerint inveniri, propter haec dicenda mittantur?

2. Imperfect Work, no. 51: «You speak about homonyms and equivocal terms: how then are the Pelagians themselves, at least, going to understand you, unless first they be sent to the schools of the Dialecticians, wherever in the world they can be found, for the sake of these things that are to be said?»

An forte et categorias Aristotelis, antequam tuos libros legant, eis exponens ipse lecturus es? Cur non et hoc facias, homo ingeniosissimus, quandoquidem a deceptis miseris pasceris otiosus?» Sic Hieronymus de pseudodiacono Celedensi Anniano aiebat: «Copiosissime pascitur, ut alienae blasphemiae verba frivola subministret.»

Or perhaps even Aristotle’s Categories, before they read your books, will you yourself be reading to them, expounding them? Why not do this too, most ingenious man, since, idle, you are nourished by deceived wretches?» Thus Jerome said about the pseudo-deacon Annianus of Celeda: «He is most copiously fed, so that he may furnish frivolous words to another’s blasphemy.»

[41] Hae duae lineae, quibus admonetur Lector de jactura secundi Commonitorii, exstant in antiquis editionibus, itemque in recentiore ex Codd. Regiis, ad quorum fidem Baluzius Lirinensis castigavit opus; retinere autem eas cum omnibus placuit.

[41] These two lines, by which the Reader is admonished about the loss of the second Commonitorium, are extant in the ancient editions, and likewise in the more recent one from the Royal codices, according to whose authority Baluzius of Lérins emended the work; moreover, it has pleased all to retain them.

[42] Celebrata est Synodus ann. Ch. 431, in Ecclesiâ, quae appellatur Maria; de qua sic Prosper in Chron: «Congregata apud Ephesum plus ducentorum Synodo Sacerdotum,Nestorius cum haeresi nominis sui, et cum multis Pelagianis, qui cognatum errori suo adjuvabant dogma, damnatur.» Vide eumdem in lib. cont.

[42] A Synod was celebrated in the year of Christ 431, in the Church which is called Mary; concerning which Prosper speaks thus in the Chronicle: «A Synod of more than two hundred priests, congregated at Ephesus,Nestorius, together with the heresy of his own name, and with many Pelagians, who were aiding a dogma cognate to his error, is condemned.» See the same in the book against.

Collat. 21, cap. numer.

Collation 21, chapter number.

[43] In act. 1. Concil., post subscriptiones Episcoporum haec leguntur: «Postquam hi omnes Nestorii depositioni subscripsissent, accesserunt alii Episcopi ad sanctam Synodum, qui et ipsi quoque praepositae damnationi subscripserunt; Episcopi itaque, qui ipsum Nestorium deposuerunt, plures quam du centi exstitere: aliqui enim locum tenuerunt alio rum Episcoporum, qui ad Ephesiorum Metropolim venire non potuerunt.»

[43] In act. 1 of the Council, after the subscriptions of the Bishops, these things are read: «After all these had subscribed to the deposition of Nestorius, other Bishops came to the holy Synod, who also themselves subscribed to the preposed condemnation; therefore the Bishops who deposed Nestorius himself were more than two hundred: for some held the place of other Bishops, who were not able to come to the Metropolis of the Ephesians.»

[44] At non minus ordinis, quam numeri oblitus est S. Vir. Ordinis, quia post Petrum, et Athanasium memorandi erant Julius, et Felix, post TheophilumCyprianus, deinde Ambrosius, quibus subdendi erant Nazianzenus, Basilius, ac Nyssenus, non praetermisso Attico Episcopo Constantinopolitano, et Amphilochio Iconii praesule, quorum testimonia postremo fuere in Synodo laudata. Unde infertur, numeri etiam fuisse oblitum, quia non decem, ut paulo post ait, sed duodecim fuerunt tanquam testes, judices, ac consiliarii in Synodo introducti.

[44] But the Holy Man was no less forgetful of order than of number. Of order, because after Peter and Athanasius, Julius and Felix ought to have been mentioned; after Theophilus,Cyprian; then Ambrose; to whom should have been subjoined Nazianzen, Basil, and Nyssen, with Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, and Amphilochius, prelate of Iconium, not passed over—whose testimonies were at last praised in the Synod. Whence it is inferred that he was forgetful also of number, because not ten, as he says a little after, but twelve were introduced into the Synod as witnesses, judges, and counselors.

Et sane Amphilochii et Attici retinenda esse testimonia ex fide MSS. Codicum, ac ex Mario Mercatore ostendit P. Harduinus tom. 1. Concil.

And indeed that the testimonies of Amphilochius and Atticus are to be retained on the faith of the manuscript codices (MSS.), and from Marius Mercator, P. Hardouin shows in tome 1 of the Councils.

pag. 147; quibus addere liceat vetustissimum codicem Bibl. Vaticanae num.

page 147; to which one may add the most ancient codex of the Vatican Library, no.

1342, etiam testimonia illa exhibentem, qui a Baronio in annalibus frequenter appellatur Collectio Cresconiana.

1342, also exhibiting those testimonies, which is frequently called by Baronius in the Annals the Collectio Cresconiana.

[45] De Theophilo, et Joanne Chrysostomo haec habet Prosper in Chron. ad Cons. Vincentii, et Fraviti, qui incidit in ann.

[45] Concerning Theophilus and John Chrysostom, Prosper has these things in the Chronicle, at the Consulship of Vincentius and Fravitus, which falls in the year.

Ch. 401: «Joannes Constantinopolitanus, et Theophilus Alexandrinus illustres Episcopi habentur. Sed utrumque obscuravit discordia, quae eo usque processit, ut Joannes a Theophilo oppressus, Pontum exilio pergere cogeretur; quum tamen communionem ejus maxima pars Episcoporum, Romani Pontificis exemplum secuta, servaverit.»

Ch. 401: «John of Constantinople and Theophilus of Alexandria are held as illustrious Bishops. But discord overshadowed both, which went so far that John, oppressed by Theophilus, was compelled to proceed to Pontus in exile; although nevertheless the greater part of the Bishops, following the example of the Roman Pontiff, preserved his communion.»

[46] Capreolus Aurelio successit, at quo anno incertum est, apparet tamen circa ann. Ch. 430. Hunc ad Synodum Theodosius per litteras invitavit cum Afris Praesulibus, et nominatim Augustinum.

[46] Capreolus succeeded Aurelius, but in what year is uncertain; it appears, however, around the year of Christ 430. Theodosius invited him by letters to the Synod, together with the African Prelates, and by name Augustine.

Sed quum novem fere mensibus ante concilii celebrationem Augustinus coelum petiisset, et una simul ob temporis acerbitatem, Vandalis Genserico duce omnia vastantibus ac depopulantibus, Primas Synodum haud cogere posset, ut ab illa electi Ephesum mitterentur, vel saltem honorifica, ac solemnis legatio: voluit nihilominus pro Ecclesiasticae disciplinae observantia, Besulam Carthaginensem Diaconum, ad Synodum dirigere; cujus legationis meminit ipse Capreolus in Epist. ad Vitalem, et Tonantium, quam ex MS. Codice Sirmondus edidit.

But since nearly nine months before the celebration of the council Augustine had sought heaven, and at the same time, on account of the harshness of the times, the Vandals, with Genseric as leader, were laying waste and depopulating everything, the Primate was not able to convene a Synod, so that from it those elected might be sent to Ephesus, or at least an honorable and solemn legation: nevertheless he wished, for the observance of ecclesiastical discipline, to dispatch Besula, a Carthaginian Deacon, to the Synod; of which legation Capreolus himself makes mention in the Epistle to Vitalis and Tonantius, which Sirmondus published from a MS. Codex.

[47] Capreoli verba haec sunt: «Vestram sanctitatem iterum atque iterum rogatam cupio, ut Spiritu Sancto cooperante quem cordibus vestris, in omnibus quae acturi estis, praesto futurum non dubito, novas doctrinas, et antehac Ecclesiasticis auribus inusitatas, priscae auctoritatis robore instructi e medio profligetis, atque ita quibuscumque novis erroribus resistatis.» Hujus epistolae fragmentum recitat Ferrandus in Ep. ad Pelagium et Anatolium, S. R. E. Diaconos, alia tamen latinitate.

[47] Capreolus’s words are these: «I desire that your sanctity, asked again and again, with the Holy Spirit cooperating—whom I do not doubt will be at hand for your hearts in all the things you are going to do—may, equipped with the strength of ancient authority, drive out from your midst new doctrines, previously unaccustomed to ecclesiastical ears, and thus resist any new errors.» A fragment of this epistle is recited by Ferrandus in the Epistle to Pelagius and Anatolius, Deacons of the Holy Roman Church, yet in different Latinity.