{"slug":"tmp904.tmp904.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp904.tmp904.opp-lat1","title":"De Pelagiana Haeresi Liber Unicus","title_source":"De Pelagiana Haeresi Liber Unicus","author":"SS Leo I. Magnus","genre":"polemic","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor","provider":"Baidu","generated":"2026-11-15T20:21:02Z","cost_usd":0.008195},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp904.tmp904.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp904.tmp904.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp904/tmp904/tmp904.tmp904.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":91,"english_words":22140,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":92461,"commentary_units":0,"commentary_kinds":0,"derived_notes":1,"ambiguities":0,"work_notes":0,"external_links":0,"timeline":0},"summary":{},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp904/tmp904/tmp904.tmp904.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp904.tmp904.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":91,"translated":91,"commentary_passages":0,"commentary_units":0,"english_words":22140,"source_letters":91793,"commentary_kinds":0},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Latin; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: polemic in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 91 narrative."},{"kind":"caution","severity":"caution","text":"1 passage(s) are fragmentary in the source; the English bridges each break and says so in the note."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Licence: Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":91},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"DE PELAGIANA HÆRESI,\n\nS. LEONIS MAGNI ÆVO GLISCENTE,\n\nLIBER UNICUS.\n\nCAPUT PRIMUM.\n\nDe Juliano Eclani episcopo, ejusque agendi ratione, ut Pelagianam hæresim latius in vulgus spargeret.\n\nI. Inter Coelestii discipulos principem locum tenuisse Julianum Eclani episcopum, jam ex ecclesiasticis monumentis et imperialium decretorum legibus omnibus exploratum est. Is ergo, quamdiu S. innocentius papa primus vixit (a quo episcopatus ordihem obtinuerat), variis simulationum artibus nefaHum illius haereseos virus ebvolvere studuit; atqne sub pietatis et charitatis velo erga egenos totam animi impifetatem obtendere conabatur. Immo, si Mario Mercatori tidem adhibemus, idem Julianus, ut sancto pontifici Innocentio pergratam rem faceret, exterius, absque ulla prorsus simulatione et verhorum involucro, Pelagium et Coelestium tamquam catholicæ fidei desertores palam damnare non detrectavit. Prædicti sane Cælestius et Pelagius non tunc orimo a sanctæ memoriæ Zosimo videntur esse da mnati, sed ab ejus decessore sanctæ recordationis Innocentio, a quo ei Julianus ruerat ordinatus; quippe post iltorum damnationem, usque ad prcedicli Innocentii excessum e vita, in ejus communione permanens et perseverans in sincera sententia, et communicans damnatori prædicto, cum ipso quoque sine dubio Pelagium Cœlestiumque damnavit.","english":"ON THE PELAGIAN HERESY,\n\nWHICH WAS RAMPANT IN THE AGE OF ST. LEO THE GREAT,\n\nONE BOOK.\n\nCHAPTER ONE.\n\nConcerning Julian, bishop of Eclanum, and his manner of acting, whereby he sought to spread the Pelagian heresy more widely among the common people.\n\nI. That Julian, bishop of Eclanum, held the chief place among the disciples of Caelestius, is already established for all from ecclesiastical records and from the laws of imperial decrees. He, therefore, as long as Pope St. Innocent I lived (from whom he had obtained the order of episcopate), strove by various arts of pretense to roll out the poisonous venom of that nefarious heresy; and under the veil of piety and charity toward the needy he attempted to conceal the whole impiety of his mind. Nay, if we give credence to Marius Mercator, the same Julian, in order to do a thing most pleasing to the holy pontiff Innocent, did not shrink from openly condemning Pelagius and Caelestius, outwardly, without any pretense at all and without wrapping of words, as deserters of the catholic faith. Indeed, the aforesaid Caelestius and Pelagius appear to have been condemned not then originally by Zosimus of holy memory, but by his predecessor Innocent of holy remembrance, by whom also Julian had been ordained; for after the condemnation of those men, remaining and persevering in his communion until the departure from life of the aforesaid Innocent, and in a sincere opinion, and communicating with the aforesaid condemner, he doubtless condemned Pelagius and Caelestius together with him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Utinam ergo Innocentius diu in vivis stetisset, aut Julianus ante illius decessum mortem obiisset! Non enin tantas calamitates Ecclesia perpessa fuisset, nec tot olim sanctissimi Campaniae et Italia. episcopi, Juliano duce et antesignano, catholicae fidei puritatem maculassent; non demique tot tantaque scripta blasphemiis aspersa impietatibusque referta uliro citroque transmissa fuissent, quemadmodum Eclanensis episcopi impetu et furore contigisse exploratissimum esi. Quid vero fecerit, quidve Julianus, mortuo Innocentio, moliri tentaverit, certe et plenissime ecclesiasticis monumentis edocen ur. Siquidem tunc non valens amplius odium in apostolicam doctrinam cohibere, quasi irarum impotens factus, palam in iis populum edocebat quæ jaUI a Coelestio didicerat; sanctissimos et alioqnin doctissimos catholicæ Ecclesiæ episcopos carpere et vellicare non verebatur; Augustino caeterisque Africae Palrihus diras imprecabutur, alque in dies deterior factus, contempta prius auctoritate, docnina et admonitionibus sancti Zosimi papæ, plurimos in malam fidem addux t. Tum tandem rej'cta ejusdem summi pontificis dogmatica epistola (tuam tractatoriam appellant, quamque universi catholicæ societatis episcopi summa animi veneratione, tamquam fidei regulam, susceperant), ipse impudentissime l'idem una cum aliis episcopis subscribere recusavit.","english":"Would therefore that Innocentius had long remained among the living, or that Julianus had met death before his decease! For the Church would not have endured such great calamities, nor would so many once most holy bishops of Campania and Italy, with Julianus as leader and standard-bearer, have stained the purity of the catholic faith; nor, finally, would so many and such great writings, sprinkled with blasphemies and filled with impieties, have been sent hither and thither, as it is most thoroughly established happened through the impulse and fury of the bishop of Eclanum. But what Julianus did, or what he attempted to contrive after the death of Innocentius, the ecclesiastical records certainly and most fully teach. For then, no longer able to restrain his hatred against the apostolic doctrine, made as it were powerless over his rages, he openly taught the people in those things which he had already learned from Coelestius; he did not shrink from carping at and rending the most holy and otherwise most learned bishops of the catholic Church; he uttered dire imprecations against Augustinus and the other Fathers of Africa, and becoming worse day by day, having first despised the authority, doctrine, and admonitions of the holy Pope Zosimus, he led very many into the evil faith. Then at last, having rejected the dogmatic epistle of the same supreme pontiff (which they call your tractatory, and which all the bishops of the catholic fellowship had received with the highest veneration of mind as the rule of faith), he himself most shamelessly refused to subscribe to the same along with the other bishops.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Tantarum tamen improbitatum pœnas diu luere non distutit. Etenim e sacerdotii primum gr idu dejectus, tum sua episcopali sede spoliatus, ac postremo imperiali sanctione ab omnibus Italiæ oris proscriptus, apud Orientales se exsulem recepit, spe omni denique frustratus posse aliquando, aut proprium, aut alium quempiam episcopalem conscendere thronum. Contra vero alii ex episcopis quos improbitatis sibi socios asciverat, maxime poenarum vim, magnitudinem et ignominiam reformidantes, secum reputarunt nimis turpe fore apostolicae sedis judiciis non obtemperare; idcirco, Juliano derelicto, damnatisque Pelagio atque Ccelestio, supplices apostolicæ sedi libellos exhibuerunt, a qua clementet suscepti, propriis sedibus restituti sunt. Alii vero qni pertinaci animo imperiales et ecclesiasticas pœnas subire non verebantur, perpetuo depositi atque exauctorati, extra omnes Italiæ fines coir.pulsi fuerunt. Rem totam hisce fere verbis Marius Mercator laudato loco exposuit: Cui (Zosimi epistole videlicet Julianus et reliqui complices erra subscribere detrectantes, consentaneosque se nolente. iisdem Patribus facere, non solum imperialibus leqibus, sed et sacerdotalibus statutis depositi atque exauctorati, ex omni Italia deturbati sunt, ex quibus plurimi resipiscentes, et a prædicto errore correcti, regressi sunt supplices ad apostolicam..:dem, et suscepti suas Ecclesias rueperunt.","english":"He did not, however, hesitate to pay the penalties of such great wickedness for a long time. For indeed, first cast down from the rank of the priesthood, then stripped of his episcopal see, and finally by imperial decree banished from all the coasts of Italy, he withdrew as an exile to the Eastern regions, utterly frustrated in every hope of ever being able to ascend either his own or any other episcopal throne. But on the other hand, some of the bishops whom he had taken as partners in his wickedness, especially dreading the force, magnitude, and ignominy of the penalties, reckoned with themselves that it would be far too shameful not to obey the judgments of the apostolic see; therefore, abandoning Julianus and condemning Pelagius and Caelestius, they presented suppliant petitions to the apostolic see, by which they were mercifully received and restored to their own sees. But others who with stubborn mind did not fear to undergo imperial and ecclesiastical penalties were perpetually deposed and stripped of their rank, and driven out beyond all the borders of Italy. Marius Mercator set forth the whole matter in nearly these words in the passage cited: To whom (namely, to the letter of Zosimus) Julianus and the rest of his accomplices refusing to subscribe, and unwilling to make themselves consenting to the same Fathers, were not only by imperial laws but also by priestly decrees deposed and stripped of their rank, and driven out of all Italy; of whom very many, coming to their senses and corrected from the aforesaid error, returned as suppliants to the apostolic see, and having been received, recovered their churches.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Hæc porro sanctissimi pontificis Zosimi gesta ex Mario Mercatore recensentibus, amplissimus nobis aperiretur campus evertendi omnia mendacia atque calumnias quibus referta est dissertatio de Conciliis Africanis, quam in apostolicæ sedis odium Paschasius Quesnellus conscripsit. In ea quippe omnia susquedeque perturbans, et vertens licenter sanctum pontificem Zosimum carpit, atque eum de nimia cum Pelagianis conniventia culpans, vehementer exagitat: Romanæ Ecclesiæ clericos quoque tamquam Pelapiana tinctos fuligine describit; provincialium in Africa conciliorum auctoritatem ultra dcb tos et a divinis legibus præscriptos limites extendit; ipsius denique, apostolicæ sedis jurisdictionem dignitatemque, quam Africam Patres tunc summa cnm religione prosequebantur, non tantum clevare, sed etiam dejlcere conatus est. Sed hisce imposturis quid? Suis dumtaxat asseclis aud icter imponere potuit, non nobis, qui ex Prospero in Augustini Viia optime novimus Africanos Patres, ab apostolicae sedis judicio tunc vel maxime pendentes, numquam in plenaria synodo convenire voluisse, nisi posteaquam Zosimi papæ decretum ad eos pervenit. Cui deinde decreto bis centum atque duodecim Patres, ut in omnibus suffragarentur, oct o canones ediderunt, qui perperam Milevitanæ secundæ synodo attribuuntur. Sed tiiana ista, ait doctisimus Petavius, contra Pelagianos nihil statuit, et ex illis octo canonibus.","english":"These acts, moreover, of the most holy pontiff Zosimus, when reviewed from Marius Mercator, would open to us the broadest field for overturning all the lies and calumnies with which the dissertation On the African Councils is filled, which Paschasius Quesnellus wrote in hatred of the apostolic see. In it, indeed, throwing everything into confusion and turning things about at will, he attacks the holy pontiff Zosimus and, accusing him of excessive connivance with the Pelagians, vehemently assails him; he also describes the clerics of the Roman Church as tainted with the Pelagian soot; he extends the authority of the provincial councils in Africa beyond the limits established by the learned and prescribed by divine laws; finally, he has attempted not only to diminish but even to cast down the jurisdiction and dignity of the apostolic see itself, which the African Fathers at that time pursued with the greatest reverence. But what of these impostures? He could impose them only on his own followers, not on us, who know very well from Prosper in the Life of Augustine that the African Fathers, then especially dependent on the judgment of the apostolic see, were never willing to convene in plenary synod until after the decree of Pope Zosimus had reached them. To this decree, moreover, two hundred and twelve Fathers, so that they might give their assent in all things, issued eight canons, which are wrongly attributed to the second synod of Milevis. But all this, says the most learned Petavius, decides nothing against the Pelagians, and from those eight canons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"tertius, quartus et quintus a Coelestino papa sub Carthaginensis concilii nomine citantur. Hæc vero silentio premere maluimus quam in medium proferte, cuin haud in animo in praesens habeamus singulis lauda aB dissertationis mendaciis et fraudibus occurrere, eademque refellere: potissimum cum ad ea rejicienda quisque uberrimam habeat rernm copiam, jam pridem ab eminentissimo cardinali Norisio paratam in libris de Pelagianorum Historia. Cujus nos enam subsidiis insistentes, ea dumtaxat delibanda duximus quae ad hojus exortae hæresis tempus, quæ ad illius auciores et antesignanos, qu:eque tandem ad nonnullorum Romanorum pontificum gesta pertinere videntur; ut, videlicet, brevissima quadam præmissa rerum historia, faciliorem pararemus viam ad ea quæ de sancto pontifice Leone mox exponere aggredimur. Caetera autem, quae Africanorum conciliorum causam attingunt, et apostolicarn sedem ab omni labe vindicant, alibi expedienda reservavimus.","english":"The third, fourth, and fifth are cited by Pope Celestine under the name of the Council of Carthage. These things, however, we have preferred to pass over in silence rather than bring into the open, since for the present it is not our intention to confront each falsehood and fraud of that dissertation one by one and refute them—especially since anyone has an abundant supply of material for refuting them, long since prepared by the most eminent Cardinal Noris in his books On the History of the Pelagians. Following his aids as well, we have thought it fit to touch only on those matters which seem to pertain to the time of this heresy's rise, to its authors and leaders, and finally to the deeds of certain Roman pontiffs; so that, namely, with a very brief history of events prefaced, we might prepare an easier way to those things which we are about to set forth concerning the holy pontiff Leo. The rest, however, which concern the cause of the African councils and vindicate the apostolic see from every stain, we have reserved to be treated elsewhere.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"CAPUT II.\n\nSancti Leonis Magni studium in Juliano et Pelagianis evertendis Campaniam populantibus.\n\nI. Ad propositum itaque ut revertamur, nemo sibi persuadeat, aut Julianum cum suis impietatis sociis ila pacifice exsilium aliasque pœnas subiisse, ut Caelestino papae atque Xysto hnjus successori fucum facere non tentaverit, ut absolveretur. Nemo quoque arbitretur Urben, Campaniam, aliasque Italiae regiones, post Juliani caeterorumque episcoporum eaturbationem, penitus a Pelagianorum lue l.beras man.-isse. Julianus imprituprimis, comparato sibi Nestorii Constantinopolitani episcopi praesidio, suam et sociorum causam dolo atque fraudibus apud sanctum Coelestinum agere tentavit, apud quem, ut sibi et exturbans sociis epscopales restituerentur sedes, quam sæpissime institit. Interim quoque Pelagiam hinc cique illinc per Italiam sparsi succrescentes, spe lovebantur, quandoque proprios sibi reddendus esse pa tores, ac propterea, non a querimoniis, non a tumultu, non a maledictis desistebant. Quare, vix mortuo Cœlestino, et in rjus sedem Xysto suffecto, hujus fidem ct apostolicum vigorem Julianus tentare ausus cst, cum, ad eUn datis supplicibus libellis, catholicam tidem profiteri simulabat, ut pristinum rp scopatus honorem et munera ontifox ei rest tueret.","english":"CHAPTER II.\n\nThe zeal of Saint Leo the Great in overthrowing Julian and the Pelagians, who were ravaging Campania.\n\nI. To return, then, to our purpose: let no one persuade himself that Julian with his companions in impiety so peacefully endured exile and other punishments that he did not attempt to impose upon Pope Celestine and Xystus, his successor, in order to be absolved. Nor let anyone think that Rome, Campania, and the other regions of Italy remained entirely free of the plague of the Pelagians after the disturbance caused by Julian and the other bishops. Julian especially, having secured for himself the protection of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, attempted to plead his own cause and that of his companions by deceit and fraud before Saint Celestine, and he pressed him as often as possible to restore to himself and his expelled companions their episcopal sees. Meanwhile also the Pelagians, scattered hither and thither throughout Italy and growing stronger, were sustained by the hope that at some time their own pastors would be restored to them, and for this reason they did not cease from complaints, from uproar, from slander. Wherefore, scarcely had Celestine died and Xystus been put in his see, when Julian dared to test the faith and apostolic vigor of the latter, when, having sent suppliant petitions to him, he pretended to profess the catholic faith, so that the pontiff might restore to him his former honor of episcopate and its duties.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Rem narrat Prosper Aquitanus in Chronico, addens præterea Julianum non ab ali» fuisse elusum quam a sancto Leone tunc Romanae Ecclesiæ archidiacono, qui omnium viriuln suarum contentione apud sanctum pontficem eDit ut a simulata hæretici hominis I pœnitentia sibi atque toti Ecclesiæ caveret. i Hac tempestate Juliamus Eclanensis jactatissimus Pelagiam erroris assertor, quem dudum amissi episcopatus intemperans cupido exagitabat, multimoda arte fallendi correctionis speciem præferens, molicus est in communionem Ecclesiae irrepere. Sed his insidiis Xystus papa, diaconi Leonis hortatu, vigilanter occurens, nullum aditum pestiferis conatibus patere rmisit, et ita omnes catholicos de rejectione fallacis bestiæ gaudere fecit, quasi tunc primum suin ærbissimam haeresim apostolicus gladius delruncasset. » Ita scripsit laudatus Prosper ad consulatuum Theodosii XVII et Festi, qui juxta Pftavii labia: as rejiciendus est in annum Christi 459, ut etiam eluinentissimus card. Norisius annotavit.","english":"Prosper of Aquitaine recounts the matter in his Chronicle, adding besides that Julian was deceived by no one other than Saint Leo, then archdeacon of the Roman Church, who by the exertion of all his powers prevailed upon the holy pontiff to guard himself and the whole Church against the feigned penitence of the heretical man. At this time Julian of Eclanum, the most notorious champion of the Pelagian error, whom an unbridled desire for his long-lost bishopric was goading on, presenting under manifold artifice of deception the appearance of correction, strove to creep into the communion of the Church. But Pope Xystus, at the urging of the deacon Leo, watchfully meeting these snares, permitted no access to lie open to his pestilential attempts, and thus made all Catholics rejoice over the rejection of the deceitful beast, as though the apostolic sword had then for the first time cut down his most savage heresy. Thus wrote the praiseworthy Prosper in the consulship of Theodosius for the seventeenth time and of Festus, which, according to the reckoning of Pagi, is to be assigned to the year of Christ 459, as also the most eminent Cardinal Norisius noted.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Tanta ergo fuit S. Leonis adhuc diaconi mira prudentia ingeniique sagacitas, ut statim hujus Pe lagianorum signiferi dolos, inalam fidem et simulationes comprehenderet, qui, dumtaxat, intemperanliori amissi episcopatus cupiditate actus, in catholicorum communionem cum omnibus honoribus ct muneribus admitti efflagitabat, ut denu\" Ecclesiam perturbaret et novis machinis impeteret. Posteaquam vero animo omnibus periculis sup riore idem Leo hisce malis occurrisset, hæreticos cIn Nestorianos, tuli Pelagianos scriptis etiam exagitandos esse censuit. Ac perinde, quasi pr.rscius divinæ sui ipsius ad summum Ecclesiæ ponitificatum electionis, Cassiam MasSiliensis presbyreri verecundam tacituruitatem crehris ad hortationibus excitavit, atque istius propositum ac sententiam laud abili studio et imperiosissimo affectu vicit, et quasi impulit ut septem adversus Nestorium de Incarnatione libros scriberet et evulgarel. In iisdem porro libris nullum prorsus morem Pel igianis gessit, sed eos impetiit atque proscidit.","english":"So great, then, was the wondrous prudence and keenness of mind of Saint Leo, while still a deacon, that he immediately grasped the deceits, the unholy faith, and the pretenses of this standard-bearer of the Pelagians, who, driven as he was by the more unrestrained desire for a bishopric he had lost, urgently demanded to be admitted into the communion of the catholics with all honors and offices, so that he might once again disturb the Church and assail it with new devices. But after the same Leo, with a mind raised above all dangers, had met these evils, he judged that the heretics, both Nestorians and Pelagians, were to be attacked also in writings. And accordingly, as if foreknowing the divine election of himself to the supreme pontificate of the Church, he stirred up the modest silence of Cassian, priest of Marseilles, with frequent exhortations, and overcame that man's purpose and opinion with praiseworthy zeal and a most commanding feeling, and as it were compelled him to write and publish seven books On the Incarnation against Nestorius. In these same books, moreover, he showed no indulgence whatever to the Pelagians, but attacked and cut them down.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Qui re etsi, a Cassiano absolutis dudum Collationuin spiritualium libellis, secum reputa set, constitui-setque se in silentii portu collocare, excusaturus per taciturnitatis verecundiam loquacitatis audaciam, atque ut Semipelaginorum fautoris maculam, falso omnino illi aMictam, deleret, tamen ex tam alto praemeditati silentii recessu, in publicum formidandumque judicium, nostro adhortante Leone atque imperante, venit, novum subiit laborem, rum adhuc de præteritis erublesceret. lia profecto fassus est idem Cassianus in epistola nuncupat ria ad L onem, in qua hunc etiam ita alloquitur: TUlI enim jam hic magis causa quam mea vertiMur, luum magis judicium quam meum officium periclitatur. Me enim, site par sim tuo imperiu, sive non sim, ipsa aliquatenus obedientiæ ra';o atque humilitatis excusat... Et paul' ost hæc subjicit: Tua ergo hæc res, tuum negotium, tui pudoris opus est.","english":"For although by this matter, having long since been absolved by Cassian in the little books of the Spiritual Conferences, he had reckoned with himself and had resolved to place himself in the harbor of silence, to excuse the boldness of his loquacity through the modesty of taciturnity, and to erase the stain of a favorer of the Semi-Pelagians, wholly falsely attached to him, nevertheless from so deep a retreat of premeditated silence, into public and formidable judgment, at our Leo's urging and command, he came, undertook a new labor, though he still blushed over past things. This indeed the same Cassian confessed in the letter addressed to Leo, in which he also addresses him thus: For now here the matter is turned more to your account than to mine; your judgment is more at risk than my duty. For whether I be, or be not, in accordance with your command, the very reason of obedience and humility excuses me to some extent... And a little after he adds these things: This matter, then, is yours, your business, the work of your shame.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"No i mult im vero post, non solum fama ( qua nhil in huju modi rebus est celerius) usquequaque persuasit. sed nuutii etiam præcucurierunt, Xystum R omanum pontificem ei hac luce migrasse. Quod cum Pelagiani audissent, statim sibi novas clades imminere intellexerunt, si archidiaconus Leo ad pontificatum assumeretur. Et propterea maximo timore gravissimisque pericu:is cr uciabantur, et quasi in se ipsos etiam veluti de superiori loco nova fulmina jaculanda prospiciebant. EI quidem faustis hisce ominibus Leo Ecclesiam regere aggressus et!. Nam. ad communem fidei catholicæ utilitatem, statim hæretici; omnibus tl Jul'ann potissimum, ac cæteris Pelagianis qui in Campania commorabantur, maximum bellum indix t. In Italia nobis per Campanam constitutis, dum venerabilis et apostolico honore nominandus Leo Manichæos subverteret, et contereret Pelagianos, ei maxime Julianum.»","english":"Not long after, in truth, not only did rumor (than which nothing in matters of this kind is swifter) persuade everywhere, but messengers also ran ahead, that Xystus the Roman pontiff had departed from this light. When the Pelagians had heard this, they immediately understood that new disasters were threatening them, if the archdeacon Leo were assumed to the pontificate. And for that reason they were tormented by the greatest fear and the gravest dangers, and as if against themselves they foresaw new thunderbolts to be hurled even as it were from a higher place. And indeed with these auspicious omens Leo undertook to rule the Church. For, for the common utility of the catholic faith, he immediately declared the greatest war upon all the heretics, and especially upon Julian, and upon the rest of the Pelagians who were dwelling in Campania. In Italy, while we were stationed throughout Campania, when the venerable Leo, to be named with apostolic honor, was subverting the Manichaeans and crushing the Pelagians, and especially Julian.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Qua in rc tamen eos scriptores minime esse andiendos arbitror, qui ex Photii scriptis perperam cruerunt sanctum Leonem in Campamam adversus Juliani insidias Prosperuln Aquitanum de tinasse. Nec enim Photius sua in Bibliotheca tale aliquid asseruit. Codice, dumtaxat, scripsit de Pelagiana hæresi renascente: « Post noa diu rursum veluti existere atque enasci e mala radice impudenter cum cœrpisset, H omæ etiam quidim pro haresi lib-re locuti sInt, quos Prosper homo sane divinus, Ibellis adversus eos in vulgus editis, facile dissipavit exstinxitque, Leon; etiam nune, quem dixi nus, Romanam sedem guhe rnante. » Non ergo Prosper, auciore Photio, Pelagianos in Cmpama commorantes. evertit, nec ad eam subeundam provinciam a papa Leone missus et destinatus fuit, ut Usserio, Caveo aliisque placuit; sed tantunmodo quosdam tibellos contra e is evulgavit, qui libzre pro hæresi Pelugiana loquebantur. Quihus porro verbis polius quosdam homines iudrc nos esse arbilrainur, qni *c Sciiptularum testimonia intelligents, nec qua par est suomissione apostolicæ scdis judiciis obtemperantes, manem ambitiosamque scientie speciem affectabant, dum illius haereseos vindices videri cupiebant.","english":"In this matter, however, I judge that those writers are by no means to be heard who have wrongly extracted from the writings of Photius that Saint Leo dispatched Prosper of Aquitaine to Campania against the plots of Julian. For Photius did not assert any such thing in his Bibliotheca. In the codex, at least, he wrote concerning the Pelagian heresy then reviving: \"After no long time, when it had begun shamelessly, as it were, to exist and spring up again from the evil root, certain men at Rome also spoke in behalf of the heresy, whom Prosper, a truly divine man, easily dispersed and extinguished by publishing little books against them, while Leo also, whom I have mentioned, was governing the Roman see.\" Therefore Prosper, according to Photius, did not overthrow the Pelagians dwelling in Campania, nor was he sent and appointed by Pope Leo to undertake that province, as Ussher, Cave, and others have held; but he merely published certain little books against those who were speaking in behalf of the Pelagian heresy. By these words, moreover, we rather judge that those men are to be reckoned among us who, understanding the testimonies of the Scriptures, and not obeying the judgments of the apostolic see with the submission that is proper, affected a vain and ambitious appearance of knowledge, while they desired to appear as defenders of that heresy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Quorom quidem consuetudo hodierno quorumdam mori simillima est, cum sæpissime garrulos quosdam et clamosos doctores, ne ardeliones appellem, offendamus, qui publicas venalium librorum officinas, eo dumtaxat animo frequentare solent, ut summa cum libertate aliorum gesta ei scripta notent et carpant, eademque maledicis carminibus describant, cum tamen, oh summa ingeniorum confidentia! ipsis nec a natura, nec ab officiis, neque a scientiarum peritia et exercitationibus, ratione ulla datum sit de hujusmodi facultatibus vel leviter judicare.\n\nEjusmodi itaque hominumloquacitatem atque licentiam S. Prosper quatuor aut saltem tribus iibellis cohibuit. Porro autem et illud reputans, homines videlicet, carminibus magis quam soluta oratione delectari consuevisse, idcirco metrice conscripsit. Praecipuum vero hosce inter libellos locum obiret carmen illud de Ingratis, in quo contra eagianos, non tantum Ecclesiæ rerum gestarum seriem describit, sed etiam omnes nefarios illius haereseos errores in medium adducit et evertit. Annon igitur ex hoc orationis genere populus et vulgus intelligere poterat quali quantave reverentia illa apostolicae sedis decreta suscipienda forent, quae jam ab omnibus Ecelesiarum episcopis tamquam fidei tesseræ habebantur?","english":"Their custom is indeed very like the manner of certain people today, since we very often encounter garrulous and clamorous teachers—not to call them busybodies—who are accustomed to frequent the public shops of booksellers with this purpose only, that with the greatest freedom they may note and carp at the deeds and writings of others, and describe them in abusive verses, when nevertheless—O the supreme confidence of their talents!—by no reason has it been granted to them, neither by nature, nor by their duties, nor by skill and practice in the sciences, even lightly to judge of such faculties.\n\nAnd so Saint Prosper restrained the loquacity and license of men of this kind with four, or at least three, little books. Furthermore, also considering this, namely that men have customarily delighted more in verses than in prose, for that reason he wrote in meter. But among these little books that poem On the Ungrateful holds the chief place, in which, against the Eagians, he not only describes the series of the Church's deeds, but also brings forward and overturns all the nefarious errors of that heresy. Could not, therefore, the people and the common crowd understand from this kind of speech with what reverence, and how great, those decrees of the apostolic see were to be received, which were already held by all the bishops of the Churches as tokens of the faith?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Annon præterea sola hujus libelli epigraphe, omnibus qui libere pro hac hæresi loquebantur, aut podorem excitare potuit, aut illius legendi cupiditatem injicere, utpote gravem indicans in opere Ingralorum animorum censuram contineri, quos quolibet tempore cunctae nationes exhorrere et ab eorum consuetudine segregare se consueverunt? Et sane si ingratus is censeri debet qui pro acceptis beneficiis nec gratiasrependit nec habet, quanto magis qui beneficia etiam se accepisse negat, et qui ingraus morem gerens, horum vitium et causam defendere nititur? Merito igitur Pelagianos ingratorum sibi nomen acquisivisse in dubium revocari vix potest quia nenio (ait Martinus Steyaert) prjus ingrati animi vitio laborat, quam ilie qui voluntati ac misericordiæ divinæ in.pie voluntatem præfert humanam, quasi originaliter malus receptionem boni, non a summo I bono, sed a se ipso inchoet.","english":"Besides, could not the mere title of this little book stir up against all who spoke freely on behalf of this heresy either a foul odor or a desire to read it, inasmuch as it indicates that a grave censure of ungrateful minds is contained in the work—minds which at all times all nations have been accustomed to shrink from and to separate themselves from their company? And indeed, if he is to be considered ungrateful who, for benefits received, neither returns thanks nor has any, how much more so he who even denies that he has received benefits, and who, playing the part of an ungrateful man, strives to defend the vice and cause of such people? By right, therefore, it can scarcely be called into doubt that the Pelagians have acquired for themselves the name of the ungrateful, since no one (as Martinus Steyaert says) labors under the vice of an ungrateful mind before that man who impiously prefers human will to the will and mercy of God, as if, being originally evil, he begins the reception of good not from the highest good but from himself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Hisce tamen rationibus eminentiss. Norisius refragari videtur. Libro quippe II Pelagianæ Historiae iia de testimonio Photii scripsit: Caeterum nulli sunt libri Prosperi contra Pelagianos, cum Photius eos libellos vocet, intellexisse puto eos quos in Gallia contra Semipelagianos evulgavit, quos tamen aute Leonis pontificatum scriptos esse mihi compertum est. Contra ingratos veru lepidum illud carlnen Romæ eumdem scripsisse unus Usserius sine teste aflirmat pag. 380. i Nuin ergo hæc dissimulanda sunt? Ne semper cum doctissimo viro ncgotium IDe habere velle videar, ut critici, litterariae rei Veneti scriptores, olim publicarunt, cum primum nostra Rafini editio lucem aspexit. An ita Norisii conjecturis subscribere oportet, ut in nostra opinione labare videamur? Abait ut nostra cognatio in isiuc incidat consilium! Nec enim Photii testimonium ita est inbecillum, ut apud nos et apud eruditorum cœctum aliquam saltem sibi non vindicet fidem. Neque praeterra ita eidem esse adh erendum arbitramur, ut 'clarissimi doctissimique viri cirdinalis Norisii conjeciuras atque rationes impetere aut rejicere audeanius. Nimis enim turpe foret vel leviter etiam eiuditissimi bominis lædere existimationem, qui pro Ecclesiae rebus, post tot ex.mutatos labores meliora suorum studiorum catholico orbi specimina exhibuit, cum in Pelagiana conscribenda Historia, tum in antiquorum monumentis ornandis.","english":"Nevertheless, the most eminent Norisius seems to oppose these arguments. For in Book II of his Pelagian History he wrote as follows concerning the testimony of Photius: \"Moreover, there are no books of Prosper against the Pelagians, since Photius calls them little books; I think he understood those which he published in Gaul against the Semi-Pelagians, which nevertheless I have ascertained were written before the pontificate of Leo.\" On the other hand, Usserius alone, without a witness, asserts at page 380 that the same man wrote that clever little poem at Rome against the ungrateful. Are these things, then, to be concealed? Lest I always seem to wish to have a dispute with that most learned man, as the critics, the Venetian writers on literary matters, once published, as soon as our edition of Rufinus saw the light. Or ought we to subscribe to the conjectures of Norisius in such a way that we seem to waver in our own opinion? Far be it that our kinship should fall into that design! For neither is the testimony of Photius so weak that it does not claim for itself at least some credence among us and among the assembly of the learned. Nor, on the other hand, do we think that one must cling to it so as to dare to attack or reject the conjectures and arguments of that most illustrious and most learned man, Cardinal Norisius. For it would be too shameful even lightly to injure the reputation of that most learned man, who for the affairs of the Church, after so many labors undergone, has exhibited better specimens of his studies to the Catholic world, both in writing his Pelagian History and in adorning the monuments of the ancients.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"Cum hæc itaque mecum reputarem, iterum conjectis oculis in Photii testimonium, utriusque scriptoris opiniones sen asserta facile conciliari posse mihi in animum induxi, atque ea potissimum de causa, quod Photius nullibi asserat, Leone Romanam sedem tenente, Prosperum ejusmodi contra Pelagianos exarasse libellos s. A itt dumtaxat: Prosper, homo sane divinus, libellis adversus eos in vulgus editis, facile dissipavit exstinxitque. Qui certe loquendi modus potius indicat Prosperum Romæ bibi nactum occasionem publicandi in plebem etiam libellos, quis forte antea contra Pel iffianos conscripserat- Hanc autem significationem Photii verba præseferre, nemo inliciabitur, qui ad genuinum illorum verborum sensum animadvertat; simulque recogitet nusquam propria scripta omnibus indiscriminatim PP. communicare consuevisse. Nec enim tanta tum erat manuscriptorum codicum copia, ut etiam vulgi manibus tererentur. Idcirco sat verisimile esset arbitrari Prosperum Ii. bros quos forte ipse, auctore Norisio, in Galliis consiripserat Romæ demum in vulgus etiam edidisse, ut Pelagianorum vindices dissiparet et exstingueret.","english":"When I had thus considered these matters with myself, and had again turned my eyes upon the testimony of Photius, I persuaded myself that the opinions or assertions of both writers could easily be reconciled, and chiefly for this reason, that Photius nowhere asserts that Prosper wrote books of this kind against the Pelagians while Leo held the Roman see, but only says: \"Prosper, a man surely divine, by the little books published against them among the people, easily scattered and extinguished them.\" This manner of speaking certainly indicates rather that Prosper, having obtained an opportunity at Rome, published among the common people the little books which perhaps he had written earlier against the Pelagians. But that Photius's words carry this meaning, no one will deny who attends to the genuine sense of those words, and at the same time reflects that it was not the custom for the writings of the Fathers to be shared indiscriminately with all. For there was not then such an abundance of manuscript codices that they were worn away even in the hands of the common people. Therefore it would be quite plausible to judge that Prosper, at Rome at last, published among the people even the books which perhaps he himself had written in Gaul, according to Norisius, so that he might scatter and extinguish the champions of the Pelagians.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"Postremam hanc conjecturam Heronymi ad Florentium epistola augct, de qua nos ipsi in Eusebri editione disseruimus. Ibi namque annotavimus, maximam fuisse librorum communicationem Hieronymum inter et Rufinum. Quare ille Florentium enixe rogat ut ubi hospitio Rufinum communem amicum excepei it, petat ab eo sibique mittendos curet beati Rheticii Augustodunensis episcopi commentarios in Canticum Canticorum. Præterea nomine cujusdam Pauli Scnis de Rufini patria reddi sibi postulat Tertulliani codicem: Interprelationem insuper Psalmorum Davidicorum et prolixum valde de Synodi. Ii. brun S. Hilarii, sua Hieronymi ipsius manu apud Treviros exscriptum. Ex qua epistola intelligimus codices Operum a Patribus elucubratorum ita perra* ros quinto Ecclesiæ.acuto fuisse, ut vix eorum exemplaria parandi esset facultas hominibus vel maxime pecuniosis, aut iis qui improbum amanuen. sium laborem subire non reformidabant. Quamvis igitur hoc ultro demus, quod Prosperi libelli, de quibus Photius disseruit, in Galliis ab auctore fuerin conscripti, quid inde tamen impedimenti erat quominus ad communis causae utilitatem in vulgus pariter postea ederentur? Et quidem nun alium Photiana verba sen um subire nobiscum judicabunt, qui eadem secundum grammaticæ apices voluerint inter pretari.","english":"This last conjecture is supported by Jerome's letter to Florentius, which we ourselves have discussed in the edition of Eusebius. For there we noted that there was a very great exchange of books between Jerome and Rufinus. Hence he earnestly asks Florentius that, when he has received Rufinus, their common friend, as a guest, he should request from him and arrange to be sent to himself the commentaries of the blessed Rheticius, bishop of Autun, on the Song of Songs. Furthermore, in the name of a certain Paulus, he asks that the codex of Tertullian be returned to him from Rufinus's homeland; and in addition the Interpretation of the Psalms of David and a very lengthy work on the Synod. These, copied by Hilary's own hand, Jerome's own manuscript, at Trier. From this letter we understand that the codices of the Works elaborated by the Fathers were so rare in the fifth age of the Church that there was scarcely the means of procuring copies of them even for the wealthiest men, or for those who did not shrink from undergoing the dishonest labor of copyists. Although, therefore, we freely grant this, that the little books of Prosper, about which Photius discoursed, were written by their author in Gaul, what obstacle was there from that circumstance to prevent their being afterward published equally among the common people for the utility of the common cause? And indeed, will they judge that the words of Photius undergo no other meaning with us, who wish to interpret the same words according to the letter of grammar?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Numquid enim aliud ibi laudatus Photius, nisi unum hoc dumtaxat innuit, nimirum sanctum Prosperum magnum veritati lumen et adjumentum attulisse in iis libellis pervulgandis. quibus facile omnes vulgi tumultus compescuit, atque catholicorum cum pietatem, tum religioneln fovit, confirmavit et auxit? Et saue vulgus ipse, quamvis in ecclesiasticis rebus sit parum versatus, nec facile docentis auctoritati obtemperet, quam sæpissime tamen, si necessariis negotiis curisque sit vacuus, obloquentium sermones audire ncquaquam abnuit, ac ab iis. dem veluti quodam captus illicio, cum de justitiæ rigore agitur, judicum rectitudinem vel integritatem sibi facit suspectam, de reorum criminibusfrequenter præpostere judicat, et quadam miseratione erga damnatus motus, cum ob poenas quas luunt, tum quod ab iis abhorret, sanctissimos Ecclesiv præsules atro dente petere nun erubescit. Ut itaque malis hisco omnibus sanctus Prosper occurreret, simulque vu!gi pietatem et religionem fovcret, ut diximus, et excita. rel, sat verisimile e*t eum idcirco tristibus versibui Pelagianorum mores et instituta exagitate voluisse, ut scilicet vulgus ipse nun se talli sineret, atque ad veritatis inquisitionem investigationemque traheret et accenderet.","english":"For what else does the Photius praised there indicate, if not this one thing only—namely, that Saint Prosper brought great light and support to the truth in publishing those little books, by which he easily restrained all the tumults of the common people, and fostered, confirmed, and increased both the piety and the religion of the catholics? And indeed the common people themselves, although they are but little versed in ecclesiastical matters, and do not readily submit to the authority of a teacher, nevertheless very often, if they are free from necessary business and cares, by no means refuse to hear the words of those who speak against it; and, as if captured by some enticement from them, when the rigor of justice is at issue, they make the rectitude or integrity of judges suspect to themselves, frequently judge perversely concerning the crimes of the accused, and, moved by a certain compassion toward the condemned, both because of the punishments they endure and because they shrink from them, do not blush to attack the most holy prelates of the Church with a bitter tooth. Therefore, so that Saint Prosper might meet all these evils, and at the same time, as we have said, foster and stir up the piety and religion of the common people, it is quite likely that for this reason he wished to lash the manners and institutions of the Pelagians in gloomy verses—namely, so that the common people themselves might not allow themselves to be carried away by such things, and so that he might draw and inflame them to the inquiry and investigation of the truth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Et sane Mon alia de causa ejus oculis rerum gestarum seriem etordinem, Pelagianorum impietatem et errores cumdem subjecisse credendum est, nisi ut deinceps divinae gratiae laudes concincret, catholicæ Ecclesia fidem et pietatem relebraret, et ipsorum demum hæreticorum gesta, dogmata, clades, exitium atque ignominiam in oris canticum verteret. Ejusmodi autem felicem exitum ce, lebri carmine de Ingratis, tum tribus aliis libellis in vulgus editis, Prosperum assecutum fuisse, Photii laudata verba non obscure denuntiant, sive S. Prosper multo aute Leonis Magni pontificatum, sive hujus pontificatus tempore eos libellus conscripserit.\n\nCAPUT III.\n\nDe tempore quo S. Prosper suos libellos in Pelagianos conscripsit.\n\nJam vero nunc extra nostri instiruli propositum vagari videbimur, si horum libellorum epocham diligentius inquirere statuumus. Sed ab hoc munere nulla ratione abduci potui, cum ea in epocha iuquirenda omnes praecedentes scriptores lapsos esse perFpexerim. Nec enim carmen de Ingratis ad annum 429, vel ad sequentem, revocaudum est; neque duo illa epigrammata in Augustini obtrectatorem in annum vel rejicieuda sunt, ut præcedentes scriptores asseruerunt. Id imprimis ex Prospero ipso colligitur, qui ita de Ingratis carmen orditur, ut plene abolitum omne Pelagianum virus describat.","english":"And indeed it must be believed that for no other reason did he [God] set before his eyes the sequence and order of events, the impiety and errors of the Pelagians, than that he might thereafter sing the praises of divine grace, restore the faith and piety of the Catholic Church, and finally turn the deeds, doctrines, disasters, destruction, and disgrace of the heretics themselves into a song on his lips. That Prosper attained such a happy outcome by the celebrated poem On the Ungrateful and then by three other little books published to the public, the praised words of Photius do not obscurely declare, whether Saint Prosper wrote those little books long before the pontificate of Leo the Great, or in the time of that pontificate.\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nOn the time at which Saint Prosper wrote his little books against the Pelagians.\n\nNow indeed we shall seem to wander beyond the purpose of our undertaking, if we decide to inquire more diligently into the date of these little books. But I could by no means be drawn away from this task, since I have perceived that all previous writers have erred in investigating that date. For neither is the poem On the Ungrateful to be assigned to the year 429, or to the following year; nor are those two epigrams against the detractor of Augustine to be rejected from the year, as previous writers have asserted. This is gathered first of all from Prosper himself, who so begins the poem On the Ungrateful that he describes all the Pelagian poison as fully abolished.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"At quorsum hoec Prosperi spectaret oratio, si Ecclesiæ hoste nondum eliso, adhuc tumidus per Campaniam aliasque Italiæ regiones sese extulisset? Qua porro ratione Prosper dixisset plenam ab Ecclesia contra Pelagianos reportatam fuisse victoriam, si horum Fignifer Julianus, vel Constantinopolim, vel per Iialiam et Gallias novas turbas excitare potuisset, ut semel et iterum in catholicam societatem irrepere tentaret? Nec enim sianiles loquendi formulæ, aut ad Africae synodos, aut ad sancti Innocentii papæ decreta dumtaxat debent referri; nam, ut optime ex ecclesiasticis monumentis intelleximus, tunc Julianus in apertam haeresim nondum erat prolapsus, sed sub religionis ac pietatis larva nefarios errores potus obducere conabatur. Neque de papae Zosimi constitutione, aut de concilii Ephesini sanctionibus possuut eadem sancti Prosperi verba interpretari, cuti jain sub Xysto et Leone Romanis pontificibus Julianus ipse, ct rebqui Pelagiani praesules, hinc atque illuc novas turbas et molimina excitantes, episcopales sedes, honores et ministeria ut sibi restituerentur omnibus studiis contendebant.","english":"To what end would this statement of Prosper look, if the enemy of the Church had not yet been crushed and had still, at that time, raised himself up swollen with pride throughout Campania and other regions of Italy? By what reasoning, moreover, would Prosper have said that a full victory had been won by the Church against the Pelagians, if their standard-bearer Julianus had been able to stir up new disturbances either at Constantinople or throughout Italy and the Gauls, so as to attempt, once and again, to creep into the catholic fellowship? For these similar formulas of speech ought not to be referred only to the synods of Africa or to the decrees of Pope Saint Innocent; for, as we have understood very well from ecclesiastical monuments, at that time Julianus had not yet fallen into open heresy, but under the mask of religion and piety he was attempting to cloak his accursed errors. Nor can these same words of Saint Prosper be interpreted as concerning the constitution of Pope Zosimus or the sanctions of the Council of Ephesus, since already under the Roman pontiffs Xystus and Leo, Julianus himself and the rest of the Pelagian leaders, stirring up new disturbances and machinations here and there, were striving with all their efforts that episcopal sees, honors, and ministries be restored to them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"Prosperi igitur cannina non alio potius quan Xysti aut sancti Leonis tempore convenire posse nebis videtur. Et quamvis absolute asserere haud andeamus, istud carmen Leonis aevo fuisse conscriptum, tamen cuu; ita luquatur, ut Pelagianam sobolem ponitus exstinctam de-cribat, et veluti de confecto bello, de parta victoria, de pace secuta mentionem faciat, minime ejusmodi conjectura omnino debet refelli, ut ex ejusdem Prosperi carminibus ipse lector poterit judicare.\n\nCongenitae in Christo gentis milii castus ab alto Insinuatus amor propnas excedere vires Me jubet, atque pias accendere carmine mentes: Ne post conlectum celebris viCloria bellum, Securos animos incauta pace reiolvat, Ceu melus eliso jain nullus ab hoste supersit, Nec capul attriti virosum palpit et anguis.\n\nQuod si tamen quisque contendat istud Photii di. cium: Romæ ethm quidam pro hæresi (Pelagiana II imirum) libere locuti sunt, quos Prosper, homo sane divinus, libellis in vulgus editis, facile dissipavit exstinxitque, de uno dumtaxat carmine de Ingratis minune comprobari, ego quidem non multum repugnabo. Immo, licet illud opus libellorum nomen re ipsa subeat, tum cum al auctore in quatuor æquales partes fuerit divisum, quarum unicuique proprium atque singulare argumentum respondet, ut jam cl. D.","english":"Therefore the poems of Prosper seem to us to be able to fit no other time more than that of Xystus or of Saint Leo. And although we do not dare to assert absolutely that this poem was written in the age of Leo, nevertheless, since it speaks in such a way as to describe the Pelagian offspring as utterly extinguished, and makes mention, as it were, of a finished war, of victory won, and of peace that followed, a conjecture of this kind ought by no means to be wholly refuted, as the reader himself will be able to judge from the poems of the same Prosper.\n\nThe chaste love of the race born in Christ, instilled into me from on high, commands me to exceed my proper strength and to kindle devout minds with song: lest, after the war of famous victory has been gathered in, careless peace should dissolve our secure minds, as though no fear remained now that the enemy is crushed, and the head of the bruised serpent no longer throbs with venom.\n\nBut if anyone should contend that this saying of Photius—namely, that at Rome certain men spoke freely on behalf of the heresy (the Pelagian, of course), whom Prosper, a truly divine man, easily scattered and extinguished by publishing little books among the people—is proved with difficulty from one poem only, namely that On the Ungrateful, I for my part will not greatly resist. Nay, although that work does in fact bear the name of little books, since by its author it was divided into four equal parts, to each of which its own and singular argument corresponds, as the distinguished D.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"Antonius Salinas, regularis canonicus, u sancti Prosperi ornandis Operibus probavit; tum deinde,, cum hocce orationis genus satiricos versus ad aliorum malos mores et instituta carpenda et exagitandal. comparatos contineat', merito eliam ex hominum loquendi usu sibi libellorum nonaen vindcavit. Ne autem negotii plenus Norisio repugnare videar, leves has conjecturas praetereo, atqne ad alios tres etiam Prosperi libellos contra Pelagianos editos mea se convertit oratio. Conscripsit itaque, ut diximus Prosper duo alia epigrammata in sancti Augustini obtrectatorem, quibus et celebre illud Nestorianx et Pelagianæ hereseos addidit epitaphium. Sed ida orationum genera cene prorsus intempestiva ruissent, si saltem Augustinus aut nondum extremam diem clausisset, aut si alterutra ex illis hæresibus adhuc penitus exstincta et abolita non fuisset, quae revera duae illæ hæreses ad plenum exitimn minine fuerunt perductæ, nisi posteaquam Augustinus diem obierat. Cujus quidem argumenti pondus Prosperi editores praesentientes, epitaphium dumtaxat in Nestorianos et Pelagianos serius exaratura asseruerunt; illud videlicet ad annum revocantes, cum nirnirum, e vivis sublato Augustino, du;e illae hæreses in plenaria Ephesina synodo damnatæ fuerunt. At id saltem de aliis libellis asseri oportere gravissimue conjecturae nos urgent.","english":"Antonius Salinas, a regular canon, approved this for the adornment of the Works of Saint Prosper; then afterwards, since this kind of speech contains satiric verses composed for the purpose of censuring and attacking the evil morals and institutions of others, he rightly claimed for himself, even from the common usage of men speaking, the name of little books. But lest I seem, full of business, to be contradicting Norisius, I pass over these slight conjectures, and my discourse turns itself to the other three little books of Prosper as well, published against the Pelagians. And so Prosper, as we have said, wrote two other epigrams against the detractor of Saint Augustine, to which he also added that famous epitaph of the Nestorian and Pelagian heresy. But these kinds of discourses would have run utterly untimely, unless at least Augustine had not yet closed his final day, or unless one or the other of those heresies had not yet been thoroughly extinguished and abolished; which two heresies in truth were by no means brought to full destruction, except after Augustine had died. And indeed the editors of Prosper, foreseeing the weight of this argument, asserted that the epitaph at least was written later against the Nestorians and Pelagians; referring that, namely, to the year when, with Augustine removed from the living, those two heresies were condemned in the plenary synod of Ephesus. But that this at least ought to be asserted concerning the other little books, the most weighty conjectures urge us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"Quis namque reputabit Augustinoadhuc superstite alium quempiam pro ejua nomine atque doctrina sibi vindicis partes assumere voluisse? Annon sanctus doctor ipse, quoad vixit, stylum semper contra suos adversarios paratum habuit, eos vel mulli brachio perstringendo, aut gravissimis censuris eorumdem machinas desLruendo? Sat igitur verisimile est Augustinum illum, qui Adrumetinosmonachos perperam ejus scripta interpretantes corripuit, objurgavit; qui Pelagium et julianu per. petuo impetiit et exagitavit; qui ab Hieronymi objectionibus propriam doctrinam modeste purgavit; sat, inquam, verisimile est hunc Augustinum novas illas Pelagianorum obtrectationes mutas minime reliquisse, aut saltem debitas gratias Prospero ejus vindici reddidisse. Reddidisset tamen, si in vivis exstitisset adhuc cum laudatos libellos Prosper conscripsit.\n\nProsperi deinde duae ad Augustinum epistolae magnum nostris conjecturis robur adjiciunt. Sed Caveum, Usserium, Joannem Olivarium caeterosque Prosperi e litores in assignanda prædictorum libellorum epocha gravius lapsos esse patefaciunt, si nos tempus quo ejusmodi epistolæ conscriptae fueriM diligentius inquiramus, atque ad eorumdem argumenta animi cogitationem convertamus. Quoad tempus attinet, Caveus credidit anno426 fuisse conseri. ptas. Novissimus autem eorum editor sibi persuadct exeunte anno, vel ineunte anno, scriptas fuisse.","english":"For who would reckon that, while Augustine was still alive, some other person wished to assume for himself the role of defender on behalf of his name and doctrine? Did not the holy doctor himself, as long as he lived, always keep his pen ready against his adversaries, either lashing them with a strong arm or destroying their devices with the gravest censures? It is therefore sufficiently probable that that Augustine, who rebuked and reproached the monks of Adrumetum for wrongly interpreting his writings; who perpetually attacked and harassed Pelagius and Julian; who modestly cleared his own doctrine from the objections of Jerome—sufficiently probable, I say, is it that this Augustine by no means left those new detractions of the Pelagians unanswered, or at least gave due thanks to Prosper as his defender. Yet he would have given them, if he had still been alive when Prosper composed the aforementioned little books.\n\nThen the two letters of Prosper to Augustine add great strength to our conjectures. But Cave, Ussher, John Oliver, and the other readers of Prosper make it clear that they have fallen rather seriously in assigning the date of the aforesaid little books, if we inquire more diligently into the time when letters of this kind were written, and turn our mind's attention to their arguments. As far as the time is concerned, Cave believed they were written in the year 426. But their most recent editor is persuaded that they were written at the end of the year, or at the beginning of the year.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"Ita ad marginem annotavit pag. 89. Si deiude epistolarum argumen a perpendamus, in iis palam Prosper testatur Pelagianae hæreseos reliquias in Galliis et in plerisque aliis regionibus adauctas fuisse; maximas quoque querelas excitatas adversus ejusdem Augustini opuscula, et praesertim contra doctrinam libro de Correptione et Gratia explicaLam. Quis autem afUrmare velit jam tum Prosperum carmen iliud de Ingratis cum cæteris libellis a Photio laudatis concinnasse cum has epistolas scriberet? Nonne in iis recensuit gravissmas dilficilioresque quaestiones a Pelagianis motas, quas clara luce ab illo sibi aperiri cupiebat, et, quasi in mularum rerum intelligentia nutans, lumen ex novis Augustini scriptis efflagitabat' Galliam pene totam fuisse commotam, cum Prosper h;ec scriberet, priori epi tola declarat, et propterea licri studebat S. Patris sapientia et eruditione doct'or, et ut prodesset multis suo rogatu, eum interpellat, scribens: Tribue nobis in hac MMa, papa beatissime, pater optime, quantum juvante Domno potes, diligentiam pietatis tuæ, ut quæ in istis quæstionibus obscuriora et ad percipiendum diffi ilior. sunt quam lucidissimis expositionibus digneris aperire.","english":"He annotated this at the margin on page 89. If, then, we weigh the arguments of the letters, in them Prosper openly testifies that the remnants of the Pelagian heresy had increased in Gaul and in very many other regions; that the greatest complaints had also been stirred up against the same Augustine's works, and especially against the doctrine set out in the book On Rebuke and Grace. But who would wish to affirm that Prosper had already then composed that poem On the Ungrateful with the other little works praised by Photius, when he was writing these letters? Did he not in them review the most serious and difficult questions raised by the Pelagians, which he desired to have opened to him in clear light by that man, and, as if wavering in the understanding of many matters, did he not demand light from Augustine's new writings? That almost all Gaul had been stirred up when Prosper was writing these things, the earlier letter declares, and for this reason, desiring to be made learned by the wisdom and learning of the holy Father, and that he might profit many by his request, he entreats him, writing: Grant us in this matter, most blessed pope, best father, as much as you can with the Lord's help, the diligence of your piety, that whatever in these questions is more obscure and more difficult to grasp you may deign to open by your most lucid expositions.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"Harum antem gravissimarum quæstionum decem argumenta statim subjicit, et interim veritus contra tot adversarios meritis atque honoribus claros in aperlum disputationis campum prosilire, et contra cosdem dimicare, animi fervorem silentio cohihet, quoadusque ab Augustino obtivebit responsum. Quibus omnibus enodatis (iia altimum ejus epistoIx (caput orditur), et multis insuper quæ altiore intuitu ad hanc causam pertinentia magis potes videre decussis, credimus et speramus non so'um tenuitatem nostram disputationum tuarum præsidio roborandam, sed etiam ipsos quoa meritis atque honoribus claros caligo istius opinionis obscurat defæcatissimum lumen gratiæ recepturos. Non itaque tum Augustini obtrectatores suis carminibus Prosper impetere poterat, non plenam canere de Pelagiani, reportatam victoriam,si et ipse, inter alia ct alia dubia jam hærens suspensus, ab Augustino inquirebat an Christiana fides ea dissensione violaretur, quantum periculiin adversariorum opinione patefaceret. Deinde quomodo per istam pra operantem et cooperantem gratiam liberum non impediatur arbitrium, explicaret. Tum utrum præscientia Dei ita secundum propositum maneat, utea ipsa quoe 'unt proposita, sint accipienda præscita, et id geuus alia, quæ octavo ejusdem epistolæ capite a quopiam possunt lustrari.","english":"He immediately adds the arguments of these ten most weighty questions, and meanwhile, fearing to leap forth onto the open field of disputation against so many adversaries distinguished by merits and honors, and to contend against them, he restrains the fervor of his spirit in silence until he obtains a response from Augustine. When all these things have been unraveled (thus he begins the final chapter of his letter), and when many things besides, which pertain to this cause and can be seen more deeply by a higher consideration, have been thoroughly shaken out, we believe and hope that not only is our own weakness to be strengthened by the protection of your disputations, but that even those distinguished by merits and honors whom the darkness of this opinion obscures will receive the most purified light of grace. Accordingly, Prosper could not then attack Augustine's detractors with his poems, nor sing of the full victory won over the Pelagian [error], if he himself, already suspended among other doubtful matters and lingering, was asking Augustine whether the Christian faith was violated by that dissension, and how great a danger lay open in the opinion of the adversaries. Then, in what way free will is not impeded by this grace that precedes and cooperates, he would explain. Then, whether the foreknowledge of God remains thus according to purpose, so that the very things which are purposed are to be understood as foreknown, and other matters of this kind, which can be illustrated by anyone from the eighth chapter of the same letter.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"Sodes igitur eant, qui duo Prosperi epigranimata contra Augustini obtrectatorem ad anuum ant 418, carmen vero de Ingratis ad annum revocant, an is, qui in sacris litteris homo divinus appellatur, Pelagianos ad bellum scripto tum advocare potuerit, cum annn nondum satis de totius controversiæ cardine, fundamentis atque ratiombus erat instructus? An imparatus ei inermis cum hæreticis certamen sanctus Prosper habere voluit, et, quasi nimium sibi fidens, tum pro Ecclesix sanctioII bus, tum I ro Augustini doctrina decertavit, quando, needum super laud utas quaestiones institutus, animo varias inter adversar iorumopiniones interpretationesque fluctuabat? Ficta et commentitia fabula lauto indigna viro! Præsertim cum ab Augustino, duobus in libris, videlicet de Praedestinatione et de Duno Perseverantiæ, paulo ame diem ejus emortualem conscriptis, objectas sibi a Prospero et llilario Massiliensium ct Pelagianorum Quæstiones enodatas fuisse intelligimus. Quando vero Augustinus obierit, nArrat Possidius in Augustini Vita scribens: Anno 430, quinto kalendas Septembris S. doctorem humanæ vitæ debitum persoliisse, quo tempore Vandali Hipponem tertium jam mensem obsidebant.","english":"Let them therefore go on, those who date the two epigrams of Prosper against the detractor of Augustine to the year 418, but the poem On the Ungrateful to the year—[let them say] whether he, who in the sacred writings is called a man of God, could then have summoned the Pelagians to war by his writing, when he was not yet sufficiently instructed in the foundations and arguments concerning the hinge of the whole controversy? Or did the holy Prosper wish to wage an unprepared and unarmed contest with the heretics, and, as if trusting too much in himself, did he then contend both for the ordinances of the Church and for the doctrine of Augustine, when, not yet instructed on the aforementioned questions, he was wavering in mind among the various opinions and interpretations of the adversaries? A fabricated and invented tale, unworthy of a great man! Especially since we understand that the Questions raised against him by Prosper and Hilary of the Massilians and the Pelagians were resolved by Augustine in two books, namely On Predestination and On the Gift of Perseverance, written a little before the day of his death. But when Augustine died, Possidius narrates in his Life of Augustine, writing: In the year 430, on the fifth day before the Kalends of September, the holy doctor paid the debt of human life, at which time the Vandals were besieging Hippo for the third month already.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"-i. Ad quai omnia cum ipse sedulo animadverlcrem. contra fere omnium præcedentium scriptorum opinionem mihi persuasi sanctum Prosperum in Pelagianos vel horum reliquias decertare aggressum, eosdemque scripto dumtaxat impetere cœpisse cum jamAugustinus obierat. Quis ignorat tum ita in Gathis præsertim pererebrescentibus divinæ gratia: hostibus, A uguslinique obtrectatoribus, Prosperum et Hilarium Romam ad Cælestinum pontilicem prolecros, III firmo certoque testimonio, quanii apud apostolicam sedem semper fuerit, de ejusdem sancti Augustini doctrina declararet? Horum autem votis Cælestinum annuisse, celebris epistola anno ad episcopos Galliae declarat, in qua non tantumscribit: Augustinum sanctæ recordationis virum pro vita sua atque meritis in nostra communione semper habuimus, nec umquam hunc sinistræ suspicionis saltem rumor aspersit, quem tantæ scientiæ olimfuisse meminimus, ut inter magistros optimos etiam ante a meis decessoribus haberetur. Huic autem epistolae æteritorum sedis apostolicæ auctoritates de gratia Uei et libero voluntatis arbitrio subjectas legimus; ut inde obloquentes quæ sequi et probare proliterentur, atque ea omnis quæ sacratissima beati apustoli sedes Petri contra inimicos gratiæ Dei ptr ministerium præsutum suorum sanxit et docuit, intelligerent. Quisnam vero horum capitulorum collector fuerit, in præsentia non inquirimus.","english":"When I had carefully considered all these things, I persuaded myself, contrary to the opinion of almost all preceding writers, that Saint Prosper undertook to contend against the Pelagians, or their remnants, and began to attack them in writing only when Augustine had already died. Who does not know that at that time, when the enemies of divine grace—especially in Gaul—were spreading far and wide, and the detractors of Augustine too, Prosper and Hilary were sent to Rome to Pope Celestine on behalf of the firm and certain testimony of how great [authority] the doctrine of the same Saint Augustine had always had with the apostolic see? That Celestine assented to their prayers is declared by the famous letter to the bishops of Gaul in that year, in which he writes not only: \"We have always held Augustine, a man of holy memory, in our communion for his life and merits, nor did even a rumor of sinister suspicion ever touch him, whom we remember once to have been of such great knowledge that he was held among the best teachers even before [the time of] my predecessors.\" To this letter, moreover, we read that the authorities of the apostolic see concerning the grace of God and the free will of the will were subjoined, so that from there those who spoke against them might profess what they should follow and approve, and might understand all those things which the most sacred see of the blessed apostle Peter, through the ministry of its prelates, established and taught against the enemies of the grace of God. But who was the collector of these chapters, we do not inquire at present.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":27,"ref":"p27","source":"Auctor tamen ita recentioribus dogmatistis refragatur, ut luce hac in re clarius ostendat Pelagianam hæresim proscriptam et judica ant fuisse ab apostolica sede, et Africanos canones tantum roboris obtinuisse, quantum iisdem Romani antistites tribuerunt. cum eosdem probarunt. Quæ sane verha cum Quesnellum aliosque ejas as-eclas gravius urgeant et male habeant, statim subjicimus sequentia verba: Necessarium igitur fuit diligenter inquirere quid rectores Romanæ Ecclesia de hæresi quæ eorum temporibus exorfa fuerat iudicaverint, et contra nocentissimos liberi arbitrii defensores quid de gratia Dei sentiendum esse censuerint; ita ut etiam Africanorum conciliorum quasdam sententias jungeremus, quas ubique suas fecerunt apostolici antistites, cum probarunt. Ejusmodi porro necessitatem apostolic;e sedis judicii inqu rendi et exspectandi, cum do hæresibus agitur, pleno ore nono Ecclesiæ sæculo Hinemarus Remensis Ecclesia. epi'copus contra Gotescaleum confessus est. Qui sane ad laudata verba uon provocasset, nec integra suam in epistolam transtulisset, si illam sententiam ratam non habuisfel. Præfatus autem Hinemarus cum Petro diacono, Floro magistro, Cresconio, Dionysio Exiguo, Ivone, eadem capitula Cælestino tribuit, cnm veluti pars et appendix illius epistolæ habcantur.","english":"The author, however, opposes the more recent dogmatists in such a way that in this matter he shows more clearly than daylight that the Pelagian heresy was proscribed and condemned by the apostolic see, and that the African canons obtained only as much force as the Roman bishops conferred upon them when they approved them. And indeed, since these words press rather heavily upon Quesnel and others of his age and disturb them, we immediately add the following words: It was therefore necessary to inquire diligently what the rulers of the Roman Church judged concerning the heresy that had arisen in their times, and what they censured as to what should be thought concerning the grace of God against the most harmful defenders of free will; so that we might also join certain sentences of the African councils, which the apostolic bishops made their own everywhere when they approved them. Furthermore, the necessity of inquiring into and awaiting the judgment of the apostolic see, when heresies are at issue, was confessed with full voice in the ninth century of the Church by Hincmar, bishop of the church of Reims, against Gottschalk. And he would certainly not have appealed to the aforementioned words, nor have transferred them whole into his letter, if he had not held that sentence as valid. But the aforesaid Hincmar, along with Peter the deacon, Florus the master, Cresconius, Dionysius Exiguus, and Ivo, attributes the same chapters to Celestine, since they are had as a part and appendix of that letter.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"Hæc itaque aliaque multa cum animo oberrarent, contra omnium præcedentium scriptorum opin onem constanter existimavi laudatorum libellorum nullum a Prospero exaratum fuisse antequam Augustinus ex hominum vita demigraret. Certe hoc uno satis admonere visa est ejusdem Prosperi vigilantia, qni, ut Augusiin jam vita functo præsidium pararct, Romam venit, ut super illius docTrina Cœlestinum papam consuleret. At si Prosper jam edidisset aut cvulgasset laudatos libellos, non Augutini, sed pro pnam apud pontilicem causam egisset. Nihil enim habet Prosper, præsertim in carmine illo de Ingratis, quod ex Augustino non fuerit depromptum, qjodve a Massiliensibus vel Pelagianis non fucrit in discrimen adductum, qlod den que in illis decem apostolicæ sedis capitulis non appareat definitum. Neque enim prohabite est S. Prosperum quadriparlito illo carmine de Ingratis, aut adversariorum objectiones transferre voluisse, aut ante apostolicæ sedis judicium Augustini doctrinam ah omni suspic onis labe purgare ausum fuisse. Quid de decem i lis apo tolicæ sedis capitulis erit asserendum? Potuit forteS. Prosper cadem sibi in animo prætingere, eademque scripto exponere, antequam diligenter inquireret quid rectores Romanæ Ecclesiæ de Pelagiana hœresi, quæ eorum temporibus exorta erat, judicaverint? Figmentum apage!","english":"Since these and many other matters were wandering in his mind, I steadfastly judged, contrary to the opinion of all preceding writers, that none of the laudatory books was written by Prosper before Augustine departed from the life of men. Certainly by this one thing the vigilance of the same Prosper seemed sufficiently to warn, who, in order to prepare a defense for Augustine now dead, came to Rome so that he might consult Pope Celestine concerning his doctrine. But if Prosper had already published or made public the laudatory books, he would have pleaded the cause not of Augustine but of his own case before the pontiff. For Prosper has nothing, especially in that poem On the Ungrateful, which was not drawn from Augustine, or which was not brought into dispute by the Massilians or Pelagians, or which finally does not appear defined in those ten chapters of the apostolic see. Nor indeed is it approved that Saint Prosper in that four-part poem On the Ungrateful wished either to transfer the objections of the adversaries or, before the judgment of the apostolic see, dared to purge the doctrine of Augustine from every stain of suspicion. What is to be asserted concerning those ten chapters of the apostolic see? Could Saint Prosper perhaps have sketched out the same things in his mind and set them forth in writing before he diligently inquired what the rulers of the Roman Church had judged concerning the Pelagian heresy, which had arisen in their times? Absurd invention!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":29,"ref":"p29","source":"Quare, si in hoc scrihen i genere argumentum a simili valeret, utique ad librum adversus Collatorem a Prospero editum recurrerem. quem tegentes ipsi cogno-cunt Augustino vita foncte luisse conscriptum. St'd hunc cum carmine de Ingralis fere in unum et idem I mpus esse rejiciendum, j in adducta aique mox adducenda argumenta quam perspicue patefaciunt. Eminentissimus itaquecardinatis Peronius. qui veterum catholicorum poetarum usum habebat, multa pio corum conscribent defensione, asseruit eademillos sæpe alibi soluti oratione tradidisse, qurc alihi strictae commiseram, quod ipsum sancti Paulini Nolani episcopi, de quo ipse sermonem habehat, manifestum efficit. Eam autem rationem maxime Prosperiano poemati de lagratis convenire, ipsi arbitramur, cum in eo nihil ill scripserit, quod vel in apostolicæ sedis auctoritatiLus ct in attis suis Operibus soluta oratione exaratis non tradiderit. Supremæ autem apostolicæ sedis auctoritati valdissimum certissimumque argumentum ilia carmina suppetunt, quibus canit: pestem subeuntem prima recidit....Sedes Romana Petri. quæ pastoralis honor is Facta caput mundo, quidquid uon possidet armis, Relligione tenet.","english":"Wherefore, if in this kind of writing an argument from similarity had any force, I would certainly have recourse to the book Against Collator published by Prosper, which those who conceal it know was written while Augustine was still alive. But that this book, together with the poem On the Ungrateful, must be assigned almost to one and the same time, the arguments brought forward and soon to be brought forward make abundantly clear. The most eminent Cardinal Perron, therefore, who was versed in the usage of the ancient catholic poets, in writing much in their pious defense, asserted that they often delivered in loose prose elsewhere the same things which they had committed elsewhere to strict verse, which the blessed Paulinus, bishop of Nola, concerning whom he himself was speaking, makes manifest. But we judge that this principle applies especially to Prosper's poem On the Ungrateful, since in it he wrote nothing that he did not also deliver in loose prose in the authorities of the apostolic see and in his other works. Moreover, those verses furnish a most powerful and certain argument for the supreme authority of the apostolic see, in which he sings: The Roman see of Peter first cut short the plague that was creeping in, which, made the head of the world by pastoral honor, holds by religion whatever it does not possess by arms.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":30,"ref":"p30","source":"Libro au'em adversus Collatorem fusius rcrum gc! tarum describens, Romanorum pontificum in Pelagimos lata judicia, servato temporum ordine, enumerat, atque ex Innocemio papa exordia repetens, eadem us que ad Cœlestinum perducit, ita ad nostrum subjiciens intentum: Per hunc virum (Cœlestinum videlicet) intra Galiias istis ipsis qui sanctœ memoriæ Augustini scripla reprehendunt maleloquentiœ est adempla libertas, quando consultantium actione suscepta, et librorum qui errantibus disp/icebanI pietate laudata. quid oporteret de eorum auctoritate sentre, sancto manifestavit eloquio, evidenter onuntias quantum sibi prœsumptionis istius novitas displiceret qua auderent quida adverasus magistros insolenter insurgere, et indisciplinata calumnia prædisationi veritatis obstrepere. At Augustini nefarios obtrectatores ter.ia pirte illius carminis de lngritis suggillat, eornumdem Pelagianorum Scmipelagianorumque objectiones relellens, quilius vociferantes quereh ntur omne opus arbitrii sublatum, nec vitiis pœnam deberi, ant prœmia laudi. Hæc autem vociferasse Augustini obtrectatores post ejus ubitum, luculentissime cum patefactum sit, ut in his diut us immo' remur minime opus est, pnc ertim suffragante nobis Photio in Bibliotheca. cod. 53, Vincentio Lirinensi, adversus hære es cap. ultimo.","english":"But in the book Against Collator, describing the course of events more fully, he enumerates in chronological order the judgments of the Roman pontiffs issued against the Pelagians, and beginning again from Pope Innocent, he brings them down to Cœlestinus, thus subjoining them to our purpose: Through this man (namely Cœlestinus) the freedom of evil speech was granted within the Gauls to those very men who censure the writings of Augustine of holy memory, when, upon the action of the consulters being undertaken, and the piety of the books which displeased the erring being praised, he made manifest by holy utterance what ought to be thought of their authority, evidently declaring how greatly the novelty of this presumption displeased him, whereby certain men dared insolently to rise up against the masters, and with undisciplined calumny to clamor against the preaching of the truth. But in the third part of that poem On the Ungrateful he scourges the wicked detractors of Augustine, refuting the objections of the same Pelagians and Semipelagians, with which they cried out complaining that all the work of free will was taken away, and that neither punishment was owed to vices nor rewards to praise. But that the detractors of Augustine cried out these things after his death, since it has been most clearly made manifest, as we have lingered on these matters longer, there is no need, especially since Photius in the Bibliotheca, cod. 53, and Vincent of Lérins, Against the Heretics, in the last chapter, give us their support.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":31,"ref":"p31","source":"CAPUT IV.\n\nPrœcedenium scriftorum argumenta eripiuntur.\n\nt. Etsi vero ista omr.ia præcedenti capite, servato temporum nrdine, annotaverim, nihil adhuc me præstitisse videbitur, nisi Josephi Anthelmii, Usserii, Cavei, Mai tini Steyaert, P. Salinæ, aliorumque scriptorum fundamenta eripiam. Unum itaque dumataxat sancti Prosperi testimonium ex cap. carminis de Ingratis depromptum adducunt, quo hocce opus suI erstite Augustino conscriptum es\"e sibi blaudiuutur. Canit itaque sanctus Prosper: An alium in finem posset procedere sanctum Concilium, cui dui Aurelius, ingeniumque Augustinus erat? quem Christi gratia cornu Uberiore rigans. uostro lumen dedit aevo Accensum vero de lumine; uam cibus illi, Et vita, et requies Deus est, omnisque voluplas; Unus arnor Christi est, unas Christi est bonor illi, Et dum nulla sibi tribuit bona, fit Deus illi Omnia, ei in sam io regnat sapieulia templo. Iti Prosper (aii Pater Salinas), in quibus magistrum optimutn tamquam superstitem continenti cefebrat elogio; quomodo sane de alius episcopis aut viris in hac causa præcipuis et alo jam functis ibidem non loquitur?","english":"CHAPTER IV.\n\nThe arguments of the preceding writers are taken away.\n\n1. Although I have noted all these things in the preceding chapter, keeping the order of times, I shall seem to have accomplished nothing so far, unless I take away the foundations of Joseph Anthelm, Ussher, Cave, Martin Steyaert, Father Salinas, and other writers. Accordingly, they bring forward only one testimony of Saint Prosper, taken from the chapter of the poem On the Ungrateful, by which they flatter themselves that this work was written by them under Augustine as author. Saint Prosper therefore sings: For to what other end could a holy Council proceed, whose leader was Aurelius and whose genius was Augustine? whom the grace of Christ, watering him from a fuller horn, gave as a light to our age, kindled truly from the light; for his food, and life, and rest is God, and all his pleasure; one love is Christ's, one honor is Christ's for him, and while he attributes no good to himself, God becomes all things to him, and in his temple wisdom reigns. Thus Prosper (says Father Salinas), in these words he celebrates the best master as though surviving with unbroken eulogy; how indeed does he not speak in the same place about other bishops or men who were foremost in this cause and have already passed away?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":32,"ref":"p32","source":"Sed Martinus Steyaert Lovaniensis doctor in oruando castigandove hoc opere, eodem prorsus argumento ductus, sic ad illud vrebum regnat annotavit. I Ex quo (verbo videli el) aliisque toto paragrapho veihis præsentis temporis colligitur scriptitasse hæc sancto doctore superstite. » Quid autem ejusmodi argumento imbecilius? Niin si imprimis illud laudis genus spectemus, que nihil subtimius neque splendidius de beato quopiam spiritu jam cum Deo in cœlis regnante dici pntest, illud sane homini adhuc mortalem vitam agenti nonui-i eum aperta et inverecunda assentatione convenire potcs). Quo sensu, præterea, quave ratione de nnn Augustino superstite Prosper canere putuisset: Christi gratia cornu uberiore rigans nostro lumen dedit œro accensum de vero lumine; cum postmodum, eodem jam vita funcio, idem Prosper apostolicam sedem diligentius consuluerit: « An hunc sinistre suspicionis saltem rumor asperserit, vel an tantae scientiæ fuerit, ut inter Ecclesiæ magistros optimos esset reeensendus. » Quemadmodum enim hæc nter se conciliari possint plane non video; praesertim cum laicus horno, omni prorsus ecclesiastica auctoritate denudatus, q'tatis Augustino superstite Prosper erat, minime sibi de S. Patris scriptis judicare arrogasset ame Coelestini papae sententiam.","english":"But Martinus Steyaert of Louvain, a doctor, in adorning or correcting this work, led by precisely the same argument, noted as follows on that word \"he reigns.\" \"From this word (namely, 'he sees') and from other words of the present tense throughout the whole paragraph, it is gathered that he wrote these things while the holy doctor was still alive.\" But what is weaker than an argument of this kind? For if we look first at that kind of praise which nothing more sublime or splendid can be said of any blessed spirit already reigning with God in heaven, surely it could not fittingly be applied to a man still leading a mortal life without open and shameless flattery. In what sense, moreover, or by what reasoning could Prosper have thought to sing of Augustine while he was still alive: \"The grace of Christ, watering with a richer horn, gave our age a light kindled from the true light,\" when afterwards, after the same man had already departed this life, the same Prosper consulted the apostolic see more diligently: \"Whether at least a rumor of sinister suspicion had besprinkled him, or whether he was of such great learning that he should be reckoned among the best teachers of the Church.\" For how these things can be reconciled with one another I plainly do not see; especially since a layman, wholly stripped of all ecclesiastical authority, such as Prosper was while Augustine was still alive, would by no means have arrogated to himself to judge concerning the writings of the holy Father before the sentence of Pope Celestine.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":33,"ref":"p33","source":"Non denique præsentis temporis cerba nos nrgent, cum poetarum ingenia liberiori semper utantur licentia, tales sa'pissime sibi confingentes imagines, ut veluti præsentes qni j:nn decesserunt describant, et I'X coram gestis et scriptis mortuns vivere adhuc sibi persuadeant. Et quidem Prosper ibidem ad supernam Augustini sapientiam alludit, qua Pelagianorum Semipelagianorumque artes, molimina et errores elusit, rejecit atque evertit. Ideireo cum post mortem tamquam viveutem in exaratis Operibus sibi proposuit. Neque verum est toto illo paragrapho præsentis tempor;. verbis uti, sed, animi cog tationes poetice exprimere volens, modo ad præsentis, modo ad praeteriti temporis verba recurrit, et, gradu veluti facto, a mortali Augustini vita ad illam immortalem qua cum Deo regnat, eum snb sapientiæ nomine, bisce verbis describit: Et dum nulla bi tribuit bona, fit Deus illi omnia, ei in sancto regnat sapientia templo, An censent laudati scriptores quibus refragamur de sapientissimo quopiam vivente viro hæc cum proprieate dici posse? Quandonam Deus viventibus omnia Seri consuevit, ut mortali carne adhuc circumdati ir sancto templo regnent? llocce de Christo unigenite Dei Filio dumtaxat eum veritate Scripturas et Patres asseruisse, catholicis omnibus sat est exploratum; I sed si anu cuipiam ejusmodi dictum aptare velimus, cum catholica ipsa religionecontendamus necesse est.","english":"Furthermore, the words of the present tense do not trouble us, since the talents of poets always enjoy a freer license, very often fashioning for themselves such images that they describe as present those who have already departed, and persuade themselves that the dead still live in deeds and writings as if before their eyes. And indeed Prosper in that same place alludes to the heavenly wisdom of Augustine, by which he eluded, rejected, and overturned the arts, machinations, and errors of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians. Therefore, after his death, he set him before himself in the written Works as if living. Nor is it true that in that entire paragraph he uses the words of the present tense, but, wishing to express the thoughts of the mind poetically, he recurs now to the words of the present tense, now to those of the past, and, as if making a step, from the mortal life of Augustine to that immortal life in which he reigns with God, he describes him under the name of wisdom with these words: And while he attributes no goods to him, God becomes all things to him, and he reigns in the holy temple of wisdom. Or do the praised writers whom we oppose think that these things can be said with propriety of some most wise living man? When has God been accustomed to become all things to the living, so that, still surrounded by mortal flesh, they reign in the holy temple? That the Scriptures and the Fathers asserted this only of Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, in truth, is sufficiently established for all Catholics; but if we wish to apply a saying of this kind to anyone else, we must contend with the Catholic religion itself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":34,"ref":"p34","source":"Ad quæ cum serio animum convertissem, nimi. inbecillam atque infirmam eurum opinioncm cxistimavi, qui a Prospero laudatos libellos conscriptos fuisse arbitrati sunt antequam Augustinus diem obiret, vet antequun Cœlestinus papa Augustini scripta elogiis omaret, aut denique antequam Julianus ille Pelagianorum signifer ad plenum exitium cum snis machinis perduceretur. Caetera vero quæ a P. Salinas subduntur, penitus cadunt, si Prosperi scribendi scopum aut disserendi modum attendamus. Necenim carmine illo de Ingratis tercentenosillos proceres qui in Pelagii causam convenerant elogiis ornare sibi sacer poeta' proposuerat, sed divinæ gratiae hostes impetere ei exagitare animus illi fuit. Propterea IIihit mirum, si, excepto Aurelio, totius Romanae Africæ primate, et eximio doctore Augustino, cæterorum omnium nomina silentio occuluit, praesertim cnm Prosperi aevo eorumdem Patrum nomina in conciliorum Actis, quæ nonduminterciderant, facile deprehendi possent.","english":"When I had seriously turned my mind to these matters, I judged the opinion of those men to be exceedingly weak and feeble who have supposed that the little books praised by Prosper were written before Augustine departed this life, or before Pope Celestine adorned Augustine's writings with eulogies, or finally before that Julian, the standard-bearer of the Pelagians, was brought to complete destruction together with his engines. But the remaining points that are added by P. Salinas fall away entirely if we attend to the aim of Prosper's writing or his manner of discoursing. For that sacred poet had not proposed to himself to adorn with eulogies those three hundred leaders who had assembled in the cause of Pelagius in his poem On the Ungrateful, but his intent was to attack and harry the enemies of divine grace. Therefore it is not surprising to me that, with the exception of Aurelius, the primate of all Roman Africa, and the distinguished teacher Augustine, he concealed in silence the names of all the rest, especially since in Prosper's age the names of these same Fathers could easily be discovered in the Acts of the councils, which had not yet perished.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":35,"ref":"p35","source":"CAPUT V.\n\nDe sancti Leonis Alagni scriptis contra Pelagianos exaratis.\n\nJam vero temporis et nostri instituti ratio postulat ut de Magni Lconis scriplis verba faciamus. Quod igitur ad hujus scripta attinet, nibil magnificentius, in illius homiliis prasertim, elucet quam divina illa doctrina sacris in litteris tradita de divinæ grattæ virtute atque muneribus. Quare exstincto Juliano, atque deletis jain per Campaniam Pelagianis, Romæ demum obmutescentibus horuin hæreticorum autoribus, quid' erat quod sacra inter mysteria tanto dignius pontifice tractare posset ct frequenti populo suadere? In maximis igitur anui sulemnitatibus alRomanorum civium auribus, quoadvixit, aliquam saltem orationis partem in cum scopum dirige bat, ut Pelagianorum aliorumque hæreticorum errores carperet atque subverieret. In iis quippe modo naturaiittn virium imbecillitatem infirmitatemque describit, modo divini auxilii supernam virtutem ad ælerna: foi itatis bonum consequendum necessario requisitam quam sæpissime inculcai. Hinc totamAdami sobolem inobedientiæ peccato corruptam remansisse ex Apostolo, ex Evangelio alisque sacrarum Scripturarum testmoniis explicat. lude maximum divina. miserationis opus describit, quo per unigeniti Dei Filii crucem, mortem.","english":"CHAPTER V.\n\nOn the writings of Saint Leo the Great composed against the Pelagians.\n\nNow indeed the order of the present time and of our undertaking demands that we speak of the writings of Leo the Great. As far as his writings are concerned, nothing shines forth more magnificently, especially in his homilies, than that divine doctrine handed down in the sacred Scriptures concerning the power and the gifts of divine grace. Wherefore, when Julianus had been extinguished and the Pelagians had already been destroyed throughout Campania, and the authors of this heresy were at last falling silent at Rome, what was there that so great a pontiff could treat more worthily amid the sacred mysteries and persuade to a numerous people? Therefore, on the greatest solemnities of the year, he directed at least some part of his address to the ears of the Roman citizens, as long as he lived, to this end, that he might censure and overthrow the errors of the Pelagians and of other heretics. For in these he now describes the weakness and infirmity of the powers of nature, now he very often inculcates the supernal power of divine aid, necessarily required for obtaining the good of eternal salvation. Hence he explains from the Apostle, from the Gospel, and from other testimonies of the sacred Scriptures that the whole offspring of Adam remained corrupted by the sin of disobedience. Thence he describes the greatest work of divine compassion, by which, through the cross and death of the only-begotten Son of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":36,"ref":"p36","source":"soluto jain nostræ redemptionis pretio, peccati vincula confracta sunt, et, tartareae captivitatis jugo excusse, iisdem et omnibus Adæ liliis paradisi ostium luit reseratum. Quid plura?\n\nPerpetuo igitur et abique S. pontifex occasionem captat Pelagiani insectandi dogmatis, ulai fortc aliqui inter suos auditores exstitissent, qui de catholica veriiate, de aposto licæ modis sanctionibus dubitarent, rationum tandem pondere confecti, et apustolici sermonis auctoritate persuasi, non amplius different Pelagium, Cœlestium aL'lue Julianum cum eorumdem erroribus damnare. Hac potissimum de ausa populum hortatur, ut non præsumeret de tua justitia, nec de Dei mitericordia diffideret, quia omnipotens Deus, ut mirabilem faceret gratiam suam in eo Hoquitur de se ipsn) munera sua contulit, in quo meritorum suffragia non invenit. Et sequenti oratione, fap. priori, humanae naturæ imbecillitate descripta, subdit: Et tamen nou desperamus, neque deficimus, qnia non de nobis, sed de illo prœsumimus qui operatur in nobis.","english":"Once the price of our redemption had been paid, the chains of sin were broken, and, shaken off from the yoke of hellish captivity, the door of paradise was opened to the same and to all the sons of Adam. What more?\n\nTherefore the holy pontiff perpetually and without ceasing seizes the occasion to attack the dogma of the Pelagian heresy, lest perhaps some among his hearers had existed who doubted concerning the catholic truth, concerning the ways of the apostolic sanctions, at length overcome by the weight of arguments, and persuaded by the authority of the apostolic sermon, they would no longer delay to condemn Pelagius, Caelestius, and also Julianus with their errors. For this reason especially he exhorts the people, that they should not presume upon their own righteousness, nor distrust the mercy of God, because almighty God, in order to make His grace wonderful in that man (he speaks of Himself), bestowed His gifts upon him in whom He found no support of merits. And in the following oration, as in the former, having described the weakness of human nature, he adds: And yet we do not despair, nor do we fail, because we presume not of ourselves, but of Him who works in us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":37,"ref":"p37","source":"Ne autem haec ita in adversæ partis si gnilicationem traheremur a quopiam, perinde quasi arbitrari vellet humanæ voluntatis vires ita per peccatum fuisse elisas, ut arbitrii ratio proisus deleta mansisset; quemadmodum nos Deus ad imaginem suain reparet, ut in nobis formam suæ bonitatis invcniat, sequenti mirabili magnificaque senteulia explicavit: Dat unde ipsi quoque quod operatur operemur, accendens scilicet mentiumnostrarum lucernas, et igue nos sua charitatis inflammans, ut non solum ipsum, sed ctiam quidquid diligit diligamus. Et rursus alio luco humana cord,terreno agro comparat, qui si pigro otio ct inerti drsidio negl.gatur, terra nihil genorosi germinis par it t, ct, spinis ac tribulis subdita, non producet qn:e condenda sijt horreis, sed quæ urenda sint flammis. Quam deinde allegoriamexplicaturus, in hac verba prorupit: Ager autem iste, dilectissimi, rorante desupcT gratia Dei, fide munitur, jejuniis exercetur, eleemosynis serirur, orationibus fecundatur, ut inter pluntationes rigationesque nostras nullius amaritudinis radix pullulet, nec se incrementa cujusque noxiœ stirpis attollant, sed, enecato omni semine tutorum, convalescat seges lœta virtutum. Loquitur hic sanctus pontifex in persona sacrorum præsulum, qui in Itominico agro operarii sunt constituti.","english":"But lest we be drawn by anyone into the meaning of the opposing side, as if he wished to judge that the powers of the human will had been so worn away by sin that the very faculty of choice had been utterly destroyed and remained so—just as God restores us to his image, so that he may find in us the form of his goodness—he explained in the following wonderful and magnificent sentence: \"Give, that we ourselves also may work what you work,\" namely, kindling the lamps of our minds and inflaming us with the fire of his love, so that we may love not only him but also whatever he loves. And again in another place he compares the human heart to an earthly field, which, if it is neglected in sluggish idleness and inert sloth, the earth brings forth nothing of noble seed, and, subjected to thorns and thistles, will not produce things to be stored in barns, but things to be burned with flames. Then, about to explain this allegory, he burst forth into these words: \"But this field, dearly beloved, is, with the grace of God raining down from above, fortified by faith, exercised by fasts, sown by almsgiving, made fertile by prayers, so that among our plantings and waterings no root of bitterness may spring up, nor may the growths of any harmful stock raise themselves, but, with every seed of such things put to death, the joyful crop of virtues may grow strong.\" Here the holy pontiff speaks in the person of the sacred prelates, who have been appointed as laborers in the Lord's field.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":38,"ref":"p38","source":"Sed et humanæ naturæ infirmitati et corruptioni, quas modicus 1'elagiani dogmatis auctores inticiabantur, sacro baptismatis lavacro mederi ipse S. pontifex sermone decimo septimo docet. Non iia tamen ut, semel divini auxilii virtute originali morbo sanato, ipse bomo viribus propriis subsistere queat, ut nullatenus mortalem hanc vitam agens ab adepta justitiæ gratia dellectere possit, et quam sæpissime deffectat. Nam cum natura nostra mutabilis sit, et v pe rali labe mortalis licet eliam jam rcdempta sacm hapismate sit renata, in quantum est passihi-. lis, in lanium est ad deteriora proclivis, corrumpereturque carnali desiderio, nisi spirituali muniretur auxilio: Quia (aurca sunt ista verba) sicut illi numquam deest uude corruat, iIa semper prœsto est unde subsistat. N.hil ergo sanctissimus noster Leo gratius et utilius suscipere poterat, quam provinciam perpetao carpendi et incessendi hœreticorum seclas, simulque ed cendi populum, ul corum errores sibi cavent. Propterea nil mirum, si in omnibus fere suis conclonibus Pelagianoslaxabar, eamque hæresim tanto rationum pondere et Scripturarum auctaritate i a aggrediebatur, ut quamplurimos ad pœnitendum adduxcriL","english":"But the holy pontiff also teaches in his seventeenth sermon that the infirmity and corruption of human nature, which the few authors of the Pelagian dogma were attempting to inflict, are healed by the sacred laver of baptism. Not, however, in such a way that, once the original disease has been healed by the power of divine aid, man himself can stand by his own strength, so that while leading this mortal life he can in no way turn aside from the grace of righteousness he has received, and fall away as often as possible. For since our nature is mutable, and mortal through the stain of sin—although already redeemed and reborn through sacred baptism—to the extent that it is passible, to that extent it is prone to worse things, and it would be corrupted by carnal desire unless it were fortified by spiritual aid: because (these are golden words) just as there is never lacking to him a means of falling, so there is always at hand a means of standing firm. Nothing, therefore, could our most holy Leo receive more pleasing and more useful than the task of continually reproving and attacking the sects of heretics, and at the same time teaching the people to beware of their errors. Therefore it is no wonder if in almost all his sermons he assailed the Pelagians, and attacked that heresy with such weight of arguments and authority of the Scriptures that he brought very many to repentance.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":39,"ref":"p39","source":"Consulat lector serm. primum in Natal: Pomini, quem Romana Ecclesia semper in suo Breviuio retinua. Nonne in priori capite omnium liominum non modo, sed infantium etiam Redemptorem Christum Dominum appellat? Asserit quippe eum esse peccat mortisque destructorem, qui sicut nultum a reatu liberum rep:rit, ita liberandis omnibus venit. Et paulo post usurpans Jobi verba ilia cap. xiv,: Nemo mundus a sorde, nec infans eujus eat unius diei vita super terram, unum ex fundamentalibus hujus ha:reseos a:ticulis evertit. Consulat etiam cap-. a sermonis de Natali Domini, quo totis eloquentiæ nervis directe se Pelagio opponit, qui, arrugans et tumidus prætextu humanæ libertatis tuendæ, docebat Adamum auo lapsu sibi dumtaxat nocuisse, cœteros vero homines nasci in ea naturae perfections qua a Deo Adamus fuit conditus. Contra vero S. pontifex catholica) fidei sacramentum istud esso docet: Omnes omnino homines in Adamo periisse: i a ut nisi Verbum Dei caro fieret, et habitaret in nobis, nisi in communionem creaturœ Creator ipse descenduret, et vetustatem humanam ad novum principium sua nativitate revoearct, regnaret mors ab Adam usque in ftnemy et super omnes nomines condemna io insolubilis permaneret, cum de sola conditione nascendi utta cunctis esset causa pereundi. Atque tandem, ut pcne innumera alia loca missa faciam, consulat Icctor sextum de Epiphania sermonem, cap.","english":"Let the reader consult the first sermon on the Nativity of the Lord, which the Roman Church has always retained in its Breviary. Does he not in the first chapter call Christ the Lord the Redeemer not only of all men, but even of infants? For he asserts that he is the destroyer of sin and death, who, just as he found no one free from guilt, so came to set all free. And a little later, employing those words of Job in chapter 14, \"No one is clean from filth, not even the infant whose life is one day upon the earth,\" he overturns one of the fundamental articles of this heresy. Let the reader also consult the second chapter of the sermon on the Nativity of the Lord, in which with all the sinews of eloquence he directly opposes Pelagius, who, arrogant and puffed up under the pretext of defending human liberty, taught that Adam by his fall harmed only himself, but that other men are born in that perfection of nature in which Adam was created by God. On the contrary, the holy pontiff teaches that this is the sacrament of the catholic faith: that all men without exception perished in Adam; so that unless the Word of God had become flesh and dwelt among us, unless the Creator himself had descended into communion with his creature and by his own nativity recalled human old age to a new beginning, death would have reigned from Adam even to the end, and an insoluble condemnation would have remained over all men, since from the sole condition of being born the cause of dying was common to all. And finally, to pass over almost innumerable other passages, let the reader consult the sixth sermon on the Epiphany, chapter","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":40,"ref":"p40","source":"4, ubi, humanæ conditionis fragilitate descripta, quæ semper ii delii ta prolabitur, cito minime deceptoriæ voluptati acquiescendum esse demonstrat, quia nullum sine delectatione peccatum est. Quare tot intcr tantasque carnis illecebras, atque ab infernalibus hostibus humana circumventa natura, nullam piorsus homo potest sibi opem sive custodiam nancisci, si a carnalibus desideriis nou recurratur ad spirita le præsidium, et meus habens notitiam Dei sui cunsihis se male suadentis hostis avertat. Quisque autem jnm in carnalibus voluptatibus detectatus, atque ab hostibus superatus peccatorum vinculis constringitur. numquam ait de impunitate securus, quia si tempus pœnitentiœ amiserit, locum indulgentiœ uon habebit. Dilfidat prorsus p'opria virtute posse co nsurgere, aut saltem naturæ motibus se ad justificationem utsponere, ut Massiliensium et Semipelagianorum turbæ perperam asseruerunt, sed confugiat ad auxiliantis Dei clementium, et vincula malœ consuetudinis ab illo poscat abrumpi, qui allel'a! omnes qui corruunt, et erigit omnes elisos. Tunc enim nau erit vacua confitentis oratio, quoniam misericors Deus voluntatem timentium se iaciet, et dabit quod petitur, qui dedit unde peteretur. Std apertius et fortius præterea eosdem Semipelagianos, Pelagianosque impetit et ptr tringit sermone ultimo lie Epapania, x, cap.","english":"4, where, with the frailty of the human condition described—which ever slips into sins—he shows that one must by no means quickly yield to deceitful pleasure, because no sin is without delight. Therefore, amid so many and such great enticements of the flesh, and with human nature surrounded by the enemies of hell, a man can obtain no help or protection for himself at all, unless from carnal desires he has recourse to the aid of the spirit, and unless, having knowledge of his God, he turns himself away from the enemy who counsels him evilly in every way. But whoever has already taken delight in carnal pleasures and, overcome by the enemies, is bound by the chains of sins, let him never be secure concerning impunity, because if he has lost the time of repentance, he will have no place of indulgence. Let him utterly distrust his own power to rise again, or at least to expose himself to the motions of nature for justification, as the crowd of the Massilians and Semi-Pelagians wrongly asserted, but let him flee to the clemency of the helping God, and let him ask that the chains of evil habit be broken by him who raises up all who fall and lifts up all who are cast down. For then the prayer of the one confessing will not be empty, since the merciful God will accomplish the will of those who fear him, and he will give what is asked, who gave the very thing from which it might be asked. But more openly and more strongly, moreover, he attacks those same Semi-Pelagians and Pelagians and presses them home in the last sermon on the Epiphany, 10, chapter.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":41,"ref":"p41","source":"3, ubi, do vera supernaque disserens virtute, asserit eam nullam esse, nec proprietatem obtinere Deitatis, visi spiritu visitetur Auctoris; dicente enim discipuli. Juis Domino: Sine me nihil potestis facere; proptere» subjicit statim: Dubium non eat hominem bona agentem a Deo habere, et effectum operis, et initium votun tatis.\n\nSermone tandem IS. qui e-t Quadragesimæ qu iutus, novos arietes præparat ad Pelagianæ Semipelagianæque hæreseos exitium, quando videlicet hominum corda superni Spiritus virtute Dei vivi templum fieri probaturus, domorum manufactarum exemplo et. similitudine usus est Quibus laudabili diligenaia providelur, ut si quid aut infusione imbrium, aul surbine procellarum, vel ipsa fuerit antiquitate corruptum, in integrum cura restituat, ita (ait) jugi oportet sollicitudine præcaveri, ne quid in nostris animis incompositum, ne quid inveniatur immundum. Sed ab humanis ad divinas supornasque res gradum postmodum faciens, sic ad nostrum intentum mirifice ratiocinatur: Quanvis enim ædificium nostrum sine ope aui non subsistat artificis, necfabrica nostra possit esse incolumis, nisi ei protectio pra'fuerit Conditoris, lumen quia rationabiles lapides sumus, et viva materies, sic nos Auctoris nostri exstruit manus, ut cum opifice suo etiam is qui reparatur operetur.","english":"3, where, treating of the true and supernal power, he asserts that it is nothing, and does not possess the property of the Godhead, unless it be visited by the spirit of the Author who is seen; for when the disciple said to his Lord, \"Without me you can do nothing,\" he immediately adds: There is no doubt that a man doing good has from God both the effect of the work and the beginning of the will.\n\nFinally, in the sermon which is the fourth of Lent, he prepares new rams for the destruction of the Pelagian and Semipelagian heresy, when, namely, intending to prove that the hearts of men are made a temple of the living God by the power of the Holy Spirit, he used the example and likeness of houses made by hand. For these are provided for with praiseworthy diligence, so that if anything has been corrupted either by the infusion of rains, or by the rush of storms, or by age itself, he restores it whole by his care; so, he says, it must be guarded against with continual solicitude, lest anything be found disordered, lest anything be found unclean in our souls. But afterwards making a step from human things to divine and supernal things, he reasons wonderfully to our purpose thus: For although our building cannot subsist without the help of the craftsman, nor can our fabric be safe unless the protection of the Founder be over it, since we are rational stones and living material, the hand of our Author so builds us, that together with its craftsman even he who is being repaired also works.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":42,"ref":"p42","source":"Non enim hic Leo humanæ volunlatis divino subsidio suffullæ et adjutæ nisum cooperationem aique liberum consensum excludit, ut postmodum Calvinus, Jansenius, atque Quesnellus improbe nimisque licenter asserere ansi sunt. Nec quidem liberum hominis arbitriumad instar lapidis, aut alterius mortua? omnino rei se habere docuit, sed quando gratiæ divinæ motibus excitatur, a Dui obedientia se subtrahere non dcbel, nec ab illo bono dcficerc, sine quo bonum esse non potest. Propterea idem sanctus pontifex laud itis verbis hæc subdit: Gratiæ igitur Dei obedientia se humana non subtrahat, nec ub illo bono, sine quo non potest bona esse deficiat, ac si quid impossibile aut arduum in mandatorum effectibus experitur, non in se remaneat, aed ad iubentem recurrat, qui ideo dat præceptum, ut excitet desiderium, et piaatet effectum.\n\nInterim vero cum ista exscriberem, tanta frereabar voluptate, ut nonnisi ægre me aliissimilibus quamplurimis referendis abstinuerim, Sed ea prætermittere mihl opus fuit, ne lectoris amici abuterer patientia. Cæterum habet sanctissimus noster pontilex Leur quamplurimas alias sententias apostolici vigoris et auctoritatis plenas, quibus nontantum Pelagiani Se. mipelagianique quondam divinæ gratiae hostes perstringi et COhiberi potuere, sed alias et alias quæ Calvinum, Jansenium, Quesnellum incommodant et urgent, et corum turbas proscindunt.","english":"For Leo here does not exclude the effort, cooperation, and free consent of the human will, supported and aided by divine help, as afterward Calvin, Jansenius, and Quesnellus too improperly and too freely dared to assert. Nor indeed did he teach that man's free will is like a stone or some other wholly dead thing, but that when it is stirred by the motions of divine grace, it ought not to withdraw itself from obedience to God, nor fail from that good without which it cannot be good. Therefore the same holy pontiff adds these words of praise: Let not, therefore, the obedience of man withdraw itself from the grace of God, nor fail from that good without which it cannot be good; and if it experiences anything impossible or arduous in the fulfillment of the commandments, let it not remain in itself, but run back to Him who commands, who for this reason gives the precept, that He may stir up desire and perfect the deed.\n\nMeanwhile, while I was copying these things out, I was carried away with such great pleasure that I restrained myself only with difficulty from reporting very many other similar passages. But I had no need to pass them over, lest I abuse the patience of a friendly reader. Moreover, our most holy pontiff Leo has very many other sentences, full of apostolic vigor and authority, by which not only the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, once the enemies of divine grace, could be checked and restrained, but others also and yet others which inconvenience and press upon Calvin, Jansenius, and Quesnellus, and cut through their crowds.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":43,"ref":"p43","source":"Jam vero de aliis Magni Leonis seriptis opus est disseramus, idque sequeuti capite potissimum præstare conabimur.\n\ncaput vi.\n\nDe S. Leonis Magui epistulis ad Januarium Aquileien-\n\nsem episcopum scriptis contra Pelagianæ hæreseus fautores. Quesnelli agendi ratio in his epistolis ador nandis.\n\nAge igitur nunc referam allimum ad na quæ anonice a sancto pontifice Leone pro recipiendisin Ecclesia desertoribus clericis Pelagianam hæresim exsecrantibus sancita fuere. Quarto igitur ejusdem pontificatus anno, nec Romæ, nec pur Campaniam Pelagiani erroris sibilus amplius audiebatur. Si qni autem hic aut illic hujusmodi tincti fuiginc adhuc reperiebantur, vel pænitentiam agentes amare proprius ejurabant errores, aut saltem gravi poenarum timore perculsi exterius catholicam tidem profiteri simulabant, ei quasi quodam velo propriam obtendere impietatem nitebantur.Hocce postremum in Venetorumprovincia S. Septimius Altinensis Ecclesiæ episcopus contingere intellexit, qui cum animadvertisset multos suæ dioecesis clericos specie damtaxat Pelagianam hæresim exsecrasse, qui postmodum deinde, ill catholicorum societatem cum essent admissi, dam et quesi furtim ejuratam hæresiminstaurabant, ea de re statim Romanum pontificem suis litteris fecit certiorem. Septimii autem epistolam temporis injuria intercidisse, tum mibi, tum viris omnibus erndilis persuasum est.","english":"Now indeed we must discuss the other writings of the great Leo, and this we shall attempt to accomplish most especially in the following chapter.\n\nChapter VI.\n\nConcerning the letters of St. Leo the Great written to Januarius, bishop of Aquileia, against the supporters of the Pelagian heresy. The conduct of Quesnellus in adorning these letters.\n\nCome then, let me now report at last those things which were canonically sanctioned by the holy pontiff Leo for receiving back into the Church the deserter clerics who execrated the Pelagian heresy. In the fourth year, therefore, of his pontificate, neither at Rome nor throughout Campania was the hissing of the Pelagian error any longer heard. But if any tinged with this sort of thing were still found here or there, either, doing penance, they bitterly abjured their own errors, or at least, struck by the fear of severe punishments, they pretended outwardly to profess the catholic faith, and strove to conceal their own impiety as it were under a kind of veil. This last thing St. Septimius, bishop of the church of Altinum, understood to be happening in the province of the Venetians, who, when he had noticed that many clerics of his diocese had execrated the Pelagian heresy only in appearance, and who afterward, when they had been admitted into the fellowship of catholics, were restoring the heresy they had abjured as if stealthily, immediately informed the Roman pontiff of this matter by his letters. But that the letter of Septimius perished through the injury of time, both I and all learned men are persuaded.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":44,"ref":"p44","source":"Nec enim multo impense studio ad eam perquirendam reperire poluimus. Supersunt adhuc tamen dune S. pontifieis epistołæ ad Januarium episcopum Aquileiensem, Septimii melropolilam, conscriptae, et ex utraque cam gestarum rerum historia, tum apostolicae sedb de.. creta in Pelagianos facillime recognoscuntur.\n\nQnod ad priorem epistolam attinet, diu dubiialum fuit ad quem ex Aquileiensibus episcopis scrip'a luerit. Veteres editores, quorumdam forte eorrupLorum manuscriptorum tidem secuti, Nicetae nomen pro Januario legerunt. Quesnellus deinde illius epistolæ cpigraphem edidit mutilatam, et relicto utroque nomine, scripsit dumtaxat: Epis ola ad Aquileiensem episcopum. Sed ea in re secutumesse Crabbum, Picardum, Isidorum, Coloniensem editionem anni et nonnullos codl., asseverat. Nos autem (ut dicemus in notis) aucto riiate adducti duorum exemplarium Valicanorum, unius Florentini arebetypi, ct alterius Vallicellani, Optimæ notae, Janumii nomen intulimus, suffragante etiamnobis manuscripto Aquileiensium episcoporum Chronieo, quod exstat in Vaticana bibliotheca, signatum num 5286, in quo ad rem nostram ista leguntur: I Januarius fuit ordinatus anno Domini Jesu Christi 443. Huic Janua rio episcopo S.","english":"For we have not been able to find it even with much earnest effort of study. There remain, however, still two letters of the holy pontiff written to Januarius, bishop of Aquileia, metropolitan of Septimium, and from each of them both the history of the events and the decrees of the apostolic see against the Pelagians are most easily recognized.\n\nAs for the earlier letter, it was long doubted to which of the bishops of Aquileia it was written. The old editors, perhaps following the testimony of certain corrupt manuscripts, read the name of Nicetas instead of Januarius. Quesnel then published the inscription of that letter mutilated, and, leaving out both names, wrote only: A letter to the bishop of Aquileia. But he asserts that in this matter he followed Crabbus, Picardus, Isidore, the Cologne edition of the year, and several codices. We, however (as we shall say in the notes), led by the authority of two Vatican exemplars, one a Florentine archetype and the other a Vallicellan of the best quality, have inserted the name of Januarius, with the manuscript Chronicle of the bishops of Aquileia also supporting us, which exists in the Vatican library, marked with the number 5286, in which these things are read pertaining to our matter: Januarius was ordained in the year of the Lord Jesus Christ 443. To this Januarius, bishop, St.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":45,"ref":"p45","source":"Leo scribit, ut episcopi et reliqui clericalis ordinis, de Pelagiana ei Coelestiana haeresiad unitatem catholicanu redire volentes, ia suis sedibunon restituantur, nisi publice erioribus abrenuntia ver int. In eodem Chronico, a Daudulo conscripto, pariter de codem Januario legitur: Iiic in Pola civitale Istriæ natus, et Catholicis disciplinis eruditus, et ep scopus laetus, suo prudentia et doctrina poputum sibi subditum, propter instantes persecutiones, multi; augustiis circumsep um, ab erroribus conservavit illæsum, in cujus laudem Leo papa sie ait: £Le. ctis fraternita is tuæ litteris.\n\nHisce autem verbis Leo alteram epistolam, quæ anno conscripta fuit, orsus e-l, ut nota consolari certissime innotescit. Sed cam de canoni is Leonis sanctionibus in causa de qua agimus prus disse rere statuerimus, ab illa sermonem ordiri volumum quæ maxime ad evertendos Pelagianos esset aptissima, et apostolicæ sedis auctoritati gravissima. Ejusmodi vero cpistola quinquedistinctis eapitibus ab auctore Leone fuit divisa; et in priori capite. ut statim ab Aquileiensis metropolitæ animo omnem suspicionem et serupulum averteret, Romanam sedem videlicet falsis quorumdam rumoribus aures præbuisse, nou tautum Scptiutii episcopi delaloris nomen exponit, sed et acceptæ accusatiobis exemplaria huic epistolæ subjecit, atque ad Janus rium transmisit.","english":"Leo writes that bishops and the rest of the clerical order who wish to return to Catholic unity from the Pelagian and Caelestian heresy are not to be restored to their sees unless they publicly renounce their errors. In the same Chronicle, written by Daudulus, we read likewise concerning the same Januarius: He was born in the city of Pola in Istria, educated in Catholic disciplines, and made a bishop; by his prudence and doctrine he preserved the people subject to him unharmed from errors, though beset by many straits on account of pressing persecutions. In his praise Pope Leo speaks thus: The letters of your brotherhood having been read.\n\nWith these words Leo began the other letter, which was written in the year, as is most certainly known from the note of consolation. But since we have decided to discuss first the canonical sanctions of Leo in the matter with which we are dealing, we wish to begin our discourse from that letter which was most suited to overthrowing the Pelagians and most weighty for the authority of the apostolic see. This letter was divided by its author Leo into five distinct chapters; and in the first chapter, so that he might at once avert every suspicion and scruple from the mind of the metropolitan of Aquileia—namely, that the Roman see had lent its ears to the false rumors of certain persons—he not only sets forth the name of Septimius the bishop as a delator, but also subjoined to this letter copies of the accusation he had received, and sent them to Januarius.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":46,"ref":"p46","source":"Pancis itaque mala omnis,quibus summi pastoris vigilantiæ occurrere opus erat, his-a verbis exprimit: Relatione sancti et coepiscopi nostri Septtimii,quœ in subditis kaletur, ognovimus quosdem presbyteros, ei diaconos, ac diversi ordinis clericos, quos Pelagiana aut Cœtestiana hœresis habuit implicatos, ita in vestra provincia ad communionem catholicam pervenisse, ut unlta ubeis damnatio proprii exigeretur erroris.\n\nSuggillat post hæc noster Leo segnem quorumdam episcoporum indolem, qui, nimium dormitantes, Lupos ovium pellibus tectos ovile Dominicum introir. sinebant, atque contra auctoritatem canonum et decretorum ab ipso editorum, ciTantibus clericis concederent proprias relinquere Ecclesias, in quibus clericatum aut accerperant, aut receperant, instabilitatem suam per diversa circumferentes, amantes semper frI arc, et numquam in fundamento apostolico permanere. Quot antem, qualiave mala ex ejusmodi canorum violatione in catholicæ societatis detrimentum exorirentur, statim subdit: Quoniam (ait) qui nullo discusso examine, nullo sunt præjudicio suæ prefessionis obstricti, hunc maxime expetunt fructum, ut sub velamento communionis plures domos adeant, et per falsi nominis scientiam multorum corda corrumpant.","english":"With these few words, then, he expresses all the evils that the vigilance of the supreme shepherd needed to confront: From the report of our holy fellow-bishop Septimius, which is contained in the attached document, we have learned that certain presbyters and deacons, and clerics of various orders, whom the Pelagian or Caelestian heresy had entangled, have in your province come to Catholic communion in such a way that no condemnation of their own error was required of them.\n\nAfter this our Leo censures the sluggish disposition of certain bishops who, sleeping too much, allowed wolves covered in sheepskins to enter the Lord's fold, and who, contrary to the authority of the canons and of the decrees issued by him, granted to clerics who were being challenged that they might abandon their own churches, in which they had either received or taken up the clerical office, carrying their instability about through various places, always loving to be outside and never to remain on the apostolic foundation. But how many and what kind of evils would arise from this sort of violation of the canons to the detriment of Catholic fellowship, he immediately adds: Since, he says, those who have had no examination conducted and are bound by no prejudgment of their own profession, seek this fruit above all, that under the veil of communion they may approach more households and corrupt the hearts of many through the knowledge of a false name.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":47,"ref":"p47","source":"Ad quos vero canones seu decreta a se edita S. pontifex provocare voluerit, nemo hactenus ex tot eruditis viris, qui ejus scripta adoruarunt animadvertit vel annotavit. Maximi tamen momenti res e t, nec sine gravi animi socordia poterat prætermitti. Ex ea quippe suprema Romani praesulis per universum orbem in ecclesiasticis condendis legibus auctoritas tit exploratior; tum deinde quali quantoque honore apostolicæ sedis statuta ab omnibus aliarum Ecclesiarum pastoribus susciperentur, plenissime innoteIcit. Inquirentes nos igitur quid S. Leo iis in canonibus, ad quos provocat, definierit, præterea qune ex Aquileiensi Chronico in præcedentibus laudato, cum cx epistola 12, tum ex seque ti 13, illud intelligere potuimus. In priori quippe, quæ ad Anastas um Thessaionicensem scripta est, cap. 9, de hisce cleri' is transfugis et errantibus, hæc habet: Alienum clertcum, invito episcopo ipsius, nemo suscipiat, nemo sollicitet, nisi forte ex placito charitatis inter dantem occipientewque convenerit. ItaMne si contra provinciam rea agitur, transfugam clericum ad suam Ecclesiam metropolitanus redire compellet. Si autem longius recessit, tui præcepti auctoritate revocabitur, ut nec cupiditati, nec ambitioni occasio relinquatur.","english":"But to which canons or decrees issued by himself the holy pontiff wished to appeal, no one to this day, out of so many learned men who have revered his writings, has observed or noted. Yet the matter is of the greatest importance, and could not have been passed over without grave negligence of mind. For from it, indeed, the supreme authority of the Roman prelate throughout the whole world in establishing ecclesiastical laws is rendered more fully proven; and then, moreover, with what and how great honor the statutes of the apostolic see were received by all the pastors of the other Churches is most fully made known. Therefore, as we inquire what St. Leo defined in those canons to which he appeals, we have furthermore been able to understand this both from the twelfth letter and from the following thirteenth, from the Aquileian Chronicle praised in the preceding pages. For in the former, which was written to Anastasius of Thessalonica, chapter 9, concerning these runaway and erring clerics, he has these words: Let no one receive a cleric belonging to another, against the will of his own bishop, and let no one solicit him, unless perchance by a mutual agreement of charity between the one giving and the one receiving. But if the matter is handled contrary to the province, the metropolitan shall compel the runaway cleric to return to his own Church. If, however, he has withdrawn farther, he shall be recalled by the authority of your command, so that no occasion may be left either to greed or to ambition.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":48,"ref":"p48","source":"At in aliera subsequenti epistula ad episcopos metropolitanos ter Aehaiam provinciam constitutos, de clericalis vitæ genere et instituto, de sacerdotalis concordiæ vinculo ab omnibus sacris ministris custodiendo, agens, non tantum quæ ad Anastasium scripserat reltgiose observari mandat, sed eautum preterea voluit, ut nullus episcopus alterit. episcopi clericum sbi audeat vindicare, sine illius ad quem pertinet cessione,quam tamen evidentia scripta contineant, quoniam hoc, et canonum definivit auctoritas, et ipsa servandæ unitatis ratio docet, ne omnino ordo ecclesiasticus pcr hanc licenltam frat instabilia. Post haec autem eosdem Achaiæ metropolitas hisce ve: bis apostolico vigore plenis allocutus est: Altius itaque, fratres charissimi, quæ a uobis pice mentis affectu decerni perspicitis, in pectora vestra descendant, ut nos, qui sollicite cupimus servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis, præceptionis nostræ fructum percipiamus, et rest æ dilectionis operibus gratulemur.","english":"But in another subsequent letter to the metropolitan bishops established throughout the province of Achaea, treating of the manner and rule of the clerical life and of the bond of priestly concord to be kept by all sacred ministers, he not only commands that those things which he had written to Anastasius be religiously observed, but further willed this besides: that no bishop should dare to claim for himself the cleric of another bishop without the cession of him to whom he belongs, which cession written evidence must nevertheless contain, since both the authority of the canons has defined this and the very reason of preserving unity teaches it, lest the ecclesiastical order be made unstable by this license. After these things, moreover, he addressed the same metropolitans of Achaea with these words, full of apostolic vigor: Therefore, dearest brothers, let those things which you perceive are being decided by you with pious affection of mind descend more deeply into your hearts, so that we, who earnestly desire to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, may receive the fruit of our precept and rejoice in the works of the remaining love.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":49,"ref":"p49","source":"iNaterit hic prorsus Quesnellus quoe Leo decernere utque præcipere asser uit, atque ad illas voces conversos: Quoniam hoc et canonum definitit auctoritas, Berto inquirit ad quos canones ihi S. pontifex respexerit; sed tandem hærens, vel ad Nicaenum, vel ad Sardicenses t8 et 19, immo ad Carthaginensis primi concilii canones S. P. respexisse sibi videri asseverat; sed de consensu scripto tradito nullam mentionem in canonibus haberi, sincere fas sus est. Quin ergo conjicit eam disciplinam jam pi imo a Leone fuisse introduc.tam, cum jam in præcedentium conciliorum et Romanorum pontilicum decretis non reperit exprestam? Hæc porro conseculio minime dissimulanda aut prætermittenda crat ab homine qui Leonis vitam et gesta studiose ornare sihi instituerat. Nune autem illa et alia similia missa facere juvat. Tum eniin diligentius ac æque disertius a nobis expedieuda erunt, cum, pluriinum Vaiicauorum archetyporum auctoritate ducii, de titulis decreturum papæ Leonis uumero erit agendum.","english":"Here Quesnel falters completely, for he asserts that Leo decreed and even commanded these things, and turning to those words, \"Since the authority of the canons has defined this,\" he asks to which canons the holy pontiff had reference; but at last, at a loss, he avers that it seems to him that the holy pontiff had reference either to the Nicene canons, or to the Sardican canons 18 and 19, or indeed to the canons of the first council of Carthage; but he has honestly admitted that no mention of a written and transmitted consent is found in the canons. Why, then, does he conjecture that this discipline was already introduced by Leo, when he does not find it expressed in the decrees of preceding councils and Roman pontiffs? This inference, moreover, ought by no means to have been concealed or passed over by a man who had set himself to adorn with zeal the life and deeds of Leo. But now it pleases us to let these and other like matters pass. For then will they have to be set forth by us more diligently and equally more eloquently, when, led by the authority of very many Vatican manuscripts, we must treat of the titles of the decrees of Pope Leo in order.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":50,"ref":"p50","source":"Jani vero nostri instituti ratio postulat ut ad Pelagianos, a quibus paululum nostra oratio digressa est. revertamur. S. Leo itaque altero illius epis olae capite, ad cohibendam effrenem clericorum Pelagianorum audaciam, hosque ut ad nefarii dogmatis exit!crationemadduceret, metropolitæ Januario indixit: Ut, congregata apud vos synodo provincialium sacerdotum, omnes, sive presbyteri, sive diaconi, vel cujusque ordinis clerici, qui de Pelagianorum Cælestianorumque consortio in communionem catholicam ea imprudentia sunt recepti, ut énon prius ad damnationem aui coarctentur erroris; nunc saltem, postquam hypocrisis eorum ex quadam parte detegitur, ad veram correctionem, qua et ipsis prodesse, et nullis possit nocere, cogantur. Ne cuiquam vero audax callidumque consilium animo i siderel sub bypocrisis velo nefarium illius hæreseos virus occulere, atque ut singulis tergiversatinnihus et dolis aditum praecluderet, jussit Ut apertis profesa ionibus suis damnarent superbi erroris auctores, et quidquid in doctrina eorum universalis exhorruit Ecclesia detestentur, omniaque decreta synodalia, quce ad excisionem hujus hæreseos apostolico' sedis confirmavit auctoritas, amplecti se et in omnibus approbare plenis et apertis, ac propria manu subscriptis, protestationibus eloquantur.","english":"But the plan of our undertaking now requires that we return to the Pelagians, from whom our discourse has digressed a little. In the second chapter of that letter, therefore, St. Leo, in order to restrain the unbridled audacity of the Pelagian clergy and to lead them to the execration of their abominable doctrine, enjoined upon Januarius the metropolitan: that, a synod of the provincial priests having been gathered at your see, all, whether presbyters or deacons or clerics of any rank, who from the fellowship of the Pelagians and Caelestians have been received into the catholic communion with such imprudence that they were not first constrained to the condemnation of their error, should now at least, after their hypocrisy is in some part laid bare, be compelled to true correction, which can both profit themselves and harm no one. And lest anyone should dare to harbor in his mind a bold and crafty design to conceal the abominable poison of that heresy under the veil of hypocrisy, and in order to close the way to all their subterfuges and deceits, he commanded that with their professions openly declared they should condemn the authors of the proud error, and detest whatever in their doctrine the universal Church has shuddered at, and that they should proclaim in full and open protestations, subscribed with their own hand, that they embrace and in all things approve all the synodal decrees which the authority of the apostolic see has confirmed for the excision of this heresy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":51,"ref":"p51","source":"Qu orum quidem verhorum vim et pondus præsentiens Quesnellus, ut malæ susceptae causæ præsidia pareret, annotatis dumtaxat duabus illius vocibus, Decreta synodalia, eæterisque dissimulatis, integrum S. pontificis testimoninm in alium omnino sensum nisus e,t distorquere, iia subjiciendo: African;e imprimis Ecclesiæ Milevi et Carthaginis pluries congregatæ. Quæ decreta primum a Romani* pontificibus Innocentio, Zosimo, Bonifacio et Cœlestino approbata sunt: deinde ab œcumenica synodo Ephesina itretractabili decreto, una cum gestis a Coelestino papa, in eoruuldem hæreticorum condemnationem. a Cujus postrema annotationis vim at ipse adaugesteret, Ephesinorum Patrum ad Coelestinum pontificem synodalem epistolam laudat, ea videlicet spe sibi ratus, praecedens assertum magis magisque roborare posse. Lepide quidemQuesnellus, qui in unum multa commiscens, sensim apostolicae sedis elevat auctoritatem et conciliorum jura supra ipsos Romauos pon. tifices extollit. Sed jam dicat, amabo, au Epbesina decreta in Pelagianos edita, apostolica scdes confirmaverit, an non? Quoquoversum, jam scopulos ineurrit; nam si hæc apostolicæ sedis auctoritas nou confirmavit, illico ex Leonis verhis sequitur ba relicos Pelagianos ad Ecclesiam redcuntes, apertis professionibus suis, qua' ad excisionem illius hæreseos laudata synodus definierat, minime amplecti uebuisse.","english":"Quesnellus, sensing the force and weight of these words, in order to procure defenses for the bad cause he had undertaken, having noted only two expressions of that letter—\"synodal decrees\"—and having concealed the rest, endeavored to distort the entire testimony of the holy pontiff into an altogether different meaning, by subjoining thus: \"the African churches in particular, of Milevis and of Carthage, assembled several times. Which decrees were first approved by the Roman pontiffs Innocent, Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine; then by the ecumenical synod of Ephesus, by an irrevocable decree, together with the acts of Pope Celestine, for the condemnation of those same heretics.\" And to reinforce the force of this last annotation, he praises the synodal letter of the Ephesian Fathers to Pope Celestine, evidently reckoning in his own mind that by this he could more and more strengthen the preceding assertion. Clever indeed is Quesnellus, who, mixing many things into one, gradually diminishes the authority of the apostolic see and exalts the rights of councils above the Roman pontiffs themselves. But let him now say, I pray, whether the apostolic see confirmed the Ephesian decrees issued against the Pelagians, or not? Whichever way he turns, he runs upon the rocks; for if the authority of the apostolic see did not confirm these, it immediately follows from the words of Leo that the remaining Pelagians returning to the Church were unwilling to embrace in their open professions those things which the praised synod had defined for the excision of that heresy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":52,"ref":"p52","source":"Nec alia decreta synodalia amplecti se, ct in omuibus approbare plenis et apertis, ac propria manu subscriptis, protestationibus confiteri tenebantur, quam ea quæ ad excisionem hujus hæreseos apostolicæ sedis confirmavit auctoritas. Si autem dicat isra quoque decreta ab apostolica sede fuisse confirmata, ja!u nec sibi constaret, cum agens do Chalcedonensi synodo neget haue potestatem Romanis pontificibus inesse; nec irretractabile dicendum est illud decretam, quod ante Romani pontificis confirmationem irritum esse poterat.\n\nEt quidem qui fit ut Ephenua synodus irretractabili decre o præcedentium conciliorum statuta firmaverit, una cum gestis Cœlestini papæ? Historiam annotator ex proprio suo cerebro confingit. Ea quippe in synodo nullibi actuin est de robore addendo laudatorum summorum pontificum constitutionibus. Immo ipsi Ephesini PP. veritatis atque justitiae sindio adducti, irretractabilis judicii privilegium dumUta sat Romano pontifici convenire a serueruui. Synodicam enim epistolam hisce verbis ordiuntur Est enim hoc vobis adeo magnis i.. more positum, ut IU omnibus celibres situs, studiaque vestra Ecclaiarum fundamenta constituatis. Non itaque Ephesini Patres fidei firmitatem arreganter silii tribuunt, sed aiunt: In more positum ut Romani pontifices in omnibus celebres sint studiaque sua Ecclesiarum firmamenta consti. tuant.","english":"Nor were they bound to confess by full and open protestations, subscribed with their own hand, that they embraced and approved in all things any other synodal decrees than those which the authority of the apostolic see confirmed for the excision of this heresy. But if he says that those decrees too were confirmed by the apostolic see, then he would not even be consistent with himself, since, in treating of the synod of Chalcedon, he denies that this power belongs to the Roman pontiffs; nor is that decree to be called irrevocable which could be void before the confirmation of the Roman pontiff.\n\nAnd indeed, how is it that the Ephesian synod confirmed the statutes of the preceding councils by an irrevocable decree, together with the acts of Pope Celestine? The annotator fabricates the history out of his own brain. For in that synod there is nowhere any act concerning adding force to the constitutions of the praiseworthy supreme pontiffs. Nay rather, the Ephesian Fathers themselves, led by a zeal for truth and justice, asserted that the privilege of irrevocable judgment belongs to the Roman pontiff alone. For they begin their synodal letter with these words: \"For this is so established among you, so great, that your studies are renowned in all things, and you make them the foundations of the Churches.\" The Ephesian Fathers, therefore, do not arrogantly claim firmness of faith for themselves, but say: It is established by custom that the Roman pontiffs are renowned in all things and that their studies constitute the firmaments of the Churches.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":53,"ref":"p53","source":"An suspicandum erit laudatos Patres concil orum generalium jura ignorasse? I Ia videlicet jura quæ in sequentibus circulis a quibusdam psrudogmaiis iii conficta sunt? Ignorarunt, inquam, quia divino afflati Spiritu, i a a Romanorum pontificum nullibus, commonui' riis atque decrelis pendebant, ut nedum grave facinus ab iis vel leviter resilire putaverim; verum eti m, gravioribus exorientibus causis, apostolicam edem tamquam cæterarum Ecclesiarum matrem atque magsirnm perpetuo habendam esse, et docuerint at'lue crediderint. lncassum itaque Quesnellus sibi effugium parare studuit, ad illa verba provocans, quibus Ephesini PP. eam synodicam epistolam claudunt. dicentes: Porro autem, perlectis a sancta synodo Commentariis Actormn in damnatione impiorum Pelagianorum et Cælestianorum, Cælestii, Pelagii, Juliani, Flori quæ a pietate tua de ipsis decreta et constituta sunt, judicavimus et noa ea solida, firma permanere debere, et idem omnes tecum statuimus, eos pro depositis sire damnatis habentes. Et quid effugii ex hisce parabit, cum novos scopulos offendens, in:,Iios quoque incidit, quibus magis alquc magis obstringitur?","english":"Or should it be suspected that the praised Fathers of the general councils were ignorant of the laws? Those laws, namely, which in the following cycles were fabricated by certain pseudo-dogmas? They were ignorant, I say, because, inspired by the divine Spirit, they depended on the wills, admonitions, and decrees of the Roman pontiffs, so that I would consider it not merely a grave crime to recoil from them even slightly; but also, when graver causes arose, they both taught and believed that the apostolic see must forever be held as the mother and teacher of the other Churches. In vain, therefore, did Quesnel strive to prepare an escape for himself, appealing to those words with which the Fathers of Ephesus close that synodic epistle, saying: Furthermore, when the Commentaries of the Acts had been read by the holy synod in condemnation of the impious Pelagians and Caelestians, we have judged that the decrees and constitutions which by your piety have been made concerning Caelestius, Pelagius, Julian, and Florus should remain solid and firm, and we all decree the same with you, holding them as deposed or condemned. And what escape will he prepare from these things, when, striking new rocks, he also falls into those by which he is more and more bound?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":54,"ref":"p54","source":"Ea enim in synodo Aclorurn Commentaria in impiarum Pelagianorum Cœlestianorumque cundemnationem lata, dumtaxat leclaet publicata fnere; f'I PP. illi ea ae jam Coelestinus papa decreverat, lima et solida esse affirmarunt. Quid inde vero? Num propterea sola eorumdem Actorum lectio, vel unanimis ille ['P. consensus, quo pro depositis et damnatis ubique ii haberentur quos Romanus ponti. frx damnaverat et deposuerat, tanti roboris esse potuerunt, ut firma et irretractabilia apostolicæ sedis decreta redderentur, si talia reipsa non fuissent? Novum planæ versuti commentum. Quod ut cnm summa sui auctoris ignominia eripiamus, S. pontificis Cœlestini scopiun et fincm in iia ad concilium dirigendis Actis opus erit animadvertamus. Neque enim Romanus pontifex per suos legatos ad concilium ejusmodi gesta ut robur et firmitatem acquirerent transmis:t, sed dumtaxat ut magis evulgarentur et Ielerius exsecutioni tradcrentur. Direximus (ail) pro nostra sollicitudine sanctos fratres, et consacerdotes nostros unanimes nobis, e! probatissimos viros Arcadium et Projectum episcopos, et Philippum presbyterum nostrum, qui iis quæ aguntur intersint, et qnee antea a nobis statuta sunt, exsequantur; quibus præstandum a sanctitate vestra uon dubitamus assensum.","english":"For those Commentaries brought forward at the synod of Aclor concerning the condemnation of the impious Pelagians and Coelestians were merely read and published; and those Fathers affirmed that they were polished and solid, since Coelestinus the pope had already decreed them. But what follows from this? Could the mere reading of those same Acts, or that unanimous consensus by which those whom the Roman pontiff had condemned and deposed were everywhere held as deposed and condemned—could these have been of such strength as to make the decrees of the apostolic see firm and irrevocable, if in reality they had not been such? A new device of cunning, certainly. To tear this away, with the greatest disgrace to its author, we must observe the purpose and end of the holy pontiff Coelestinus in sending those Acts to the council. For the Roman pontiff did not send such proceedings through his legates to the council so that they might acquire force and firmness, but only so that they might be more widely published and more swiftly carried into execution. \"We have directed,\" he says, \"out of our solicitude, our holy brothers and fellow-priests, unanimous with us and most approved men, Arcadius and Projectus, bishops, and Philip our presbyter, that they may be present at the things which are being done, and may carry out what has been previously established by us; to whom we do not doubt that assent is to be given by your holiness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":55,"ref":"p55","source":"N ullus itaque hic sern o est de apostolicæ sedis a atutis firmandis, gOg sed solummodo de iis exsequendis; quod munus cam ad inferiores et subditos speciei, minime affirmandum est Cœlestini papæ ge-ia in Pelagianorum condemnationem ab Ephesinis Patrihus robur et firmitatem obtinere potuisse. Alioqui omnes imperatorum, regum, supremorum magistratuum constitutiones et jura, ab iis in robore et (irmilate maxime penderent quibus eorumdem exsecutioliis cura demandari solet.\n\nMulta prxierca de Africanis, Milevi et Carthagine canonibus noster Quesnellus comminiscitur. Multa de Innoc mit, Zosimi. Bonifacii decretis, quæ ab cadomi Ephesina synodo irrevocab Ii sanctione confirmata asseverat. Sed quid in scenam novator affert? Milevi imprimis concilii Patres nullos prorsus tdidisse canones, jam sapicntiores theologi ex synodica ad Innocentium papam intellexerunt, ut in superiorilms etiam, ex Dionysio Petavio, observavimus. Nam cum laudati Patres apostolicam sedem super impias Pelagianorum disputationes consultam voluissent, ne ipsis ad negligentiæ culpam silentium verteretur, primo nova hærescos figmenta, sine ulla prorsus verborum exaggeratione, indicant; lum errorum architectos in Ecclesia sanari maluisse, quam desperata saluæ ab Eeclesia reecari, si necessitas nulla compelleret, asseverant.","english":"No one, therefore, is dealing here with strengthening the authority of the apostolic see, but only with carrying it out; and it must by no means be affirmed that this office, being one of a lower and subordinate kind, could obtain its force and firmness from Pope Celestine's letter condemning the Pelagians, through the Ephesine Fathers. Otherwise all the constitutions and laws of emperors, kings, and supreme magistrates would depend for their force and firmness chiefly on those to whom the care of executing them is customarily entrusted.\n\nBesides these things, our Quesnellus invents many things concerning the African canons of Milevis and Carthage. He invents many things concerning the decrees of Innocent, Zosimus, and Boniface, which he asserts were confirmed by an irrevocable sanction of the same Ephesine synod. But what does the innovator bring onto the stage? First of all, the Fathers of the council of Milevis issued no canons at all, as the wiser theologians have already understood from the synodal letter to Pope Innocent, as we have also observed in earlier passages from Dionysius Petavius. For when the said Fathers wished the apostolic see to be consulted concerning the impious disputes of the Pelagians, lest silence on their part be turned into a charge of negligence, they first point out the new fabrications of the heresy, without any exaggeration of words at all; then they assert that the architects of the errors preferred to be healed in the Church rather than, with salvation despaired of, to be cut off from the Church, if no necessity compelled it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":56,"ref":"p56","source":"Falsitatem igitur ini pietatemque maximam in Pelagianorum dictis sub oluerunt, nec tamen hærescos principibus anathemata dixerunt, corum judicium apostolicae sedi reservandum judicarunt: Quia te Dominus ( ita episcopi illi apud Milevum congregati epistolam suam ad Inn centium ordiuntur) gratiæ suæ præcipuo munere in sede apostolica collocavit, talemque nostris temporibus præstitit, ut nobis potius ad culpam negligentice valeat, ti apud tuam venerati nem quæ pro Ecclesia sunt suggerenda tacuimus, quam ea tu possis vel fastidiose vel negligenter acciperet magnis periculis infirmorum mrmbrorum Christi pasto alem diligentiam, quæsumus, adhibere digneris. Et in fine ejusdem epistolæ ita cumdem ponuficeui Innocentium compellant: Sed arbitramur (adjuvante mi ericordia Domini Dci nostri Jesu Christiqui te et reyere consuleM em et orantem exaudire dignatur)auctoritati sanctitatis tuæ de claro Scripturarum tamine depromptæ, facilius eos (qui lam perversa. et perniciosa sentiunt) esse cessuros, ut de correctione potius eorum gratulemur, quam contristemur interitu, beati sime pater. Hæc Mdevitani Patres ad S. Innocen iom scripsere, ex quibus nou tantum nullos tum editos canones, sed nec de ii; condendis cogitatum fuisse, perspicue intelligimus.","english":"They therefore detected the falsehood and the greatest impiety in the sayings of the Pelagians, and yet they did not pronounce anathemas against the leaders of the heresy; they judged that their case must be reserved to the judgment of the apostolic see. For the Lord (thus those bishops gathered at Milevum begin their letter to Innocent) has placed you by the special gift of his grace in the apostolic see, and has provided such a one in our times that it would rather count as guilt of negligence on our part if, in the face of your venerable person, we kept silent about matters that must be suggested for the Church, than that you could receive them either disdainfully or negligently. We beseech you, therefore, that you deign to apply the diligence of a shepherd to the great dangers of the weak members of Christ. And at the end of the same letter they thus address the same pontiff Innocent: But we believe (with the help of the mercy of our Lord God Jesus Christ, who deigns to hear you both when you rule and when you pray) that those who now think perverse and pernicious things will more easily yield to the authority of your holiness, drawn from the clear testimony of the Scriptures, so that we may rather rejoice over their correction than be grieved by their destruction, most blessed father. These things the fathers of Milevum wrote to St. Innocent, from which we clearly understand that not only were no canons then issued, but that it was not even thought of to compose any.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":57,"ref":"p57","source":"Demus tamen praecedentem epistolam non percurrisse Quesnellum, sed, ali rum persuasione deceptum, canones illos qui rub Milevitani concilii nomine circumferuntur genuinos existimasse. Quare igitur deinde. nulla auctoritate adductus, confingit hos canones ab Innocentio primum, tum ab Ephe ina synodo irretractabili decreto fuisse firmatos? Sibi ergo effuliendi magnam licentiim vindicai Quesnellus, ut quodcumque pontificiæ auctoritati et Ecclesiæ regimini maxime repugnans suo jure audeat deendere. Sed ad Carthaginensium conciliorum canones in eandem Pelagianam hæresim prolatos jam nostra se vcrtai oratio.\n\nQuid novæ igitur œconomiæ in iis habetur? Nihil prorsus, quo.l apostolicæ sedis ledat auctoritatem; immo sexaginta septem rpisropi, qui post Diospolitanam synodum apud Carthaginem anno convenere, quæ in Pelagianos secundo definierant pro tuenda salute multorum, ct quorumdam perversitate corrigenda, prorsus infirma esse dixerunt, nisi ad iis robur adjiciendum suprema apostolicæ scdis auctorilas accederet. Hoc itaque (aiunt Patres Carthaginens's ad Innocentium) gestum, domine frater, sancte charitati tua intimandum duximus, ut statutis nostræ mediocri atis etiam apostolicæ scdis adhibeatur auctoritas, pro tuenda salute multorum et quorumdam etiam perversitate corrigenda. Hujus nro lii Acta excidisse, synodorum collectores annotarunt.","english":"Nevertheless, let us grant that Quesnellus did not go through the preceding letter, but, deceived by the persuasion of others, judged those canons which are circulated under the name of the Milevitan council to be genuine. Why, then, afterwards, led by no authority, does he fabricate that these canons were first confirmed by Innocentius, and then by the synod of Ephesus by an irrevocable decree? Quesnellus therefore claims for himself great license of raving, so that whatever is most repugnant to pontifical authority and the governance of the Church he may dare to defend by his own right. But our discourse has now turned to the canons of the Carthaginian councils brought forth against the same Pelagian heresy.\n\nWhat new economy, then, is held in them? Nothing at all, whereby he might injure the authority of the apostolic see; nay rather, sixty-seven bishops, who after the synod of Diospolis convened at Carthage in the year, declared that the things they had defined against the Pelagians in the second place for the protection of the salvation of many and for the correction of the perversity of certain persons were altogether weak, unless the supreme authority of the apostolic see should come to add strength to them. This, therefore (say the Carthaginian Fathers to Innocentius), we have deemed it necessary to intimate to your holy charity, lord brother, that to the statutes of our mediocrity the authority of the apostolic see also may be applied, for the protection of the salvation of many and for the correction of the perversity of certain persons also. That the Acts of this matter have perished, the collectors of the synods have noted.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":58,"ref":"p58","source":"At vero cum inter Augustini epistolas, tum in Conciliorum colleriime, Innocentii papa; ad Carthaginenses ei Milevitanos Patres rescripta asservantur, quibus haud dubie constantius nibil, nihilve firmius pro Romanæ sedis juribus asserendis desiderari potest. Quare hic minime pr:etcrire possumus quæ Quesnellus omnino dissimulavit, ne ejus causa pessum iret. Igitur Innocentius primo Carthaginensium Patrum religionis vigorem laudibus ornat, quod non minus nunc in consulendo, quam antea cum pronuntiaretis, vera ratione firmatis, qui ad nostrum referendum approbaalis esse judicium. Scientes (subjungit) quid apos'o. licæ sedi, cum omnes hoc loco positi ipsum sequi desideremus Apostolum, debeatur, a quo ipse episcopatus, et tota anctoritas nominis hujus emersit; quem sequentes tam mala jam damnare norimus, quam prob re landanda.","english":"But in truth, since among the letters of Augustine, as well as in the collections of the Councils, the rescripts of Pope Innocent to the Carthaginian and Milevitan Fathers are preserved, than which surely nothing more constant, nothing more firm for asserting the rights of the Roman see can be desired. Wherefore here we can by no means pass over in silence what Quesnellus altogether concealed, lest his cause utterly perish. Therefore Innocent first adorns with praises the vigor of the religion of the Carthaginian Fathers, because they strengthen with true reason no less now in consulting than before when you pronounced, who approved that it should be referred to our judgment. Knowing (he adds) what is owed to the apostolic see, since all of us placed in this position desire to follow the Apostle himself, from whom the episcopate itself and the whole authority of this name has emerged; following whom we know how to condemn evil things as much as to praise good things.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":59,"ref":"p59","source":"Vel id vero quod, Patrum instituta sacerdotali officio custodientes, non censetis este calcanda, quod illi non humana, sed dil'illa decrerere sententia, ut quidquid quamvis de disjunctis remotisque provinciis ageretur, non prius ducerent finiendum nisi ad hujus sedis notitiam perveniret, ut tota hujus auctoritate justa quæ fucrit pronuntiatio firmaretur; indeque sumerent cæteræ Ecclesiae (veluti de natali suo fonte aquæ suæ procederent, et per diversas totius mundi regiones puri rapitis incorruptæ manarenr) quid præcipere, quos abluere, quos veluti in coeno inemundabili sordidatos mundis digna corporibus unda vitaret.\n\nHisce ergo verbis Quesnellus se jugulatum esse non sentit? Animadvertat, amabo, tria in his verbis jacula contineri, quæ eum confodiunt, omnes que suæ versutiæ machinas impetunt atque subvertunt. Primum videlicet episcopatus nonien, omnemque illiu auctoritatis rationem ab apostolica emergere sede, cui de fidei causis judicare semper fnerat reservatum. Secundun, Sanctos Patres non humana, sed divina decrevisse sententia ejusmodi causas, quamvis in diajunctis remotisque provinciis ag tatas, non prius ducerent finiendas, nisi ad hujus sedis notitiem pervenirent, ut tola hujus auctoritate justa qum fuerit pronuntiatio firmaretur.","english":"Or indeed this very thing, which you, guarding the institutes of the Fathers by your sacerdotal office, do not judge to be trampled underfoot: that they decreed these things not by human, but by divine sentence, so that whatever was handled, however much in separated and remote provinces, they did not consider it should be brought to an end before it came to the notice of this see, so that the whole pronouncement, which would have been just, might be confirmed by its authority; and from there the other Churches might take—as waters proceeding from their natal fount, and flowing pure and incorrupt through the diverse regions of the whole world—what to prescribe, whom to wash, whom, defiled as if in an unclean mire, the clean wave worthy of pure bodies should avoid.\n\nDoes Quesnellus, then, not feel that he has been slain by these words? Let him observe, I pray, that three darts are contained in these words, which pierce him and assail and overturn all the engines of his cunning. First, namely, that the name of episcopacy, and every account of that authority, emerges from the apostolic see, to which it had always been reserved to judge concerning causes of faith. Second, that the Holy Fathers decreed by divine, not human, sentence that causes of this kind, however much handled in separated and remote provinces, should not be considered finished before they came to the notice of this see, so that the whole pronouncement, which would have been just, might be confirmed by its authority.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":60,"ref":"p60","source":"Tertium denique, cæteras omnes Ecclesias ab hoc unico apostolicæsedis fonte catholicam haurire debcre doctrinam, ex qua tamquam ex puro capite Christi et apostolorum sapientia dimanat, Nonne itaque tria hæc Quesnelli commenta plane rescindunt? Quorsum fieri potest ut omnes cæterarum regionum Ecclesiæ in unum per pastores congiegatæ apostolicae sedis sanctionibus tribuant lirmitatem? Impossibile id enim est. Nam nec membra capiti, a quo dependent, vim et robur adjiciant, nec rivulorum aquae fontium a quibus deducuntur nilorem atque dulcedinem possunt augere. Arenæ ergo semina mandat Quesnellus, confingens Romanorum pontificum decreta in Pelagianam sobolem ediia Ephesini concilii sanctione irrevocablia effecta fuisse.\n\nSed jam hujusmodi tricas prætermittamus, Inculentius denuo de iisdem acturi, cum ad refellendas non absimiles Quesnelli contentiones, de Chalcedonensi concilio sermonem habebimus. S. Leo itaque catholica de gratia Christi dogmata tertio jam ejusdem epistolæ capiie exponit, atque Apostoli testi monio, ad Ephesios II, 8, innixus, ia'em tantamque humanæ naturæ oiiginali labe sauciatæ infirmitatem inesse exaggerat, ut quævis bonorum operum donatio divina ait præparatio, quia non prius quisquam justificatur virtute, quam gratia, quæ unicuique principium ju titiæ, et bonorum fons, atque origo meritorum est.","english":"Third, finally, that all the other Churches ought to draw the catholic doctrine from this single fount of the apostolic see, from which, as from the pure head of Christ, the wisdom of the apostles flows. Do not these three comments of Quesnel therefore plainly cut this down? For how can it come about that all the Churches of the other regions, gathered into one through their pastors, attribute firmness to the sanctions of the apostolic see? That is indeed impossible. For neither do the members add force and strength to the head on which they depend, nor can the waters of the streams increase the brightness and sweetness of the fountains from which they are drawn. Quesnel therefore sows seeds on the sand, fabricating that the decrees of the Roman pontiffs issued against the Pelagian offspring were made irrevocable by the sanction of the Council of Ephesus.\n\nBut let us now pass over tricks of this kind, to treat of the same matters more clearly again, when, in order to refute Quesnel's contentions that are not dissimilar, we shall have occasion to speak of the Council of Chalcedon. Saint Leo, therefore, sets out the catholic dogmas concerning the grace of Christ in the third chapter of this same letter, and, relying on the testimony of the Apostle in Ephesians 2:8, he exaggerates how great and how much infirmity is present in human nature wounded by the original stain, so that every donation of good works, he says, is a divine preparation, because no one is justified by virtue before grace, which is for each one the beginning of justice, and the fount of goods, and the origin of merits.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":61,"ref":"p61","source":"Eidem Januario praterea, capite quarto sequenli, opiimi vigil partes accuraliui obeundas commendat, ne per hujusmodi homines exstincta dudum scandala suscitentur, et de exciso olim dogmate aliquid in Aquileiæ provincia ejusdem mali germen exoriatur. Tum ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ rigoremerga Pclagianos pœnitentes aliqua ratione volens moderatum, perfecte correctos, datis prius sincerae obedientiæ signis, in Ecclesiam retineri mandat., Ens qui, indulgentia abmentes, Romanac sedis præceptis erant reluctaturi, e clericalibus ordinibus primum dejectos a catholicorum societate procul amandandos definivit.\n\nOuinio demum capite illam ecclesiasticæ di-ciplin:e partem in integrum revocat, qua olim cum a SS. Patribus, tum a se ipso fuerat stabilitum: Ut nec in presbyteratus qradu, nec in diaconatus orrfine, nec in subsequenti officio clericorum ab Ecclesia ad Ecclesiam cwquam transire sit liberum. Qul autem, quovis ductus colore, ubi ordinatus est perseverare re. nuerit, i a ut, sua quærens, non qua Jesu Christi, ad plebemet ad Ecclesiam suam redire neglexerit, et ab honcris privilegio, ct a communionis vinculo habeatur extraneus.","english":"To the same Januarius, moreover, in the fourth chapter following, he commends the watchful parts of the good shepherd to be undertaken carefully, lest scandals long since extinguished be stirred up through men of this kind, and lest from the dogma once cut down some offshoot of the same evil arise in the province of Aquileia. Then, wishing for some reason to temper the rigor of ecclesiastical discipline toward penitent Pelagians, he commands that those perfectly corrected, after signs of sincere obedience have first been given, be retained in the Church. But those who, rejecting indulgence, would resist the precepts of the Roman see, he determined should first be cast down from the clerical orders and driven far from the fellowship of catholics.\n\nFinally, in the fifth chapter, he restores in full that part of ecclesiastical discipline which had once been established both by the holy Fathers and by himself: that it be free for no cleric to pass from church to church, neither in the grade of the presbyterate, nor in the order of the diaconate, nor in the subsequent office of clerics. But he who, led by whatever pretext, has refused to persevere where he was ordained, so that, seeking his own things and not the things of Jesus Christ, he has neglected to return to his people and to his church, is to be held a stranger both from the privilege of honors and from the bond of communion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":62,"ref":"p62","source":"Atque hanc epistolam claudens, gravioribas usus verbis sincere fassus esi se vehementius commovendum, si quae pro custodia canonum et fidei integritate decreverat, negligerentur: Quia inferiorum ord'num culpæ (ai,) ad nullos magii referendæ sunt, quam ad desides negligentesque rectores, qui muttam sæpe nutriunt pestitentiam, dum austerioren dissimulant adhibere medicinam. Hocce S. pontificis d'cretum postremum obtinet locum in manuscripta illa collectione, quæ in Vaticanis codd. inscribitur: Tituli decretorum papæ Leonis. Numero enim legitur: Leo episcopus, de conservatione et disciplina canonum, ne indebite el inordinate ad clericatus aliquis præsumat acce lere.\n\nLaudai, hactenus epistola cnn-ulari nota cum careat, omnibus fere præcedentibus scriptorihus ut scopulos offenderent praebuit occasionem; quos lamen difficile nos declinare pouissemus, si eam cur. sim et properanter (ut fieri solet) legissemus. Ad Quesnelli opinionem quod attinet,Censuit, ad nullum aliud tempus referendam qnam ad. Quesnello antem subscripserunt Dupinius, Tillemontius et novissime R. P. Rernardus de Rubeis Dominicanv regularis familiæ culum eximius, in celehri opere De Monumentis Aquileiensis Ecclesiæ.","english":"And closing this letter, having used rather weighty words, he sincerely confessed that he was to be moved more vehemently if the things he had decreed for the custody of the canons and the integrity of the faith were neglected: Because the faults of lower orders are to be referred to none more than to slothful and negligent rulers, who often nourish much pestilence while they dissemble to apply the more austere medicine. This decree of the holy pontiff holds the last place in that manuscript collection which is entitled in the Vatican codices: The Titles of the Decrees of Pope Leo. For it is read in number: Leo bishop, concerning the conservation and discipline of the canons, lest anyone presume unduly and inordinately to accede to the clergy.\n\nLaudai, hitherto, since the letter lacks a common title, has offered occasion to almost all preceding writers to strike against rocks; which nevertheless we could have avoided with difficulty if we had read it carefully and hastily (as is wont to happen). As to the opinion of Quesnel, he held that it was to be referred to no other time than to Quesnel; and to Quesnel subscribed Dupin, Tillemont, and most recently the Reverend Father Bernard de Rubeis, of the regular family of the Dominicans, a most distinguished man, in the celebrated work On the Monuments of the Aquileian Church.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":63,"ref":"p63","source":"Serius autem eam epistolam scripsisse eminentissimus cardinalis N orisius asseverat, dicens: hanc epistolam ad Januirium aimo 447, et quidem ante quartam qu v Januario eidem inscribitur, fuisse exaratam. i Nos vero, qu alterutrarn in partem moveamur, adhuc tamen genui-. num hujus epistolæ tempus indicabimus. Nam, ut antea observatum est, S. pontifex primo et quinto hujus epistole capite Januario canones jam alias a so editos pro clericis hæreticis recipiendis observari mandat. Ejusmodi porro canones cam in duodecima, lum in tenia decima cpistola expressos legamus idcirco sequitur epistolam quæ iti Quesnelli editione sexto loco ponitur, duahus illis, videlicet duodecima et tertiadecima esse posteriorem. Duodecimam aulem epistolam, quamvis consulari nota na-eat, tamen in annum rejiciendam esse evidentissime ex attera sequenti intelligitur, quæ cum ad episcopos metropolitanos per Achaiam provinciam fuerit scripta octavo idus Januar, cto et Symmacho viris clarissimis consulibus, qui est Christi annus 4t6, et in ca mentionem habeat de iis quæ in præcedenti ad An:.stasium scripserat; ideo duodecima ad annum 4t5 referenda esi. Quesnelli ergo, Tillemontii aliorumque opinio affirmantium sextam epistolam anno fuisse a S. Leone exaratam, non tantum nutat, sed prorsus concidii, et propterea vrrisimiliorem Norisii sententiam esse arbitramur, qua in anuum cam rejecit.","english":"However, the most eminent cardinal Norisius asserts that he wrote that letter later, saying that this letter was written to Januarius in the year 447, and indeed before the fourth letter which is inscribed to the same Januarius. But we, so that we may not be swayed to one side or the other, will still indicate the genuine date of this letter. For, as was observed earlier, the holy pontiff in the first and fifth chapters of this letter commands Januarius to observe the canons already previously issued by him for receiving heretical clerics. Moreover, since we read that canons of this kind are expressed both in the twelfth and in the thirteenth letter, it therefore follows that the letter which is placed in the sixth place in Quesnel's edition is later than those two, namely the twelfth and thirteenth. But that the twelfth letter, although it bears a consular date, must nevertheless be assigned to a year is most evidently understood from the other following letter, which, since it was written to the metropolitan bishops throughout the province of Achaea on the eighth day before the Ides of January, in the consulship of the most illustrious men Octo and Symmachus, which is the year of Christ 416, and in it makes mention of the things which he had written in the preceding letter to Anastasius; therefore the twelfth must be referred to the year 415. Therefore the opinion of Quesnel, Tillemont, and others, who affirm that the sixth letter was written by St. Leo in the year [ ], not only wavers but utterly collapses, and for that reason we judge the sentence of Norisius to be more probable, by which he assigned it to the year [ ].","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":64,"ref":"p64","source":"Neque obest alieram Lronis epistolam ad J'Inuarium eodem anno scriptam fuisse. Quid enim? Repugnatne Romanum pontificem duo fecim metsium spatio duas ad cumdem Italiæ episcopum, gra. vissima urgente causa, ut isthæc erat, epistolas mittere po uisse? Nonne postrema conscripta fuit anno eveunte? data quippe est in kalend. Januarii, Alipio et Ardubare viris clarissimis consulibus. Puluit ergo pontifex priorem epistolam ad Januarium scrihere vel ill exordio, vel circa ejusdem anni medium, præsertim cum tanta non eit ab Urbe ad Aquleiim ilineris distantia, ut etiam quinque aut sex mensium spatio plurium ens inter litcrarum commercium illtercedere uon potuerit. Ex quibus constat neque has conjecturas iulirmari, etiamsi altera ad Januarium epislola kalend. Julii ediia fuisset, ut plerique manuscripti codices habent. Ii re tamen hac ex,loratissima d.utius hand immorabor.","english":"Nor does it matter that another letter of Leo to Januarius was written in the same year. For what of it? Is it inconsistent that the Roman pontiff, with a most serious cause pressing, such as this was, could have sent two letters to the same bishop of Italy within the space of two months? Was not the last one written as the year was drawing to a close? It was indeed given on the Kalends of January, with Alipius and Ardubarus, most distinguished men, as consuls. The pontiff could therefore have written the earlier letter to Januarius either at its beginning or around the middle of the same year, especially since the distance of the journey from Rome to Aquileia was not so great that, even within a space of five or six months, an exchange of several letters could not have taken place between them. From these considerations it is clear that these conjectures are not confirmed, even if the other letter to Januarius had been issued on the Kalends of July, as most manuscript codices have it. But on this matter, which is most thoroughly examined, I shall not dwell longer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":65,"ref":"p65","source":"CAPUT VII.\n\nDe aliis atque aliis scriptorum opinionibns circa præce dentes S. Leonis epistolas. Nostra autem statuitur.\n\nAd graviora igitur nostro sermone converso, quid recentioribus scriptoribus tantarum disoptatiouum causam dederit, paucis indicabimus. UT itaque scriptores in diversas opiniones abirent, ransam nbtulerunt unius atque ejusdem epistolæ dun exemplaria. Unum Septimio Altinensi episcopo, alterum Januario Aquileiensi inscriptum, quod prorsus a S. pontil'icis eloquentia doctrina et scribendi ratione alienum judicarunt. Qua deinde rati persuasione, alterutrum veluti spurium (t supposititium rejidendum esse acerrime contenderunt. Norisius tamen, libro II Pclagianae historiæ utrumque exemplr Leoni adjudicavit, scribens: Nam cu Januarius Le\"ni rescripsis-el, accepta videlicet priori illa epistola (de qua nos in præcedentibus), se omnia ex ipsius mandato acturum, cogendo hæreticos ad publicam erroris detestationem, voce et scripto insuper firmandam, Leo binas ejusdem exempli litteras misit ad Septimium, quibus ei significabat quæ Januario mandasset, et ad Januarium, quibus gratulabatur quod imperataprompte facessehat. i Cum autem hæc scriberet Norisius. se nondum in scenam Quesnellus produxerat.","english":"CHAPTER VII.\n\nConcerning the various and differing opinions of writers regarding the aforementioned letters of St. Leo. But our own view is established.\n\nTurning our discourse, then, to weightier matters, we shall briefly indicate what gave the more recent writers cause for such disagreements. In order, therefore, that writers might depart into diverse opinions, the occasion was furnished by the copies of one and the same letter. One was inscribed to Septimius, bishop of Altinum, the other to Januarius of Aquileia, which they judged to be altogether foreign to the eloquence, learning, and manner of writing of the holy pontiff. Then, persuaded by this reasoning, they most sharply contended that one or the other, as spurious and supposititious, must be rejected. Norisius, however, in the second book of his Pelagian History, adjudged both copies to Leo, writing: For when Januarius had written back to Leo—having received, namely, that earlier letter (of which we spoke in the preceding)—that he would do all things according to his command, compelling the heretics to a public detestation of their error, to be confirmed besides by word and writing, Leo sent two letters of the same tenor, to Septimius, in which he signified to him what he had commanded Januarius, and to Januarius, in which he congratulated him that he had promptly carried out the commands. But when Norisius wrote these things, Quesnel had not yet been brought onto the stage.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":66,"ref":"p66","source":"Is namque in postrema Operum divi Leonis editione, libratis utriusque epistolæ notis et charac eribus, a priori sensu recedens, multo op're ejusdem emim niissimi Norisii conjecturas impetit atque refellit, foutendeus hujus epistolae exemplum Altinensi epi. scopo inscriptum multa suppositionis argumenta praeseferre, et ideirco falso omnino nostro pontifici esse adjudicatum.\n\nAliter amem Joseph Anthelmius ratiocinatus est, cum censuit omnia suppositionis argumenta a Quesnello prolita contra epistolæ exemplum Allinensi episcopo inscriptum, retorquenda esse potius in aliud exemplar Januario Aquileiensi nuncupatum, istudque tamquam spurium et apocryphum esse rejiciendum. Nodum igitur quoquoversum disSolvendum nos offendisse quis non videt? id'lue ea maxime de causa, quod posteriores clarissimi scriptores. T llemontius, videlicet. Dupinius, Pater Bernardus de Rubeis et alii, si qui sunt, aut in alterutram partem moventur, aut saltem, nibil prorsus defini Miles, suspensi hærere maluerunt quam temere quidquam asscverare, temporis decursu inde sperantes veritatem nondum satis comperiam, uberiori monumentorum copia aliquando accedene, clarius esse patefaciendam.","english":"For in the most recent edition of the Works of the divine Leo, having weighed the notes and characteristics of each letter, departing from his earlier view, he attacks and refutes at great length the conjectures of that same most eminent Noris, maintaining that the copy of this letter inscribed to the bishop of Altinum presents many arguments of supposition, and that it has therefore been wholly wrongly attributed to our pontiff.\n\nBut Joseph Anthelmius reasoned otherwise, when he judged that all the arguments of supposition brought forward by Quesnel against the copy of the letter inscribed to the bishop of Altinum ought rather to be turned back upon another copy addressed to Januarius of Aquileia, and that this one should be rejected as spurious and apocryphal. Who, then, does not see that we have encountered a knot to be untied in every direction? And that especially for this reason, that later most distinguished writers—namely Tillemont, Dupin, Father Bernard de Rubeis, and others, if there are any—are either moved to one side or the other, or at least, defining nothing at all, have preferred to remain in suspense rather than rashly assert anything, hoping that in the course of time the truth, not yet sufficiently ascertained, might at some point, with a richer supply of documents becoming available, be made more clearly evident.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":67,"ref":"p67","source":"Interim autem conjecturis minime aberrasse Norisium asserere ausim, qui srripsit utrumque illius epistol exemplar ex Leone prodiisse, quorum uinum reipsa Januario inscripsit, alterum Septimio Altinensi, ut forte is inde intelligeret, tum metropolitam Januarium omnes sui studii nervos in Pelagianorum clericorum exilium intendere, tum ipsum Romanum pontilicem Leonem, apud quem Pelagianos clericos Aquilcienses Septimius postulaverat, qua jam ad fidei integritatem necessaria videbantur præcepisse. Ejusmodi porro sensum Norisii verba paulo ante laudata, eliam absque ulla insipientiæ aut (ictionis nota subire posse nolis persuasum est. Nec insolens, neque a Leonis agendi consuetudine aliena ithæc œconomiæ ratio judicanda est. Siquidtm acceptis a Septimio Altinensi epistolis circa Pelagianam luem in Aquileif provincia grassantem, harum exemplar Januario metropolitæ transmisit, ut prinrem ad hanc epistolam iis verbis orsus sit: Relatione sancti fratris ei coepiscopi nostri, quæ in subditis habetur, agnovimus quosdam presbyteros, diaconos.","english":"In the meantime, however, I would dare to assert that Norisius strayed not at all in his conjectures, who wrote that both copies of that letter proceeded from Leo, one of which he in fact inscribed to Januarius, the other to Septimius of Altinum, so that perhaps he might thereby understand that both the metropolitan Januarius was directing all the energies of his zeal toward the exile of the Pelagian clerics, and that the Roman pontiff Leo himself, to whom Septimius had petitioned concerning the Pelagian clerics of Aquileia, had already given orders for whatever now seemed necessary for the integrity of the faith. Moreover, it is persuasively established that the meaning of Norisius's words, praised a little earlier, can undergo examination even without any mark of foolishness or fiction. Nor should this manner of economy be judged unusual or foreign to Leo's customary way of acting. For indeed, having received from Septimius of Altinum letters concerning the Pelagian plague raging in the province of Aquileia, he transmitted a copy of these to the metropolitan Januarius, so that he began the first [letter] to this [Januarius] with these words: From the report of our holy brother and fellow bishop, which is contained in the attached, we have learned that certain presbyters, deacons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":68,"ref":"p68","source":"Quare igitur huic exemplo insi-tendo, altenum a Leois agendi ratione judicabitur, ut is accepto Januarii rescripto, istud pariter una cum quartæ decimæ, seu postremae epistolæ exemplari Septimio commi serit, ea de causa potissimum, ut is quoque sui metropolitæ fidei vigorem, pastoralem curam, et apostolicw aedis monita, atque sanctiones apprime cognosceret? Oportebat profecto Leonem ad Septimium, a quo præcedentem relationem acceperat, rescribere; et tunc præsertim, cum, jam lectis Januarii litteris, vigorem fidei, quom olim noverat, probavit, et propterea summi pontificis œconomiæ ratio esse potuit, ut quemadmodum prius Septimii relationem, ut jam diximus, priori sua epistola Januario piovincix Aqnileiensis metropolitæ commisit; ila, accepto hujus responso, et istud Septimio commiserit, subjeeto iili hujus postremæ epistolæ exemplari, ut hactenus gesta, et quae in posterum exsecutioni demandanda erant pro coercendis illius provinciae Pelagianis, prænosceret. Cæterum ego nefas fore arbitror susp can secundam hanc epistolam de qua agimus, ad Januarium conscriptam, commentitiam esse.","english":"Why, therefore, by following this example, will it be judged alien to Leo's manner of acting that, when he had received Januarius's reply, he should have sent it together with a copy of the fourteenth, or last, letter to Septimius, chiefly for this reason, that he too might thoroughly come to know the vigor of his metropolitan's faith, his pastoral care, and the warnings and sanctions of the apostolic see? Leo ought indeed to have written back to Septimius, from whom he had received the preceding report; and especially at that time, when, having now read Januarius's letters, he approved the vigor of faith as he had once known it, and for that reason it could have been a matter of the supreme pontiff's administrative policy that, just as he had previously entrusted Septimius's report, as we have already said, by his earlier letter to Januarius, metropolitan of the province of Aquileia, so, having received the latter's response, he should have entrusted it to Septimius, with a copy of this last letter attached, so that he might know in advance what had been done thus far and what was to be demanded for execution in the future for the coercion of the Pelagians of that province. For the rest, I think it would be impious to suspect that this second letter of which we are treating, written to Januarius, is fabricated.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":69,"ref":"p69","source":"Eam enim lamqnam genuinum Leonis fetum laudat antiquissimus collector Dionysius Exignus; eam ut genuinam Ecclesia Aquileiensis semper in suis archiviis asservafit, ut ex manuscripto Vaticano Chronico nos ip-i jam diximus: atque denique isthæc habet omnes notas et characteres quibus non alicui suffraganeo, sed provinciæ metropolita eam datam fuisse sufficientissime innotescit.\n\nVerum cum hisce collecturis adhæreo, minime inficiabor alterum cxemplar Septimio commissum, et in Atinensis Ecclesiæ archi viis quandoque forte repertum, aliquam corrupiionis fraudem fuisse passum. Istud suos habet naevos, ex quibus laudati scriplores aliqua suppositionis indicia in eo subolere contendunt. Cujusmodi illa sunt: Ad metropolitanum episcopum provinciæ Venetiæ scrip'a direximus; vel alia illa, quæ immediate subduntur: Quibus ad status sui periculum cognosceret pertinere, quaeque, auctore Quesnello, nec xtatem, nec stylum S. Leonis redolent, quamvis reip-a illius generis non sint, ut etiam ab omni suppositionis nota vindicari non possint. Ac primum A!tinum urbs florentissima olim fuit in Venetiae littore ædificata, ut ex Plinio, Martiali, Tito Livio, atque antiquis geographorum tabulis exploratum est. Quare commode verba illa, ad metropolitanum.... provincia Venetia, potuerunt usurpari adclarius designandam provinciam in qna stum era: Altinum, pra-sertim cum Leonis aevo me.","english":"For the most ancient collector Dionysius Exiguus praises it as a genuine offspring of Leo; the Church of Aquileia always preserved it as genuine in its archives, as we ourselves have already said from the Vatican manuscript of the Chronicle; and finally it bears all the marks and characteristics by which it is sufficiently clear that it was sent not to some suffragan but to the metropolitan of the province.\n\nBut while I adhere to these collections, I will by no means deny that the other copy entrusted to Septimius, and perhaps at some time found in the archives of the Church of Altinum, suffered some corruption or fraud. That one has its own blemishes, from which the aforementioned writers contend that certain indications of supposition are suspected in it. Of this sort are those words: We have directed the written letter to the metropolitan bishop of the province of Venetia; or those other words which immediately follow: by which he might know that it pertained to the danger of his own status—which, according to Quesnel, smack neither of the age nor of the style of St. Leo, although they are not of such a kind as to be unable to be vindicated from every mark of supposition. And first, Altinum was once a most flourishing city built on the shore of Venetia, as is established from Pliny, Martial, Titus Livius, and the ancient maps of the geographers. Wherefore those words, to the metropolitan of the province of Venetia, could conveniently have been used to designate more clearly the province in which was situated Altinum, especially since in the age of Leo...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":70,"ref":"p70","source":"tropolitanus Aquileiensis, non unias, sed plurium provinciarum urbes et episcopos sibi subjectos haberet. Sedem deinde episcopalem Altinum habuisse, conciliorum Acta abunde testantur. Siquidem Aquileiensi synodo, anno Domini 581, sub Damaso papa coacta, inter cæteros episcopos Ilalos, Gall-s et Panonicos, qui illuc convenerunt, Heliodorus quoque episcopus Altinensis in:erfuit. Anno Domini praeterea coacta apud Gradum synodo, ad eam convenit Altinensis cpiscopus. Quinto namque loco legimus: Petrus episcopus sanctæ Ecclesiæ Altinatis hir gestis subscripsi. De qua synodo egit Ughellius tom. V Italiæ Sacræ. Acta quoque pseudosynodi Maranensis hujus Petri Altinensis habent mentionem, ut constat ex Paulo diacono, lib. III, cap. 27, quaudo videlicet anno 5a9 Severus patriarcha Aquileiensis sui erroris obtudit libellum. Quare maxime allucinari Quesnellum asserendum ea, qui audeniius scripsit: Nothia episcopalis sedis Septimii æque obscura manet ac si numquam hæc epistola innotuisset. Septimio eam sedem attribuit impostor epistolae artifex, quas in mentem velli, ac prout fraudis suæ consilio melius condicere putavit. Revera nihil ab Ughellio de Altinensi hujus nnminis episcopo in antiquis monamentis inventum, quandoquidem de en nihil in Italia Sacra Igitur. i Quam lepide imponit Quesnellus, qui pro asserenda Septimio Altini episcopali sede ex Ughellio testimonium exposcit!","english":"the metropolitan of Aquileia, he should have cities and bishops subject to him not of one province only, but of several. That the episcopal see was then at Altinum, the Acts of the councils abundantly testify. For indeed at the synod of Aquileia held in the year of the Lord 581 under Pope Damasus, among the other bishops of Italy, Gaul, and Pannonia who gathered there, Heliodorus also, bishop of Altinum, was present. Moreover, at the synod held at Grado in the year of the Lord, the bishop of Altinum convened to it. For in the fifth place we read: I, Peter, bishop of the holy Church of Altinum, have subscribed to these acts. Ughelli treated of this synod in volume V of Italia Sacra. The acts of the pseudo-synod of Marano also make mention of this Peter of Altinum, as is established from Paul the Deacon, book III, chapter 27, namely when in the year 589 Severus, patriarch of Aquileia, published the book of his error. Wherefore it must be asserted that Quesnell is greatly mistaken, who wrote too boldly: The record of the episcopal see of Septimius remains as obscure as if this letter had never become known. The forger who composed the letter assigned that see to Septimius, such as he wished to be understood, and as he thought would better suit the design of his fraud. In truth, nothing was found by Ughelli concerning a bishop of Altinum of this name in the ancient monuments, since there is nothing about him in Italia Sacra. Therefore how charmingly Quesnell imposes, who, to assert the episcopal see of Altinum for Septimius, demands testimony from Ughelli!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":71,"ref":"p71","source":"Si enim, Daudulum secutus, sermonem dumtaxat orditur ab excidio urbis Alliui, quando videlicet Paulus hujus urbis episcopus sedem transtulit Torcellum. Sed hac in re Cum Daudulus, tum Ughellius lapsi sunt. Siquidem eam translationem ab episcopo Paulo anno b51 factam contendunt, quem mense sequenti obiisse asseverani. Nos tamen in Actis RomaM concitii sub Agathone pontifice legimus: Paulus episcopus sanctœ Ecclesia Altinenxisprovinciœ Istriœ, in hanc suggestioneM, quam pro apostolica nostra fide unanimiter construximus, similiter subscripsi. Hoc antem concilium Romae babinun fuisse anno Domini ♦ neminem latere arbitror, nec alius quisquam hujus nominis episcopus in Ughelliano caulogo recensetur. Neque pariter obsunt duae illæ voces, Istriœ provinciœ: nan antea, Italiae rebus afflictis, et vivoadhuc Leone obsidione capta Aquileia, soloque ab Attila Hunnorum rege aequata, tum Gothorum incursu et cæterorum Barbarorum furore quinto labente saeculo iterum quassata, atque demum anno Aquileienses episcopi Longobardorum nefandœ gentis flagella minime sustinere valentes, Romani pontificis Pelagii decreto et auctoritate, metropolitanam illam sedero Gradum transtulerunt, et tunc Gradense castrum lotius Venetiae et Istriae metropolim, suffraganeis consentientibus episcopis, factum fuit.","english":"For if one follows Daudulus, he begins his account only from the destruction of the city of Altinum, namely when Paul, bishop of this city, transferred the see to Torcello. But in this matter both Daudulus and Ughellius have erred. For they maintain that this translation was made by Bishop Paul in the year 651, whom they assert to have died in the following month. Yet we read in the Acts of the Roman council under Pope Agatho: I, Paul, bishop of the holy Church of Altinum of the province of Istria, have similarly subscribed to this petition, which we have unanimously drawn up for our apostolic faith. But I think it escapes no one that this council was held at Rome in the year of the Lord, nor is any other bishop of this name recorded in Ughellius's catalogue. Nor do those two phrases, of the province of Istria, stand in the way likewise; for previously, when the affairs of Italy were afflicted and Aquileia was captured by siege while Leo was still alive, and was leveled to the ground by Attila king of the Huns, then shaken again in the declining fifth century by the incursion of the Goths and the fury of other barbarians, and finally, when the bishops of Aquileia could by no means endure the scourges of the abominable race of the Lombards, by the decree and authority of the Roman pontiff Pelagius they transferred that metropolitan see to Gradus, and then the fortress of Gradus was made the metropolis of all Venetia and Istria, with the suffragan bishops consenting.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":72,"ref":"p72","source":"Quod si novae Aquilei.e episcopus provinciarum Venetiæ et Istriae metropolita appellabatur, cur iisdem nominibus insigniri non potuit antequam vetus Aquileia tut clades subiret? tum quoque Aquileiensis antistes provinciæ Venetiarom verus erat metropolita.\n\nNullam præterea olent suppositionem verba illa, quibus ad statum sui periculum cognosceret pertiaere. In Leonis utique ætatem et stylum optime quadrare ii minime ibuut inlicias qui norunt vel Leonem sexta epistola ad Januarium scripsisse: Non autem dubitet dilectio tua, nos, si (quod arbitramur) neglecta fuerint quœ pro custodia canonum et pro fidei integritate decernimus, vehementius commovendos. Tutidem verbis utitur etiam in quartadecima epistula, quae quidem minas et futuram pontificis indignationem indicant, si Januarius metropolita apostolicae sedis decreta negligentiæ ac contemptui tradidisset. Nec enim primorum Romanorum pontificum auctoritas in corrigenda coercendaque inferiorum episcoporum dissidia atque defectibus augustis linibus concludebatur. ut eos dumtaxat comprehenderet qui ad synodum Romanam tunc pertinebant, vel ad eos qui air eodem Romano pontifice ordinabantur, ut effutivit Quesnellus. Longe enim lateque in universi orbis episcopos diffundebatur, ut eos Roman!","english":"But if the bishop of New Aquileia was called metropolitan of the provinces of Venetia and Istria, why could he not have been distinguished by these same titles before old Aquileia underwent its destruction? Even then the bishop of Aquileia was the true metropolitan of the province of Venetia.\n\nMoreover, those words smack of no forgery, by which he would recognize that the matter pertained to the danger of his own position. Certainly they who know that Leo wrote in his sixth letter to Januarius—\"But let your belovedness not doubt that we, if (as we believe) those things which we decree for the custody of the canons and for the integrity of the faith are neglected, will be more vehemently moved\"—will have no doubts that these words fit the age and style of Leo perfectly. He uses the same words also in the fourteenth letter, which indeed indicate threats and the future indignation of the pontiff, if Januarius the metropolitan had consigned the decrees of the apostolic see to negligence and contempt. Nor indeed was the authority of the first Roman pontiffs in correcting and restraining the dissensions and failings of inferior bishops confined within narrow bounds, so as to encompass only those who then belonged to the Roman synod, or those who were ordained by the same Roman pontiff, as Quesnellus babbled. For it was diffused far and wide among the bishops of the whole world, so that them the Roman...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":73,"ref":"p73","source":"ponlifices admonerent, corriperent, atque communione privarcut; quod sexcentis exemplis ex Leonis praedecessoribus asserere possemus, nisi nostra hæc dissertatio longius quam par est progrederetur. Percurrat,amaho,Quesnellus, dumtaxat, quæ noster Leo hahet in epistolis ad Anastasium Thessalonicensem, ad Flavianum et Anatolium Constantinopolitanos, Juvenale... Jerosolymitanum, ad Turribium Asturicensem, ad Viennensis provinciæ episcopos, ad Theodoritum Cyri, qui omnes quidem, nec ad Romanam synodum pertinebant, nec a Romanis ordinabantur pontificibus. Eoi tamen aut corripit, aut admonet, aut communione privat, vel absolvit, e sedibus dejicit, aut iisden) restituit, quæ argumento sunt, Quod de forma episcoporum quoque est orta dialinClio, et magna ordinatione. provisum eat, ne omnes sibi omiia vindicarent, aed essent in singulis provinciis singuli quorum inter fratres haberetur prima sententia, ei rursus quida in majoribus urbibus constituti sollicitudmem susciperent ampliorem, per quos ad unum Petri aedem universalis Ecclesice cura conflueret, et nihil usquam a cupite dissideret. Ex quibus aliisque gestis istuc Quesnelli assertum cadit: hujusmodi minis Leonem uti reI consuevisse in metropolitanos episcopos.","english":"The pontiffs would admonish, reprove, and deprive of communion; and we could assert this with six hundred examples from Leo's predecessors, were this dissertation of ours not proceeding further than is fitting. Let Quesnellus—to take him alone—run through what our Leo has in his letters to Anastasius of Thessalonica, to Flavian and Anatolius of Constantinople, to Juvenal of Jerusalem, to Turribius of Asturica, to the bishops of the province of Vienne, to Theodoret of Cyrrhus—all of whom certainly neither belonged to the Roman synod nor were ordained by the Roman pontiffs. Yet he either reproves them, or admonishes them, or deprives them of communion, or absolves them, deposes them from their sees, or restores them to the same—which are arguments that the discussion concerning the form of bishops also arose, and by a great ordinance it was provided that not all should claim all things for themselves, but that in each province there should be individual bishops whose opinion was held first among the brethren, and again that certain ones established in the greater cities should undertake a more extensive solicitude, through whom the care of the universal Church might flow together to the one see of Peter, and nothing anywhere should disagree from the head. From these and other deeds, that assertion of Quesnellus falls: that Leo was accustomed to use threats of this kind against metropolitan bishops.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":74,"ref":"p74","source":"Ab iisdem vero haudquaquam se Leo abstinuit, causas cum episcopis Orientalibus agens; quanto magis igitur iisdeui uti potuit negotium cum Aquileiensi metropolita Romano patriarchatui immediate subjecto pertracturus?\n\nVerum se adhinc in scenam Quesnellus reducit, contra Norisium contendens suppositionis esae argumento quod duo illa exemplaria adamussim sibi non respondeant. In altero autem, Januario nuncupato, nonnullae voces, quae necessariae videntur, fuerunt exciae: Quales sunt istœ, de Pelagianorum et Cælestianorum consortio. Deinde, suljicit, de redeuntibus ab hæresi clericis aliqua decernuntur in epistola ad Januarium quæ in altera non apparent, net videlicet, ad superiorum ordinem promoveantur, aed in eo quem adepti sunt perseverare sinantur. Ilac in re a Quesnelli critice omnino non abhorreo, idcirco tamen Norisianas conjecturas labare ant concidere niinime inducor ut credam. Nam quæ a Quesnello objiciuntur argumento dumtaxat esso possunt alterutrum illius epistolae exemplar aut vulnus quoddam esse passum, aut aliqua mamissa adauctum, quæ quidem haud facilc cognosci possunt, potissimum cum vetustissima interciderint exemplaria, quorum subsidio purior et castigatior ea epistola in lucem prodiret.","english":"From these same practices, however, Leo by no means abstained when he conducted cases with the Eastern bishops; how much more, therefore, could he have employed these same practices when he was to handle a matter with the metropolitan of Aquileia, who was immediately subject to the Roman patriarchate?\n\nBut from this point Quesnel brings himself back onto the stage, contending against Norisius that it is a case of supposition on the ground that those two copies do not correspond to each other exactly. In the other one, however, called the Januarian, certain expressions that seem necessary have been cut out: such as these, \"concerning the fellowship of the Pelagians and Caelestians.\" Then, he adds, certain things are decreed concerning clerics returning from heresy in the letter to Januarius which do not appear in the other—namely, that they not be promoted to a higher order, but be allowed to persevere in the one they have obtained. In this matter I do not at all disagree with Quesnel's criticism; for that reason, however, I am by no means led to believe that the conjectures of Norisius totter or collapse. For the things objected by Quesnel can be grounds only for supposing that one or the other copy of that letter has either suffered some damage or been augmented by some addition, which indeed cannot easily be known, especially since the most ancient copies have perished, by whose aid that letter would come to light purer and more corrected.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":75,"ref":"p75","source":"CAPUT VIII.\n\nDiri Leonis epistola t4, ad Januarium Aquileiensem. qd examen revocatur, et Quesnelli nugœ rejiciuntur.\n\ni. Nequidem eorum quidquam prætereamus quæ ad Leonis contra Pelagimos gesta pertinerent. novissimo luco argumeutis epistolae quartadecimæ dumtaxat opus est insistamus, quam ad J anuarium episcopum Aquileiensem scripsit. Sed in primis minime verendum est Januarium adamussim Leonis mandatis non obtemperavisse. Cumulatius enim in curri. piendos Pelagianos clericos operam impendisse, ex ejus rescripto Leo intellexit. Quare, ad augendam magisque illius vigilis pastoris curam excitandam, S. pontifex eidem gratulatur quod ad custodiam gregis Christi pastoralem curam rigilanter exsequeretur, ns lupi, qui sub specie ovium subintrarunt, bestiali sœvitia,implices quosque dilacerarent; et non solum ipsi nulla correctione proficerent, sed etiam ea quœ sunt sana corrumperent. Ejusmodi porro phrasi Pelagianos taxare et impetere S. pontificem voluisse, haud ainbiaendum est. Simili namque allegoria totidemque fere verbis, sextæ episitolæ primum caput orsus ea, ut ipsi in præcedentibus annotavimus. Subdit deinde ad animœ periculum pertinere, si quisquam dt his qui a nobis in hœreticorum et schismaticorum sectan delapsus, et se utcumque hœreticœ communionis contagione macularit, resipiscens, in communione catholica sine professione legitimœ satisfactionis habeatur.","english":"CHAPTER VIII.\n\nThe harsh letter of Leo, the fourteenth, to Januarius of Aquileia; in which the examination is recalled, and the trifles of Quesnel are rejected.\n\ni. Let us not pass over any of the things that pertain to the deeds of Leo against the Pelagians. We need insist only on the arguments of the fourteenth letter, at least, in the last place. It was written to Januarius, bishop of Aquileia. But first, there is no reason at all to fear that Januarius did not comply exactly with the commands of Leo. For Leo understood from his rescript that he had devoted himself more abundantly to correcting the Pelagian clerics. Therefore, to increase and more greatly to stir up the care of that watchful shepherd, the holy pontiff congratulates him because he was vigilantly carrying out pastoral care for the guard of Christ's flock, lest the wolves, who crept in under the appearance of sheep, with bestial savagery tear apart the innocent, and not only make no progress themselves by any correction, but even corrupt the things that are sound. That the holy pontiff wished by this kind of phrasing to censure and attack the Pelagians is not to be doubted. For with a similar allegory and almost as many words, he began the first chapter of the sixth letter, as we ourselves noted in the preceding passages. He then adds that it pertains to the danger of the soul if anyone of those who have fallen from us into the sect of heretics and schismatics, and has in any way stained himself with the contagion of heretical communion, repenting, is held in the catholic communion without a profession of legitimate satisfaction.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":76,"ref":"p76","source":"Cum auein lusce malis cuperet mederi, saluberrimas Januario regulas ob ervandas præscripsit; videlicet, ut clerici Pelagiani juxta canonum constitutionem, omnem ajoris promotionis spem amittant, sed in quo inveniuntur ordine stabilitate perpetua maneant, si tamen iterata tinctione nun fuerint maculati.\n\ni. Postremis bisce verhis Quesnellus insistens, ista annotando subjecit: Hanc exceptionem addit forte, attendens canones Africanos, cujus collcctionis Africanæ legitur: Neque permittendum, ut rebaptizati ad clericatus gradum promoveantur. » Lepida annotatio suo quidem auctore digna. An ergo censendum apostolicam sedem in rebaptizatorum c'usis Africanos canones attendere voluisse aut potuisse? qui id fieri potuit, bi jam diu ius ab Africanis episcopis, rebaptizantium errore propugnato, schisma magnum horrendumque conflatum Currar, quod nonnisi sub nova baptismi collatione homines, vel ex lia resi ad Ecclesiam vementes, vel ab hæreticis baptizatos reciperent? Sed eum errorem maxima sollicitudine, apostolica sedes præcavere aiquc de'ere laborans, quemadmodum rebaptizantibus communicare detrectahal, ita ncc ipsos rebaptizatos ad sacros clericales ordines promovere sinebat, ut a simili lubet ratioc nari.","english":"When he wished to heal the evils of the light of the age, he prescribed most salutary rules for Januarius to be observed; namely, that Pelagian clerics, according to the constitution of the canons, lose all hope of greater promotion, but remain in the order in which they are found with perpetual stability, provided they have not been stained by a repeated baptism.\n\ni. Insisting on these last words, Quesnel added the following in his annotation: \"He adds this exception perhaps, attending to the African canons, of which the African collection reads: 'Nor is it to be permitted that the rebaptized be promoted to the grade of the clergy.'\" A charming annotation, indeed worthy of its author. Is it therefore to be judged that the apostolic see wished or was able, in the cases of the rebaptized, to attend to the African canons? How could that be done, when a great and horrible schism had long since been stirred up by the African bishops, with the error of the rebaptizers defended, so that men—whether coming to the Church from some other heresy, or baptized by heretics—were received only under a new conferral of baptism? But the apostolic see, laboring with the greatest solicitude to guard against and lament that error, just as it refused to communicate with the rebaptizers, so it did not permit the rebaptized themselves to be promoted to the sacred clerical orders, so that one may reason from a similar case.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":77,"ref":"p77","source":"Clynici siquidem (boc est qui baptizabantur in lecto), codem sæculo, quamvis nullo sacrilegio ut rebaptizati iibcfaciarenlur, tamen per ecclesiasticam legem a Cornelio latam, ut ait Eusebius, a sacris altaris mini,teris arcebantur. Multo magis igitur hocce irregularitatis vitio seu impedimento obstringebantur qui iterala tinctione fuerint maculati, præsertim cum eo saeculo, sub Cornelio primum, tum sub Stephano, Romanis pontificibus, eadem rebaptizantium quæstio jam sopita, iteruin tum apud Afros recruduerit.\n\nDemus tamen nihil ab hisce duobus pontificibus fuisse definitum; quid inde? Dissimulabit forte Quesnellus quæ Romana synodus sub Damaso papa sancitum ivit? Dolendum quidem est Acta illa ad nos non pervenisse, sed supersunt illorum Patrum synodicæ litteræ, quibus per Africam rursum sacrilegos rebaptizatores grassatos esse intelligimus, quos etsi Cratiani et Valentiniani imperatorum auctoritas expulisset, tamen ab expulsis Claudianus anno 3bS fuerat ordinatus, eÆ ad perturbandam Romam quasi episcopus destinatur. Cum itaque Romani concilii PP.","english":"Indeed, the clinically baptized (that is, those who were baptized in bed), in that same age, although they were not stained by any sacrilege as rebaptized persons, were nevertheless barred from the sacred ministries of the altar by the ecclesiastical law passed by Cornelius, as Eusebius says. Much more, therefore, were those bound by this defect or impediment of irregularity who had been stained by a second washing, especially since in that age, first under Cornelius and then under Stephen, the Roman pontiffs, that same question of the rebaptizers, already laid to rest, had again revived among the Africans.\n\nLet us grant, however, that nothing was defined by these two pontiffs; what then? Will Quesnel perhaps conceal what the Roman synod under Pope Damasus sanctioned? It is indeed to be lamented that those acts have not come down to us, but the synodical letters of those fathers survive, by which we understand that the sacrilegious rebaptizers again ran rampant throughout Africa; and although the authority of the emperors Gratian and Valentinian had expelled them, nevertheless Claudian had been ordained in the year 358 by the expelled, and is sent as though a bishop to disturb Rome. And so, when the fathers of the Roman council...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":78,"ref":"p78","source":"ab utroque facinore abhorruerint, a baptizalione, videlicet, et a rebaptizatorum ordinationibus, qui fieri potuit ut jam in Romana Ecclesia irregularitatis leges in rebaptiz 'tos non obtinuerint Ex hoc uno profecto ariete prorsus cadit subdola Quesnelli annotatio, qua sensim vellet persuasum lectoribus apostolicam sedem quandoque aliarum Ecclesiarum factam pedissequam, ut leges, anones ab iis fuerit mutuata. Occasionem dciude arripere studet confingendi ex suo ingenio argumenta, quibas Romanæ Ecclesiæ adjudicare ssit illum canonum codicem quem ip e altero tomo Leoninorum Operum publici juris fecit, notis et dissertationibus adornatum. Sed animum denique impostor advertat, Romani concilii synodic:'m tum fuisse ad imperatores scriptam, quando de Africano illo canone nondum fuerat excogitatum; illa enim referenda est in annum ut laudatus canon cditus fuit in concilio quinto Caribaginensi anno coacto. Verum si non Quesneltus his lidem mlhibere vult, Basilio saltem subscribat, qui in epistola. ad Amphilochium, can, 47,311 Romanam Ecclesiam in rebaptiz torum causis suos habuisse canoncs asseverat.","english":"Since they abhorred both crimes—namely, baptism and the ordinations of rebaptizers—how could it happen that the laws of irregularity against rebaptizers did not already obtain in the Roman Church? From this one ram indeed the crafty annotation of Quesnel falls completely, by which he would gradually persuade his readers that the apostolic see was at some time made a follower of other Churches, so that laws and canons were borrowed from them. Thence he strives to seize an occasion of fashioning from his own wit arguments by which he might adjudge to the Roman Church that code of canons which he himself published in the second volume of the Leonine Works, adorned with notes and dissertations. But let the impostor finally turn his mind to this: that the synodic letter of the Roman council was written to the emperors at a time when that African canon had not yet been devised; for it must be assigned to the year when the praised canon was issued in the fifth council of Carthage, held in that year. But if Quesnel is unwilling to give credence to these things, let him at least subscribe to Basil, who in his letter to Amphilochius, canon 47, asserts that the Roman Church had its own canons in the cases of rebaptizers.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":79,"ref":"p79","source":"Sed jam ad Lconem revertamur, qui, an'equam epitolam clauderet, Januario primo ola fidei vidorem gratulatur, tum alia nonnulla exsequenda suggerit, ob quæ maximam contentionum tempestatem idem Qoesne lus jan exciiavit. Aquileiensi itaque episcopo S. Leo præcepit ut curam suam apostolicæ sedis disposit onibus jungat et det operam ut circumspecte atque velociter impleantur quæ ad to ius Ecclesiœ incolumitatem et laudabiliter suggesta sunt atque ordinata. Censorium stylum hic Quesnellus stringit, gravius in libri:nItorem invehens qui de episcopis canonice judicandis inscriptus est. « Miror (ait) supinitatem scripioris duplici istius et quartae epistolæ loco abutentis. Canones, inquit, de non promovendis ad supertorem clericatus gradum his qui ab hæresi ad communionem catholicam revertuntur pro universa ubique Ecclesia conditus fuisse testantur hæc Leonis verba: det operam ut circumspecte. i Quia vcro illius libri auctor subjecerat: « Nec inter Nicænos canones ejusmodi numerantur, nec in toto Justelli codice reperiuntur; erant igitur preter Nicxn a decreta alia quædam, quibus et Janu trium astriugi volebat S. Leo, quæque universæ Ecclesiæ in disceptandis rebus ecclesiasticis in usu crant. i Quia hæc, inquam, laudatus anctor subjece rat, idcirco Quesnellus inclementius eum impetens, hæc addit: « Quænam hæc hominis oscitantia, ut de canonibus verba haec interpretari volucrit.","english":"But now let us return to Leo, who, before he closed his letter, congratulates Januarius first of all as a distinguished champion of the faith, and then suggests several other matters to be carried out, on account of which that same Quesnellus stirred up a very great storm of disputes. And so St. Leo instructed the bishop of Aquileia to join his care to the arrangements of the apostolic see and to take pains that those things which had been praiseworthily suggested and ordained for the safety of the whole Church be fulfilled circumspectly and swiftly. Here Quesnellus tightens the censor's pen, inveighing more severely against the author of the book which is inscribed concerning bishops to be judged canonically. \"I marvel,\" he says, \"at the sluggishness of the writer, who abuses the passage of that second and fourth letter. The canons,\" he says, \"concerning not promoting to a higher grade of the clergy those who return from heresy to catholic communion, are testified by these words of Leo to have been established for the whole Church everywhere: 'let him take pains that circumspectly.' But because the author of that book had added: 'Nor are such canons numbered among the Nicene canons, nor are they found in the whole codex of Justellus; there were therefore certain other decrees besides the Nicene, by which St. Leo wished Januarius to be bound, and which were in use for the whole Church in deciding ecclesiastical matters.' Because, I say, the aforementioned author had added these things, therefore Quesnellus, assailing him more harshly, adds these words: 'What is this drowsiness of the man, that he wished to interpret these words concerning the canons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":80,"ref":"p80","source":"Nonne sole meridiano clarius est legenti ea, quœ laudabiliter suggesta esse dicuntur de litteris vigore fidei plenis, quas scripserat Januarius, ad S. Leonem esse intelligenda; quæ.ero salubriter ordinata, de hoc ipso S. Leonis rescripto quo canonum constitutiones praecipit custodiri? Cum igitur Quesnellus hisce verbis laudati libri auctorem insectatur, quamplutima alia simul congerens, ut Leonis verba in alienum sensuum dislorqueat, longius a propositæ quaestionis scopo abscedit. Nec enim vetustissimam Ecclesiæ consuetudinem, nec ejus canones pro recipiendis hæreticis poenitentibus recensuit, aut patefecit. Sed nostrum Leonem de particulari aliqua dispositione, seu lege ab ipso lata pro recipiendis in Ecclesia clericls ex baere-i Pelagiana redeuntibus, agere, ejus phrasis et scribendi ratio præcipue produnt.\n\nNam quamvis ea de re S. pontificis aevo multae canonum sanctiones editæ fuerint, harum nulla lamen (si isthanc Leonis epistolam excipia.nus) ejus. modi clericis majoris promotionis spem propterea ademit. Quare meritu Quesnellum incassum conatum arbitramur, cum eam legem ex octavo Nicxni prinii concilii canone deduci posse asseveravit. Nihil enim in eo canone offendimus quod ad perpetuum hocce irregularitatis vitium pertinere videatur, vel praesentem hanc controversiam possit dirimere.","english":"Is it not clearer than the noonday sun that, for the reader, those things which are said to have been laudably suggested concern the letters full of the vigor of faith which Januarius had written to St. Leo, and are to be understood as referring to him; and that those things, moreover, which were salubriously ordained concern this very rescript of St. Leo in which he commands that the constitutions of the canons be observed? When, therefore, Quesnel assails the author of the aforementioned book with these words, heaping together very many other things at the same time so as to distort Leo's words into a foreign meaning, he departs further from the aim of the question at hand. For he has neither reviewed nor made plain the most ancient custom of the Church, nor its canons for receiving penitent heretics. But that our Leo is dealing with some particular disposition, or law laid down by himself, for receiving into the Church clerics returning from the Pelagian heresy, his phrasing and manner of writing especially betray.\n\nFor although in the age of the holy pontiff many sanctions of the canons were issued on this matter, yet none of them (if we except this letter of Leo) on that account took away from clerics of this kind the hope of greater promotion. Wherefore we judge that Quesnel strove in vain, when he asserted that this law could be derived from the eighth canon of the first Council of Nicaea. For we find nothing in that canon which appears to pertain to this perpetual defect of irregularity, or which can settle this present controversy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":81,"ref":"p81","source":"Ibidem enim solummodo sermo occurrit de hæreticorum Catharorum reconciliatione, in quos lenitatcm esse adhibendam sancta synodus definivit, ne horum clerici e propriis gradibus dejecti, atque inter laicos stantes, laicorum communione donarentur, quemadmodum eum aliarum haereseon sectatoribus Ecclesia facere consuevit. Si igitur præter id indulgentiae vel leuiLatis genus, nihil aliud continent et præseferunt ista verba: De his qui se Catharos, id est puros nos minant, ii aliquando ad Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam redierint, visum est sanctœ et magnæ synodo ut, accepta manuum impositione, sic in clero perma neant, minime unum atque idem erit non e proprio gradu dejici, ei nulla prorsus ratione ad superiores ordines umquam prolnoveri posse. Postremum hoe S. Leo in epistola de qua agimus delinivit; ita ut perpetua irregularitatis vinculo hos clericos in prnecedentis hæreseos paenam obstrictos voluerit. Sed Nicaeni PP. dumtaxat Catharis indulgen es, ut in ordimbus permanerent decreverunt. Q uæ duo valde inter se diversa, si secum reputasset Quesnellus, nusquam tam libere Leonis verba octavo canone Nicænæ generalis synodi concinere scripsisset. Nihil profecto canon habet quod Leoninis hisce sanctionibus responderct, nihil refert de perpetua in suscepto ordine stabilitate; nihil denique de majoris promo.","english":"For in that same place the discussion arises solely concerning the reconciliation of the heretical Cathari, toward whom the holy synod decreed that leniency should be shown, so that their clerics, having been cast down from their own grades and standing among the laity, might be granted the communion of the laity, just as the Church has been accustomed to do with the followers of other heresies. If, therefore, beyond that kind of indulgence or leniency, these words contain and set forth nothing else—\"Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, that is, the pure, if they should at some time return to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it has seemed good to the holy and great synod that, having received the imposition of hands, they should thus remain in the clergy\"—then it will by no means be one and the same thing to be not cast down from one's own grade and to be able by no reason whatsoever ever to be promoted to higher orders. This last point St. Leo defined in the letter about which we are speaking, so that he wished these clerics to be bound by the perpetual bond of irregularity as a penalty for their preceding heresy. But the Fathers of Nicaea decreed indulgence only to the Cathari, that they might remain in their orders. If Quesnellus had weighed these two things, so very different from each other, he would never have written so freely that the words of Leo agree with the eighth canon of the general synod of Nicaea. The canon has nothing at all that would correspond to these sanctions of Leo, nothing that concerns perpetual stability in an order once received, nothing finally concerning promotion to a greater [order].","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":82,"ref":"p82","source":"tionis sublata spe, quae omnia Leonis dispositionibus, ad totius Ecclesiae incolumitatem, ei laudabiliter suggesta, et salubriter ordinata fuerunt.\n\nUt tandem sancti pontificis dispositiones innotescant, ejus verba subjiciinus: Circa quoa etiam illam canonum constitutionem prœcipimus custodiri, ut in magno beneficio habeant, si, adempta sibi omni sp: promotionis, in quo inveniuntur ordine slabilitale perpetua maneant. Perperam omnino deinde ratiociuatur Quesnellus, asserens Leonis aevo solum Nicænum octavum canonem exstitisse pro recipiendis in suis ordinibus clericis ex hæresi ad Ecclesiam redeuntibus, idcirco ad illum S. pontificem respexisse. Ita loqui profecto hominem omnigenam ecclesiasticae disciplinae notitiam jactantem nimis dedecet. Etenim quje ea in quaestione a conciliis et Patribus ante Leonis pontilicatu sancita fuere, veluti in uno corpore Nicæni secundi concilii Patres anno congessE runt.","english":"...with all hope of promotion removed, all of which were laudably suggested to him by Leo's arrangements for the safety of the whole Church, and wholesomely ordained.\n\nIn order that the dispositions of the holy pontiff may at last become known, we append his words: Concerning these men we also command that constitution of the canons to be observed, that they account it a great benefit if, with all hope of promotion taken from them, they remain in perpetual stability in the order in which they are found. Quesnel then reasons altogether wrongly, asserting that in Leo's time only the eighth canon of Nicaea existed for receiving into their orders clerics returning to the Church from heresy, and that for this reason the holy pontiff had regard to it. It is indeed most unbecoming for a man boasting of knowledge of every kind of ecclesiastical discipline to speak thus. For the things which were sanctioned on that question by councils and Fathers before Leo's pontificate, the Fathers of the second council of Nicaea gathered together in one body in that year.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":83,"ref":"p83","source":"In priori quippe hujus synodi actione, cum de recipiendis hæreticis pœnitentibus ageretur, nihil prorsus inconsultis veteribus Ecclesiæ monumentis fuit stabilitum. Propterea Joannes presbyter et onachus, Autiochenæ sedis legatus, ut eam controversiam e medio tolleret, sacro conventui suggessit: Multorum ore celebratum est (persancte pater) (Tarasium patriarcham praesertim alloquitur) quo pacto oporteat eos recipere qui ex haeresi revertuntur. Ob id, (ait ilem Joannes) suademus ut sacra synodus libros sanctorum Patrum inprœsentiarum uffem jubeat, quo cognoscamus et consideremus quænum in recipiendis certa ratio conservari debeat. Tum libros afferri jussum est. Quorum lectionem minime ab octavo Nicæni concilii canone Constantinus, patriarchatus illius sedis a otarius, sed a quinquagesimo tertio apostolorum orsus est, cujus antiquior interpretatio hæc est: Si quis presbyter eum qui a peccato convertitur, non receperit, sed rejicit, deponitur. Siquidem Christum offendit, qui gaudium in cælo super peccatorem resipiscentem oboriri dixit. Cum autem ejusmodi canon, ad omnium generatim pœuitentium haereticorum indulgentiam extenderer, sive laici, sive clerici forent, a Tarasio statim fuit inquisitum: Est et alter canon ea de re? Tum Constantinus notarius octavum Nicani prin i conclii canonem mox recitavit.","english":"For in the earlier session of this synod, when the matter of receiving penitent heretics was being discussed, nothing at all was settled without consulting the ancient records of the Church. Therefore John, a priest and monk, legate of the see of Antioch, in order to remove that controversy from the midst, suggested to the sacred assembly: It has been celebrated in the mouths of many (most holy father) — he addresses especially Tarasius the patriarch — in what manner those who return from heresy ought to be received. For this reason, (says the same John) we urge that the sacred synod command the books of the holy Fathers to be brought into the present assembly, so that we may know and consider what fixed rule ought to be preserved in receiving them. Then the books were ordered to be brought. Constantine, a notary of that see of the patriarchate, began the reading of them not from the eighth canon of the Nicene council, but from the fifty-third of the apostles, whose older interpretation is this: If any presbyter does not receive one who is converted from sin, but rejects him, he is deposed. For he offends Christ, who said that joy arises in heaven over a sinner who repents. But when a canon of this kind was extended to the indulgence of all penitent heretics generally, whether they were laymen or clerics, it was immediately inquired of Tarasius: Is there also another canon concerning this matter? Then Constantine the notary at once recited the eighth canon of the first Nicene council.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":84,"ref":"p84","source":"Sed nee hunc ad nuper exortam Agiomarchorum heresim conferre Theodorus Catanæ, in Siclliæ provincia episcopus, cum contendisset, ejusdem Tarasii jussu de aliis canonibus sciscitatum est Quare idem notarius sacræ et œcumenicæ Ephesinæ synodi can onem tertium legit: Si qui in qualibet ciuitate clericorum a Nestorio, quique illud dogma sequuntur, prohibiti sunt, ut minus recte senserint, hos, ut gradum proprium recuperent, justum censuimus. Post hæc adhuc suspensi hvrebant Patres, num recipiendi essent in sacrum ordinem qui ex hæresi revertuntur. Propterca Stephanus monachus de eo argumento divi Basilii i epistolas in manibus gestans, quae in ptiori ad Am philochium epistola de Encratitis scripserat lecta fuere, tum alia ad Evaisenos. et quæ magis ad rem nos!ram conferunt, epistolæ ad Occidenlis episcopos excerptae suhjecerunt, in quibus deEustath o Seba. steno edidit sermonem. Is eteiim in Arianam hæresim pluries prolapsus, et Hermogeni episcopo illum accusanti, et de perverso dogmate reprehendenti, sanioris fidei confessionem tradidit, atque ita manus impositionem ab eo nactus, postquam ille dormivit, denuo ad Arianorum partes defecit. Sed Constantinopoli expulsus, et Sebastem reversus, defensionem aLluit, et impiam suam callide celans sentintiam, verbaque non iniqua, sed qu:c recta sapere videbantur prætexens, episcopatum facile cun.ecutus est.","english":"But when Theodore, bishop of Catania in the province of Sicily, had tried to refer this matter to the recently arisen heresy of the Agiomarchi, at the command of the same Tarasius it was inquired from other canons. Therefore the same notary read the third canon of the holy and ecumenical synod of Ephesus: If any clerics in any city have been prohibited by Nestorius and those who follow that dogma, on the ground that they have understood the faith less rightly, we have judged it just that these be restored to their own rank. After this the Fathers still hung suspended in doubt as to whether those who return from heresy ought to be received into the sacred order. On that account Stephen the monk, holding in his hands the letters of the divine Basil, which he had written in the first letter to Amphilochius concerning the Encratites, had them read, and then others to the Evaisenoi, and those which contribute more to our matter, the excerpts of letters to the bishops of the West, they submitted, in which he published a discourse concerning Eustathius of Sebaste. For he, having several times lapsed into the Arian heresy, when Hermogenes the bishop accused him and reproved him for his perverse dogma, delivered a confession of the sounder faith, and thus having obtained the imposition of hands from him, after that man fell asleep, he defected again to the party of the Arians. But driven out from Constantinople and having returned to Sebaste, he put forward a defense, and cunningly concealing his impious opinion, and putting forward words not unjust but which seemed to savor of right things, he easily obtained the episcopate.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":85,"ref":"p85","source":"Cujus quidem prav;e simultionisutonis, cum plurima alia exempla occurrerent, quæ recenscre lectoris animum gravarent, idcirco dumtaxat roga. mus qui litari potuerit irregularitatis impedimentum de quo agimus octavo illo Nicæno canone luisse deunitum? An Eustatl ii ordinatio diu post Nicænum conciliumuon contigit? illa quippe saltcui in annum rejici debet, qui a concilio Nicxuo 5i est. Nou igitur in octavo illo Nicæno canone actum est de maj ri promotione clericis ad Ecclesiam redeuntibus deneganda; sed ea dumtaxat fuere sancita a: ad eorum receptionem et reconciliationis modum, per manuum impositionem servandum, pertinere videbantur.\n\nIluic pariter ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ concinit et illa definitio contra impios Messalianos, seu Euchitas, in tertia oecumenica synodo habita, quam in secundo eodem Nicæno concilio Stephanus diaconus recitivit, cujus postrema verba nostris hisce elucubrationibus majus robur adiiciunt: Placuit omnibus nobis... quod si autem aliquis illud ipsum dogma fuerit exsecratus, si quidem clericus exstiterit, in ea ordinatione. permaneat; si vero laicus, in Ecclesiæ communionem recipiatur. Qua in re illud maxime est animadvertendam laudati tertii oecumenici concilii Patces servare voluisse, que in Alexandrina synodo anno definita fuere, cum de episcopis apostatis recipiendis sub S. Liberio papa agebatur.","english":"Of this corrupt pretense of simulation, although very many other examples came to mind which would burden the reader's attention in recounting them, we ask only this: how could the impediment of irregularity of which we speak have been able to be washed away, when it had been polluted by that eighth canon of Nicaea? Or did the ordination of Eustathius not take place long after the Council of Nicaea? For that ordination must certainly be relegated to the year which is [reckoned] from the Council of Nicaea. Therefore in that eighth canon of Nicaea it was not enacted that the promotion of clerics returning to the Church be denied; but only those things were sanctioned which appeared to pertain to their reception and to the manner of reconciliation to be observed through the imposition of hands.\n\nIn agreement with this ecclesiastical discipline is also that definition against the impious Messalians, or Euchites, held in the third ecumenical synod, which the deacon Stephen recited in the same second Council of Nicaea, whose final words add greater strength to these our lucubrations: It pleased all of us... but if anyone has execrated that same dogma, if indeed he was a cleric, let him remain in that ordination; but if a layman, let him be received into the communion of the Church. In this matter it is especially to be observed that the Fathers of the praised third ecumenical council wished to preserve those things which were defined in the Alexandrian synod in the year when the matter of receiving apostate bishops was being treated under Pope Saint Liberius.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":86,"ref":"p86","source":"Hæc omnia qu'dem in medium adducta cumulatissime præseferunt c:inonicnn Ecclesiae praxiin aute Leonis:cvum servatam in hæreticis recipiendis. Sed uberiora adhuc monumenta nobis eadein sepiima œcumenica synoJus suppetiit, cum ex divi Cyrilli et A hanasii Operibus deprompta, tum in Ecclesiasticis Rufini Aquileiensis et Socratis Historiis reperta, qu:e mire rem nostram, et Quesnellum ipsum in his expendendis allucinatione laborasse, evidenti ratione manifestant. Interim antem cin ex lot tantorum que testimoniorum serie habeamus duas illas inter sese maxime differre quaestiones, videlicet: An hæretici ad Ecclesiam redeuntes in suis ordinibus, quin exauctorati dejicerentur, essent recipiendi; et an, lenitate obtenta, in susceptis crdinibus permanentes impedimento perpetuo essent irretiti ne ad sup riores ordines possent ascendere; jam Leonis scopus, jussio atque decretum prodi a sunt, quibus hauI dubie, si Januarius non obtemper avisset, sant!! pontificis animum vehementer commovisset, ad aliquam ci ecclesias icam poenam inurendam, quemadmodum poStrema il ius epistolæ verba produnt.","english":"All these things indeed, when brought into the open, most abundantly show that the practice of the Church in the time of Leo was preserved in the receiving of heretics. But still richer monuments the same most holy ecumenical synod has supplied to us, both drawn from the works of the divine Cyril and Athanasius, and found in the Ecclesiastical Histories of Rufinus of Aquileia and of Socrates, which by evident reasoning make manifest both our case and that Quesnellus himself labored under delusion in weighing these matters. In the meantime, however, from that series of so many and such great testimonies let us hold that those two questions differ greatly from one another, namely: whether heretics returning to the Church were to be received in their own orders without being cast down as deprived of authority; and whether, with leniency obtained, those remaining in the orders they had received were bound by a perpetual impediment so that they could not ascend to higher orders; now the aim, the command, and the decree of Leo have been set forth, by which undoubtedly, if Januarius had not complied, he would have vehemently stirred the mind of the holy pontiff to inflict some ecclesiastical penalty, as the final words of that letter disclose.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":87,"ref":"p87","source":"Non autem dubitet (ait) dilectio tua, nos, si, quol non arbitramur, neglecta fuerint quæ pro custolia canonum et fidei integritate decernimus, vehementius commovendos, quia inferiorum ordinum culpæ ad nullos magia referendae sunt, quam ad desides negligentesque rec'ore., qui multam sæpe nutriunt pestilentiam, dum necessariam dissimulant adhibere medicinam.\n\nExtra jocum autem ad hæc advertat annotator Que nellus, secumque reputet, an quilibet episcopus in iis quœ ad totus Ecclesiæ incolumtatem perti. nem, gravissimis huju modi verbis, auctoritatis atque jurisdictionis vigore.plenis, alios totius Christiani orbis episcopos consueverit compellare, quemadmodum ipse nimis licenter asserere ausus est. Possunt iitique aliarum Ec lesiarum episcopi scribere, suggerere, pertractare, inquirere ea omnia quæ tobus Ecclesiæ utilitati prodesse possunt. Aliquod autem definire atque statuere in ipsius Christianæ rcipullicæ commune bonum, solis Romanis pontificibus extra generales tynodos divinitus dumtaxat concessum est, ut in ic cæterisque nostris dissertationi. bus comprobatum est.","english":"Let your belovedness not doubt (he says) that we, if those things which we decree for the safeguard of the canons and the integrity of the faith are neglected by those whom we do not expect, will be moved more vehemently, because the faults of the lower orders ought to be referred to none more than to the idle and negligent rulers, who often nourish a great pestilence while they dissemble to apply the necessary medicine.\n\nBut apart from jest, let the annotator Quenellus attend to these things, and reckon with himself whether any bishop, in those matters which pertain to the safety of the whole Church, has been accustomed to address other bishops of the whole Christian world with most weighty words of this kind, full of the vigor of authority and jurisdiction, in the manner which he himself has dared too freely to assert. Therefore the bishops of other churches can write, suggest, treat, and inquire into all those things which can profit the utility of the whole Church. But to define and establish anything for the common good of this Christian commonwealth has been divinely granted to the Roman pontiffs alone, apart from general synods, as has been proved in this and our other discussions.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":88,"ref":"p88","source":"De Januarii antem gestis niliil profecto scimus; sed operæ pretium est arbitrari omnia Leonis mandata atq ie decreta ita circumspec e et velociter fuisse ab eodem exsecutioni di mandata, ut nefarii i la Pelagianorum soboles, quæ in illius provinciæ ( le ricis potissimum grassabatur, pene deleta, et ad exitium fuerit perducta. Nullum enim post nc (quod sciamus) Leonem inter et Januarium epistolarum intercessit commercium. Temporum quoque injuria Janu arii ad Leonem relatio imercidit, atque apud suppares scriptores de rebus ibidem ge tis, tam allum servatur silentium, til nulla gestorum mentio habeatur. Exstat denique tamen alia S. Leonis cpistola ad Nicetam Aquileiensem Januarii successorem, anna sc ipta, quo quidem tempore nullas prorsus Pelagianæ sobolis ea in provincia exstitisse reliquias, commode et raLionabili ducii 'alione conii ere possumus. In ea enim noster ponitifex apostolicæ sed auctoritate septem sibi propositis consultatiombus occurrit, atque Nicetæ Aquileiensi præscribit quidve iis maxime afflictis temporibus medicinae adhiberi oporteret, ut vulnera quae hostilitatis adversitate religioni illata eram, sanarentur. tias autem consultationes, cum ad Pelagianorum mores, dogmata et historiam minime pertineant, ne extra,cenam canere videamur, in præsentia prætermittimus, sermonem tamen de iisdem hahiluri, cum ecclesiasticam illius aevi disciplinam nostris auimad.","english":"Concerning the acts of Januarius, we indeed know nothing; but it is worthwhile to judge that all the mandates and decrees of Leo were so circumspectly and swiftly carried out in execution by him that the abominable offspring of the Pelagians, which was raging most of all in that province of Illyricum, was nearly destroyed and brought to ruin. For after Leo, so far as we know, no exchange of letters intervened between him and Januarius. The injury of the times also cut off Januarius's report to Leo, and among comparable writers such silence is preserved concerning the things done there that no mention of the acts is had. Yet there exists another letter of St. Leo to Nicetas of Aquileia, the successor of Januarius, written in the same year, at which time we can conveniently and reasonably infer that no relics at all of the Pelagian offspring existed in that province. For in it our pontiff, by the authority of the apostolic see, addresses seven consultations set before him, and prescribes to Nicetas of Aquileia what medicine especially ought to be applied in those most afflicted times, so that the wounds which had been inflicted on religion by the adversity of hostility might be healed. But those consultations, since they pertain minimally to the customs, doctrines, and history of the Pelagians, we omit for the present, lest we seem to sing outside the banquet; yet we will speak concerning them when we set forth to our readers the ecclesiastical discipline of that age.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":89,"ref":"p89","source":"versionibus adornabimus.\n\nPotius interim nos gratulari oportet tam divinum S. Leotits Magni studium in Pelagianis evertendis, horumque errores abolendos, optatum fiuem obtinuisse. De qua re, ut certiores essemus, nisi SI... mus omnia antiquitatis monumenta percurrere; eorum videlicet, qni quinto et sexto Ecclesiæ sæculo florucrunt, nec alicubi de Pelagiana hæresi, veluti lum glicetite, menlionem fieri offendimus. Hanc autem nostram conjecturam confirmat, notramque simul gratulationem adauget, epistola priina Joannis papæ IV ad episcopos et presbyteros Scotiæ directa, quam rcfert etiam Beda lib. II Historiæ Anglorum cap. 19. In ea enim summus pontifex cum Romclero duas diS' util quæstiones, quas ei Scoti£ clerus proposuerat: alera de Paschate, altera de Pelagianis eo in regno reviviscentibus. De his namque ita Hom. pontifex Jotnnes IV scribit: Expolita autem ratione Paschalis observantiæ, ita de Pelagianis in eadem epistola subdunt; et hoc quoque cognovimus, quod virus Pelagianæ hæreseos apud vos denuo reviviscit, quod omnino hortamur, ut a vestris mentibus hujusmodi venenatum superstitionis facinus auferatur. Nam qualiter i,.. quoque ex,. cranda hæresis damnata est, latere vos no,. debet, qnia non solum per istos ducentos annos abelHa, aed et quotidie a nobis perpetuo anathemate sepulta.","english":"we shall adorn with versions.\n\nMeanwhile, rather, we ought to rejoice that so divine a zeal of St. Leo the Great for overthrowing the Pelagians and abolishing their errors has obtained its desired end. To be more certain of this matter, we have run through all the monuments of antiquity—namely, of those who flourished in the fifth and sixth centuries of the Church—and nowhere have we found any mention made of the Pelagian heresy, as if it were a matter of slight concern. This conjecture of ours is confirmed, and at the same time our rejoicing is increased, by the first letter of Pope John IV directed to the bishops and priests of Scotland, which Bede also reports in book II of the History of the English, chapter 19. For in it the supreme pontiff resolves two questions proposed to him by the clergy of Scotland: one concerning the Pasch, the other concerning the Pelagians reviving in that kingdom. For concerning these the same Pope John IV writes thus: \"But when the method of observing the Pasch has been set forth, they then add concerning the Pelagians in the same letter: 'And this too we have learned, that the virus of the Pelagian heresy is reviving anew among you; wherefore we altogether exhort that this deadly crime of superstition be removed from your minds. For in what manner that execrable heresy was condemned ought not to be hidden from you, since not only for these two hundred years has it been abolished, but even daily by us it is buried under perpetual anathema.'","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":90,"ref":"p90","source":"His autem verbis si quis insistere voluerit, nostram conjecturam robur accipere hand inficiabitur. Nam Joannes papa IV, septimo Erclesiæ currente sacculo, aimo videlicet sexcentesimo quadragesimo, supremum catholicæ societatis clavum obtinuit, Severino summo pontifice jam vita functo. A quo a mo si bis centum annos subducamus, quemadmodum Joannis papæ testimonium praesefert, jam superest quadringentesimus quadragesimus Chriti annus, in quo S. Leo Magnos Romana Ecclesiæ. pontifex renuntiatus est, ut ex Romanorum pontilicum tabulis intelligitur. Eo autem anno, sexcentesimo nimirum quadragesimo, Joannem papam IV ad Scotorum quaesita respondisse, sine ulla prorsus animi hæsitatione affirmandum est. Nam quamvis laudata epistola temporaria careat nota, tale tamen præselert exordium, ut inde conjiciamus quod, vix assumpto ad Romanum pontificatum Joanne, Scotorum votis S. P. annuere voluerit, qui jam ad Severiuum prædecessorem suas consultationes et quæsita direxerant, quorum perlatores Urben, min attigerunt, nisi post ejusdem Severini interitum. Id plane produut ea verba quibus Joannes suam epistolam orsus est: Scripta qum perlutores ad san. mem. Severinum papnm adduxerunt, eo de hac luce migrante, reciproca responsa ad ea quæ postulata fuerant...","english":"If anyone wishes to insist on these words, he will not deny that our conjecture gains strength. For Pope John IV, in the seventh century of the Church then running, namely in the six hundred and fortieth year, obtained the supreme helm of the catholic fellowship, after the supreme pontiff Severinus had already departed this life. If we subtract twice two hundred years from him, just as it presents the testimony of Pope John, there now remains the four hundred and fortieth year of Christ, in which St. Leo the Great was proclaimed pontiff of the Roman Church, as is understood from the tables of the Roman pontiffs. But in that year, namely the six hundred and fortieth, it must be affirmed without any hesitation of mind whatever that Pope John IV responded to the inquiries of the Scots. For although the praised letter lacks a note of date, it nevertheless presents such a beginning that we may conjecture from it that, scarcely having assumed the Roman pontificate, John wished to grant the vows of the Scots, who had already directed their consultations and inquiries to Severinus his predecessor, whose bearers did not reach the city unless after the death of the same Severinus. Those words plainly reveal this with which John began his letter: The writings which the bearers brought to Severinus of sacred memory, as he was departing from this light, the reciprocal answers to what had been requested...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":91,"ref":"p91","source":"Jam vero tandem has similesque alius conjecturas prætermittentes, manum de præsenti tabula tollere deliberamus, alia quamplurima majoris momenti in sequcn. lihus præstaturi, cum tandem pro nostrarum Esercitationum coronide, de Eutychetis rebus verba sialim faciendi consilium habeamus.","english":"Now indeed, at last, passing over these and other similar conjectures, we decide to take our hand from the present tablet, being about to furnish very many other things of greater importance in the following books, since at last, as the crowning conclusion of our Exercises, we have the intention of presently speaking about the matters of Eutyches.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]}]}