[... which] by the help of God, dissent has been driven from their region. Concerning those others, we have proven that the Apostle spoke prophetically, that in the last days perilous times would come, and there would be men who are lovers of self, having a form of piety but denying its power; and that therefore they are to be avoided. A We believed it necessary to point this out to your charity, for fear that if they should perchance be sent there, those unaware of how they conducted themselves in the Roman city might be deceived by some pretense of words. As for those concerning whom you have inquired in your letters regarding a certain Gallic bishop, Faustus, let them take this as their answer: he is not to be received, nor is anyone whom the examination of the Catholic faith or ecclesiastical discipline does not receive into the authority of the Fathers, or who is capable of causing ambiguity or presenting prejudice to religious matters. The institutions which the faithful ought to follow have been fixed by the Fathers; whether it be an interpretation, or a preaching, or a word composed for the edification of the people, if it accords with the true faith and sound doctrine, it is admitted; if it disagrees, it is abolished. There is one foundation, outside of which any structure that arises is weak; let anyone who builds upon it consider whether he builds with base or precious things. He errs, however, who deviates from the way that the choice of the Fathers has pointed out.
Yet, diligence in searching through many things is not censured, but rather a mind that turns away from the truth. Often, necessary instruction is provided concerning those things by which the rivals themselves may be convinced. Nor can it be counted a fault to know what you should avoid: and therefore, those who do not read things that are incongruous do not fall into blame, but those who follow them. If this were not so, that Teacher of the Gentiles would never have given his consent to instruct the faithful: "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good." B It is not irrelevant, even if worldly, to mix in a word of advice that is not lacking in reason. It is said that a certain nobleman, who was skilled in the art of painting, when he wished to depict a perfect horse with his brush, set a donkey before himself to paint, asserting that he did not do so to imitate a deformed animal, but so that he would not fall into the likeness of any deformed lineament. The venerable wisdom of the Fathers did not provide without foresight for the faithful posterity, defining what were canonical dogmas: they prescribed—with the Holy Spirit guiding them—a standard for the authority of ancient books to be accepted, so that a reader might not indulge his own opinion, asserting not what is suitable for ecclesiastical edification, but what his own will had conceived. What need was there, therefore, for slanderers to extend questions beyond the established boundaries of the Church? And to initiate arguments about things which are already said, as if they had not been said? Since the Christian faith is limited by a stable and unshakable path through the canonical books, the synodal disciplines, and the regular constitutions of the Fathers. Nevertheless, regarding the matter of free will and the grace of God, as to what the Roman—that is, the Catholic—Church follows and preserves, although it can be abundantly known from the various books of the blessed Augustine, and especially those to Hilary and Prosper, yet there are also specific chapters contained in the ecclesiastical archives which, if they are missing for you, and if you believe them to be necessary, we shall send, although he who diligently considers the words of the Apostle clearly recognizes what he ought to follow. May God keep you safe, most dear brother. Given on the Ides of August, in the consulship of Rusticus and Olybrius. C
JOHN MAXENTIUS: REPLY TO THE EPISTLE OF HORMISDAS
Although truth remains forever invincible, falsehood never ceases to rise up against it. And because it does not dare to rise against it with an open face, for fear that it might soon be laid low by its most powerful darts, it fights against it under a disguised appearance. And thus, it deceives not only the light and the incautious, but even at times prudent and grave minds, which, when it has filled them with its darkness, D it compels to approve of the things that are its own by an insane judgment of the mind. For since there is no virtue that does not have truth as its origin, nor any vice that does not take its beginning from a lie, the author and defender of a lie can in no way be believed capable of truly arguing against vice. And therefore it is no wonder if, among them, virtue is reputed as a vice—those who, having deserted the light of truth, are blinded by the mists of fallacy. Hence...
A they do not fear to accuse the irreligious, the proud, and the envious of those whom they have been unable to bend to the disgrace of their own error; whereas these things are asserted with more just and true judgment about those who delight in the darkness of error, not about those who remain firmly in the footprints of truth. For since heretics cannot provide a rationale for their own perversity, they turn to curses, and by casting their own evils upon those whom they perceive to be enemies of their wickedness, they think they open a way for themselves to deceive the simple. They act, in fact, with all manner of cunning, so that by defaming and disparaging Catholics, they may maintain their own turpitude, even fabricating certain writings against them under the name of those who seem to hold prominence in the Church, so that they may easily incite everyone's mind against them. Therefore, since a certain Epistle is carried about everywhere by the enemies, as if destined by the Roman Bishop, in which many things are vainly set forth against the Scythian monks, I have necessarily considered it worth answering the sayings of this very Epistle, and approving the same monks as free from all blame of this kind. And let no one rightly argue that I have lightly rushed into writing for them, since he knows that we are bound to lay down our lives for our brothers.
B Unde, secure now undertaking this labor, with God helping me, I shall first examine whether the same Epistle was composed by the Shepherd of the Church, or if it be rather the work of his enemies. For I doubt how those priestly letters can be approved which shine with no light of truth, nor contain any rationale of doctrine within them. For he who rebukes anyone as if they were erring, without instructing them on what to follow, is not shown to be a benevolent teacher, but is marked as an envious accuser. Whence it is not easy to believe this to be the Epistle whose name it is said to bear, especially since in it, as we have said, nothing of logic or consistency is found, but the whole thing seems stuffed with vanities, accusations, and disparagements (which are wont to proceed from a rancorous and hostile spirit). For if (as the heretics wish) it is truly his, from its very beginning it thoroughly proves itself contrary to its own author. Finally, it begins: C *"Just as it befits reason that those who are doubting should seek counsel, so it is proper that those who are consulted should respond,"* because he himself forces into error the one he does not instruct when ignorant. Certainly, a teacher's words ought not to be contrary to his actions. For they are proven to have great authority for teaching when they do not destroy one another. Otherwise, they do not profit toward the instruction of others, but rather demonstrate their own confusion. That the Roman Bishop delayed completely in giving a response to the monks seeking it, and after many perils of the sea, the vexation of a long journey, and the affliction of the long time during which he kept them with him, compelled them to come to these parts empty-handed and without any result—a fact that is known to almost all Catholics, and which the heretics themselves cannot deny—how is it not found that he has written the contrary to himself in this Epistle? If, however—which I deem more believable—it is D fiction forged by heretics, who, in order to disturb the minds of the faithful and to stir up envy against the aforementioned man, put it forth everywhere titled under his name, wishing for perpetual discord among the Churches. Otherwise, if (as these men affirm) these writings are to be believed as the Roman Bishop's, what kind of man, then, is he who directs an Epistle to heretics, and is not ashamed to write things contrary to his own actions? I do not want the reader to ask me, but let the prudent reader understand by his own judgment. For if, as he says, it befits reason that those who are consulted should respond, why did he himself by no means agree to give a response when interrogated? Whence, according to his own definition, he is convicted of having driven the ignorant more fully into error, since he in no way agreed to demonstrate the marks of the right path to those who were asking, and did not relieve those whom his legate, Dioscorus, fettered with the snares of Nestorian perfidy, by denying that the Son of God is one from the holy and indivisible Trinity, with any support of wholesome doctrine. Again, if—as he added following that—there is nothing more fitting for a student of religion than the inquiry of truth, why does he later accuse those who are "desirous of new questions" of being inquisitors of truth? And if he who asks for the path on which he is traveling avoids devious ways (as he says), why did he refuse to instruct those who wish to avoid devious ways on the path upon which they should travel? Or perhaps is he to be believed to have delayed giving a response to them—he who, in this Epistle, promises to respond to the one asking—because he judged them according to his own faith? But whether that is so concerning the Roman Bishop, we shall see in its own place. Now, certainly, that the author of this Epistle is a heretic, whoever he may be, and an enemy of the Catholic truth, there is no doubt, which we shall soon teach from his own words.
Finally, it follows thus: *"But before I undertake the care of responding to those things which your love is inquiring about, I gladly confess to have found in your letters the fervor of your faith, warmed by the heat of which, you sigh that the perversity of the infidels is growing strong in those parts. A most worthy grief, which saddens hearts devoted to God. For there is no unlamentable fall among them, among whom there is a spark of charity, because the one desire of spiritual men is the unswerving salvation of all,"* of Catholics and of the faithful. In this city, no one doubts that those who are truly faithful do not merely not confess the Possessor—of whom and against whom this man writes—to be Christ, the Son of the living God, one from the indivisible Trinity, but also that they oppose those who faithfully confess this, and accuse the infidels and the wicked with impious temerity. Whence, finally, they impudently put forth this very Epistle everywhere, so that Christ, the Son of God, may be denied to be one from the holy and terrible Trinity, and that the Nestorian wickedness may be freely preached by its own supporters. Who then still doubts that this man, who testifies that he has gladly found such fervor of faith in his letters, is one from the number of those who impiously contradict this holy proclamation? For the same Possessor sighs—not with the fervor of faith (as this man says), but (as the truth teaches) with a heretical heat; nor because the perversity of the infidels [index: entries preserved]
A in these things is seen, but because it cannot endure the testimony of the faithful, it groans. Whence, a grief that is not worthy, but altogether most base, is proven—the grief of those who sadden the hearts of the faithful, which are given not to God, but to error, by their emulation. Nor is it to be believed that a spark of charity can be found among them, who, blinded by the malice of their own depravity, deem those to be fallen and pitiable who, being instructed by the weapons of Catholic truth, destroy the hostile arguments of the heretics. Wherefore, in very truth, the unwavering salvation of all belongs to those who are spiritual, not to the heretics.
After these things, it follows thus: "But it is not," he says, "unknown to the Church of God that such storms arise, nor is the tempest unusual; and although it remains unshaken by the helm of its Rector, it nevertheless labors, vexed by the various whirlwinds of the waves that assault it." For whence is the voice of the psalmist prophet, who, assuming the person of the Church herself by the Spirit with whom he was filled, says: "Often," he says, "they have fought against me from my youth, but they could not prevail against me." They shake it, but they shall prevail in nothing. The true Church of God, to whom the storms of heretics are not unknown, is not that which confesses Christ by grace, not by nature, as God, but that which proclaims Emmanuel as the true God, and for this reason, one from the Trinity. Therefore, finally, it labors, indeed vexed by the various whirlwinds of the assailants, but it is not demolished by any pact. For it remains always immovable, because it is ruled by the helm of the true God. Against this, all heretics—as much those who have been manifestly cut off and divided from it, as those who, placed within it, spiritually dissent from it (whom the holy charity of the faithful tolerates with strength)—always take up weapons, and strive to stir up against it, in envy, those whom they could reach with their own errors. B But they prevail in nothing, because it has been promised to it by the true God, whom it worships and proclaims, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Lastly, to this the prophetic testimony, which he himself brought forth as if from the person of the Church herself, suitably applies, saying: "Often they have fought against me from my youth, but they could not prevail against me."
But let us now consider the things that follow. "We are still," he says, "on the threshing floor; the wheat is mixed with the chaff; the good groan at the company of the wicked; but the flame remains for those who are not necessary, and the barns are prepared for those who are already approved." I consider it superfluous to linger longer on the matter. For who does not know that, as barns are prepared for the wheat, so the flame is prepared for the chaff? But on this threshing floor (that is, in the Church), in which the wheat is mixed with the chaff, and the good groan at the company of the wicked, who would judge them to be necessary, or certainly not as chaff to be burned by eternal fire—those who, with a sacrilegious mouth, denying God by nature, depart from Catholic truth, and, having become apostates, fight with the weapons of their own impiety against her who bore them? C It must be known, however, that even those of a true profession may be deemed not necessary chaff. But the supporter of a false profession can never be counted among the finest grains of wheat, even if he appears adorned with good works; because those works are by no means to be judged good in which truth is not the foundation.
To these he adds, and says: "But where, on earth, is this not a mixing? It behooves us to stand with fixed feet. We shall progress among the adversaries by our own goods, if we are not enmeshed in the errors of others." Since you do not doubt that this mixing exists everywhere on earth, why do you not explain at all in what part it behooves us to stand with fixed feet? Especially when the reason of doctrine demands this, so that those who hear you, being less instructed, might not be entangled in the errors of others, unless you are cunningly striving to hide your perfidy? D But Catholic truth uncovers you with its own splendor, and alongside other evils, it places before the eyes of all your own perfidy, wrapped in the errors of the most arrogant Pelagians, because you trust with swollen pride that you can progress among adversaries not by the gift of God, but by your own goods. For if human nature could progress among adversaries by its own goods and not by the help of God, the Prophet, filled with the Spirit of God, would never pray, saying: "Perfect my goings in thy paths, that my footsteps be not moved."
Still, truly animated by the spirit of the aforementioned heresy, you follow it and say: "For it proves the valid strength of its own virtue, which, when it is pushed, is not moved; when not always, but then any man is usefully and healthfully not moved by an impulse, when, troubled by various temptations, he is not cast down from the truth of the faith." For frequently the unskilled defend error instead of truth, and persist stubbornly in false goods, or rather in true evils: this is not the valid strength of proven virtue, but the weak rashness of an unprovable vice. But who trusts that he can remain immovably in the truth of the faith by his own virtue and not by the help of the Crucified, unless it be one who is blinded by the spirit of pride and clearly contradicts the divine utterances? For the Prophet testifies that this work is not of any but a divine gift, saying: "I was pushed and overturned that I might fall, but the Lord supported me. The Lord is my strength and my praise, and he is become my salvation." And again: "If I said, My foot is moved, thy mercy, O Lord, helped me." And again, so that he might not be moved by a contrary impulse, he prays, saying: "Let not the foot of pride come to me, and let not the hand of the sinner move me."
Finally, these things having been thus premised, he inflames himself with the fires of wrath and is incited by the stings of envy specifically against those monks for whom we act, and turns his whole intent against them, and although he does not dare to accuse them of being manifestly heretics—by the public consciousness of truth—yet he wishes this to be understood of them obliquely and cunningly, and while he imprudently lashes them with wicked slanders, [he…]
sets himself, covered in the blackness of his foul error, before the eyes of all. A
He added, in fact, the following: "Where are there not stings of various temptations? Such as we have endured for almost this whole year from certain Scythians who preferred to be called monks in appearance, not in truth; by profession, not by work; concealing their deceits under a subtle cunning, and carrying poisons serving their own hatreds under the guise of religion, while we were trying to heal them from an internal wound with the moderation of a medicinal patience, not heeding the warnings of blessed Paul: 'Do not contend in words, for it is useful for nothing but the subversion of the hearers.'" B The principal profession of all Christians in common is to walk vigilantly in the way of truth and charity, with Christ as their leader. Therefore, if he who, in appearance and profession alone (but not in work and truth), dares to call those religious men against whom he turns "monks," were at least a Catholic in profession or appearance, he might perhaps have been believed to be exaggerating in a right and true judgment regarding them. But when his own words convict him as an enemy of the Catholic truth, who can doubt that, agitated by a heretical spirit, he has wickedly vomited forth all these things against those same monks? For it is not they who, following Catholic dogmas, confess Christ the Son of God to be one from the holy and consubstantial Trinity, but rather he who impiously denies this, who is most clearly convicted of plotting certain deceits under subtle cunning, and of desiring to disturb the souls of the faithful and to spread the poisons not only of his hatred, but of his own error, under the guise of religion, throughout the whole body of the Church. Especially since he testifies that this holy and Catholic utterance is for him a sting of temptation. Or is it by chance not Catholic to confess Christ the Son of the living God to be one from the holy and individual Trinity? For the sake of this one confession C it is known that the Scythian monks traveled to the Roman bishop, as is known to almost everyone, not only in this imperial city, but throughout all of Italy. For the heretics themselves (as was said above) everywhere bring forward this very Epistle to which we have responded, in order that they might stir up hatred against the aforementioned monks, and that everyone, as if by the authority of the same Roman bishop, might be forbidden to confess Christ the Son of God to be one from the Trinity. But who would dare to profess that this confession is not Catholic, which the entire Church of God venerates and embraces? For I confidently dare to say that if the Roman bishop, being present here, were to forbid—not by epistle, but with a living voice—confessing Christ the Son of God to be one from the holy and individual Trinity, the Church of God would never acquiesce to him; it would never venerate him as a Catholic bishop, but would entirely execrate him as a heretic. Because whoever does not confess this, it is not doubtful that he is blinded by the darkness of Nestorian perfidy, and is D a stranger to the holy and ineffable Trinity, and he contends for the preaching of him who endured the cross for us. But God forbid that the Roman bishop should contradict the Catholic profession in any part! For he would never have permitted the Scythian monks (whom he knew to confess Christ the Son of God as one from the Trinity, not in simple speech but also in writings) to communicate with him for nearly fourteen months, as long as he kept them there, if, as the heretics wish, he judged this preaching to be contrary to the Catholic faith. He who also, in order to purify himself from the depravity of his own legate, in the presence of many suitable men, besought the most glorious Roman man, the master of soldiers, to convey his words to the most pious emperor, which were of this kind: "Unless Dioscorus has confessed that Christ the Son of God, who suffered in the flesh for us, is one from the holy and individual Trinity, let him be cast into the sea." Whence would anyone easily believe this Epistle to have been sent by the aforementioned man (as we have often said)? Unless perhaps (which it is inappropriate to believe of so great a prelate) he is to be believed to have written these things against his own judgment, having been later corrupted by the aforementioned Dioscorus. However, whether this Epistle was written by him or by anyone else, there is no doubt that its author is a heretic, who judges the confession of Christ the Son of God as one from the Trinity to be a contention of words and a subversion of the hearers. For the holy Apostle Paul teaches that "contention of words and subversion of the hearers" are not true assertions (from which the souls of the faithful are built up and the depravity of heretics is refuted), but rather empty things contrary to the truth. Otherwise, divine Scripture would never admonish us, saying: "Be not ashamed to speak the word for your soul, and for the certain truth even unto death." Nor could the same doctor of the Gentiles have refuted the gainsaying Jews or Gentiles, if he had not contended lawfully. Hence finally, among other things, where he instructs his own son in the faith regarding the election of a bishop, he commands, saying: "Embrace him who is according to the doctrine of the faithful word, that you may be able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to refute those who contradict it. For there are many disobedient, vain talkers, and seducers, especially those who are of the circumcision, whom it is necessary to rebuke, who subvert whole houses, teaching what they ought not, for filty lucre's sake." Therefore, it is no wonder if Catholic health is counted as a wound by heretics, just as it is by him who boasts that he has applied the study of a medicinal patience, by which he might heal the Scythian monks from their own wound. For he added and said: "Where are there not stings of various temptations? Such as we have endured for almost this whole year from certain Scythians..." Whence it follows: "But when, he says, is the virus that has penetrated the vitals pulled out? When do hearts, badly trusting in themselves, obey the institutes of truth? When does pride, walled up in its own opinions, put on the humility of obedience? When do they acquiesce to peace,
A wishing to grasp at religion and neglect the commandments? There is no doubt that catholic dogmas, just as they are life-giving to the faithful, are likewise death-bearing to the unfaithful. Hence, finally, the blessed Apostle says that to some he is the aroma of life unto life, but to others the aroma of death unto death. [II Cor. II, 16.] Of these, this one man is utterly proven to be he who deems the holy profession, conformable to the truth, of the Scythians—nay, of the whole Church—a noxious virus. And not without reason; for he sees clearly that this opinion is without doubt peremptory to his own perfidy, an opinion which is never rooted out from the inner hearts of those whom divine grace guards, because its vital sweetness nourishes and fosters the hearts of the faithful. But this man, for this reason, in no way acquiesces to the sweetness of this grace, because, as he himself says, hearts that are badly trusting in themselves never obey the institutes of truth, nor does pride, walled up in its own opinions, ever put on the humility of obedience. Whence not those who shrink from heretical peace, but rather this man, long accustomed to the goads of contention, is proven to be the one who, impiously resisting the truth, dissents from catholic peace. Nor do they neglect the commandments of Christ, as he iniquitously slanders, but they guard them completely, who exercise for the catholic religion not false, but true contests. Still troubled by the venom of his own hatred, he complains that charity, commended by the new commandment, and peace, left behind at the Lord's departure, are never among the monks of Scythia: because he sees them vigilantly, through God's grace, declining the fellowship not of the faithful, but of the unfaithful, out of zeal for the catholic faith. He impudently accuses these same men, given over to the care of a stubborn purpose, of wishing to command reason rather than yield to it, when the truth completely proves them to be subject to its reasonings. Or perhaps he judges that those who confess Christ as one person from the Trinity, but not as one from the Trinity, yield to reason and do not command it? But those who say this are utterly proven to wish to command reason, not to believe it. For who would be so foolish and mad as to dare to say that Paul is one person from the apostles, but not one from the apostles Paul? The occasion of the place requires that it be demonstrated by us how and why the heretics—of whom Dioscorus is one—preaching one person Christ from the Trinity, in no way acquiesce to confessing one Christ from the Trinity. They assert, therefore, that Christ has the person of God the Word, but not that God the Word himself is Christ, just as the prophet seemed to have the person of God, who said to Israel: Hear, my people, and I will speak, Israel; and I will testify to you: I am the Lord your God, [Psal. XLIX, 7.] yet he was not God himself, but He who was testifying these things to Israel through him, and yet, as if he were God, he said: I am the Lord your God. According to this mode, therefore, the heretics assert that Christ is one person from the Trinity, B not that this Christ is one out of the Trinity, but because he has the person of God the Word inhabiting in himself, which is one from the Trinity, so that already in this way Christ is, as it were, a vicar or a minister of God the Word, but Christ himself is not God the Word: how impious this is, even those who assert it, I believe, observe. Finally, by this craftiness they confess Christ as one person from the Trinity, but they do not wish to confess him utterly as one from the Trinity. But those who do not assert that Christ has the person of God the Word, but believe and confess God the Word himself to be Christ, just as they believe him to be one person from the Trinity, so also do they preach Christ as one from the Trinity. For if God the Word is Christ, and Christ is God the Word, as catholic sanity believes, how is Christ not one from the Trinity, if God the Word is one person from the Trinity? Unless perhaps they assert that God the Word or Christ is some term other than that of a natural person, which I believe no heretic has ever dared to say. But if they understand "God the Word" or "Christ" to be no other thing, but a term of a natural person, how is Christ not one from the Trinity, if the same Christ is one natural person from the Trinity? But they fall into these shadows because they do not understand Christ as one according to the composite God the Word and the human nature assumed by Him, but, as we taught above, according to the habitation of one in another, or they understand him as one person according to the social union of two persons through grace; according to that which is read in the Acts of the Apostles because of their concordant will: of the many disciples, the heart and soul were one. [Act. IV, 32.]
C But let us see what follows. "Despisers," he says, "of the ancient authorities, desirous of new questions, thinking they alone have the right path of knowledge, having accepted an opinion with whatever facility." O impudent and foolish rashness of heretics, which tries to bolster impiety under the guise of piety! For they do not think, as you say, O unhappy perfidy! but they believe absolutely that their path of opinion is the right one, who confess Christ to be God the Word, and for this reason one from the Trinity. And they are not despisers, but rather venerators of the holy opinion of the whole Church, not, as you rashly insult, adopted with any facility, but faithfully confessed according to the tradition of the divine Scriptures and the holy Fathers. And therefore not they, but you rather are revealed as desirous of new questions, who strive to assert that God Christ is a fourth party and alien to the holy and undivided Trinity, which no one ever, except Nestorius and his associates, usurped to preach in the Church, whom, blaspheming such things, the authority of the holy Fathers, not without reason, excluded and cast out from the number of the faithful. You do indeed exaggerate further, and you say
that monks are so puffed up with pride that they think the judgment of both worlds should be inclined to their own will. Nor do they count among the number of the faithful one whom they see unwilling to believe their own opinion. You would indeed truthfully assert this about them if you could approve their opinion, which is contrary to Catholic dogmas. But since you are unable by any reasoning to demonstrate this, you inveigh against them most unjustly—those who, according to the tradition of the holy Fathers, confess Christ, whom the Apostle 29 testifies is God over all, to be one from the holy and consubstantial Trinity. Those who are not followers of paternal tradition are not excluded from the number of the faithful by their sentences; rather, those are excluded who are contrary to their confession—or rather, to the confession of the whole Church.
But come now, in what follows, who would not see with what madness you are filled as you lash out at them? "Learned," you say, "in sowing crimes, in compounding the poisons of detraction, in hating the entire body of the Church, in fomenting sedition, in inciting envy, and, in place of the obedience (which holds the primacy of regular discipline in monasteries), in loving the obstinacy of stubborn pride." Since these things are asserted—and by the sure judgment of all—only of those who, blinded by the darkness of wicked error, resist the Catholic truth, wherefore not human error, but truth itself proves you to be the accuser and detractor, seditious and envious as well, and a lover of stubborn pride and disobedient; it is not in doubt that you are its enemy, as we have often proved above. For it is a lighter thing to be a detractor of any man whatsoever than of God. Or is it not to sow crimes against God and to compound the poisons of detraction, to preach as though they were true the things that are false, and to defend His adversaries? But who is so foolish and dull that he does not judge him disobedient, proud, and stubborn whom he sees obstinately persisting in his own error and unwilling to yield to Catholic dogmas? Or who would not sooner judge him, by a sure and true assessment, to be forging seditions and inciting envy, whom he perceives spreading wicked lies against the Catholics? Moreover, how are those not to be judged as hating the entire body of the Church who endeavor to diffuse the poisons of their own perfidy into its members and to avert them from their own healthful profession? That this is what you and all who agree with you desire to fulfill is not in doubt; you who, by crafty tergiversation, contend to preach that Christ the Son is not one from the Trinity. But the monks whom you unjustly lacerate are so far from this crime that, by the grace of God, they have never departed from the Catholic communion, even if for a time they communicated with the Western Churches, in which some favorable things had arisen in the Eastern parts.
Still, you are not even now put to shame, but with a most impudent face you continue and say: "We could not restrain them by our monitions, by our gentleness, or by our authority." But you do not express at all from what error, from what insolence, you could not restrain them with your monitions, your gentleness, or your authority. Which you therefore craftily omit, lest by doing so you declare yourself profane and impious. And, O invincible truth, you who turn the detractions of rivals into the glory of your servants! For I do not believe, however eager you are to praise the faithful ones, that you could have more constantly spoken those things for their commendation which you now believe you have written, as it were, for the vituperation of the monks against whom you seem to act. For how are you not to be understood as having truly written these things for their praise and for your own confusion, seeing that you attest by your own assertions that they could not be diverted to your depravity by monitions, nor by gentleness, nor by authority?
Now we must consider the things that follow, where, directing in a perverse order those things which were done at Rome against the same monks, you have lied about everything. "They came forth," you say, "even into a public assembly, and to the disturbance of peace concerning the kings they were even calling out their statues, and unless the constancy of the faithful people had resisted, they would have stirred up among them, through the seeds of devilish and wicked discord, dissension and strife—the very dissension which, by the help of God, was driven from their region."
O the wonderful blindness of madmen, and the criminal deception of minds alienated from the truth! For it is not permitted for the Roman bishop to be able to lie so openly. It is well known to all who dwell at Rome that those very monks, concerning the things that were done regarding them, have testified in writing both to the aforementioned bishop as well as to the senators, and likewise to the whole Church. For the same Roman bishop, having been forestalled by human temptation, as one still burdened by the load of mortality, after he learned that Dioscorus was returning, wishing to offer him the favor of not being accused as a heretic in public by these same monks, sent defenders and with great violence forced them to leave the city of Rome suddenly, although he had promised them—most often, both publicly and privately, in an ecclesiastical assembly as well as before all the senators—to give them an audience when Dioscorus arrived. When they were pressed by these very defenders to depart, they were compelled to testify to the people in public places, so that after their departure the supporters of Dioscorus might not defame them among the Church as having retreated in secret; from which it came about that at least a small delay was granted to them as they were preparing to depart from there, during which time the opportunity was given to them to testify B by writings to all things that were done in the year 543. This, however, they never could have done unless the Roman people had provided this for them, who, although they did not cry out on their behalf at all, yet by their own silent murmuring deterred the defenders who were compelling them to depart from thence, and made it so that their violent expulsion became known to the whole Church. Therefore not (as this one) C D
A lies, but the defenders of the Church, compelled them to depart from thence. For they did not go forth into public of their own accord, so that any reasonable person would judge that they did so to stir up a disruption of the peace, or for the sake of causing dissipation and discord; but they were violently compelled to come to this. For that this is the state of the matter we are easily taught even by his own words, where he asserts that they cried out about the statues of the kings, which no one is compelled to do unless he is most violently molested. Although the aforesaid monks did not cry out about the statues of the kings as if begging for the help of royal power (as the heretics boast), but after they had — as they had received — been expelled by the mandate of the same Roman bishop from the place, and were standing in public. Where, by chance, there were images of the kings, they protested to the people that an audience was being denied to their petition. Why, then, would the constancy of the faithful people resist them, as he says, those whom it saw had come to the public place because of the violence inflicted upon them? Nor was there any altercation with them in public, such that the people, having been justly exasperated, would expel them from their regions.
But if you should more diligently consider these words of his, you will find that he accuses even the Roman people—whom he asserts to be faithful—not only of being violent, but also of being heretical. For if the Roman people stands against the monks who are debating in public concerning that creed which the universal Church of God holds and defends—that is, that Christ is believed to be one Son of God from the holy and ineffable Trinity—then not only this man, who is blinded by the shadows of his own error, asserts the wicked seeds of diabolical tares [against] this holy creed, but even all the aforesaid people are (absit!) B convicted of being heretical. But if the people resisted up to the presence of their rival, while the same monks wished to remain there, so that in his very presence their cause might be settled in an equitable order, that same people was foolish and unjust, having denied an audience to those who were rightfully petitioning and having violently repelled them from their regions. Let those who boast that they departed from thence attend to this and be confounded.
Let us now see what follows. "Late," he says, "have we proved that the Apostle, by a prophetic voice, has said that in the last days perilous times shall be at hand; men will be lovers of themselves, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof, and that such are to be avoided." If those who faithfully acquiesce in the catholic dogmas are judged to have a form of godliness but not the power, how much more are those not to be judged as having the form of godliness, but evidently as impious, who deny that Christ the Son of God is one from the holy and terrible Trinity? Whence it is most truly taught that not those, but these rather are lovers of themselves and to be avoided, according to the Apostle, who, deceived by their own opinions, resist the most manifest truth.
C That he confesses to have proved this late is not strange, if for this long time he has heard the Apostle with deaf ears daily crying this out in the Church, he who is convinced that even now he has not understood the power of the apostolic sentence. The Church of God, however, having been long ago forewarned by these admonitions, knowing that heretics can never be at rest, vigilantly opposing them, destroys their false assertions.
After these things, finally satiated and having, I believe, nothing that his deceit might suggest to him against the same monks, he adds saying: "We believe it necessary to indicate these things to your charity for this occasion, lest if perchance they should be brought thither, being ignorant of how they conducted themselves in the Roman city, they might by some simulation of words deceive some." Whoever truly desires to know will perceive it more from their protests which they posted in public places in the same city, than from the writings of this man, who is known to be an enemy not only of them but of the whole Church. For he is marked as such an adversary even of the Roman Church itself, whose defender he pretends to be, that if the aforementioned monks—whom he judges to be contrary to the same Church—had wished to wickedly invent some things against it in these parts, I do not believe they would ever have been able to derogate from the faith of the same Church as much as this man does, who, in the person of the Church itself, so unjustly detracts from and lacerates them, because according to divine oracles and the traditions of the holy Fathers, they confess Christ the Son of God, whom the catholic faith teaches in two natures essentially, or according to the composition of union and non-confusion. And for them, indeed, the falsity of this will not only take away nothing, but will even confer a great hope of beatitude, the Lord saying: D "Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you and speak all that is evil against you, lying, for my sake" [Matth. v, 11], but for himself, he has without doubt brought upon himself eternal death; for a "false witness shall not be unpunished" [Prov. xix, 5].
These things being finished, he speaks much and unnecessarily in what follows regarding the books of a certain Gallic bishop, Faustus, not answering what is asked, but digesting other things I know not what, not pertaining to the matter, in an empty and prolix discourse. For when the question turns on the books themselves—not whether they should be read, but whether they are catholic—he decrees not what is to be thought of them, but that, although they are not to be held with authority, they are nevertheless to be read. However, because he testifies at the end of this letter that the Roman Church accepts those books which the blessed Bishop Augustine wrote to Hilary and Prosper, and that one can abundantly know from the books themselves what the same Church holds and keeps regarding the grace of God and free human will, omitting those things which are proven in the same letter to be superfluously and prolixly digested, I deemed it convenient to cull certain chapters from the books of Faustus as well as from the aforementioned books of the same holy Augustine, and...
A to insert them into our own little work, so that when the contrary views found therein are compared with one another, it may become evident that the books of Faustus are heretical. And thus let all those be confounded who—up to this point—defend them as being orthodox. The prince and author of these men is Possessor, an African bishop (if, indeed, in this matter he holds the opinion of this man, whose great authority he proclaims, even though he denies that Christ, the Son of the living God—who for human salvation was crucified in the flesh—is one of the Trinity). But before these chapters are inserted by us, I believed it necessary to warn the reader briefly of what the blessed Augustine defends and maintains in his books, and what Faustus, on the contrary, attempts to establish in his, so that he may easily discern their intentions.
Therefore, the saintly Augustine teaches that human free will is such that its illumination, virtue, and salvation come from Christ, and through Christ, and with Christ. Faustus, however, has attempted to teach a Christian free will such that illumination, virtue, and salvation are not from Christ, but are a matter of nature. And to make plain what we are saying: [Augustine] defines us as Christians, faithful and obedient to God, being made such healthfully through the grace of Christ, the presence of which He has bestowed upon us through His Incarnation; [Faustus], according to the profane figments of Pelagius, discerns us to be such by nature. For, slyly refuting the opinion of this same Pelagius—and as if reproaching him for having utterly denied the grace of Christ, and indeed reproaching those who (according to the Apostle) confess that the grace of God is given to men without any preceding merits—he himself, as if a most wise and most prudent new apostle of a new depravity, strives to teach that the grace of God is given according to the merit of faith and labor, so that in this way the grace of God is no longer grace. For since no one obeys or labors unless he is willing, and no one is willing unless he knows that it is fitting for him to labor, this man, after knowledge and will or obedience, adds the aid of grace to human labor, so that, evidently, grace and human labor (the potential for which he asserts resides in all men not by that same grace but naturally) are joined together to accomplish the remaining works; and he promises that he defends this position. But afterwards, D forgetful of his own promise, he is convicted of evacuating grace altogether; finally, in his Preface, he speaks among other things thus: "One undertakes the study of asserting grace competently and healthfully who adds the obedience of the servant to [his] labor."
And again in the first chapter of his first book: "If, therefore," he says, "you render their own properties to the parts, and believe and assert that Christ is God and man, it is just as if you were to join grace with labor, and not reject the effort of man from the aid of God." Augustine contradicts this assertion—in the first of those books which I mentioned above—to such an extent that you would believe he was responding to nothing other than the writings of Faustus.
Finally, after some things that [Augustine] there says about the beginning of faith (which he proves with most certain documents is not given to us except from above), he censures this view, and brings in and says: "Being unwilling, therefore, to resist such clear testimonies, and yet wishing that what he believes should be from himself, man as it were makes a contract with God, so that he claims a part of faith for himself, and leaves a part to Him; and what is even more arrogant, he gives the first part to himself and the following part to Him, and in that which he denies, he makes himself the first of both, and God the second." But Faustus (those who attempt to defend him as orthodox say) attributes the first parts not to man, but to the grace of God. For in the sixth chapter of the same book, when he was discussing the sentiment of the Apostle, he says as follows: "The grace of God," he says, "I am what I am." He piously subordinates [and] ascribes the first parts to grace alone, [and] deputes all the middle [stages] to the teaching of labor and obedience, so that, moderate in the completion of both, he joins grace and labor. He does not say, "I without grace," or "grace without me," but "The grace of God with me." But the grace to which Faustus attributes the first parts in this place is not that which comes through the Holy Spirit—so that we might yield assent to the Word of God thundering from without, and be made obedient—but he asserts it to be the preaching of the divine oracles, so that it is a matter of grace that the divine oracles are preached to us, but it is our [part] that we consent to that same preaching. Finally, in the twenty-eighth chapter of the same first book, discussing the Lord’s sentence, where He says: "No one comes to me unless the Father has drawn him," he speaks among other things thus: "He cries out," he says, "the will, because infirmity of itself knows not how to be lifted up. Thus the Lord draws the one desiring, [and] raises up the one striving." But what is it to draw, unless to preach, unless to excite with the consolations of Scripture, to deter with reproofs, to propose things to be desired, to threaten things to be feared, to threaten judgment, [and] to promise a reward? But if only preaching—as this man wants—is the grace of God which is believed to have been bestowed through Jesus Christ; then no longer is the same God and our Lord Jesus Christ to be believed in as Savior, but only as a preacher, (which God forbid!).
Therefore, the same holy Augustine so teaches human free will, that illumination, virtue, and salvation are to it from Christ, and through Christ, and with Christ. Faustus, however, has attempted to teach [that] a Christian free will [is such] that illumination, virtue, and salvation are not from Christ, but by nature. And to make plain what we say: [Augustine] defines us as Christians, faithful and obedient to God, being made such healthfully through the grace of Christ, the presence of which He has given us through His Incarnation; [Faustus], according to the profane figments of Pelagius, discerns us to be such by nature. For, slyly refuting the opinion of this same Pelagius, and as if reproaching him because he altogether denied the grace of Christ—and [reproaching] also those who, according to the Apostle, confess that the grace of God is given to men without any preceding merits—he himself, as if a most wise and most prudent new apostle of a new depravity, strives to teach that the grace of God is given according to the merit of faith and labor, so that thus the grace of God might not be grace. For since no one obeys or labors unless he is willing, and no one is willing unless he has known that it is fitting for him to labor, this man, after knowledge and will or obedience, adds the aid of grace to human labor, so that, evidently, grace and human labor (the potential for which he asserts resides in all men not by that same grace but naturally) are joined together to accomplish the remaining works; and he promises that he defends this position. But afterwards, forgetful of his own promise, he is convicted of evacuating grace altogether; finally, in his Preface, he speaks among other things thus: "One undertakes the study of asserting grace competently and healthfully who adds the obedience of the servant to [his] labor."
But the blessed Augustine so censures and refutes this wicked view of his, and shortly after that sentiment of which we made mention above, he follows up and says: "That pious and humble doctor did not think so (I speak of the most blessed Cyprian), who says that one must glory in nothing, since nothing is ours." To show which, he employed the Apostle as a witness saying: "What have you that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you glory as if you had not received it?" By which preeminent testimony I myself was also convicted, when I was likewise in error, thinking that the faith by which we believe in God was not a gift of God, but was from us in us, and that through it we obtained the gifts of God by which we might live temperately, and justly, and piously in this age. For neither [did I think] that faith—
was a gift of God, but that it was from us in us. Faustus, however, endeavors to affirm that it is not a gift of God, but from us in us. For in the seventh chapter of his first book, explaining that of the Apostle: *By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God* (Eph. ii, 8), he adds after a while: "The time of grace," he says, "by which we have been redeemed, did not wait for the merits of men, did not look for works, but was content with the devotion of our faith alone." And, on the contrary, Saint Augustine says, in the beginning of his aforementioned first book: "But now," he says, "I see that I must answer those who say that the divine testimonies which we have brought forth in this matter hold good to this end: that we should know that we have the faith itself from ourselves, but its increase from God; as if faith were not given by Him, but were merely increased by Him in us in proportion to the merit with which it began from us." Therefore, one does not recede from that opinion which Pelagius himself, in the episcopal judgment at Palestine, as the same acts testify, was compelled to condemn. Grace of God could be given according to our merits if it did not pertain to the grace of God that we began to believe, but rather [if] that which is added to us because of this, so that we may believe more fully and perfectly: and thus we give the beginnings of our faith to God, so that there may be rendered back to us its supplement, and whatever else we look for faithfully. But against these things, why do we not rather listen: *Who has first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to him again? For of Him, and by Him, and in Him, are all things* (Rom. xi, 35, 36)? Therefore, who says that the beginning of our faith is from any other than Him from whom, and by whom, and in whom are all things? But who would say that he who has already begun to believe, from Him in whom he believed, deserves nothing? Whence it happens that for him who already believes, other things are said to be added as a divine reward, and by this means the grace of God is given according to our merits—an objection which Pelagius, lest he himself be condemned, condemned.
D But Faustus, who had said above: "The time of grace by which we were redeemed did not wait for the merits of men, did not look for works at all, but was content with the devotion of our faith alone"; presently, in the same chapter, a little later, he follows up by destroying his own sentiment, saying that works, just as faith, pertain to man. "For," he says, "as the bestowal of rewarding belongs to God, so the devotion of seeking belongs to man." But you will say that faith itself cannot pertain to all. It is no wonder if, to the man to whom you deny that works pertain, you also strive to derogate faith. Again, in chapter fifteen of the same book, arguing against those who say that credulity is a gift, not general but special, he says: "But you say," he says, "because it is not given to all, but credulity is a personal gift, and that it suffices to believe only for those to whom God has specially granted that they should believe. It is not so. For since the Lord requires it even from the unbelievers, He demonstrates that it is implanted in all. But for whom, even by the law of nature, does it not suffice to believe, when even the demons believe and tremble?" Here, Faustus is proven to be contrary not only to Augustine, but also absolutely to the Apostle. For when the same Apostle says: *For all men have not faith* (II Thess. iii, 2), this man says that it is naturally implanted in all. To which, if one should acquiesce, then not only heretics and Gentiles, but even demons must be believed to be faithful; because in whomever there is faith, he cannot by any means be called an infidel.
But Saint Augustine, writing to Hilary and Prosper, teaches far otherwise, since he protests deeply in the same book that not only that we may work faithfully, but that faith itself is given to us by God, as we have taught above, saying thus: "We must be careful, brothers beloved of God, that a man does not exalt himself against God when he says that he does what God has promised. Was not the faith of the Gentiles promised to Abraham, and he, giving glory to God, believed most fully that whatever He has promised, He is also able to do? Therefore, He causes the faith of the Gentiles, who is able to do what He promised. Moreover, if God works our faith, acting in a wonderful way in our hearts so that we may believe: must we fear lest He cannot do the whole, and for that reason man claims for himself the first parts, so that he may deserve to receive the last from Him? See if anything is accomplished in this way, except that grace is given according to our merits in some manner, as if grace were not grace. For in this way it is rendered as a debt; it is not given freely. For it is given to the believer so that faith itself may be increased by the Lord, and faith increased may be the reward of faith begun. And it is not heeded, when this is said, that this reward is imputed to those who believe not according to grace, but according to debt. But why the whole should not be attributed to man, so that he who was able to institute for himself what he did not have, should himself increase what he instituted, I see not, unless because it cannot be resisted by divine manifest testimonies, by which even faith (from whence the beginning of piety is taken) is shown to be a gift of God. Such as is that: *According as God hath dealt to every one the measure of faith* (Rom. xii, 3). And that: *Peace to the brethren, and charity with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ* (Ephes. vi, 23), and other things like these.
And again, the same blessed Augustine a little later: "For both is ours," he says, "on account of the arbitration of the will, and yet both has been given through the Spirit of faith and charity. For not charity alone, but as it is written, charity with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." For Faustus, emptying the gift of God, and every 545 grace’s aid-
of the mercy of God, by which we are justified gratis, he strives to teach that it is to be merited only by faith and works, saying: "To those asserting that the mercy of God is to be merited by faith and works, any man who is ignorant of the sense of Pelagian discretion would adjudge the Catholic voice." Whence, also, in the eleventh book, he impudently and brazenly asserts that through natural vigor, without the aid of grace, many not only before the coming of the Lord, but even before the law of the letter, were saved and attained to the full purity of heart and perfect justice, and deserved to become sons of God.
Denique in the ninth chapter of the same book, among other things, he says: "Since men were so endowed to the image and likeness of God that many even deserved to be called the sons of God, or—if we must limit ourselves to a few examples A —how many before the law of the letter, with the law of nature, which is the first grace of God, as we have said, instructing them, entered as it were the vestibule of salvation?" And again, after a few words: "Whence, he says, could Enoch have walked with God, or pleased God, unless the law infused into his heart had illuminated him by a secret magistracy, to such a degree that, tasting nothing earthly, he was wonderfully caught up by God from the earth? He, who in the first age of that century excelled the others by the merit of faith, taught that faith itself had been handed down to him along with the law of nature." And again, after some time: "How and how great," he says, "was the law he received in the first creation, the perfect justice of Noe also declared, who cultivated the general gifts of faith through a special devotion to the pursuit of virtues." If, according to his impious sense, Enoch could be purified from all earthly dregs to such an extent, by the vigor of nature, that he tasted nothing earthly, and Noe could arrive at perfect justice, then B Christ died in vain. If the wisdom of the flesh (which is hostile to God) could more fully purge a man through the vigor of nature and fulfill him with perfect justice, what need was there for God to have been taken up for the human race? But did the Apostle remain silent as to whence Enoch and Noe could please God, saying: "By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God translated him: for before his translation he had testimony that he pleased God"? And the rest: "By faith Noe, having received an answer concerning those things which as yet were not seen, moved with fear, framed the ark for the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world; and he was instituted heir of the justice which is by faith." The Apostle teaches that faith is not general, as Faustus insanely says, but special, saying: "For all men have not faith"; nor is it naturally in all, but is given by God, who worketh all in all. As also in another place the same Apostle says that which the most blessed Augustine set forth above: "Peace to the brethren, and charity with faith, from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." Therefore, not through the law of nature, but through the grace of Christ have all the saints pleased God before the coming of the Lord. According to that C which the most blessed Peter also testifies in the Acts of the Apostles, saying: "Why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also." Let Possessor now go, and in his own destruction and that of those who agree with him, defend the Catholic books of Faustus, which the truth teaches to be totally contrary not only to the writings of the most holy man Augustine, but even to the sentiments of the supreme and principal apostles of Christ, as we have proven in this place by manifest reason. For I considered it necessary to insert here certain sentiments both from the preface of the errors of Faustus, and from the first and seventh chapters of the former book; because the same Possessor is accustomed to excuse himself cunningly, saying that he read no more than the eight chapters of the first book, so that at least, being confused, he might one day come to his senses and refrain from pronouncing as Catholic—having dared to pronounce it with his own mouth—that which he asserts he read. D
BY THE SAME: A LITTLE BOOK AGAINST THE ACEPHALI
The profession of the Catholic faith having been briefly set forth, we now proceed to answer the definitions of those who, falling into miserable ruin, with new and exquisite arguments, strive to introduce an impious dogma into the Churches of Christ, and while confessing God and man, the Word and the flesh, they foolishly and too impudently attempt to assert one nature in Christ after the union—because, they say, there is no nature without a person. To whom it is replied: If D after the union there is one nature in Christ, then there is no union of the flesh; but if there is no union of the flesh, why is mention made of an union? If, however, an union of the flesh has taken place, there is now in Christ not only the divine nature but also that of the flesh; therefore, there are without any doubt two natures in Christ after the union. But if, after the union was made, one and only the divinity remains in Christ, then the same Word of God is not simple, but composite and passible.