ON ST. VINCENTIUS THE PRESBYTER,
MONK OF LÉRINS IN GAUL.
BEFORE CCCCL.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
On his age, books, cult, family, profession, orthodoxy, and the Vindication of this.
Vincentius the Presbyter, monk of Lérins (S.)
BY THE AUTHOR D. P.
Lérins, a most renowned island of the Mediterranean sea, now called of St. Honoratus from the founder of the monastery constructed in it, who, called from it to the See of Arles in the year CCCCXXVI, departed this life on January XVI: on which day we have illustrated his Acts, written by his subject in the monastic life and successor in the Episcopate St. Hilary. His deeds also, St. Vincentius coeval with SS. Honoratus and Hilary Bishops of Arles. composed by Honoratus Bishop of Marseilles, we gave on the v of this month of May, on which he died in the year CCCCXLIX. In the same fifth century flourished St. Vincentius, a monk in the same island of Lérins, of whom Gennadius, toward the end of the said fifth century a Presbyter of Marseilles, in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers chapter 64 writes these things: Vincentius, a Gaul by nation, at the monastery of the island of Lérins a Presbyter, a man learned in the holy Scriptures, and sufficiently instructed in the knowledge of Ecclesiastical doctrines, composed, for the avoiding of the colleges of heretics, in a style sufficiently polished and open, a most valid disputation, he wrote a book against heresies which, his name being hidden, he entitled, "Of the Pilgrim against the heretics." Of which work, because he lost the greatest part of the second book in the leaves, stolen by certain persons, having recapitulated its meaning in a few discourses he reconstructed the former sense, and published it in one book. He dies while Theodosius and Valentinian reign. Thus Gennadius: in whose time, the name of Pilgrim being abolished, that golden book, as it is everywhere called, about the year 434. had already then gone forth under the resumed name of Vincentius the Presbyter and monk of Lérins, written about the year CCCCXXXIV, that is, as the author himself testifies, three years after the holding of the Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus.
[2] Pietro de' Natali, book 5 of the Catalogue of the Saints chapter 72, asserts that St. Vincentius the Confessor rested in Christ at Rome, ascribed to the Saints on 1 June on the Kalends of June: and then alleges the authority of Gennadius, in whom (for his words we have alleged above) these things are not read. But perhaps he could have known that from elsewhere. To the same first day of June his veneration is set forth in the German Martyrology of Peter Canisius. But John Molanus from a certain other Martyrology, at the XXIV in his Additions to Usuard writes these things: and on 24 May On the same day in the monastery of Lérins of Vincentius the Presbyter, who wrote a truly golden book, for the antiquity and truth of the Catholic faith, against the profane novations of all heresies. Thus Molanus, who in the second and third edition of Usuard with his Additions omitted all those things entirely. Meanwhile, the authority of Molanus being alleged, these things are read in the present Roman Martyrology: In the monastery of Lérins of St. Vincentius the Presbyter, conspicuous in doctrine and sanctity. Wherefore Vincentius Barralis of Salerno, in the Chronology of the Saints of the island of Lérins, asserts on page 130 that it was accomplished by his solicitude, that whereas no memory was kept before, his feast should be kept under a double Office in the said monastery. The same afterward to this XXIV of May referred Constantinus Ghinius in the Birthdays of the Holy Canons, and Andreas Saussay in the Gallican Martyrology: who, after other things already related, has these things: This blessed man, whether the brother of St. Lupus of Troyes? born in the city of Toul of Senatorial stock, was the brother of St. Lupus Bishop of Troyes, with whom and with the most choice Nobles of the Gauls he withdrew into the celebrated monastery of the island of Lérins by zeal for the solitary life: where after he had spent his age in fasting, silence, reading, prayer, and pious exercises of doctrine, between the arms of his own he happily rendered his spirit to Christ. Thus Saussay: which we would wish could be read in coeval or ancient Writers. Philip Labbe seems to have looked to Saussay, bringing forth these things on Ecclesiastical Writers: They report that he was the brother of St. Lupus Bishop of Troyes, who, having undertaken with St. Germanus Bishop of Auxerre a legation into Britain against the Pelagians, and his fellow-citizens being pacified, noble for the glory of Attila King of the Huns, is in the mouth of all. St. Lupus is venerated on July XXIX, when those things will be able to be more accurately discussed.
[3] There is extant the aforesaid book of St. Vincentius, against the profane novelties of all heresies divided into XLIII Chapters, with the Scholia of John Costerius of Louvain, his writings elucidated. Prior of the Canons Regular there at St. Martin's; and again with the Notes of Bartholomew Petrus of Lierre, a Theologian of Douai, and the commentaries of John Filesac, a Doctor of Paris. The said Labbe adds: To be seen also are the little works of certain ancient Theologians of Gaul published from the recension of Pithou in the year MDLXXXVI, and also the Bier of the Quasi-Fifth-Gospel made of flint, that is, of Lutheranism and Calvinism, to be borne to the grave on the shoulders and by the numbers of four most powerful bearers, Tertullian, Vincentius, Edmund Campion, and Leonard Lessius, printed at Lyons in the year MDCXXII. In the Preface of that work the author, concerning his Life before his coming to the island of Lérins, prefaces these things:
When for some time we were tossed by the various and sad whirlwinds of secular warfare, From a soldier made a monk at length we settled ourselves in the port of religion, ever most faithful to all, Christ inspiring; that there, the blasts of vanity and pride being laid aside, propitiating God with the sacrifice of Christian humility, we might be able to avoid not only the shipwrecks of the present life, but also the burnings of the world to come. Thus there. Lastly what he intended in his whole work, he indicates in these few words toward the end: It is assuredly necessary for all Catholics thenceforth, who study to prove themselves the lawful sons of mother Church, that they cleave to, glue themselves to, die upon the holy faith of the holy Fathers; but the profane novelties of the profane let them detest, dread, assail, persecute.
[4] Baronius at the year 434 is inclined to that opinion, that St. Vincentius, formerly a Soldier, is that Vincentius, whether he was Prefect of the Gauls in the time of St. Martin? once ennobled (while St. Martin lived) by the Prefecture of the Gauls, whom Severus in Dialogue 1 chapter 17 mildly praises, writing thus: I remember that Vincentius the Prefect, an excellent man and than whom none is among the Gauls more eminent in every kind of virtues, when he had passed by Tours, often asked of Martin, that he should give him a banquet in his monastery. In which indeed he set forth the example of Blessed Ambrose the Bishop, who at that time was reported now and then to feed Consuls and Prefects. But that a man of higher genius would not, lest some vanity and inflation should creep upon him from this. Thus Severus. But the said Vincentius the Prefect, already in the time of St. Martin who died in the year CCCXCVII, was mature in age, and plainly appears to us other than this St. Vincentius, who in the year CCCCXXXIV was writing his book. And since by Gennadius he is said to have died while Theodosius and Valentinian reigned, he must necessarily have departed from the living before the year CCCL or in that very year, because on July XXIX of the said year Theodosius the younger died. The before-mentioned Vincentius Barralis of Salerno, in part 2 of the Chronology of Lérins, inserts on page 184 a Corollary of the holy Relics which are preserved in the sacred island of Lérins, and then among the Relics of the holy Confessors not Pontiffs indicates that there is the body of St. Vincentius of Lérins, which there is still held in veneration.
[5] Would that the premature death of the Reverend Father Philip Labbe had not subtracted from the world, Vincentian objections wrongly attributed to him both many other most useful works which that true Polyhistor was meditating; and the Examination of heterodox Critics, which in the work on ecclesiastical Writers he had promised, treating of St. Vincentius, intending to set forth in it and refute the most trifling arguments of those, by which they attempt to ascribe to him the Vincentian objections, against the writings and doctrine of St. Aurelius Augustine, which Prosper of Aquitaine related and refuted. But why do they attempt this? That they may detract credit from the booklet of the above-praised Commonitory, which (as the same Labbe says) Catholics exalt almost to heaven and indeed by a most deserved right; and by which all the Ministers and Preachers apostate from the faith of their elders, Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Socinians etc., confess themselves of their own accord crushed and routed, to lessen the credit of the Commonitory: when they come to their heart and a sound mind. But if only the heterodox did this, manifest enemies of Catholic truth, it would be borne more patiently: but that writers, having professed not only the faith common with us under the obedience of the Roman Pontiff, but also dignified with the habit and appellation of a more religious institute, are hurried to this, that they do not fear to think and write the same things as the heretics concerning the most holy Vincentius, this indeed, as we ought, we bear with grief.
[6] This was done (if however he did it himself, which the Pelagian History also accuses of Semipelagianism, and did not rather accommodate his name to another offspring shameful to itself and to its parents, deceived by I know not what counterfeited appearance of Augustinian doctrine, that he might please those whom he ought not to have been ignorant were the more pertinacious fosterers of errors long since condemned) this was done, I say, by the inscribed author of the Pelagian pseudo-history; toward us indeed and our work, which everywhere he extols with the highest praises, exceedingly well affected; not however to be followed except up to the altars, nor to be loved back with prejudice to those of the Saints whose deeds we collect, nay of the universal Church; which suffers no graver injury, than when it is stripped of the arms left to it by hereditary right for the defense of the faith, among which the Vincentian Commonitory easily holds the first place. But since the pretended author of the said History thought he had demonstrated both that this is german to the Vincentian objections, and that it itself was concocted with evil guile against the doctrine of Augustine, we cannot omit, but, just as on the v of May we did for St. Hilary of Arles, here also for St. Vincentius of Lérins we give a Vindication; in the skirmishing Prodromus of Neusser effectively refuted: and that from the same source from which then (for it is not free to do again what was well done by another) from Bruno Neusser, the Chapters being transferred hither almost entire, the fifth and sixth of part 2 of the skirmishing Prodromus, vindicating St. Augustine of Hippo, and the most holy Bishops and Fathers of the Gauls, and a hundred other Writers, from the calumnies, revilings, impostures, with which that work of the Pelagian History teems. Yet wishing to spare the friend's name as far as is allowed, we will not have him appear in that context; but again and again we obliterate it, the more willingly, the less we believe him to be the true author.
[7] If the Reverend Father Noël Alexandre had seen and read that Prodromus, and this because Noël Alexandre did not know it, I believe he would not have wished to insert the fragments of already crushed glass for adamants into his otherwise most useful work on selected Chapters of ecclesiastical History, Century v part 1 chapter 3 from article 2 to 12; nor would he have so confidently condemned Vincentius as a Semipelagian; much less would he have pronounced the reasons, brought forward by the commentator of the Pelagian History, to be unconquered, and that having read once and again the Commonitory of Vincentius and more diligently weighed it. I grieve that this escaped a man truly diligent and not unlearned, whereby his judgment (especially concerning those points which regard the reconciliation of free will in man with the necessary help of divine grace) ought deservedly to be made suspect. Meanwhile there would be nothing in which he should detain us, had he not added some things of his own before those refuted, here to be discussed. But in those in which he agrees with the Author of the Semipelagian Pseudo-history, he has been confuted by Bruno.
[8] In the first place each takes an argument from those words of the Commonitory chapter 37. But now with those promises which follow the heretics have been wont in a wonderful manner to deceive the incautious men; he accuses Vincentius for they dare to promise and teach, that in their church, that is in the conventicle of their communion, there is a certain great and special and quite personal grace of God; so that without any labor, without any study, without any industry, even if they neither ask, nor seek, nor knock, whosoever belong to their number, yet are so divinely dispensed, that, raised by Angelic hands, that is, kept by Angelic protection, they can never offend their foot against a stone, that is, never be scandalized. Each contends that in this place envy is conciliated against the opinion of St. Augustine on divine grace and predestination. The Reverend Father Noël, that he may add some weight of reason to a light conjecture, says there was then no sect of Heretics as if it strikes against Augustine which thought thus of divine grace. But you, Reader, consider the alleged words with an equal mind; and judge, whether there was any Catholic who thought thus of divine grace. I believe indeed that to many is given a special grace, by which they are never scandalized, but persevere in the charity of God to the end of life: but that such is given, by which they can never be scandalized, and so which cannot be resisted; I esteem, I say, that no Catholic thought thus. I hold also with the Catholic Church, that often there is given even a divine special grace (which they call congruous or efficacious) to those not asking, not seeking, not knocking; and that those themselves asking, seeking, knocking are prevented by God and helped, that they may ask, seek, and knock. But who was that Catholic of so great boasting or heretical pride, who esteemed grace not to be asked of God by prayer, but owed to himself, on this title alone, that he enjoyed the Communion of the Catholic Church? St. Vincentius therefore assails that ancient fraud of all heretics, if you except a few; a fraud common to all heretics. by which, having counterfeited a greater sanctity of life than was everywhere beheld in the Catholic Church, they also preached a greater grace, by which they could not sin or fall from salvation, easily procurable for themselves and theirs, and promised it to be granted to all who should be aggregated with them, that they might necessarily be good. Nor are the incautious more easily deceived by any other fraud.
[9] But that he did not express it in the very words of the heretics or of the holy Fathers writing against them, one reason seems to have been, that he might place all the ravings of the heretics in that kind, tending to the same end through divers ambages of words and blasphemies, under one aspect; and might insist on the comparison, by which he showed them like to their father the devil, nay he even imputes to him the heresy of the Predestinarians: tempting Christ the Lord: the other, that then the Predestinarians, whose heresy he expresses in their own terms, were beginning to gather conventicles and scatter poison. For St. Vincentius wrote the Commonitory about the year CCCCXXXIV; but the Predestinarians in the year CCCCLXXV were condemned in the Council of Arles and Lyons. Namely, as other heresies everywhere, so also this one did not so suddenly grow up, but, born by stealth and creeping secretly, it would easily run through forty years, distinctly known, before it so raised its proud head, that it could be cut off by the Church with a sufficiently certain stroke. But this is proved even from St. Vincentius himself, in this same place. For what does he mean by "in the conventicle of their communion"? Does he not openly designate some conventicle, separated from the Church? But that falls most aptly upon a nascent heresy, upon St. Augustine it can in no way fall. Since indeed he spoke not secretly in some conventicle, but openly in the Church; nor separated himself from the communion of anyone, nor excluded another from his own, except one who was a condemned heretic. The Reverend Father Noël saw this very thing: and concedes that these words, but he never showed. "in the conventicle of their communion," cannot be understood of St. Augustine. But, said he, Vincentius feigned that the heretics preached that grace, which the disciples of St. Augustine defended, that he might kindle envy against them. But the Reverend Father Noël ought to have shown, that this fraud of the heretics, which here St. Vincentius depicts, coincides with St. Augustine's doctrine of grace and predestination: which he never did to those who both have attentively considered this place, and have condemned the Augustinus of Ypres, and have sincerely admitted with a sincere heart the decrees of the sacrosanct Council of Trent.
[10] There will perhaps be someone who here will of his own accord confess that there is treated only of the heretics, and that it is not the opinion of St. Augustine, which here the Commonitory relates: but with twisted neck wishing to drag St. Vincentius to the Semipelagians, will complain that to the most holy Doctor Augustine is imputed a heretical opinion, which he never taught, that his Catholic doctrine
may be called into envy. If anyone shall think thus, he will fasten on St. Vincentius a grave calumny, supported by no reason, out of mere lust of feigning or suspecting. For what could be alleged? since neither is St. Augustine named, nor is any doctrine but a heretical one set forth for Catholics to avoid. The other argument the Reverend Father Noël brings forth at number 2. The Semipelagians, he says, objected novelty to the Augustinian opinion on predestination and on the gift of perseverance, or with the Semipelagians and defended their own doctrines by the venerable name of antiquity… But Vincentius of Lérins in his whole Commonitory everywhere inculcates this one thing, that antiquity is to be held, novelty to be avoided. For overthrowing this argument it will suffice to set before the eyes a quite similar one in another matter. Our Calvinists object novelty to the Catholic opinion on the mystery of transubstantiation, and defend their own doctrines by the venerable name of antiquity: nevertheless the Catholics everywhere with one mouth inculcate this one thing, that antiquity is to be held, novelty to be avoided. Now just as from the latter it does not follow that the Catholics are Semicalvinists, or speak against themselves; so neither from the former is it deduced either that Vincentius was a Semipelagian, or that he wrote this Commonitory against St. Augustine. that he attacks him, Do you wish it clearer? The Semipelagians objected novelty to the Augustinian opinion on predestination and the gift of perseverance, and defended their own doctrines by the venerable name of antiquity: but St. Augustine taught that antiquity is to be held, novelty to be avoided: infer now if you can, St. Augustine taught against himself or was a Semipelagian. If such a mode of arguing were valid; an unanswerable argument drawn from tradition would have to be abstained from by a Catholic doctor; since all heretics, if they be not altogether stupid, defend their doctrines by antiquity, that they may reject the Orthodox as new.
[11] Nay even the Reverend Father Noël condemns himself by his own reckoning, concluding thus: Therefore when Vincentius teaches that Tradition is the rule of faith, he does not defend error, nor dissent from St. Augustine and the other Fathers and the doctrine of the Church: when he defends tradition; and above: The Heterodox ought not to reject the authority of the Commonitory, in those things which regard the doctrine on Traditions and the usage of the Fathers. What therefore in those places, in which Vincentius is said covertly and through mines of heresy to have accused St. Augustine, does he teach other than those things which regard Tradition and the usage of the Fathers? in which he dissents neither from Augustine and the other Fathers, nor from the doctrine of the Church. But, he attacks the pretended novelty of the Augustinian opinion: namely on grace and predestination. Where? Nowhere does he make mention of Augustine, nowhere of his opinion, much less accuse it of novelty. Unless you would have this so done, that no one can see, few can suspect and wish it, though rashly. No more strength has the Argumentation at number 4. After the death of Augustine… whoever dissented from the Pelagians and Semipelagians followed St. Augustine, much less when from St. Augustine's, venerated, preached him; nor anywhere did he mention the Pelagian heresy, but he preached the victories of Augustine, and by his authority overcame it. Now Vincentius of Lérins was not a Pelagian… But he was not a follower and defender of the Augustinian doctrine, whom not even once in the whole Commonitory does he praise, so many times an occasion of commending him being given, as often as he mentions the Pelagians. There were assuredly very many at that time, neither Pelagians, nor Semipelagians, nor contaminated with the stain of any heresy, who did not follow Augustine in all things: but only in those which had been approved by the Church by lawful authority. Among those perhaps St. Vincentius was numbered. Perhaps, I say; because that he was also attached to St. Augustine, the hatred not obscurely declares, with which he assailed Pelagius, Julian and the Manichaeans, and other heterodox harried by Augustine.
[12] But, he does not praise St. Augustine even once in the whole Commonitory, just as from the other Fathers, so many times an occasion of commending him being given, as often as he mentions the Pelagians. What then? Neither did he praise St. Athanasius, as often as he mentioned the Arians; nor St. Cyril of Alexandria, when through two chapters at least he treats of the Nestorians: and although he reviews very many heresies, he mentions no Catholic Doctor, except Hilary the Bishop, and Sixtus and Celestine the Roman Pontiffs. Will you therefore, because he was silent of St. Athanasius and St. Cyril, an occasion of commending them being given, feign him a Semiarian and Seminestorian? You will do this by the same right, by which you brand him with the note of Semipelagianism. It was not St. Vincentius' purpose, in writing a Commonitory which he wished to be at hand for each one, to weave Encomia of the holy Fathers, he abstains from encomia. whose writings were neither at hand to all, nor known to all, yet procurable for those who desired more prolix confutations of heresies: but he intended, by an accurate explication of the same and a prudent detection of frauds, to admonish all and chiefly the incautious, and to set forth easy and general means of discerning and fleeing heresies. And, to use the words of the Reverend Father Noël himself, to attack all heresies from the rules and principles received in the Church, which that this was performed by him excellently his very adversaries acknowledge. One thing moreover I notice rightly observed by the aforesaid Father, that true Sanctity cannot consist with heresy, and therefore that he, badly indeed, but yet congruously to such a prejudice, abstained from the appellation of Saint, as often as he names Vincentius of Lérins.
[13] These are the things which Noël brought of his own: all the rest he took from those refuted three years ago, and that ineptly, It seems Noël only used, if he knew them refuted: but perhaps he did not even suspect from afar, that that History of false name is already accurately weighed, if he only had a copy of it of the year 1677, without place of impression and Printer, reprinted in Germany, as the paper and types and other certain indications demonstrate, the year of the first Paduan edition being concealed. Now in caring for this second edition the same genius was occupied, who cared for the Augustinus of Jansenius of Ypres to be reprinted in France, in another form than it had been printed at Louvain; namely that for our men of Louvain having soon Theses opposed to it, but not the Louvain copy of Jansenius, [The Semipelagian History, fraudulently reprinted after the Prodromus was published.] whose Columns are alleged by them, it might not be easy to compare places with places, and estimate the matter with one's own eyes. For also when that History of whatever kind had been published at Padua in the year 1673, and to it at length known even beyond the Alps, and stirring no small motion of minds, the above-praised Bruno Neusser in the year 1676 had opposed his Prodromus; it pleased the zealots of the Jansenian Faction, and perhaps the same authors of the book, that it should be reprinted in folio, whereby the diligence of Bruno, faithfully reviewing each page, might be frustrated; so that what before was page e.g. 246, now is 137; and so of the rest. This I, on the v of May at the Vindication of St. Hilary, having forgotten to indicate, here I ought to admonish the Reader, lest he think that Bruno's fidelity is to be estimated by him, from the numbers of the second and fraudulently substituted edition. Now however it has been often observed, that the partisans used the same art, in other books or booklets of this kind of meal, to be multiplied by repeated impressions.
VINDICATION
for St. Vincentius and the men of Lérins, wrongly accused of Semipelagianism, from the skirmishing Prodromus of the Reverend Father Bruno Neusser against the Author of the Pelagian History.
Vincentius the Presbyter, monk of Lérins (S.)
BY BRUNO NEUSSER.
[1] Not without manifold suffrage and the common approbation of all Catholics, I vindicate St. Vincentius of Lérins from that most foul note, The author of the History, which truly, by manifest injury and unjust slander, you have branded upon him. But you did not do it unknowingly, or through inconsideration; for you confess on pages 245 and 246 that the book of Vincentius has deserved the praises of all, which namely Baronius and Possevino call golden; small in bulk, greatest in virtue, Bellarmine; most valid, Gennadius; a writer most praised by Catholics, most noble, Saussay; far the best, and its reading not only useful, but also necessary, Costerus, who illustrated that little book with commentaries; and Baronius adds, that its author left great praise of his name in the Catholic Church. But Vossius, you say, a great Censor of Writers, descended to the extreme opinion, and expressly judges, that that book was written against Augustine himself, and his opinion on predestination. Lest you should come to the opinion of Vossius, so many praises bestowed by the wisest writers on the Vincentian little work had almost cast religion upon you; yet you come at once, after the next line, to that opinion of Vossius; I indeed, you say, will freely bring forth my opinion, and unless we tear out our own eyes, I will make it plain, that this Vincentius, with the other Cell-mates of Lérins, conspired against St. Augustine's doctrine on predestination, page 246 , and that (as you straightway add) I will evince from his own words: which we wonder, that not only the recent writers did not observe, but not even Vossius himself, who did not note all the blemishes of that book.
[2] from the opinion of the heretic Vossius, Here in the first place (as often elsewhere) you write contradictory things. For both you count it a matter of religion, that the opinion of Vossius — you ought to have said in one word, of the wisest Writers, Baronius, Bellarmine, Saussay, of all the Catholics who wrote after him — to the opinion is to be preferred: which reason certainly ought rightly to have cast religion upon a Catholic and religious Writer; but at once you rejected or shook it off: for you announce that the opinion of Vossius is yours. Freely, you say, I bring forth my opinion: namely yours: and that not only freely, but more freely and more licentiously than was fitting: and that clearer than the noonday light; for you say you will make it plain, unless we tear out our eyes, that Vincentius conspired against Augustine and his opinion on predestination. This is the pure unmixed opinion of Vossius, more freely even than he. who however wrote far more moderately and temperately of Vincentius. There are just reasons, he says, why I think thus of him: but you, by intolerable boasting, say this is so perspicuous and open, that whoever does not see it, tears out or closes his eyes for himself. Is it so indeed? are all Catholics blind except you? and have Baronius, Bellarmine, Saussay, Costerus, and all others who think catholically torn out their eyes? I restrain my pen: for here, if ever elsewhere it should be drawn against you: who both openly prefer Vossius, a heretical author, to Baronius, Bellarmine, he fastens heresy upon him: and all other Catholics; and brand these with the note of blind cowardice; and far surpass Vossius himself in hostile and inimical mind, and armed pen against a most holy and most learned writer: who deserved the praises of all, as you confess of your own accord, and whom I could rightly call the delight of that age (for to whom was he not dear). Now then let us see, how you make plain a matter so obscure, which no one ever saw except Vossius (although he saw it through a dream).
II, III, IV
[3] You say therefore on page 247 * that St. Vincentius excellently harmonizes with Faustus, and also derides those asserting a special and personal grace; and at last subjoins, that grace is given to those asking, knocking, seeking, namely by the pure powers of nature; for so you understand it. That you may prove this, you transcribe his place from the Commonitory chapter 37. But now with those promises which follow, [because he explodes the grace of the Predestinarians acting all things by itself alone.]
the heretics have been wont in a wonderful manner to deceive the incautious men: for they dare to promise and teach, that in their church, that is in the conventicle of their communion, there is a certain great and special, and quite personal grace of God; so that without any labor, without any study, without any industry, even if they neither ask, nor seek, nor knock, whosoever belong to their number, yet are so divinely dispensed, that, raised by Angelic hands, that is, kept by Angelic protection, they can never offend their foot against a stone. But to these you at once exultantly subjoin: by which last words he subjects to reprehension the opinion of St. Augustine on predestination and on the gift of perseverance; in which assuredly he is to be blamed, that he called the followers of the Augustinian opinion heretics, since the more learned Semipelagians called the opinion of Augustine an error, not a heresy, as Gennadius and Faustus, whom on this matter you cite in the same place. Further, you say, Vincentius names them heretics, asserting a certain grace of God, as above. But whether he could more expressly express his opinion, or whether Faustus really expressed it, certainly I do not see.
[4] Here you brand a foul note not only on yourself and Vincentius, but also on the greatest Doctor Augustine. But such grace is truly heretical; On yourself certainly, who construct a manifest error; on Vincentius truly, whom you accuse of having written not against heresies, as the title proclaims, but in favor of heretical doctrine and against the doctrine of Augustine held by him as heretical: finally on Augustine, whom you make the Author of a doctrine, which all after Vincentius, for a thousand two hundred years and more, thought to be heretical. For who, both of the ancients and also of the moderns, has not read the Commonitory of Vincentius? who has not understood that Chapter 37, from which you excerpted the said place, in which their doctrine, as far as it pertains to that great and special grace, which excludes all labor, study, industry, is named heretical? You therefore fasten a calumny on Vincentius, while you traduce him for a Semipelagian; and likewise on Augustine, while you traduce him for a Predestinarian. Although neither was Vincentius a Semipelagian, nor Augustine a Predestinarian. Augustine indeed admits that grace according to purpose to be special, but neither did he admit that alone, nor think it to be such as would exclude the labor, study, and industry of men; this special grace of Augustine therefore Vincentius never condemned, never called heretical: Vincentius condemned that special grace, which would exclude both every other, and every labor, study, industry; which yet Augustine never acknowledged or approved.
[5] But to come nearer to the matter. You hold Augustine in quite the same manner, in which the Predestinarians of old held him, and is fastened on Augustine by calumny. and lately the Lutherans, Calvinists; and now in the current century, your Confederates: while namely they fastened their errors upon him, boasting that those five propositions, so often condemned by the Church, are the primary tenets of the Augustinian doctrine; which how much it turns to the honor of Augustine, all Catholics know. But you, now not in a corner of Belgium, or in the furthest recess of Batavia, but in the midst of Italy, write that the primary, nay almost the only doctrine and head of Predestinarian depravity, is the genuine opinion of Augustine on Predestination and divine grace: which certainly with far better right I soon make plain, than you that Vincentius is to be held among the chief leaders of the Semipelagians. This, I say, was the ancient song of the Predestinarians, concerning whom Gualterius at the year 500 in the Collation Chapter 26, and at the year 900 chapter 3 from Baronius, at the years 490 and 848, Canisius, Genebrard etc. For they, alleging that all things depend on predestination or reprobation, held that no account of works, labor, industry was to be had: whence I reckon it most certain, that Vincentius looked to this, while he wrote those things. For it was customary with the heretics, that they might draw men to their side, to feed them with that vain hope, as if they themselves were the elect race, the people of acquisition, the little flock, and those few elected by the Lord, as of old the Montanists, Donatists, Novatians, and before the rest the Predestinarians, as also the Calvinists and Anabaptists of this century, who all arrogate this prerogative to themselves.
[6] Hence rightly Vincentius in Chapter 37 above cited, with the said words seems to strike the Predestinarians, who, since they were disciples of the devil, as this one tempting Christ alleged places of Scripture: and therefore is rightly attacked by Vincentius. All these will I give to you: He has given his Angels charge over you etc. so they prepare a thousand testimonies, examples, authorities from Scripture, and so drive the incautious headlong from the Catholic citadel into the abyss of heresy, and deceive them with vain promises. For they promise, that all those who stand on their side, are sons of grace, elect, predestined, genuine disciples of Augustine; who enjoy this singular privilege, which is wanting to others, that they are to be saved, and to be raised by Angelic hands, without any labor, study, industry; even if they neither ask, nor seek, nor knock, nor are in any way solicitous; for provided only they belong to that number, nothing further is to be cared for; whatever they do, their salvation is future. No one certainly will deny, that this is the pure unmixed error of the Predestinarians, namely of Lucidus, Monimus, Gottschalk, and the like; and those took their origin from these, who, the doctrine of Augustine badly perceived, fell into errors of this kind; whom first Prosper attacked in the Response to the Chapters of the Gauls, to the Vincentian objections, to the excerpts of the Genoese. To all these were coeval those who (as I said) from the doctrine of Augustine wrongly understood loftily boasted the name of predestination, whence they were afterward called the Predestined or Predestinarians, and abusing it altogether, brought forth into the world, the devil acting as midwife, certain monsters of errors; and especially that which in the said place Vincentius reproves, but you more than rashly fasten on Augustine. By them indeed, I know well enough, the said capital error was attributed to Augustine, that, relying on his authority, they might impose on the simple; in this however they basely erred.
[7] But of the Predestinarians we shall treat below; meanwhile it will be enough here to have indicated, but Augustine is variously opposed by various men, that on this scene seven kinds of men act their parts. 1. The Predestinarians, who professed the aforesaid errors, and thought them to be Augustine's. 2. Certain Gallic Presbyters, who although they were averse to those errors, yet believed them to be Augustine's. 3. The Semipelagians, who defended other errors opposed to the genuine doctrine of Augustine, namely that the beginning of faith and of good will is not from grace but from the powers of nature, although otherwise they abhorred the errors of the Predestinarians. 4. Certain Catholics, who although they profess the whole catholic doctrine of Augustine, namely that which the Church defined and approved; yet in certain things, not pertaining to faith, did not hesitate to desert Augustine; namely in the gratuitous predestination to glory; if however Augustine ever taught it. 5. Some, from a certain too great affection toward Augustine, cannot bear those who do not swear in all things and in everything by the words of Augustine. 6. Others wish all the heads of the Augustinian doctrine, which in any way pertain to divine grace, to be held by Catholic faith; and if anyone resists even in the least, they at once traduce him for a Semipelagian. 7. Certain men fasten their errors condemned by the Church on Augustine, and in this agree with the Predestinarians, and so are to be reduced to the first kind, such as are the Lutherans, Calvinists, Confederates etc. 8. Others finally attribute certain things to Augustine, which were never delivered by him, namely grace efficacious precisely through itself and of itself: the same many probably judge, of the gratuitous predestination to glory.
[8] In which kind each is to be placed, is easy to say. Of the first and seventh it is now established; namely both the Predestinarians, and the Wycliffites, Lutherans, with whom Vincentius had nothing in common, Calvinists and Confederates, relying on the doctrine of Augustine wrongly understood, devised many errors. It is established likewise of the third; for I would not dare to deny, that the Semipelagians, besides their errors, showed somewhat of a mind averse from Augustine. In the second kind we place the Gauls, whose Chapters Prosper refuted; likewise the Genoese, likewise Vincentius, and finally those Presbyters, of whom Prosper and Hilary had complained before Pope Celestine, that they spoke against Augustine, and whom the same Celestine in the Epistle to the Bishops of Gaul ordered to be restrained. For neither are they reproved by Celestine as heretics, but as slanderers; and it is very probable, that those Presbyters, whom Celestine names in that Epistle, are the same with those, to whose objected chapters, namely against Augustine, Prosper responded. In the fifth kind, I place almost innumerable Catholic Writers, who wrote excellently of divine grace. In the sixth and likewise the eighth, you sufficiently recognize yourself and the Confederates. The seventh we have already assigned to many heretics. The ninth perhaps should be distinguished for those, who are accused by some of Semipelagianism, although other Catholic Doctors and those of great name have vindicated them from that note; wherefore at least there is some suspicion of them in the Church, and their works are to be read cautiously: such truly are Cassian, Faustus, and perhaps Gennadius. Therefore these things being established and distinguished, it is manifest, that Vincentius rightly and deservedly buffeted the heretics in the place cited: for that doctrine is mere heresy; which yet he fastened on Augustine, not even through a shadow or a dream; but only on those whose it was, namely the Predestinarians.
[9] Wherefore our Vincentius does not look to the second kind, of which above; much less to the third, as you calumniate; but to the fourth, and that at most; unless perhaps with those alone who did not approve all of Augustine, since perhaps he did not follow Augustine in all things, because of that common grace, which he himself besides the special admits, as also election to glory from the foreknowledge of merits. I said, Perhaps: because in these two many seem to doubt of Augustine's mind and sense. But what you gather thence, that he was a notable Semipelagian, is a more than ridiculous and calumnious consequence. As though, from the fact that he strikes the Predestinarians, it should follow, that he is to be reckoned a Semipelagian. Three things therefore you sin against that most holy and most limpid Writer. 1. that you call him a Semipelagian. 2. that you turn it into a great fault that the note of heresy is branded by him on the Predestinarians. 3. that you say a heresy is fastened on Augustine by him, of which he did not even dream. No less do you sin against Augustine, even if in matters of faith they thought with him. to whom you attribute a heretical doctrine, namely the Predestinarian: and finally against the very faith and Catholic religion, inasmuch as you contend that a true and condemned heresy is a sound and Catholic doctrine. From all which it becomes quite plain, how strenuously you vindicate Augustine; and how truly you said, that it is made plain by you, that Vincentius of Lérins was a Semipelagian. But to say it in a word, it was not the part of an ingenuous
and truthful writer to have written in the Vindication, page 212 *, that Vincentius of Lérins in the Commonitory chapter 37 asserts, that man by his own powers can ask, knock, seek, that he may obtain the grace of God. To impose a calumny on anyone is certainly a grave injury: but on an ancient Father, and a man reckoned among the Saints, and most excellently deserving of the Catholic cause, especially when the contrary is notorious and is established at the opening of the book, no one will deny it to be of a far graver fault.
VII
[10] Another argument against Vincentius you dispatch, on pages 247 and 248 *, drawn from this, that since the Semipelagians reproached the Augustinian doctrine on predestination with novelty, and defended their errors by antiquity, Because the Semipelagians said the doctrine of Augustine was new, as Prosper speaks, Epistle to Augustine; and Vincentius in that little work everywhere assails novelties, thence you conclude, that he was a Semipelagian, and on this matter you transcribe a notable place from chapter 39. That I may discuss this more clearly and expound it to the Reader, I premise, that by Vincentius there are distinguished two kinds of heresies, namely of the ancient and of the new; but neither always, nor all, he says, are heresies to be attacked in this manner, that is, from the common and unanimous consent and counsel of the old Masters; but only the new and recent ones, namely when first they arise; before, the poison spreading more widely, they attempt to vitiate the volumes of the Elders; but heresies that have spread and grown old are by no means to be approached by this way, because by the long course of times a long occasion lay open to these of stealing the truth; wherefore either it behooves to convince them by the authority of the Scriptures alone, or certainly, already of old convicted and condemned by the universal Councils of Catholic Priests, to avoid them; but when first the rottenness of any evil error has begun to break out, and for its defense to steal certain words of the sacred Law, and fraudulently expound them, at once to the Canon being interpreted (that is, to the text of Scripture, [and Vincentius teaches that novelties are to be refuted by the authority of the ancients,] brought forward for the confirmation of the error, which is familiar enough to heretics) the opinions of the Elders are to be gathered, by which that new thing, and therefore profane, may both without any ambiguity be exposed, and without any retractation be condemned; namely of those Fathers, who, living holily in the catholic faith and communion, deserved either to die faithfully in Christ, or to be slain happily for Christ; whom however on this law it is to be believed, that whatever either all, or several, in one and the same sense manifestly, frequently, perseveringly, as it were by a certain consenting counsel of Masters, by accepting, holding, delivering, have confirmed, that be held for undoubted, certain, and ratified. But at once from the premises he concludes in this manner (and this is the place which you transcribed): But whatever, and that from their consent the sense of Scripture is to be defined, although that man be holy and learned, although a Bishop, although a Confessor and Martyr, has thought beside all or even against all, let that be set apart among proper and hidden and private little opinions, from the authority of the common, public, and general opinion; nor with the highest peril of eternal salvation, according to the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, the ancient truth of the universal doctrine being dismissed, let us follow the new error of one man.
[11] What wiser could be said on this matter, I do not see. For here is treated of the lawful sense of Scripture, it is rashly said that he wished to note Augustine: and of the canon to be interpreted; nay this one rule the Council of Trent commands to be observed, that the common sense of the Fathers be investigated to this end. But you here rashly indeed conjecture that Augustine is buffeted by Vincentius, who however was not a Martyr; whence even this one little word convicts that most light conjecture of yours of manifest falsity. Now this rule of Vincentius has been hitherto praised by all, approved, and applied by most learned men to scattering the false interpretations of the innovators. You alone reprove it, as false and crafty, as concocted by a little vixen through fraud and evil art, as an injury to Augustine; nay that word Little-opinions, and that Beside all, you transcribed in capital characters, that you might thence increase the crime of Vincentius, as though he had attributed little opinions to Augustine.
[12] He does not speak of Augustine (for far be it that Augustine should be said to interpret any texts of Scripture, beside or against the mind of all the Fathers, for the defense of any new error) for he does not speak of Augustine: Vincentius speaks generally; if ever the innovators for the defense of a new error bring forward some place of Scripture, and badly and fraudulently expound it, that interpretation is to be scattered, the opinions of the Fathers being explored, and the common sense of that place, not by the singular and private opinion or view of one only, though most holy Father: which certainly would not be of so great moment, for utterly refuting that heterodox figment; but by the common one of all the others, from which no one truly Catholic ought to depart, according to the Laws decreed by the Synod of Trent. Whence it is established that Vincentius spoke most modestly, but he says only that which the whole Church says against the Innovators. when he called a Little-opinion a private interpretation of Scripture, which is either beside or against the common and unanimous consent of all the Fathers, which the Church by the sacred Canons forbade, and especially in Trent session 4, in the Decree on the edition and use of the sacred books, in Trullo chapter 19, and in the Chapter Exiit on the signification of words 6, and elsewhere everywhere. What here, I pray, is crafty, what fraudulent, what of a little vixen, what of evil art? It is the same voice of the Councils, the same of the Church, the same of the Catholic Doctors; nor will Augustine himself dissent, who would not believe even the Gospel itself, unless the authority of the Church moved him. And truly you infer a great injury on Augustine, while you say that he interpreted Scripture in that sense, which truly would be against or beside the sense of all the Fathers; that is that he thought beside or even against all, as Vincentius writes of the heretics, not of Augustine.
VIII
[13] And truly it is a wonder, that you alone in these texts of the Commonitory have explored and perceived malign, fallacious, vulpine and artful senses; which neither Baronius, nor Bellarmine, nor any other of the Catholics, whether Fathers or Doctors, ever found out… I appeal certainly to all Catholics, Nothing crafty or vulpine in this, who either know Latin, and are in any way skilled in the dogmatic matter; for scarcely of thousands will you find one, who does not approve and exceedingly praise that rule delivered by Vincentius in the said Chapter: namely, that a nascent error, founded on some text of Scripture wrongly explained, cannot be better refuted, than if it be shown, but what all ought to approve, that that sense is beside or against the unanimous consent of the ancient Fathers; nor that one of these is enough, whoever he be, against whom all the rest are opposed. What wiser could be said in this, I do not see. But you, that you might defend the cause of those, who, treading in the footsteps of the Innovators, thrust upon us profane novelties, though covered with the wrapping of venerable antiquity; have buffeted a Catholic Doctor, who before others taught Catholics to detect and refute novelties of heretics of this kind, on this account and have entered him in the album of the Semipelagians, as though he had written against Augustine those things, which he wrote against the heretics. But whatever you say, between Augustine and Vincentius there is good agreement; each taught that novelties in dogmatic matter are to be fled… and each is affected with injury by him, who commends the one because he patronizes profane novelties; but accuses the other because he persecutes them.
[14] You continue in the same place (namely in the History page 248 *) to calumniate; Nor did he abuse the letters of Celestine to the Bishops of Gaul, where you say, that Vincentius by art, evil namely, (for not otherwise do you understand it) by a vain and subtle interpretation, against Prosper and his companions, distorted the Letters of Celestine, given to the Bishops of Gaul against the Semipelagians. You err. Not even a word in this Epistle of the errors of the Semipelagians, because this is terminated, as you fully prove in the Vindication page 208, and following, with these words of the second Chapter, May God keep you safe, dearest Brethren: and only in it does the Pontiff reprove certain Bishops of Gaul, because they did not restrain some Presbyters subject to them, who, undisciplined questions being raised, spoke against Augustine now dead, and preached of him things adverse to truth, not without dissension of the Churches; for which cause Prosper and Hilary had recurred to the Apostolic See; against whom also, since they stood on Augustine's side, and strenuously fought for him, the same Presbyters most sharply declaimed. for in these only Augustine is praised, In the same Epistle also Celestine highly praises Augustine, whom he writes to have always lived in the communion of the Apostolic See, never breathed upon by any rumor of sinister suspicion, but to have been of so great knowledge, that he was held among the best Masters by the Roman Pontiffs; all in common to have thought well of him, that everywhere he was to all both for love and honor, etc. Therefore, he says, let such be reproved, namely the slanderers; let it not be free to these, to have discourse according to their will: let novelty cease, if matters are so, to assail antiquity… the universal Church is assailed by whatever novelty. He commends in the same place the peace of the Catholic people, and grieves that, the Masters, that is the Bishops, being silent, those speak, who, if it is so, were not disciples. For what, he says, do you do in the churches, if those (namely the Presbyters, of whom Prosper and Hilary had complained) hold the chief place of preaching? Nothing assuredly in this place of the errors of the Semipelagians; for far otherwise would Celestine, especially in this matter, speak, if it were treated of faith. Only the quarrels and dissensions arisen among the people, from the declamations or sermons, and the litigious Presbyters are reproved, which to the people the said Presbyters held with the Bishops conniving, in which again and again they buffeted Augustine, as though he were the author of that worst doctrine, which the Predestinarians confessed of their own accord to be his, not without a note and perhaps stings; nay against Prosper and Hilary, as followers and heirs of the Augustinian doctrine, more sharply inveighing, traduced them before the people, as men of suspect faith; which matter seemed most grave to them; for not otherwise for a light matter would they have fled to the Apostolic See.
[15] This is the sum of that Epistle, which, as you say, consists of a Proem and only two Chapters: whence the remaining XI Chapters were afterward added by someone, as already of old many have shown, Baronius, Surius, the Collectors of Councils, Sirmond, and before the rest Francis Suarez, who by probable arguments proves it; of which the chief Vossius, the author not saluted, afterward received… But you in the Vindication page 210 seem to yourself to demonstrate by other arguments, that those XI Chapters were added to the letters of Celestine, and are not his… And the argument indeed which you write is to be preferred to the rest, on page 212 , is this: If the Chapters
were Celestine's, you say, and had emanated from the Apostolic See, I do not see by what reason Faustus, Vincentius, Hilary, nor from this, whether the XI Chapters were superadded of Celestine's or not, and the other Bishops of the Gauls could be excused from heresy, and numbered among the Saints with altars erected to them… And you add, this being supposed, namely that they were Celestine's, no excuse can be concocted for Hilary, Faustus, Vincentius, and the other Prelates of Gaul, who tooth and nail upheld the errors of the Marseillais. With what face, you say, would he (namely Vincentius of Lérins) have boasted that the same letters favored him, by which his very own opinions were condemned? Therefore those Chapters were not issued by Celestine, lest we pronounce those heretics, whom both sanctity and erudition rendered renowned. The argument is easily retorted. For since both Vincentius and the aforesaid Bishops are numbered with altars erected among the Saints, thence it altogether follows, that those were truly Saints, conspicuous as for sound and Catholic doctrine, so for sanctity of life, and therefore did not uphold the errors of the Marseillais tooth and nail. And this, whether these Chapters be truly Celestine's, or Prosper's, or another's; and let no one doubt, the estimation of Vincentius and the others depends. that Celestine would not have borne errors in those Bishops, whom he so sharply rebuked in the said Epistle, because they tolerated Presbyters subject to them to agitate undisciplined questions, to speak against Augustine; for how would he have tolerated those erring, who in no wise tolerated those a little more negligent? Since therefore it is certain that they are Saints, and therefore certain that they were not heretics; this cannot be led or depend from a doubtful matter, namely whether those Chapters be Celestine's, or be not; but from the fact that it is certain they were not heretics, it is certainly deduced that they did not adhere to the errors of the Semipelagians; and if some of their words present anything doubtful, they are to be explained in a Catholic sense. There is added that, granted even that these Chapters were Prosper's or another's, we expressly read in Chapter XI, that the most pious Fathers of the Apostolic See taught, both that the beginnings and increments of good will, and perseverance in them unto the end, are to be referred to grace; whence those Bishops would not be exempt from fault, if they had upheld tooth and nail the opposite doctrine of the Semipelagians. From which it is established, that that argument of yours, which you so boast, is of no moment…
[16] For the rest I confess that I also am of that opinion concerning those Chapters, namely that they are not Celestine's; both because of the reasons brought by others; But truly they are not Celestine's, and because the Roman Pontiff would never have used those formulas of words, which the author of those Chapters used. 1. He would never say, "Our Masters," Chapter XI, making discourse of a private author. 2. He would not cite the Chapters of a Provincial Synod for Decrees of faith, Chapter X. He would not say also, "Of the most blessed and Apostolic See," which formula of speaking the Roman Pontiff never uses, Chapter XI. 4. He would not speak in the third person of "the Prelates of the holy Peoples," but in the first person plural; ibidem. 5. He would not say "The most pious Fathers," that is the Roman Pontiffs, "taught us"; ibidem. 6. He speaks also as a mere Layman, "let us regard the sacraments of the Sacerdotal supplications"; ibidem, and Chapter XII, "we contemplate not with idle gaze." 7. He ordains nothing, establishes nothing, commands nothing, contrary to custom; but only these, "By these Ecclesiastical rules therefore we have been thus comforted," ibidem. The Roman Pontiff by custom does not so speak. 8. He would not say also, what we read in the same place, "The writings of the Apostolic See taught us"; nor also that, "That we may by no means think a Catholic." The Roman Pontiff in a doctrinal matter does not employ this word "we think." From these it seems certain to me, that those Chapters are in no way Celestine's; but Prosper's, as is gathered sufficiently probably from the style, sense, phrase, doctrine, and proper manner of speaking. But how alien these are from Celestine's style, genius, and manner of writing, but Prosper's. will certainly with no trouble be at once detected by a prudent and skilled Reader, if he but cast his eyes on the Epistle prefixed to it. But that which Prosper writes in the Preface to the Objections of Vincentius; namely that the faith is defended by him by the authority of the Apostolic See, is not to be taken in that sense, in which you take it on page 250, as though the Apostolic See had imposed this office on a lay man, as you confess in the same place; but in another, and that the native one, namely by the decrees, judgments, opinions, authorities of the Apostolic See, as is read in the very title of the Chapters annexed to the Epistle of Celestine; whence I probably conjecture, that Prosper intimates, that he defended the faith against the Pelagians by authorities of this kind or by the authority of the Apostolic See, from which it is further proved, that those Chapters were written by Prosper, and annexed to the Epistle of Celestine.
[17] But let us return to Vincentius, whom you wish to have lain hidden, by evil art and vain interpretation, and like a little vixen under the habit of a Monk. But why at length? This now remains to be discerned. Celestine had said in the aforesaid Epistle, whom Vincentius does not call an Accuser, "let it not be free to these, to have discourse according to their will"; but Vincentius asks in the cited chapter, who those are, whom Celestine forbids to have discourse according to their will, the preachers of antiquity, or the inventors of novelty; let him say, and himself dissolve the doubt of the readers. What, I pray, of evil here would even malign suspicion itself dream? For it follows, namely in the letters of Celestine, which in this place Vincentius had praised, "Let it cease, if the matter is so," or, "if matters are so," as in Celestine, that is, as Vincentius elucidates by glossing, "if it is so, as certain men accuse your cities and provinces before me, that you make them consent to certain novelties by a noxious dissimulation; let novelty therefore cease," he says, "to assail antiquity." You at once subjoin in the history page 249 *, "See, how he despises Prosper and Hilary? whom he calls accusers, by a certain vague name, 'Certain men accuse': in which words, you acknowledge a notable contumely." But, as is wrongly assumed; you turn one word into another. "Accuser" always sounds ill, but "to accuse" not always. I refer you to Ambrose Calepine; although in him you will not find this word "accuser," as neither among the Latins. And truly, unless "I accuse" and "accusation" could sometimes be taken in a good sense, it would be said triflingly "false accusation," "to accuse falsely." Therefore you did not hesitate to sin against Grammar, that you might more conveniently sin against charity, nay against the piety of a most holy man. But that you hold for a contumely that vague name "Certain," is assuredly something to move laughter, especially in the plural number. Who ever could even have dreamed such things? namely that of any kind of men it cannot be said without contumely, "Certain," "Some," "Several."
[18] You say besides, that Vincentius thence increased the calumny against Prosper, in that he writes that he accused Cities and Provinces before Celestine. as neither did Prosper accuse him, Vincentius, you say, that against Prosper not only whole Cities, but also the Provinces of the Gauls may be believed to stand, feigns that he accused the Cities etc. So, Vincentius, you say, do you call I know not what Presbyters, Cities and Provinces? Prosper had not accused Bishops, that they made the Provinces consent to certain novelties by a noxious dissimulation, as Vincentius wrongly writes, that he might draw those two informers of the men of Lérins and Marseilles into the envy of the Bishops; but besides a few others, those three only, Cassian, Faustus, Vincentius (all of whom were Presbyters, you say, as is plain from our History) he accused. From this last I begin, and I would have you tell me, the complaint of 431 concerning Presbyters whence you have it, that Faustus and Vincentius were Presbyters toward the end of the year CCCCXXXI or toward the beginning of XXXII, in which, as you confess of your own accord, the said Epistle of Celestine was written: for you expressly confess, that he was created Abbot in the year CCCCXXXIII, Maximus being translated to the Riez Islands from the monastery of Lérins. But that he was ordained Presbyter before that time; whence have you it? whence do you prove it? Bring forth, I pray, those testimonies of the ancients; for those I do not find in your History, although you say, that in it, from the testimonies of the ancients this was often inserted. Often, you say? but I do not find it even once. That they were Presbyters, I know well enough: but that those two in the said year were Presbyters, you say indeed, but do not prove. Why therefore do you assert it so undoubtingly? The same, and that with better right, is to be said of Vincentius, who since he was the Brother of St. Lupus, and that one younger; and since about the year CCCCXXIII Lupus was a youth, as Sidonius calls him in the Eucharisticon, "how holy the life of Caprasius the old man, and of Lupus the youth"; it is necessary that Vincentius, the year CCCCXXXI turning, or XXXII, was still younger. (such as Vincentius then was not yet) Whence therefore have you it, that he was a Presbyter? Thence assuredly, that you feign quite gratuitously that he was accused by Prosper to Celestine: and since Prosper accused Presbyters, as is established from the Epistle of Celestine, thence you easily deduce, that he was a Presbyter at that time. But from the same Epistle the contrary is most openly deduced. Namely those Presbyters, as is evinced from the same Epistle, held sacred sermons to the people, nay even before the Bishops themselves; "These very men," says Celestine, "we know to be placed by our God for teaching; but what hope is there there, where, the Masters being silent, those speak," etc., that is, those Presbyters; since therefore Cassian, Faustus, Vincentius were Monks and dwelt in monasteries, they could not be of the number of those Presbyters who preached in the Churches to the people.
XII
[19] Besides that "Cities and Provinces" stung you; for you wish those three only, and a few, or as many others to have been accused. Why therefore did Pope Celestine write to those six Bishops, Venerius, Marius, Leontius, Auxarius, Arcadius, Philtatius? and those not few, as the author of the Pelagian History wishes. namely Venerius of Marseilles, Leontius of Fréjus, Arcadius of Vence, who at that time were Bishops in the aforesaid cities, as is to be seen in Gallia Christiana; but where the three other Bishops were, is not established. Why therefore so few Presbyters, if so many Bishops? Who moreover would deny, that there were divers Cities, whose Presbyters had been accused, with whom the crowd of hearers or of the people agreed, or certainly according to custom applauded. Then, "He calls I know not what Presbyters," as though indeed Cassian were not most well-known, who one or another year before, Leo the Great urging, against Nestorius wrote as most learnedly so most nervously. Then you penetrate into the inner sanctuaries of the heart, and say that Vincentius exaggerated these things to this end, that he might draw Prosper into the envy of the Bishops; and these without a witness, unless perhaps Vossius or Ussher I know not who, heterodox men… You say also, that Vincentius wrongly wrote, that those Bishops were reproved by Celestine, because they made their peoples by a noxious dissimulation consent to certain novelties, whereas many Bishops were deservedly reprehended on their account.
or (which is the same) permitted and tolerated them, namely those Presbyters preaching, to consent. Does not Celestine impute this to them by right? Consult his words, "To your charity," he says, "we impute it." They were therefore the cause, namely the moral cause, of a disturbance of this kind, as is plain from the very terms. Why then do you seek a knot in a bulrush?
[20] You also carp at him, that he so often urges that "if the matter is so," as we transcribed above, Vincentius simply shows that novelties are not to be tolerated, whereby he denotes that the accusation of Prosper is held by him false. You are a little sincere glossator, you sprinkle darkness, that you may illustrate the noonday light; and that you may expound a most limpid opinion, you fetch malign shades or fogs of little human judgment. This one thing Vincentius proposed to himself to show in his little work; that in matters of Doctrine and Religion profane novelties are to be fled, as Paul admonishes; which when he had proved by many arguments, this at length he proves by the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, of which a little after, and before the rest from the recent Epistle of Celestine, in which namely he forbids, that those Presbyters have discourse according to their will, that is, preach in the Church. But who are those? Preachers of antiquity, or inventors of novelty? Let Celestine himself say, by the authority of Celestine, namely in the same Epistle, and dissolve the doubt; "Let it cease," says Celestine, "if matters are so, for novelty to assail antiquity." What, I pray, would more fit the purpose? But that "If the matter is so" he explains, that is, "If it is so as those accuse, that namely the Presbyters, the Bishops being silent, preach things adverse to truth, call undisciplined questions into the midst," etc., "Let it cease," he says, resuming, "if it is so, for novelty to assail antiquity." What, I pray, here not clear and limpid? what is wanting? what is superfluous? "He repeats," you say, "that 'if it is so'"; Celestine also repeated it, see, please; "if it is so," "if matters are so"; he repeated it, that he might explain the mind of Celestine, and the end for which the Epistle had been written.
[21] Some constructed the errors of the Predestinarians, and attributed them to Augustine, that they might rejoice in so great suffrage; certain others, reproving those who imputed the error of the Predestinarians to Augustine, and those Presbyters and learned, refuted those errors indeed; but did not from them equally strenuously vindicate Augustine, since they did not sufficiently penetrate his opinion on predestination; nay against him some, snatched away by too great heat of disputation and indiscreet zeal, on this account inveighed a little intemperately. Prosper strongly resisted both those erring, and the impugners of the error; because they, assuredly undeservedly, provoked Augustine, or at least more coldly or with a softer arm vindicated him from the calumnies of the Predestinarians. Meanwhile certain Bishops were silent, and the Church was rent by these dissensions: Prosper recurred to Celestine for a remedy; he gave that grave Epistle to those Bishops, in whose Cities the aforesaid seditions or disputations were fervent, and forbade that novelty should assail antiquity, that is, that the new error of the Predestinarians should assail the old doctrine of the Church, "Let novelty cease," he says, "to assail antiquity," or more truly, he condemned that new manner of acting, by which namely the Presbyters, the Bishops present and silent, agitated undisciplined questions in the Church, and preached to the people. And because some of the Catholics, as I said, buffeted the doctrine of Augustine on this account, that perhaps they understood it less; and so spoke against the most holy Doctor, as though he had been tinged with some soot of error; Celestine in chapter 2 of his Epistle expressly forbids this, and highly commends the faith and doctrine of Augustine, and orders silence to be imposed on those wicked slanderers.
[22] That note therefore of yours, and of your Vossius, or suspicion, is most light, relying on no moment of reason at all, except mere and least to be borne lust of speaking against a most holy Father; which it would be rashly said Vincentius did; whom here as on a stage you exhibit to us, concocting a thousand wiles and arts, moving whole Cities and Provinces, thundering against Prosper, and fastening calumnies on him, that he may draw him as a false informer or accuser (as you call him) into the envy of the Bishops, and show him to have wrongly gloried in the decree of Celestine; and at last as with his own arms, Prosper being rejected, exclaiming, "Therefore this was the opinion of Blessed Celestine, not that antiquity should cease to overwhelm novelty; but rather that novelty should cease to assail antiquity," which in this manner you explain page 250; * "Let the novelty of the doctrine of Augustine, Prosper etc. cease to assail the antiquity of the doctrine of Cassian, Faustus, etc." and at once you exclaim, "who at these things would not stick fast?" I stick fast assuredly from amazement, that a Catholic man should so arrogate to himself, as to judge that the most light and most vain conjecture of Vossius a heretical man, and a more than empty and to a most holy man injurious and contumelious suspicion, is to be preferred to the common and universal judgment both of the more ancient, and of the more recent (as you confess of your own accord). If it were lawful to interpret the Places of the Fathers in this manner, anything being added at pleasure, assuredly nothing could not be fastened upon them by anyone. Reread, I would have you, benevolent Reader, those three lines of Vincentius, which I transcribed above, and that in one tenor; and unless you have a preoccupied mind, you will at once judge, that their sense is bright, catholic, and most sincere; that there is in them nothing of fraud and guile, nothing of accusation against Prosper, of accusation against Augustine, nothing finally of heretical poison.
XIII
[23] But you continue, and say that Vincentius of Lérins is that one, to whose objections, which they call Vincentian, Prosper responded. But by what witness do you assert this? By none. By what argument? By none. as also the Vincentian objections, Baronius in the Martyrology at 24 May substitutes another; whom however you say to be younger, since this one lived together with Gennadius. But this proves nothing; because he could, already greater in age, have lived together with Gennadius, and long before written the aforesaid objections. As though indeed Faustus did not live together with Gennadius, whom however you wrote to have been already in the year CCCCXXXI or XXXII accused to Celestine by Prosper. Gratuitously therefore you say that this is Vincentius of Lérins, destitute of every prop of proof at all; these are gratuitously ascribed to him, which certainly does not become a Historian, nay (if it please the Gods) a notable restorer of History. This certainly Gennadius would not have kept silent, when of Vincentius and Prosper: nor also from the same name of both let anyone, unless ridiculous, prove this. As though indeed in that century there did not live several Vincentii, as also Simons and Judes in the time of the Apostles. But it shames me to refute these empty things longer.
[24] This one thing remains, that I briefly note certain singular things. 1. You confess on page 245 that the Commonitory came forth in the year CCCCXXXIV, the author being the Pilgrim Monk, and many other things, namely Vincentius; and him guilty of collusion with Faustus his Abbot, page 249, conspiring with the same Faustus and other Cell-mates of Lérins against the doctrine of St. Augustine, page 246; whom the island of Lérins before the year CCCCXXVII, Eucherius being witness, had already had, as you confess of your own accord page 451. Yet in the same place you assert, that Vincentius the author of the Commonitory was not yet a Monk of Lérins, when he published this work. Are these things not contradictory? 2. You say page 250, that it is now not a presumption, but an evidence, that Vincentius was a Semipelagian; and page 246, that this very thing is made plain by you in the same place; yet you count it a matter of religion to come to the opinion of Vossius, and add, that an occasion of doubting is given. The matter therefore is not perspicuous, nor made plain; why then do you contradict yourself? 3. You say page 252, that no injury is brought by you to the sanctity of Vincentius, while you reckon him among the Semipelagians, while you call him an accuser, and reproach him with evil arts, fraud, mines, envy and hatred against Prosper, page 249 and elsewhere. 4. In the same place you say there were few, things contradictory to one another, who were averse to the doctrine of Augustine on predestination; that is, who were Semipelagians; yet elsewhere (as page 252, and 192, and elsewhere) you say almost all the Bishops of the Gauls were Semipelagians. If almost all the Bishops of the Gauls, how few? 5. You call him a Saint often and oftener, and confess that he was entered in the Album of the Saints, and is rightly and deservedly venerated with altars erected, page 252: yet you say page 245. that the Commonitory was published by him, in favor of Faustus, against the doctrine and followers of St. Augustine, whom he openly by the greatest injury calls heretics. Is this to act a Saint and one worthy of cult? But whence have you these things? Nay (as I said) page 251 * you assert he was not yet a Monk of Lérins, when he committed this work to writing. Scarcely elsewhere, my Reader, will you find more of figment, calumny, fable, repugnance, or (as they call it in the Schools) contradiction.
[25] I omit that argument, which could be drawn from the zeal, erudition, subtlety and perspicacity of Prosper. and to be sufficiently refuted from the silence of Prosper alone. For it cannot be, that you believe, that you are superior to Prosper in these things, and penetrate more profoundly into the inmost sanctuaries of the recondite senses of the Commonitory. Since therefore Prosper never found out such a sense, end, and mind of Vincentius (otherwise he would not have been silent, especially in a matter so grave; and with far better right would have refuted Vincentius than Cassian; nay would have brought the cause to Sixtus, or Leo the successors of Celestine; but not even a word: silent also was Fulgentius, silent Caesarius, and innumerable others, who defended the doctrine of Augustine with the highest ardor of mind, both in Europe and in Africa) on no foundation assuredly rest those things, which with Vossius and Ussher you construct; and it is a wonder, that among Catholics, one only is found, who, with malign tooth and slanderous pen, animated by the example of two heterodox men, did not hesitate to transfix that golden little work, and to befoul the name and fame of a most learned and likewise most holy Father.
XIV
[26] And truly since we have received nothing ever more nervous for crushing the blasphemies of the Innovators, in my judgment at least, from our elders (which the learned Reader will also grant by his own reckoning, Wrongly therefore is the Commonitory feigned, if he shall read through that little work a little more attentively) it was assuredly of the worst counsel, as also of the worst example, that you should wish, with intolerable certainly confidence, so to confound, and also overturn or pervert, its sense, mind, and purpose; that Vincentius wrote that Commonitory of his now not against the heretics, but against Augustine and his followers, in favor of the heretics; now not for the Catholic doctrine, on the divine grace of Christ, but for the errors of the Marseillais, in favor of Faustus and Cassian; in favor of man's free will, to the destruction of the grace of Christ; now not with good mind and catholic zeal and a sincere mind, but through fraud, through envy, through injury, through mines, to conciliate envy against Prosper and to fasten calumny; you should undoubtingly, as perspicuous and made plain by you, to have been craftily written against Augustine, pronounce; and so strip the Catholics of their arms; and snatch from the Church that ancient shield of hers, already for a thousand two hundred years opposed to the Innovators; and that
not without sarcasm and stinging jest, page 250 where you say, that to Vincentius the same happened as to the Alchemists, whose labor, when it aimed at making gold, although they are frustrated of the intended end, yet find useful medicaments; so Vincentius, when perhaps he attempted to undermine the doctrine of Augustine, as if through mines, overturned the other heresies from their foundations. That these things should be said, written, scattered with impunity and freely, is assuredly something at which we should all wonder. This one thing was wanting to your slander, that you should compare Vincentius even to those Cinder-blowers. But that "Perhaps" escaped you, since on the same page you write, that this is evident and perspicuous; and page 246, that it is made plain by you, namely to those who do not tear out their eyes for themselves.
[27] But you premise a most wretched excuse; namely, that the cult of the doctrine of Augustine and the love of truth extorted these things from you quite unwilling. The cult assuredly not of Augustine of Hippo, but perhaps of Ypres; the love also, not of ancient truth, and indeed that he was held for a heretic by Vincentius, but of a new conspiracy or more truly of the Innovators. "It extorted from me unwilling," you say; Who compelled you? "The cult of Augustine." As though indeed Augustine had hitherto no sincere cultivator. Most wretchedly without doubt you cultivated him, since you say that he, by Vincentius of Lérins, an author certainly of the greatest name, willy-nilly, was held for a heretic (although that most falsely). Never such things Gennadius, Faustus, Cassian, Hilary. The first indeed writes that he remained a Catholic, chapter 38 On Ecclesiastical Writers, and although perhaps he does not approve something of his, concerning which many disputed against him, yet he confesses of his own accord that it cannot be called a heresy. You page 293 say, that it is the opinion on gratuitous predestination. To glory, I would grant; to the first grace, I cannot give it, which Gennadius himself admits of his own accord. by Cassian, Cassian never even named Augustine, except once book 7 On the Incarnation chapter 27, where he calls him a great Priest. Faustus in the Epistle to the Greek has only this of him, "In the writings of the holy Pontiff Augustine, even if anything is thought among most learned Men to be suspect; of those things which you judged to be condemned, you will have found nothing reprehended." He does not say "with himself," but "among most learned men": by Faustus, why then do you say, page 245, that Faustus there testifies, that I know not what in Augustine displeased himself and others. To others indeed he expressly asserts it; but to himself, where, I pray? Why therefore do you impose? Nay from this place it becomes manifest, that the doctrine of Augustine against the Marseillais was defended by him (for he was, as there also you confess, that Greek Deacon of Marseilles) saying, "of those things which you judged to be condemned," namely with the Marseillais, "you will have found nothing reprehended"; but that the two books published by Faustus on grace and free will were not written against Augustine, we shall say below. Hilary finally, never branded that note on Augustine, by Hilary. of whom, by the testimony of Prosper, he was an admirer; and to whom only the opinion of Augustine on gratuitous predestination to glory seemed difficult, as I said above, and concerning which he had wished to consult Augustine himself by letters. Most wretchedly therefore do you consult for Augustine, while you say that he was held for a heretic by Vincentius of Lérins; most wretchedly for the Church, from whom you subtract one of her Strong men; and whom she with altars erected venerates together with her peoples, you remit to the camp of the Semipelagians, as a scout detected; and that golden little work, which cannot be sufficiently praised, than which the Church has nothing at hand from the ancient monuments more nervous and convenient, for refuting the pride of the heretics and especially of the Innovators, you wished to render quite useless. But the event, as I hope, will not second your wishes.
[28] But how far Vincentius was from the side of the Semipelagians, But Vincentius most alien from Semipelagianism, we prove not only by a negative argument (since no Catholic ever, already for a thousand two hundred years and more, held him for a Semipelagian) and we solve those futile things, which from him you wrongly opposed; but also positively, as they say, from his most express words we demonstrate that he thought rightly in this matter. Let us run over cursorily his footsteps, in the Commonitory; 1. Pelagius, Celestius and their doctrine, contrary to divine grace, he everywhere execrates, chapters 14, 34, 43; he calls them frogs and gnats and dying flies; nay he so dreaded their tenets, that he burst into these words chapter 14. "I dread to say," he says, "for they are so proud," namely their tenets against divine grace, "that they seem to me not only not able to be affirmed, but not even to be refuted, without some expiation." But chapter 23, he detests the aforesaid Pelagius; for so there he calls him, "who," he says, "presumed so great a virtue of free will, that he did not think the grace of God necessary for being helped to this in good things through individual acts": but Celestius, "his prodigious disciple," he calls him in the same place. He detests therefore the profane Pelagius, because he denied that the grace of God is necessary, he asserted the grace of God necessary to individual acts, for individual acts. Do you hear? For individual acts (namely those which pertain to salvation) Vincentius thought, held, believed it necessary, for the first endeavor, for asking, knocking, seeking, since these sound nothing but acts. Chapter 43 finally he testifies that Pelagius, Celestius, Nestorius were rightly and deservedly condemned. Besides chapter 1 he expressly says, that faith is to be fortified, the Lord helping: he held therefore that faith cannot be elicited without divine grace. But in the preface he openly confesses, that he was at length settled in the port of Religion, ever most faithful to all, Christ inspiring: but Christ inspires only through divine grace. Chapter 40 he inveighs against Julian the Pelagian, who "either neglected to incorporate himself into the sense of his colleagues, or presumed to excorporate himself": from which it is plain, how hostile he was to the enemies of the grace of Christ. Chapter 43 he writes that that common and sacrosanct consent of the Bishops, namely in retaining the Catholic faith, was inspired by the gift of heavenly grace; and will you call this man an enemy of divine grace?
[29] Finally I find none of the ancients, who has written more expressly of the authority of the Apostolic See, and he attributed very much to the authority of the Apostolic See, in controversies pertaining to faith and religion. Chapter 43, "Lest anything should seem wanting," he says, "to so great a fullness"; namely for preserving the prerogative of ancient faith, and refuting the profane novelties of heretics, "we have added the authority of the Apostolic See"… "and to interpose it, we judged necessary"; and he concludes that one must stand by Apostolic and Catholic Decrees. I confess that in this kind nothing more nervous and express was found by me, for constructing, as far as deciding controversies of faith, the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the Apostolic See; yet this one man, not a grave Bishop, not a most Eminent Cardinal, not a notable Doctor and conspicuous for the glory of published writings; and therefore is deservedly defended against a rash censor, but a private man, by private counsel, and by I know not what instinct, without a Catholic witness, throws down that most learned and most holy Father, who likewise conspicuous in doctrine and sanctity is said to be in the Roman Martyrology, from that rank of his and the peaceful possession of a thousand and two hundred years; announces that he is a Semipelagian man; and that his Commonitory was written and published, now not as the Catholic Church has hitherto believed, against the heretics, but against Augustine; and that by evil arts, through fraud and mines, and after the manner of a little vixen made plain by him, and so perspicuous, that it is not seen by those only, who of their own accord tear out their eyes, and (as he says page 166) * cannot sufficiently wonder, that learned men (that is all Catholics, who for 1200 years have lived) did not see, did not note so many blemishes in the Commonitory of Vincentius. Lest however it should seem to be a disadvantage to St. Vincentius, that he inhabited the island of Lérins, whose most pious and most religious inhabitants this author holds for Semipelagians, we subjoin an apology, from the same Bruno Neusser, for them.
[30] "The men of Lérins were in the mouth of fame," you say page 136 *, "for the sanctity of life and the rigor of monastic discipline; these indeed eagerly read through the volumes of Cassian, and so were delighted by them, that they demanded new Conferences from him (that the first Ten were written after the year CCCCXIX, and seven others before the year CCCCXXVI we have demonstrated elsewhere) those moreover were St. Honoratus, who accuses also all the men of Lérins as eager readers of Cassian, Eucherius, Maximus, Hilary, Lupus, Faustus." Why, I pray, did you omit Vincentius? You say also, that Eucherius, by repeated letters, extorted those seven Conferences from Cassian; and at last that Cassian spoke confidently of divine grace in Conference 13 to the men of Lérins. In few lines how many false and feigned things you bring forth in this place, with assuredly incredible confidence, which you everywhere reproach to Quesnel and others, I soon show. That the men of Lérins eagerly read the volumes of Cassian, without doubt you feign; because nowhere do you read it; whereas this one says he wrote for the sake of Eucherius alone, and therefore without any witness, not without the highest disgrace of a Historian, you construct it. For let us grant, that Eucherius wished, desired, and for that cause wrote to Cassian; of Honoratus we have nothing such. Nay since Cassian expressly writes, in the Preface to the seven first Conferences; that he consults in this manner the desire of one, namely Eucherius, and the labor of another, even thence it becomes manifest, that one only desired, wished, urged. But that by repeated letters, nowhere do I read. I would wish, that you would at least indicate to me those literary chests, in which I could find the letters of Eucherius to Cassian, one at least, if not two and repeated, of which no one ever makes mention; not Cassian, not Eucherius, not Hilary, whom Eucherius highly loved and admired even to amazement. Eucherius indeed makes mention of letters, yet not asked by repeated letters. both of Honoratus to himself, and of his own to Honoratus, in which that acute and amiable saying, "You have rendered to the wax its honey," as Hilary relates in the life of Honoratus; but of Cassian to him, or of him to Cassian, nowhere any mention. Why therefore do you feign repeated letters? What to these, I pray, your worshippers? For who would not see, that History is not written by you, but a fable is given, and that sufficiently badly and inelegantly materialized.
[31] Then that the men of Lérins were so greatly delighted by the aforesaid Conferences of Cassian, without doubt you say of your own self; for who else? But you premise those things, which are least apposite to persuade: for you say (and in this I do not detract credit, [The same censor wrongly praises the same men as Saints and traduces them as heretics,] since it is established from ancient monuments) that the men of Lérins at that time, namely after the year CCCCXIX, flourished both in sanctity of life and in rigor of monastic discipline; from which it follows, that they were also of a sound and unstained faith: for there is no genuine sanctity, without faith. Little appositely therefore
you said those were saints, whom you wished to be held by all as unbelievers. But since it is established that they are saints, and their sanctity is proved by a thousand testimonies of the ancients, and no Catholic doubts of their faith; so that from sanctity proved, I elicit the proof of faith. But you, relying on no testimony at all, although you acknowledge their sanctity, yet gratuitously and rashly call their faith into crime. So I seem to myself to say things quite coherent among themselves, but you nothing but discordant and incongruous things. With sanctity I rightly compose true faith; you ineptly compose it with unbelief and heresy. Either deny that they are saints, or acknowledge them faithful; and to those to whom you did not dare to deny sanctity, you undeservedly detract faith. Of Honoratus, Eucherius, Lupus, you yourself fear even to doubt; Hilary and Vincentius, nay also Cassian, we have already vindicated from your calumnies, to whom the Conferences of Cassian are inscribed and Faustus in part, but of him still below; most wretchedly therefore, and gratuitously, and falsely you wrote those words, which I related above, "And so they were delighted by the same," namely the Conferences of Cassian, or (as you most certainly think) by the errors, heresies, blasphemies; these also you wrote without a witness; from no other, as is plain, than the zeal of speaking ill. To the same recurs, what you say of Conference XIII, inscribed to the men of Lérins: which certainly presents a manifest falsity. For Cassian never inscribed his Conferences to the Monks of Lérins; but the first ten to Leontius and Helladius, the seven others which follow to Honoratus and Eucherius; finally the last seven to the holy ones, that is the Monks, who inhabited the Stoechades Islands. But these are light things, let us make a step to greater.
[32] On page 165 you say, that Cassian dedicated seven Conferences to Honoratus; but especially, you say, the XIIIth, by which the doctrine of Augustine is assailed. especially Conference 13, That "especially the XIIIth," you added from mere lust of feigning and fastening; and as you had already said before, that Cassian spoke confidently in the said Conference XIII, led by the one zeal of accusing. For the same religious confidence, as each matter demands, was discussed by Cassian; but since the subject of Conference XIII had been the protection of God or divine grace, no wonder, if of divine grace there, but not elsewhere, he disputed. In no way therefore did he speak more confidently in this, than in the others; as you construct, far indeed more confidently and more freely, than was fitting. As also that which I indicated, namely that especially this Conference was dedicated to Honoratus by Cassian, which besides you no one ever said or wrote. An excellent writer assuredly not of a Pelagian History, but of fables and trifles! These are light things, I know well enough; whence they drew Semipelagianism, yet you, who write these things led by the one zeal of accusing, have done far graver things. But let us proceed: "The genuine origin of Semipelagianism at Lérins therefore is to be sought from the Conferences of Cassian sent thither," as you have it page 166 : but there you correct Vignier, who thought, that Faustus the Abbot of the men of Lérins drew the error from the sermons of Julian, whom he says put in there. A twin fable: For Vignier feigns that Julian put in there, which is constructed gratuitously and without any witness. You also here feign many things; namely that in the year CCCCXXVIII there flourished in the said Island Maximus, Hilary, Faustus, Lupus with his Brother Vincentius, but we have demonstrated, that Lupus departed from the Island in the year CCCCXXVI or VII. Nay from the letters of Eucherius you confirm this very thing page 251 , and from the Legation of Lupus and Germanus page 192 : and with them Vincentius, likewise page 251 you expressly write, that Vincentius, when he committed this work to writing, was not yet a Monk of Lérins; why therefore do you say, that there flourished in the Island Lupus with his Brother Vincentius in the year CCCCXXVIII? Here certainly the trite proverb would aptly have place; "It behooves," etc., the rest I keep silent: but there also you err, when you say, that it was then a matter of question, not of dogma, namely Semipelagianism. Not so Augustine, who everywhere asserts this matter to pertain to faith; not so Prosper, who a hundred times in the little work against the Collator wrote that the errors of the Semipelagians are adverse to the Catholic faith, and accused them in the very preface of heretical loquacity barking outside; whence it is established that false is that which you say page 239 , that nowhere were the Semipelagians named heretics by Prosper.
[33] You accuse also the men of Lérins page 188 . "Meanwhile," you say, "the Semipelagians in the Gauls, Cassian and the Monks of Lérins being Leaders, most sharply pursued the opinion of St. Augustine on gratuitous predestination, both to faith, and to glory." Cassian omitted, whom we have already vindicated from your gibes; how do you prove this of the Monks of Lérins? From the Epistles of Prosper and Hilary to Augustine. But what at length in the Epistles? Is perhaps any mention of the men of Lérins made in them? None at all. Hilary, you will say, is named by Prosper in his Epistle to Augustine. So it is: but the Bishop of Arles, namely Hilary, who then was Bishop, not a monk, not the Monk of Lérins. But, you will say, before he had been a Monk of Lérins. Be it so: yet in that year, namely CCCCXXIX, which also you note in the margin page 188 , Hilary was Bishop of Arles; nor do you make mention of him under another name page 167 *, and that with Prosper, who calls him that Bishop of Arles, but not the Monk of Lérins. To Faustus perhaps you will recur, who then was a Monk of Lérins. Let us grant this, although him also we have in part vindicated and still in this will vindicate: he is the only one. Name, I pray, others, and that from the Epistle of Prosper to Augustine. For granted and not conceded, that this one wrote against Augustine and was truly a Semipelagian; and Faustus, whose fault, if there was any, cannot be imputed to all: thence it does not follow, that the Monks of Lérins generally, as you write, were not only Semipelagians, but also Leaders of the Semipelagians. The crime of one you undeservedly attribute to all the others: as though indeed the betrayal of Judas were to be imputed to the rest of the Apostles. But, you say, Prosper speaks of many servants of Christ. So it is: but which? Hear, I pray, "Many of the servants of Christ, who consist in the City of Marseilles." No mention there of the men of Lérins; but Lérins is distant from Marseilles more than CL miles. But Faustus, you will say, was a Monk of Lérins, and he a Semipelagian. Of the doctrine of Faustus it has been already said, and we shall say more below; this one meanwhile is accused by no one, except in the Pelagian History. yet not at that time had Faustus given even the least suspicion, and never did Prosper or Prosper's companion Hilary accuse or denounce him: rashly therefore you write, that the Monks of Lérins in the year CCCCXXIX were Leaders of the Semipelagians. For the rest, we have shown more than once, that gratuitous predestination to faith and grace is always confounded by you, with gratuitous predestination to glory; you confounding the twin Predestination, as though equally he is to be reckoned a Semipelagian, who denies the second, as he who denies the first. I will grant of my own accord, that the men of Lérins, Hilary, Vincentius, Lupus, Maximus, Honoratus denied gratuitous Predestination to glory; but that thence they are to be reckoned Semipelagians, cannot be said without manifest error.
[34] Again page 238 you say, that the Semipelagian men of Lérins are described by Prosper in the Preface of the little work against the Collator. There indeed he treats of Cassian and those holy Marseillais, of whom in the Epistle to Augustine, four or five years before, he had made mention; but of the men of Lérins not even a word. For that one whom he writes to surpass the rest in the study of the sacred Scriptures, and the men of Lérins with the Marseillais that man of the Sacerdotal Order, who excels in the use of disputing among those with whom he dwells, is Cassian himself; and those, whose domestic malignity sounding within is there carped at, who have a show of piety, without doubt are those, with whom he dwells in the Monastery of Marseilles, and therefore those holy Marseillais, that is the Monks under Cassian the Abbot. Why therefore do you traduce them to the men of Lérins, of whom Prosper was altogether silent? Why in the same place do you again repeat, that Conference XIII was written to the men of Lérins? which we have already said above to be false. Why do you feign that twelve Conferences are examined by Prosper in that work, when he examines only the thirteenth, as is notorious and he himself testifies, namely the book whose superscription is On the Protection of God? You write besides page 249 . that the men of Lérins and the Marseillais were accused by Prosper to Celestine: but by what witness? By none at all. Nay Celestine in that Epistle to the Bishops of Gaul written in the year CCCCXXXII, makes no mention of the Marseillais nor of the men of Lérins. Yet it is quite likely, that the Marseillais were accused by Prosper, of whom already in the year CCCCXXIX he had written to Augustine, and then in the year CCCCXXXIII in a singular little work against the Collator he censured. Why therefore do you gratuitously fasten these things on the men of Lérins?
[35] But that which on the following page 239 you say, that they were in the former century commonly called Semipelagians, nay also heretics, against whom Prosper most sharply fought; equally feigning of both namely the Marseillais, the men of Lérins, and almost all the Bishops of the Gauls, is ridiculous; since equally in this century, by your Confederates and by yourself, they are traduced as such, as is plain from what has been said: and in vain you praise the sanctity of those, on whom you impose more than once heretical doctrine, wiles, mines, and evil arts, hypocrisy, wolfish malice under the skin of sheep, domestic malignity under a show of piety, the zeal of deceiving and calumniating; but especially page 241 you say it is even made plain by you, that not only Hilary, Faustus and Vincentius, but also the other Cell-mates of Lérins (you except none) page 246 conspired against the doctrine of Augustine (But these gratuitously, since no proof is subjoined); nay thence it follows, Cassian their master; that Maximus, Honoratus, Lupus, Caprasius, Eucherius, and all the others were participants of this conspiracy. Gratuitously likewise page 276 you write, that Faustus adhered to the old opinion of his men of Lérins and of Cassian his master. That Cassian was the master of Faustus, none of the ancients committed to writing; why therefore do you add, that Cassian was his Master? as also other things almost innumerable, which without a witness, by mere arbitrament and genius, you forge and stitch on. Scarcely certainly do I survey a page, in which I do not find not one only, but many such things everywhere, which yet to the incautious and unskilled, among certain other things a little more diligently discussed by you for pomp, you so obtrude, that by the patronage and clientele of these they may seem as it were covered and safe, and many false things may seem to lie hidden under a drawn-over light of moderate truth.
[36] But far otherwise of the men of Lérins those more ancient Fathers wrote, Eucherius, Hilary, Sidonius, On the contrary Eucherius highly praises the sanctity of the men of Lérins, Caesarius, and others. You will perhaps refuse Hilary, as suspect: but, willy-nilly, that was the Hilary, in comparison with whom, now not one Vossius, but a thousand Vossii, are to be made of a straw, of a nut, of nothing; and if men should be silent, the very stones will cry out,
The Gem of Priests, and Master of the people and of the world.
For so it is read on the ancient marble, placed at his sepulchre. But now let us hear Eucherius in the little work On the Praise of the Desert to Hilary, where he writes these things; Indeed to all places of the desert, which are illumined by the retreat of the elders, I owe reverence, yet with especial honor I embrace my Lérins… worthy, that it was founded by Honoratus as author, that with such institutions it obtained so great a Father… worthy, that receiving him it should so shine forth; worthy that it should nourish most excellent Monks and present Priests to be sought after. This now holds his successor Maximus, renowned in name, because after him he deserved to be admitted; this had Lupus of Reverend name, and his brother german Vincentius, conspicuous for the internal splendor of gems; this now possesses Caprasius venerable for gravity, equal to the ancient saints… and those holy servants, who brought the Egyptian Fathers into our Gauls. What companies and assemblies of saints, good Jesus, did I there behold! Precious alabasters in these were fragrant with sweet ointment, everywhere breathed the odor of life, they presented the face of the interior man by the habit of the exterior; constrained by charity, cast down by humility, most gentle in piety, most firm in hope, modest in gait, quick in obedience, silent in meeting, serene in countenance; quite forthwith by the very contemplation they show an array of Angelic quiet.
[37] Sidonius, These things of the men of Lérins Eucherius, whom however you contend to be Semipelagians, heretics, wolves, hypocrites, and unjust slanderers. But hear his contemporary, though a little younger than Eucherius, Sidonius in the Eucharisticon;
— How many mountains that level Island sent to heaven, what the holy life of Caprasius the old man, and of Lupus the youth, what grace remained to Father Honoratus, what that Maximus was; etc.
But perhaps of the later men of Lérins and these succeeding ones one should think otherwise. Caesarius: Hear, I pray, Caesarius, not suspect to you, inasmuch as he at least (as you yourself wish) was both most attached to Augustine, and most hostile to Faustus. So therefore he writes Homily 20. O happy and blessed habitation of this Island, where by so holy and spiritual gains daily the glory of the Lord is increased, and by so great losses the wickedness of the devil is diminished! Blessed, I say, and happy Island of Lérins, which though it seem to be small and level, yet is known to have sent innumerable mountains to Heaven. (he alludes to that saying of Sidonius) This is she who nourishes excellent monks, and disburses most eminent Priests through all the provinces; for scarcely was it to be found, that one taken in these times in those regions for the rule of Churches, was not chosen from the most noble and most observant of regular institution monastery of Lérins; and so those whom she receives as sons, she renders Fathers; whom she nourishes as little ones, she renders great. For all whomsoever that happy and blessed habitation has received, she has been wont to raise on high to the lofty summits of virtues to Christ on the wings of charity: which thing since it has been happily consummated in almost all the inhabitants, my merits resisting, in me it is not proved fulfilled. Again addressing the Monks, he speaks thus, From the East unto the West and in almost all places, in which the Christian Religion is cultivated, your most religious conduct is preached to the glory of Christ… Do therefore, God helping, what you have always done. And these do you not hesitate to traduce as heretics, and to place in that blessed Island the nest, center, and lot of the Semipelagians?
VII
[38] Ennodius, in the Life of Epiphanius, calls level Lérins the nurse of the highest Mountains. Innocent III writes, that the Monastery of Lérins once flourished in religion. Finally by the ancient Fathers whom I have mentioned, Hilary, and on their account the very island is extolled with wonderful eulogies, Caesarius, Sidonius, Ennodius, Honoratus of Marseilles, and other most holy Bishops and illustrious men, it is celebrated with eulogies. It is called a blessed Island, a blessed Land, a consecrated Habitation, a Land to be celebrated, a cohort of Saints, a Mansion of those living in Christ, a Nurse of Saints, a School of Christ, a Mirror of holiness, a Holy Temple; a Sacred Monastery etc. But if we hear you, we have in the Island of Lérins a dwelling of wolves and wild beasts, and a citadel of heretics; the school of Cassian, not of Christ; a Cohort of hypocrites, not of Saints; in one word, the nurse of Semipelagians. Do you hear? "What you have always done." By mere calumny therefore, you have traduced the men of Lérins Monks of the fourth and fifth century, without a witness, without reason, and led by the sole lust of speaking ill, as Semipelagians, nay also as Leaders of the Semipelagians: and that when the affairs of that time are so obscure. For how many confound two Hilarys into one; likewise two Leontii, two Prospers, two Porcarii, two Eucherii: many make St. Caesarius a hundred years older, others a whole century younger. How variously have many written of the Synod of Orange, of the time when it was celebrated, of the Pontiff by whom either the Canons were sent or approved! In these you could laudably have expended your labor, because at least antiquity presents some little light: but of these things, which you fasten on the men of Lérins, there is deep silence among the Ancients. And truly Prosper would never have kept silent that, whence the greatest peril threatened the Church; never Caesarius, never Celestine, never Leo: for it was of so great moment to close the fountain of the serpent's poison, that by men, in this kind especially burning with singular zeal and study, the due care would never have been omitted.
ANNOTATIONS* Pag. 157 col. 2,
* P. 157 c. 2.
* P. 158 c. 1.
* P. 136 col. I.
* P. 158 c. 2.
* Pag. 159 col. 1,
* P. 134 c. 2.
* P. 136 c. 1.
* P. 159 c. 2.
* P. 160 c. 1.
* P. 157 c. 2.
* P. 159 c. 2.
* P. 157 c. 2.
* P. 161 c. 1.
* P. 160 c. 2.
* P. 157 c. 2.
* P. 161 c. 2.
* P. 159
* P. 161 c. 2.
* P. 124 c. 1.
* P. 161 c. 2.
* P. 157 c. 1.
* P. 161 c. 1.
* P. 160 C. 1.
* P. 157 C. 1.
* P. 187 C. 1.
* P. 157 C. 1.
* P. 107 C. 2.
* P. 105 C. 2.
* P. 106 C. 2.
* P. 107 C. 1.
* P. 161 col. 1.
* P. 124 C. 1.
* P. 161 C. 1.
* P. 153 C. 2.
* P. 121 C. 1.
* P. 121.
* P. 107 C. 2.
* P. 152 C. 2.
* P. 159 C. 2.
* P. 153 C. 2.
* P. 154 C. 2.
* P. 157 C. 2.
* P. 177 C. 2.