rthy of the same praises, and that we may attain the same kingdom, by the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.
DIATRIBA ON THE IMPERFECT WORK ON MATTHEW, WHICH CIRCULATES UNDER THE NAME OF CHRYSOSTOM
We are compelled to publish this book at the end of this sixth volume, because the following volume, namely the seventh, contains the true Commentary of Chrysostom on Matthew; and this true Commentary is so extensive that it can scarcely be contained in its entirety within a single volume. Therefore, lest we be forced to relegate this imperfect Work to the eighth volume, before the Commentary on John—as Morellus did—we thought it would be to the point if we placed it at the end of this sixth volume. We obtained a codex from the Carthusians of Vallis Dei, which had been offered to me of his own accord by D. Innocent le Tellier, the Prior of that same charterhouse; and after he passed away not long ago, his successor, D. Jean Baptiste Soucanye, very kindly provided me with a copy of it. Although the codex is not of such great antiquity, it is nevertheless accurately transcribed, and it was exceedingly useful to us. A
This Commentary has provided a huge occasion for controversy; it is called the *Imperfect Work on Matthew* for this reason: it is not a complete and perfect commentary, but many things are wanting in the middle and at the end. Moreover, there has been much debate as to whether it is truly Chrysostom’s or not, and whether this Interpreter, whoever he may be, is a Catholic, or a heretic, or an Arian. Regarding this matter, the task falls to us to proceed: namely, to report what Erasmus thought about this Work, and what Joannes Mahusius of the Order of Friars Minor, Sixtus Senensis, Baronius, and Tillemont thought. Next, we shall inquire whether this writer, whoever he may be, can be cleared of heresy, whether he is Chrysostom or not, and we shall also discuss the time, the style, and the apocryphal books praised by him, etc. First, however, we bring forward Erasmus’ judgment on this matter, such as it is found in the Basle Edition of Chrysostom of the year 1530, in the third volume, page 473, where he also relates the opinion of some who had preceded him. B
§ I. — Erasmus’ opinion concerning the Imperfect Work on Matthew.
"Firstly, there is no doubt that this work is not by Chrysostom; and since it has heretofore been frequently printed under his name, we did not wish to omit it, especially since it is the work of a learned and eloquent man, and one so exercised in the divine scriptures that, in my opinion at least, he does not yield to Chrysostom in this regard. I suspect that he wrote in Latin, although he also knew Greek. Regarding the words, his language is impure. That was the ecclesiastical style at the time, and as it was common to the people, so it was pleasing to them. The rest marks a man of learning. Therefore, it would have been a sin if this work had perished, which, however, was held until now to be varied and mutilated in more ways than one in ancient copies. We have followed the most recent edition, which was the best, but one collated with ancient copies. It does not matter to guess who the author was or in what times he lived. He himself testifies that he wrote after the Church began to be shaken by countless heresies under the Christian Caesars. Moreover, besides the fact that he sometimes has not a little of Origen’s freedom in explaining the Scriptures, some opinions are sprinkled throughout that do not much abhor those dogmas that have been condemned. C I shall indicate some of these to the reader, so that he may be more cautious in reading. These are not homilies, but someone or other divided the work in this way. In Homily 1, where we read, 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,' he wants it to be understood of Christ, not of the Paraclete; although the passage seems corrupted to me. In the same, 'He did not know her,' that is, he did not know her dignity before the birth; after the birth he recognized her eminence—this he interprets in a forced manner. Homily 3, near the end, says that the incredulous are not chaff by nature, but by their own will, as if faith were in our will and not rather a gift of God, or as if we were not all born children of wrath without grace. This, however, can be excused. Homily 4, near the end (this is a note: but it is not contained in this homily), openly denies the equality of the Son and the Holy Spirit, whom he calls the minister of the Son. This, I suppose, is Origenistic. In certain codices, some person or other attempted to amend this place, D but in vain, since in other places he pronounces the same thing openly; for instance, in Homily 20, just as he admits a distinction of persons, so he openly denies their equality; and he repeats this a little later. Likewise, Homily 48 lists the *Homoousians* among heretics. And Homily 45 speaks thus of heretics: 'When you see heretics saying that the three are in all things equal, of the same substance, of the same authority,' etc.
A
Nor does the recent edict of Pope Paul IV stand in the way of these things, since it did not simply and entirely reject this whole work, which has for so many centuries been approved by the common consent of the Church; but it merely forbids the copies of this work which are discovered to have been corrupted by heretics contrary to the author's intent, and which are defiled by the filth with which they now teem. That this filth and these impurities crept into these commentaries not by the author's fault, but by the fraud of heretics, is argued by a triple indication: first, that certain very ancient copies contain none of these errors, but have everything written in the margins by another hand. Second, that whatever is heretical is so woven into the genuine text by way of interpolation that, if it were cut out, the sentence would not change by a hair's breadth; which certainly could not happen if it had been honestly woven in by the author himself, just as no limb can be removed from a human body without the disfiguring mutilation of the whole structure. Third, that it is not credible that the author, who was neither mad nor forgetful, should have thought and said things contrary to himself while writing on the same subjects and often in the same places, especially in those matters concerning which he is accused of being an Arian. For how would it be probable that he should have agreed with the Arians regarding the inequality and the diverse substance of the Father and the Son, when he defends the unity and equality of both in many places against the Arians? Especially in Homily 44, B on those words: WOE UNTO YOU, SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, WHO SHUT UP THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Where he writes: "Thus also now, heretical priests shut the door of truth. Therefore, when they read in their own people anything like this, HE THAT SENT ME IS GREATER THAN I, they shut the door of truth by a perverse interpretation, saying that the Son is lesser than the Father; when, however, he is called lesser according to the dispensation of the flesh." And Homily 28, in the exposition of that sentence, ALL THINGS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO ME BY MY FATHER, proposing and dissolving the argument of those who from these words would construct that the Son is lesser than the Father, says this: "To whom all things have been delivered, if the Father and the Son are one; or why could he not have them, unless they had been delivered to him, if he was in all things equal to his Father? For the signification of delivery excludes both the reason of unity and of equality. I answer: They were delivered to him according to that by which he was made a little lower than the angels; for according to that which he did not think robbery to be equal to God, God is one and equal to him who delivered all things." And Homily 45, explaining that of Matthew 23, AND YOU FILL UP THE MEASURE OF YOUR FATHERS, he says: "When you see heretics saying that the three are in all things equal, not of the same substance, not of the same authority, all of them without beginning, differing from each other in some part, do not marvel: for they fill up the measure of their pagan fathers, since they likewise worshiped many gods." C By these words, indeed, what could be said more openly against the Arian opinion which is ascribed to this author? This, therefore, is the controversy concerning these commentaries: let those more learned than I judge of it. I, for my part, have nothing to add, except that this work itself is eloquent and learned, and worthy to be read assiduously, if only it were first most diligently purged of those errors which we have noted in the sixth book in the censures upon the expositors of Matthew. The author flourished, as can be gathered from his 33rd and 39th homilies, after the times of Theodosius Augustus; and he also wrote commentaries of similar industry on other evangelists.
Here you have some of those things which John Mahusius had said above, but in a somewhat more elegant style. Moreover, Baronius and many others seem to have made nothing of the opinion of Mahusius, who held this writer to be an Arian heretic. D
§ IV. — The opinion of Baronius concerning the *Opus imperfectum* in Matthew, *Hist. Eccl. T. V*, for the year 407. Tillemont's opinion on the same subject.
"I cannot bear with a calm mind that there should be ascribed to a most holy man fifty-four homilies, hitherto assigned to his title, which they call the *Opus imperfectum*, so as to distinguish them from the perfected commentary on the same evangelist, which contains ninety-one homilies. For who would not rightly be disturbed when he sees ascribed to a most holy man, by an uncertain author, but a certain heretic, and a most dreadful one, those purulent homilies, teeming with the vermin of heresies, which have not one iota of Chrysostom either in diction, or in sentiments, or in dogmas; but contain the scattered heresies of the Manichaeans, Montanists, Arians, and Donatists; and in everything the author clearly betrays himself as being far, far removed from the Catholic Church; who often detracts from the Catholic Church diffused throughout the whole world, and contends that truth is scarcely to be found in a few?" Thus far Baronius.
Further, Tillemont has these things to say about the *Opus imperfectum*, which we render into Latin: "I do not think one should discuss long about that *Opus imperfectum*. It is certainly thought to have been written rather in Latin than translated from Greek into Latin. But it is entirely certain, however much it may be disputed to the contrary, that it was Arian, and most addicted to the Arian heresy. It would be a long and perhaps not very useful search to explore at what time he lived. It is surely certain that he wrote after Theodosius the Great, who had overthrown Arianism, as this writer complains. However, what he has concerning the tithes of fruits suggests that he should be relegated to the final times of Arianism, to about the seventh century, since this heresy persisted and reigned in Spain up to the end of the sixth century: yet this writer often complains that his Church is oppressed and vexed. And indeed, from the mode of thinking, from the way of imagining, and the unusual manner of arguing, he could easily be believed to be a Spaniard. From other places, however, one might believe him to have been more ancient. Further, he seems to have been a bishop, but driven from his Church, and it is discovered that he also made commentaries on Mark and Luke.
Some have thought that all those heresies which occur here and there in this work were inserted by heretics, and that, those additions being removed, the sentence remains perfect and plain, and that there are still held manuscript Codices where those additions are written in the margin and by a different hand. If the matter is so, I wonder that no edition has been made according to the authority of those Codices. For the benefit of ecclesiastical affairs, an author of this kind might approach the Catholic side; an author, I say, who is held in some estimation, and perhaps greater than he deserves. For unless such an edition is issued by men worthy of belief, it can scarcely be persuaded to readers that a writer of this kind can be brought back to the Catholic side. It is certainly easier to believe that those few places where he seems to attack Arianism were either inserted or changed on purpose, which were added also in a rude and incautious manner. It is narrated that an edition was issued at Antwerp in the year 1545, which was printed again at Paris, from which some Franciscan removed the places favoring Arianism; but they say that he also removed many Catholic things. But this edition surely did not please the learned, since all the editions which were issued afterward appeared with the usual errors. It would have to be explored whether different works were joined together at the same time, as from a few places it might perhaps seem to be indicated."
Father Vastelius, however, thinks this work to have been written by John, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the end of the fourth century; but besides many other difficulties which promptly offer themselves against this opinion, this itself remains an ar-
argument rejected, because it is impossible to believe that the Bishop of Jerusalem placed Jerusalem to the west of Galilee.
A § V. — This Work cannot be Chrysostom’s: an inquiry into who its author might be, and at what time it was written. B It is certain that this *Imperfect Work* neither is, nor can be, Chrysostom’s; all the marks of a spurious work are present here: the style is perplexed, crude, and gaunt, differing wonderfully from Chrysostom’s style, the form of diction, the tropes, and the method of beginning and concluding; so much so that anyone who has even moderately frequented his writings would not even have thought of attributing this to that holy doctor, not to mention the Arian heresy occurring throughout these homilies, and other errors, of all of which more will be said shortly. Moreover, this writer undoubtedly wrote in Latin, as is evident from the nature of the style itself, and from the passages of Sacred Scripture, the greatest part of which was excerpted from Latin Bibles; but what leaves no room for doubt is that this author, whoever he may be, sometimes makes use of the Greek Biblical text as being different from his own.
One may rightly ask whether the author himself, in order to gain authority for his heresy, placed the name of Chrysostom on his work, or whether he published the work anonymously, and the name of Chrysostom was subsequently prefixed to it by someone. It is certainly true that the work was designated by Chrysostom’s name from ancient times, as is argued from the place of Pope Nicholas in his responses to the consultations of the Bulgarians, Tom. 8 of Labbé’s Councils, p. 518, no. 31, where it is said: «If this consent should happen to be missing alone in a marriage, everything else, even if celebrated with the sexual act itself, is void; as the great doctor John Chrysostom testifies, who says: Coitus does not make a marriage, but the will.» You have this passage in homily 32 near the middle. Wherefore it might perhaps be believed that the author himself prefixed the name of John of Constantinople to his work, so that he might strengthen his errors with the authority of such a great doctor. But that is not without its own difficulty.
Furthermore, if this writer counterfeited Chrysostom’s name, it should not be inferred that he himself was a bishop because he says in Homily 8, shortly after the beginning: «But we who are pastors of each region;» but if he counterfeited Chrysostom, he also counterfeited being a bishop. When he said at the beginning of Homily 32 that he was absent in body, he could have pretended to be Chrysostom in exile, which was also done by the person who assigned the Letter to Caesarius the Monk to Chrysostom, in order to confirm the Eutychian heresy by the testimony of such a great doctor. Hence it is clear that it cannot be argued from the quoted words that this author was a bishop, if indeed he prefixed the name of John to his work, which is certainly not probable.
But how could he have pretended to be Chrysostom, someone who says in Homily 52 near the middle: «For if we consider from the time when Christ ascended into heaven, and how long men lived before the flood, it is nearly the same interval as the time that was the life-span of each of them.» That is, as many years had passed since Christ's ascension as the number of years that antediluvian men were accustomed to live; yet before the flood the life of men was nine hundred years, nay, more; whence it seems to follow that he who set this note of time could not have pretended to be Chrysostom, or prefixed his own name to this work. Yet this note cannot be taken as the words sound; for besides what the word *near* signifies here, it is certain that this book had been in use for a long time in the ninth century as if it were Chrysostom’s. Moreover, all those things said about Theodosius the Great and the subsequent time, about the religion of the Gentiles as still flourishing, and about the Church, bishops, and priests being everywhere Arian—all these, I say, do not seem able to be referred to the ninth or eighth century, nay, hardly to the seventh; wherefore that calculation of years must undoubtedly have been made carelessly.
The note in which Theodosius is discussed has these things in Homily 49, shortly after the beginning: «And we have indeed explained here the rumors of wars, and famines, and earthquakes, and pestilences, rumors of heresies, and famines of the word, and the shaking of Christians, and corruptions of morals, which preceded from the time of Constantine up to the time of Theodosius. We have said, however, that the abomination of desolation is this very heresy, which occupied the places of the holy Church, and devastated many from the faith, and [is] the army of Antichrist itself, and the other heresies, which were able to have churches in public, obtaining the holy place of the Church. But if anyone understands the rumors of wars, famines and tumults, and pestilences to be all these spiritual evils which have occurred from the time of Constantine until now, let him understand the abomination of desolation to be Antichrist himself, who is hoped to come afterward and to obtain the holy places of the Churches under the guise of Christ, and to desolate many of the faithful; he does not say this irrationally.»
Thus he deplores the afflicted state of the Arians, who, having been repelled under Constantine by the Nicene faith, were afterward prostrated under Theodosius the Great, so that from that time until now, or until the author's time, they have always been in a state of ruin. This, however, he sings throughout almost the entire book: for he was truly an Arian, as will be proven shortly. He says the same thing in Homily 49 slightly before the middle, namely that at the time of Theodosius the Church was desolated, that is, the Arianism which he himself argued was the one true Church; which he indicates in the same Homily below: «The heresy of the Homoousians,» he says, «is not only opposed to the Church of Christ, but also to all who do not think similarly about heresy.» He repeats this in very many places. Having weighed these things, I think this work was written either around the end of the sixth or in the seventh century. Tillemont, however, who had not noticed that former note of time, wrote these things about the date: «It is certainly true that he wrote after Theodosius the Great, who had overthrown Arianism, as this writer laments. But what he has about the tithes of produce persuades me that it should be relegated to the latter times of Arianism, to about the seventh century; since this heresy remained and reigned in Spain until the end of the sixth century: but this writer often complains that his Church is oppressed and vexed. And indeed, from the mode of thinking, from the power of imagining, and from the unusual manner of arguing, he would easily be thought to be a Spaniard. Yet from other places he might be believed to be older.»
Now I will not ask at what time tithes began to be paid in the Church, for I do not think that pertains to our undertaking. For when this writer mentions tithes, he is not speaking of tithes of produce, such as were instituted in the Church; but of the portions of ecclesiastics which were given by the ancient Christians, which he calls tithes because it concerns the tithes of the Old Testament here, where that evangelical passage is explained: *Woe to you who tithe mint and dill and cummin*. On the occasion of this saying, this writer says: «Therefore the priests, full of avarice, if anyone from the people had not offered tithes, rebuked him as if he had committed a great crime, because he had not offered the tithe of any thing, or at least the least bit. If anyone from the people sinned against God... No one cared to rebuke him... Thus it is done now. For behold the bishop, if he does not receive the debt of honor from a priest, or a priest if he does not receive it from a deacon, or a deacon from a reader, he is angered and disturbed. But if he sees either a bishop [or] a priest... And everyone keeps a watchful eye on their own portions according to their dignity and defends them, and they do not attend to the service of the Church according to their dignity to expend care. If the people do not offer tithes, everyone murmurs: and if they see a sinning people, they do not murmur against them. How concisely he has gathered in these three (namely, judgment and mercy and faith) both the conditions of men and what things are necessary for men for salvation.» These last words, *if the people do not offer tithes, etc.*, are clearly referred to the place of the Gospel where concerning the deci-
A which were to be paid under the Old Testament; nor do I think that it can be inferred from this that tithes were paid by Christians at that time. That which Tillemont adds, that these things might have been said by a Spaniard, because the Arian heresy flourished in Spain until the end of the sixth century—that, I say, can be refuted by this argument: if he were a Spaniard, and if he wrote in the seventh century, he ought not to have referred the extinction of the Arian heresy to Theodosius. For the Arian heresy had flourished there under the Arian kings, and was suppressed by Reccared and subsequent kings. On the contrary, this writer indicates more than once that he lives under the Roman Empire, as in the places mentioned above, and also in another B Homily, 38, near the middle, where he says: "For just as a coin has the image of Caesar, so man has the image of God: and just as the gold coin which does not have the image of Caesar is deemed worthless, so also man, who does not show in himself the image of God, is considered worthless."
Moreover, that which seems to confirm the things said above is that, when these things were being written, the religion of the Gentiles was still flourishing, as is argued from those things which are read in Homily 10, near the middle: "For example, if the priests teach well, and live better, the Gentiles seeing it say: Blessed is God, who has such servants. For truly their God is the true God... For the discipline of the Lord is demonstrated by the morals of the family. Not like our philosophers who speak great things, and do not do even small things." And Homily 13, near the middle: "Let us see whom the Gentiles pray to, so that we may know why they pray thus. They pray to demons, who, even if they hear, cannot answer; they pray to dead kings, to Jupiter, Mercury, and the rest." And Homily 20, before the end: "But if he has suffered anything concerning the foundation of the faith: that is, if he has been prevaricating and has passed over to the Gentiles or heretics, then his ruin is great." Many things of this kind are found, and especially at the end of Homily 26, where he exhorts that one should beware of the company of the Gentiles.
§. VI. It is proved that this writer was truly an Arian and an Anomoean.
Whoever this writer may be, he clearly proves himself to be an Arian and an Anomoean. And since for many centuries past, and as is to be believed, from the very time and hand of the author, it has had the name of Chrysostom, or John of Constantinople, prefixed to it, many, happening upon so many places bearing signs of Arianism, have either attempted to reduce them to the Catholic sentiment by changing certain things, or have completely excised them; others later, who happened upon these truncated and altered copies, wrote in the margins those things which had been removed. Erasmus testifies above that he had seen some copies of this kind. Some, moreover, having caught sight of these errors and others also of a different sort, suppressed the name of John Chrysostom. But Mahusius the Franciscan, who had the intention of attributing this Commentary to John Chrysostom, edited this Commentary according to some corrected copy, as he thought. But his attempt was in vain: for the Arianism is still detected in the copy, as we shall say below. For those who attempted to cleanse the work did not perform it as happily as will be demonstrated a little later.
Now this author wrote when, after the times of Theodosius, the remnants of the Arians and Anomoeans were gradually being extinguished, through the efforts of the bishops and other Catholics, whom he everywhere assails as heretics and the worst of heretics, while he laments the fate of his own sect, already reduced to a small number. Furthermore, he pours out the poison of his heresy everywhere. Thus in Homily 19, after the middle: "Their fruits produce nothing for use: there is no shadow of refreshment in them. And it is true indeed, because he called all the iniquitous heretics thorns and thistles: yet perhaps the Lord, knowing C that this heresy was going to prevail over all others, called them thistles, as professors of the Trinity, and carrying the triangular impiety in their perfidy." Here he speaks of the Trinity of equal persons, which the Arians condemned, and which this writer himself repudiates. Mahusius left this impious statement in his edition, even though it manifestly attacks the Catholic Church, which he says here and elsewhere prevailed, and obtained primacy over other heresies, and indeed from the time of Theodosius, when most certainly the Catholic faith prevailed over all sects. And Homil. 22, shortly before the end: "But perhaps the heretic says, wishing to show the Father and Son as one or equal: This place is not to be understood so, but thus: If I, being established under power, can command those who are under my power, how much more you," etc. Mahusius, however, removed everything here that smacked of the Arian heresy. And Homily 28, shortly before the middle, in these words, "All things have been handed over to me by my Father," it has: "To whom have they been handed over, if the Father and Son are one? Or why could he not have, unless they had been handed over to him, if he were equal in all things to his Father?" Mahusius, however, left this passage intact, because a little further down some things are added which seem to approach Catholic doctrine.
But clearly Homily 34, shortly after the middle, in these words, "The Lord said to the steward of his vineyard: 'Which steward? Without doubt the Son says to the Holy Spirit. And if you wish, I concede to you that the Father says to the Son, I do not ask whether the Son is the steward of the Father, or the Holy Spirit the steward of the Son; but I say this, because a steward of a house and the head of the family cannot be of the same substance, nor be one person, nor have equal dignity. If, therefore, the one is the head of the family and the other the steward of the head of the family, how will your trinity have any place? But if this one is of the same substance, and is less, he does injury to the substance. If, however, there is not equal dignity, how can there be one substance?'" Mahusius removed all these things, although they exhibit the style, the sequence, and the doctrine of the first author.
But Homily 35, near the middle, speaks thus regarding these words, "It is not mine to give to you": "What then? Did Christ lie when he said, It is not mine? No. For everyone who has power, if he has received it from another, it truly belongs to him who gave it. For what did the Son have that was his own, when he was not his own, but the Father's? Therefore, between him whose it is not, and him whose it is, there is neither one person nor equal power. For if one God, and Father, and Son, either he certainly can, or he certainly cannot. Who has seen anyone worship such a one as the celestial God, who is powerful in half, and impotent in half? Or who would think them equal, whose power is not equal?" Mahusius removed these last parts, from the words, "Therefore between him, etc."
But Homily 45, before the end, on these words, "Fill up the measure of your fathers," says this: "Consequently, this is also said to heretics. For when you see heretics saying that the three are equal in all things, of the same substance, of the same authority, all without beginning, do not be surprised at those who deviate in some part from themselves: for they fill up the measure of their fathers the Gentiles, since they also similarly worshipped many gods. When you see them saying that the three are one person, and that it is the same God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, do not be surprised: for they fill up the measure of their fathers the Jews. For thus they also always worshipped one God the Father, not confessing the Son as God after the Father. When you see them confessing and saying that the Son proceeded from the very substance of the Father, just as every physical son from the body of the father, and they apply a carnal act to an impassible and invisible spirit, know that they fill up the measure of their fathers the Gentiles. For they also worshipped such gods, who were generated and generated according to the flesh. When you see them saying that a mere man was crucified, both in soul and body, not God alone in the body, in whom there would be no divinity: know that they fill up the measure of their fathers the Jews: for they also, believing that they had crucified a mere man, said to the apostles: Behold D
A you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you wish to bring upon us the blood of this man.” For if it was a mere man who suffered, I dismiss it: because the death of a man, not of God, has saved us. But I say that the Jews committed such a sin as he commits who kills a man, not God. When you see them persecuting and doing all the things we have spoken of, do not wonder: for they fill up the measure of the Jews and of their Gentile fathers. B And this passage also, Mabusius entirely removed. But who would ever believe that it had been interpolated into the writer’s text? For here not only are the Catholics maligned, but heretical dogmas are also falsely ascribed to them. Where it is to be noted that in the remainder of this homily many things are said against the heretics, namely the Homoousians and the Catholics, as if they were persecuting the true Church; those who, he says, breaking open the bowels of the mother, advanced to power. But who were those who in the time of Theodosius had arrived at power, if not the Catholics? For he complains that from the time of Theodosius to his own time, even until now, that sect has prevailed. And throughout almost the entire following homily, he inveighs against those heretics who ran rampant in his own time and that of his fathers. “How much have our fathers suffered,” he says, “from the heretics.”
In the 48th Homily, however, the entire fraud of those who often truncated or interpolated the author’s sequence is detected. For thus, around the middle, it reads: “For every impious heresy appears to rise up against those heresies which do not think similarly; as for instance the heresy of Photinus (sic) is not only opposed to the Church of Christ, but to all heresies that think differently. The heresy of the Homoousians is not only opposed to the Church of Christ, but also to all heresies that do not think similarly.” It is manifest that in this passage, by merely changing the name of the heresy or the heretics, an unwanted repetition was introduced: for the very same thing is said in nearly the same words about the heresy of Photinus and the heresy of the Homoousians, and it is most certain that one or the other was introduced into the series. Moreover, every suspicion—I will not say certainty—falls upon the heresy of Photinus, which, having been proscribed and almost suppressed in the Church during the fourth century, never flourished in such a way that it could cause so much trouble to the Church of God and to all other heresies; but I have explored that those who attempted to reduce this writer, who so often professed himself an Arian, to a Catholic sentiment by removing and changing several passages, wished to substitute the words about Photinus with those things which are said about the Homoousians, so as to render the author of the commentary a Catholic, even against his will: and afterwards, by what chance I do not know, it happened that both clauses remained in the text in all the copies I have seen, with the exception of the Mabusius edition, where those things which are said about the Homoousians were, according to custom, removed. That the writer wishes to attack the Homoousians, or Catholics, here, is evident from those things which are read at the beginning of the following Homily, 49: where this writer, treating of the abomination of desolation and of Antichrist, has this: “For the armies of Antichrist are all the heresies, especially that one which has obtained the place of the Church, and has stood in the holy place, so that it appears as if the word of truth had stood, when it is not the word of truth, but the abomination of desolation, that is, the army of Antichrist, which has rendered many souls desolate of God. And this is perhaps what the Apostle says: *Who opposes and is exalted above everything that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God as if he were God, showing himself as if he were God.* And thus all the evils of the diverse heresies, which were previously only heard of, afterwards stood in the holy place, desolating the Church of Christ.” And what is that heresy which has held the place of the Church and stood in the holy place, and that from the time of Theodosius, as he himself says elsewhere, if not the Catholic Church, which he himself calls the heresy of the Homoousians? And who would believe these words were spoken about the Photinians, the most obscure of heretics?
C §. VII. — Other errors which are detected in this work. When anyone has departed from the unity of the Church, it is no wonder if he falls into various errors: for the anchor being lost, the ship is carried every which way. Therefore, this writer, whom we have demonstrated to have been an Arian, scatters various errors everywhere, some of which—and indeed the principal ones—we shall not hesitate to touch upon here. Just as the Donatists, the anonymous author says, that the baptism of heretics is nothing, and that those who have been baptized by heretics must be baptized anew; thus in the fifth Homily, shortly before the end: “From then Jesus began to preach, from the time when he was indeed baptized in water by John: but in the Spirit by the Father, so that he might be able of himself to baptize others—I speak according to man—because if he had not been baptized, he could not baptize others. But how can a naked man clothe the naked, or how can a beggar make another rich? So also he who himself is not baptized, how can he give baptism to another? According to this, we also say concerning heretics: that where there is faith, there is the Church: where the Church is, there is the priest: where there is a priest, there is baptism: where there is baptism, there is a Christian. But where there is no faith, there is no Church: where there is no Church, there is no priest: where there is no priest, there is no baptism: where there is no baptism, no one becomes a Christian. Why then does he rebuke as if it were a second baptism, who does not understand what the first is?” Mabusius also passed over this passage, because it was missing in one copy; for some of those who considered it to be Chrysostom’s work had removed these things as being supposedly unworthy of Chrysostom. And similarly, in the middle of the third Homily above, he removed two passages which conveyed the same things regarding baptism, which passages nevertheless not only pertain to the sequence but had been posited by the first author, as I indeed believe.
In the first centuries of the Church, when the Gentiles raged against the Christians, it was cautioned that Christians should not offer themselves to the idolaters, nor should they attack those who were hostile to the Christian name and openly confess and preach Christ in their presence, lest by this means grave persecutions should be stirred up against the Christians. But this writer in Homily 23, around the middle, says that those who in any way keep silent about the truth are traitors to the truth: “But we have said these things,” he says, “because many Christians think it a sin to openly transgress the truth, but do not think it a sin to keep silent about the truth in the presence of unbelievers, and therefore many are found in this guilt... See that not only is he a transgressor of the truth who openly denies the truth, but also he who, because of the fear of those who can kill the body, is silent about the truth.”
But in the eleventh Homily, around the middle, these things are wrongly said about the Eucharist: “If therefore it is so dangerous to transfer these sanctified vessels to private uses, in which the true body of Christ is not contained, but the mystery of his body is contained: how much more should we not give the devil room to act in the vessels of our bodies, which God has prepared for Himself as a dwelling place.” Moreover, this passage is missing in some copies; and in other places this anonymous author truly approaches more closely to the Catholic doctrine concerning the Eucharist.
Furthermore, in the thirty-second Homily, around the middle, he speaks thus rashly concerning second marriages: “And the apostles commanded to enter into second marriages on account of the incontinence of men. For to take a second wife is indeed according to the command of the Apostle. But according to the reason of truth, it is truly fornication; but while it is committed publicly and licentiously with God’s permission, it becomes a lawful fornication.”
The studious reader will perhaps observe not a few things of this kind: for, as Erasmus notes above, this writer has many suspect and disapproved opinions; and otherwise, he who has once abandoned the faith, what wonder is it if he errs in various places or speaks rashly? D
§. VIII. — Regarding the style of this anonymous author. He has culled much from apocryphal books. Although this author, whoever he may be, is not unlearned,