Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Laity or Secular Persons (Book III)
Chapter 20: That the Books of Heretics Are to Be Abolished
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Laicis sive Saecularibus (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book III), On the Laity or Secular Persons (On the Members of the Church, Book III). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
There remains the last question, on the penalties of heretics, which, after the judgment and declaration of the Church, the political princes can and ought to inflict. We will begin with their books, and briefly show that the books of heretics are rightly prohibited and burned. This, then, is proved, first, from the ancient and perpetual custom not only of Christians but even of the heathen.
First, Valerius Maximus relates (Book I, chapter 1) that when at Rome certain books were found which seemed somewhat to dissolve religion, the Urban Praetor, by the authority of the Senate, burned them in the sight of the people. Marcus Tullius (Book I On the Nature of the Gods) relates that Protagoras of Abdera, because he had written books harmful to religion, was by the command of the Athenians banished from city and country, and his books burned in the assembly.
Then, in the time of the Apostles, Luke relates (Acts 19) that many converted by the Apostles brought together their curious and vain books and burned them before all; and Clement (Book I of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapter 7) says that the Apostles at the beginning prohibited to the faithful the books of the Gentiles and of the false prophets. Eusebius also writes (Book VII of the history, chapter 6) that Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, who flourished about the year 250, was reprehended by the faithful because he read the books of heretics.
In the following time the zeal of the faithful against the books of heretics grew. For the Council of Nicaea adjudged the books of Arius to the fire, as Nicephorus testifies (Book VIII, chapter 18); and Constantine ordered this to be carried into execution, capital punishment being appointed if anyone concealed the books of Arius, as is plain from his letter in Socrates (Book I, chapter 6) and Nicephorus (Book VIII, chapter 25). Socrates also writes (Book I, chapter 24) that Marcellus of Ancyra was condemned because he would not burn the books of his errors; for heretics were not received to penance unless they first burned their books.
About the same times Epiphanius, in a Synod gathered in Cyprus, forbade the books of Origen to be read, as Socrates relates (Book VI, chapter 9, of the history); and the Fourth Council of Carthage (canon 16) permits only to bishops to read the books of heretics in time of necessity. Not long after, when the heresy of Nestorius had been condemned in the Council of Ephesus, the books of Nestorius too were prohibited in the same Council, and ordered to be burned by the Emperor Theodosius, as Liberatus relates (chapter 10 of the Breviary); and there still stands the law of Theodosius (Damnato, in the Code, On Heretics). About the same time appeared a law of Honorius and Theodosius, by which the astrologers are ordered to burn all their books in which there is anything against the Catholic religion, in the eyes of the bishops (Mathematicos, in the Code, On the Episcopal Hearing). In like manner in the Council of Chalcedon the books of Eutyches are condemned, and by the emperors Valentinian and Marcian it is forbidden by a severe law that anyone dare to read or have them, but that all, most diligently sought out, be burned, as is plain from the Council of Chalcedon (session 3) and from the law itself, which still stands (Quicumque, sections Nulli and Omnes, in the Code, On Heretics).
At the same time Blessed Leo (in letter 91 to Turibius, chapters 15 and 16) forbade the reading of the books of certain heretics, and added that those bishops who suffered them to be had in the houses of the faithful were to be deemed heretics. A little after, Gelasius, in a Council of 70 bishops (as is had in distinction 15, canon Sancta Romana), set forth an index of heretics whose books he says are to be avoided by the faithful.
Afterward, in the Fifth Synod, Anthimus being condemned, his books too are condemned; and the Emperor Justinian appointed a grave penalty, namely the cutting off of the hands, on those who copy books of that kind, and ordered them everywhere to be burned. This constitution is had in the first session of the Fifth Synod, and in the Novels (constitution 42). Blessed Gregory (Book XIV of the Morals, chapter 32) relates that by the command of the Emperor Tiberius the book of Eutychius was burned, which Gregory himself had convicted of heresy. In the Seventh Synod too (session 5) the books of heretics are prohibited and ordered to be burned, and (canon 9) those are excommunicated who read the books of heretics. The Council of Constance (session 8) confirms the decree of the Roman Council by which the reading of the books of John Wycliffe had been prohibited. Finally, the Council of Trent ordered an index of the books of heretics to be made, that all might know which books were to be avoided and burned. From which it appears that the custom was always the same in the Church.
There comes also as an argument of this matter that scarcely any books of the ancient heretics survive; for how else did so many volumes of Valentinus, Marcion, Arius, Eunomius, Nestorius, Pelagius, and others, to whom the holy Fathers replied, vanish away?
It is proved, secondly, by reason; for the conversations of heretics are most dangerous, and therefore diligently to be avoided; therefore much more are their books harmful and pestilent, and to be avoided. Romans 16: “Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and to avoid them; for by pleasant speeches and good words they seduce the hearts of the innocent.” 2 Timothy 3: “These avoid.” Titus 3: “A heretic avoid.” The Second Epistle of John: “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him, God speed you.”
Saint Irenaeus (Book III, chapter 3): “So great a fear had the Apostles and their disciples that they would not even in word communicate with any of those who had adulterated the truth.” Saint Cyprian (Book I, letter 3, to Cornelius): “Let our beloved brethren strongly shun and avoid the words and conversations of those whose speech creeps like a canker.” And below: “Let no commerce, no banquets, no conversations be mingled with such, and let us be as separated from them as they are fugitives from the Church.” Saint Athanasius, of Saint Anthony in his life: “Never did he bestow even friendly words on the Manichaeans or other heretics, declaring that the friendship and conversation of such men is the perdition of the soul. So also he detested the Arians, so that he told all that one ought not even to approach near them.” And Blessed Anthony himself, when now about to die: “Avoid the poisons of heretics and schismatics, and follow my hatred toward them; you yourselves know that I never had even a peaceful word with them.” Augustine (in letter 62): “As we warn that a heretic is to be avoided, lest he deceive the weak and the little ones, so we do not refuse that he be corrected by whatever means we can.” Saint Leo (sermon 18 on the Passion of the Lord): “Avoid the viperous conversations of heretics; let nothing be common to you with those who are Christians in name only.” Thus he.
Now then, if the conversations of heretics are so greatly to be avoided, how much more their books? For speech written in books is more composed and full of artifice than that which is used in conversations. Then, it is always at hand; for sermons and conversations are rare, and words uttered by the mouth soon pass away; but words in books remain perpetually, and are always present to us, journey with us, sit with us at home. Besides, books are more widely scattered; for one can by books speak to almost the whole world at once, and books penetrate the houses and chambers of many whom the author of the book never saw, and to whom perhaps he would never be admitted. Finally, experience teaches the same; for John Wycliffe by living voice perverted very few, for he taught only in England, and there left almost no heirs of his error; but by books he perverted the whole of Bohemia. See Cochlaeus in the history of the Hussites.
But against this they object. First, that there are many good things in the books of heretics, and it seems foolish to deprive oneself even of the goods on account of some evils; and it is confirmed, because otherwise the writings of many of the Fathers will have to be burned. Likewise, because the Church tolerates the books of Gentiles, Jews, Turks, and even of the ancient heretics, as Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, Pelagius.
I answer that the truth indeed is not to be denied, yet neither is it to be read in the books of heretics; for, as it is there, it harms, it does not profit. Blessed Gregory writes (Book V of the Morals, chapter 41) that it is proper to heretics to mix false with true, and evil with good; for if they said only false and evil things, they would be repelled by all; if only true and good, they would not be heretics. And so they mix all things, that from the evil they may infect the good, and through the good hide their evil; which is also the cause why Christ and the Apostles forbade the demons to say true things — lest, namely, by those true things they should acquire credit for themselves, and afterward their falsehoods too be believed. Luke 4: the Lord did not suffer the demons to say, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” And Acts 16: Paul forbade the devil to say, “These men are the servants of the most high God, who announce to you the way of salvation.”
Besides, it is not fitting that the truth be received from heretics, who are enemies of the truth. As Gellius writes (Book XVIII, chapter 3), among the Lacedaemonians, when a matter of the highest importance to the commonwealth was treated, a certain eloquent and learned man, but wicked and impure, gave the best opinion; which, since it pleased all, and a decree seemed to be made according to it, and yet they could not bear that the best counsel be defiled by the baseness of its author, a certain most grave man was chosen who, with the consent of all, should give the same opinion, and, no mention being made of the former, this man’s opinion should be entered in the decree.
To the first confirmation, about the writings of the Fathers, I answer, first, that the Fathers are not enemies of the Church, and their mistakes are not heresies but human errors. Besides, the errors of the Fathers are extinct and dead errors, which cannot harm; for an error harms as long as it is pertinaciously defended; but the errors of the Fathers were not detected while the Fathers themselves lived — for otherwise either they themselves would have amended them, or they would have been cast out of the Church — but after their death were detected and noted, and disapproved by all, as they would also be disapproved by the Fathers themselves if they lived.
To that about the Gentiles I say that they are tolerated because they do not harm, being dead errors. For there are none now who do not laugh at the dogmas of the Gentiles; nor do we ever hear of Christians depraved by the books of Gentiles falling away to Gentilism, as they daily fall away to the heretics. But because in the time of the Apostles there were many who championed the dogmas of the Gentiles, Clement writes that the books of the Gentiles were prohibited (Book I of the Constitutions, chapter 7); and for the same cause the books of the Gentiles are prohibited in the Fourth Council of Carthage (chapter 16).
To that about the books of Jews and Turks I say that the books of Jews and Turks are of a better condition than those of heretics; for they are open enemies of Christians, and do not deceive under the Christian name, as heretics do. And so even the simplest know how to distinguish the dogmas of Jews and Turks from Christian dogmas; but heresies they cannot distinguish, except very learned men. Besides, even the books of Jews and Turks are prohibited when they contain blasphemies against Christ, or are judged pernicious to Christians, as is plain of the Jews’ Talmud.
To that about Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, Pelagius, I say that their books are permitted because those heresies are extinct, and the books are profitable on account of their antiquity. Add that of Pelagius we have nothing under the name of Pelagius, but under the name of Saint Jerome — such as the brief commentaries on all the epistles of Blessed Paul, the Creed falsely inscribed to Damasus, and a certain letter to Demetrias, which is had in the fourth volume, where there are also other things savoring of the heresy of Pelagius.
The second argument: from Paul, who (1 Thessalonians 5) says: “Despise not prophecies; prove all things; hold that which is good.” For the sense is: if anyone foretells the future, or interprets the Scriptures, whether by word or writing, do not reject it, but hear or read, and receive what is consonant with the Catholic faith, omit the rest.
I answer that the Apostle speaks of prophecy and writings of which it is not yet established whether they be good or evil, and such he will not have rejected unless first examined; but when some writing has already been examined, and is established to be evil, he will have it altogether rejected; and such are all the writings which are prohibited to us; for they have all been proved, that is, examined, and therefore prohibited, because they have been found evil.
Then, although the Apostle writes to the whole Church, yet he will not have all things done by all, but by those who can, and on whom it lies by office — just as when to some University certain suspected articles are sent to be examined, it does not pertain to all who are in the University to examine them, but only to the masters, or those whom they designate; so therefore when the Apostle bids that in the Church prophecies and interpretations of the Scriptures be examined, certainly he will not have this done by tailors and masons, but by bishops and others whom the bishops join to themselves.
Another argument they take from the testimonies of four ancient Fathers: Dionysius of Alexandria, Theophilus likewise of Alexandria, Blessed Jerome, and Gelasius. For Dionysius, as Eusebius writes (Book VII of the history, chapter 6), when he was reprehended for reading the books of heretics, answered that he had had a vision by which it was said to him: “Read all things that come into thy hands, for thou wilt be able to weigh and prove all.” Theophilus too, when he was blamed for reading Origen, answered, as Socrates relates (Book VI of the history, chapter 15), that he read to pick out what was good and reject what was evil. Blessed Jerome (in the letter to Alexander and Minervius) says that he reads the books of heretics to pick out the good things from them, even though he knows that some on that account murmur against him.
Gelasius (in the volume On the Bond of Anathema), wishing to prove that the Council of Chalcedon can be partly received and partly not received, brings the example of the books of heretics, which are partly received and partly rejected, and alleges that: “Prove all things; hold that which is good.”
To this last I answer that the example of Gelasius consists in this: that as in the Council of Chalcedon some things were good, some evil, and some to be received, some to be rejected, so also in the books of heretics. Yet he does not mean to say that the books of heretics themselves can be received on account of the truths mixed in, as the Council of Chalcedon is received; for the reasoning of a Council of holy Fathers is one, that of the books of heretics another, as we have said — although the truth itself inserted in the books of heretics is good, and to be received, if however it be found elsewhere. His words are these: “Are there not in the very books of heretics many things set down which pertain to the truth? Is the truth therefore to be refuted, because their books, where perversity is present, are refuted? Or are their perverse books to be received, because the truth which is inserted there is not denied?”
To the others I answer, first, that from these passages it is gathered that there was always in the Church the custom of avoiding the reading of the books of heretics; for otherwise no one would have reprehended those Fathers. I say, secondly, that the reading of the books of heretics was always granted, and even now is granted, to bishops and to many others; and therefore it is no wonder if Dionysius and Theophilus, who were patriarchs, and Saint Jerome, who was always held most learned, could by their own right read all books. I say, thirdly, that then perhaps there was no law of the universal Church, but only a custom of not reading the books of heretics, except the books of Arius; but now there is a law of the universal Church, which must be obeyed.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX. Libros haereticorum, abolendos esse. Postrema restat quaestio de poenis haereti¬ corum , quas post Ecclesiae judicium et de¬ clarationem, Principes politici infligere pos¬ sunt ac debent. Incipiemus autem a libris eorum , ac breviter ostendemus, libros hae¬ reticorum jure interdici, et exuri. Id igitur Probatur Primo ex antiqua et perpetua con¬ suetudine, non solum Christianorum , sed etiam Ethnicorum. Primo, refert Valerius Maximus lib. I, c. 1. quod cum Romae reperti fuissent libri quidam, qui nonnihil videbantur solvere re¬ ligionem, Praetor Urbanus , ex auctoritate Senatus, in conspectu populi eos cremavit. Marcus Tullius lib. I de natura Deorum re¬ fert , Protagoram Abderitem , quod libros noxios religioni scripsisset , Atheniensium jussu, urbe atque agro exterminatum, libros¬ que ejus in concione combustos. Deinde, tempore Apostolorum, refert Lu- cas Actor XIX. multos ab Apostolis conver¬ sos , libros curiosos et vanos contulisse , et combussisse coram omnibus, etClemens lib. I constitut. Apostol. cap. 7. dicit, Apostolos prohibuisse initio fidelibus libros Gentilium, et falsorum Prophetarum. Scribit etiam Eu- sebius lib. VII histor. cap. 6. Dionysium Episcopum Alexandrinum , qui floruit circa annum 250. a fidelibus reprehensum , quod libros haereticorum legeret. Consequente postea tempore crevit zelus fidelium contra libros haereticorum; Nam Nicaenum Concilium lihros Arii igni adjudi¬ cavit, ut Nicephorus testatur lib. VIII, 'cap. 18. et Constantinus id execulioni mandari jussit, proposita poena capitis, si quis libros Arii occultasset , ut patet ex epistola ejus apud Socratem lib. I , cap. 6. et Nicepho- rum lib. VIII, cap. 25. Scribit etiam Socra¬ tes lib. I , cap. 24. Marcellum Ancyranum damnatum fuisse, quod libros suorum erro¬ rum comburere noluisset; non enim recipie¬ bantur ad poenitentiam haeretici , nisi prius libros suos combussissent. Circa eadem tempora Epiphanius in Sy¬ nodo Cypri coacta , vetuit libros Origenis legi, ut Socrates lib. VI, cap. 9. historiae re- 38 LIBER III. fert , et Concilium Carthaginiense IT, can. 16. permittit solis Episcopis, ut tempore ne¬ cessitatis libros haireticorum legant. Non diu postea cum Nestorii hajresis in Concilio Ephesino damnata fuisset, libri quoque Nes¬ torii in eodem Concilio interdicti fuere, et a Theodosio Imperatore exuri jussi , ut Libe¬ ratus refert cap. 10. Breviarii, et exstat ad¬ huc lex Theodosii, L. Damnato , C. de hae¬ reticis. Circa idem tempus prodiit lex Hono¬ rii et Theodosii , qua jubentur Mathematici omnes suos libros, in quibus aliquid est ad¬ versum Catholicae religioni , in oculis Epis¬ coporum cremare, L. Mathematicos , C. de Episcopali audientia. Pari ratione in Conci¬ lio Chalcedonensi damnantur libri Eutyche- tis, et ab Imperatoribus Valentiniano et Mar- tiano severa lege prohibetur, ne ullus eos legere , aut habere audeat, sed omnes dili¬ gentissime quaesiti crementur , ut patet ex Concilio Chalcedonensi Actor. III. et ex ipsa lege , quae adhuc exstat L. Quicumque, §. Nulli, et §. Omnes, C. de Haereticis. Eodem tempore B. Leo in epist. 91. ad Turbium, cap. 15. et 16. interdixit lectio¬ nem librorum haereticorum quorumdam , et addidit eos Episcopos , qui eos in domibus fidelium haberi sinerent, haereticos censen¬ dos; Paulo post Gelasius in Concilio 70 Epis¬ coporum , ut habetur dist. 15. can. S. Ro¬ mana, proposuit indicem haereticorum, quo¬ rum libros a fidelibus vitandos esse dicit. Postmodum in V. Synodo damnato Anthy- mo, damnantur etiam ejus libri, et Justinia¬ nus Imperator gravem poenam statuit , ni¬ mirum amputationis manuum , in eos, qui ejusmodi libros describunt, ac jussit ubique comburi. Habetur haec constitutio in I. Act. Synodi V, et in Novellis, constit. 42. B. Gre- gorius lib. XIV Moralium cap. 32. refert jussu Tiberii Imperatoris, crematum librum Eutychii, quem ipse Gregorius haeresis con¬ vicerat. In VII etiam Synodo Act. 5. inter¬ dicuntur et comburi jubentur libri haeretico¬ rum, et can. 9. excommunicantur , qui li¬ bros haereticorum legunt. Concilium Cons- tantiense sess. 8, confirmat decretum Con¬ cilii Romani, quo interdicta fuerat lectio li¬ brorum Joannis Wiclefi. Denique, Concilium Tridentinum indicem librorum haereticorum fieri jussit, ut omnes scirent, qui libri cavendi et exurendi essent. Ex quo apparet, semper eamdem fuisse consuetudinem in Ecclesia. Accedit etiam in argumentum hujus rei, quod nulli fere exstent libri veterum haereti¬ corum ; quomodo enim evanuerunt tot vo¬ lumina Valentini, Marcionis, Arii, Eunomii, Nestorii, Pelagii, et aliorum, quibus S9. Pa¬ tres respondent ? Probatur Secundo ratione ; nam colloquia haereticorum sunt periculosissima , et ideo diligenter vitanda , ergo multo magis libri sunt noxii etpestilentes, ac vitandi. Ad Rom. XVI : Rogo autem vos, fratres , ut observetis eos, qui dissensiones et offendicula prceter doc¬ trinam, quam vos didicistis, faciunt, et declina¬ te ab eis; nam per dulces sermones et benedic¬ tiones seducunt corda innocentium. II. Timoth. III : Hos devita. Titum. III : Haereticum de¬ vita. II. epistola Joannis : Si quis venit ad vos, et hanc doctrinam non affert , nolite reci¬ pere in domum, nec Ave ei dixeritis. (I) S. Irenaeus lib. III, cap. 3 : « Tantum, in¬ quit, Apostoli, et horum discipuli habuerunt timorem, ut neque verbo tenus communica¬ rent alicui eorum , qui adulteraverant veri¬ tatem. » S. Cyprianus lib. I, epist. 3. ad Cornelium: « Declinent, inquit, fortiter, et evitent dilec¬ tissimi fratres nostri verba, et colloquia eo¬ rum , quorum sermo ut cancer serpit. » Et infra : « Nulla cum talibus commercia, nul¬ la convivia , nulla colloquia misceantur, si- musque ab eis tam separati , quam sunt illi ab Ecclesia profugi. » S. Athanasius de S. Antonio in ejus vita : «Numquam, inquit, Manichaeis, aut aliis hae¬ reticis saltem amicabilia verba largitus est, denuntians talium amicitiam, atque sermo¬ nes, perditionem esse animae. Sic etiam Aria- nos detestabatur , ut omnibus diceret , nec juxta eos quidem esse accedendum. » Et ip¬ se B. Anton. jam moriturus : « Haeretico¬ rum, inquit, et schismaticorum venena vita¬ te , meumque circa eos odium sectamini; scitis ipsi , quod nullus mihi , nec pacificus quidem sermo cum eis unquam fuerit. » ^ Augustinus in epist. 62 : « Haereti¬ cum, inquit, sicut vitandum monemus , ne infirmos , et parvulos fallat, ita non abnui¬ mus quibuscumque modis possumus corri¬ gendum eto. » S. Leo serm. 18. de passione Domini : « Viperea, inquit, haereticorum vi¬ tate colloquia, nihil vobis commune sit cum eis, qui solo sunt nomine Christiani. » Haec ille. (1) Rom. XVI. 17; II. Tim. III, 5: Tit. III. 10; II. Joan. 10. 5 CAPUT III. 39 Jam igitur, si tantopere vitanda sunt col¬ loquia haereticorum, quanto magis libri? Nam oratio in libris scripta, est magis com¬ posita, et artificii plena, quam quae in col¬ loquiis usurpatur. Deinde, est semper ad manus : nam conciones et colloquia sunt ra¬ ra, et verba ore prolata mox transeunt; at verba in libris manent perpetuo , et semper nobis adsunt, nobiscum peregrinantur, no- biscum domi sedent. Praeterea libri magis sparguntur; potest enim aliquis per libros toti fere orbi terrarum simul loqui, et mul¬ torum domos et cubicula libri penetrant, quos auctor libri numquam vidit, et ad quos forte numquam admitteretur. Denique, ex¬ perientia idem docet; nam Joannes Wicle- fus viva voce paucissimos pervertit; docuit enim solum in Anglia, et ibi pene nullos re¬ liquit sui erroris haeredes : at per libros to¬ tam Bohemiam pervertit. Vide Cochlaeum in historia Hussitarum. At contra objiciunt. Primo, quia multa bona sunt in libris haereticorum, et stultum videtur, propter aliqua mala privare se etiam bonis ; et confirmatur, quia alioqui multorum Patrum scripta comburenda erunt. Item, quia Ecclesia tolerat libros Gentilium, Judaeorum, Turearum, et vete¬ rum etiam haereticorum, ut Origenis, Tertul¬ liani, Eusebii, Pelagii. Respondeo, veritatem quidem non esse negandam, tamen nec legendam in libris haereticorum ; nam, ut ibi est, nocet, non prodest. Scribit B. Gregorius lib. V. moral. cap. 41. hoc esse proprium haereticorum, ut veris falsa permisceant, et bonis mala ; nam si sola falsa et mala dicerent, ab omnibus repellerentur ; si sola vera et bona, haeretici non essent. Itaque omnia miscent, ut ex ma¬ lis bona inficiant, et per bona mala sua abs¬ condant ; quaj etiam causa est, cur Christus et Apostoli prohiberent Daemones vera di¬ cere, ne videlicet per ea vera fidem sibi ac¬ quirerent, et postea falsa etiam illis crede¬ rentur. Luc. IV : Dominus non sinebat Daemo¬ nes dicere : Tu es Christus Filius Dei. Et Ac¬ tor. XVI : Paulus prohibuit Diabolo dicere : Isti homines servi Dei excelsi sunt, qui annun¬ tiant vobis viam salutis (1). Praeterea, etiam non decet, ut veritas ab haereticis suscipiatur, qui hostes sunt veri¬ tatis. Ut scribit Gellius lib. XVIII. cap. 3. apud Lacedaemonios ; cum de summa Rei- publicae ageretur, vir quidam disertus et doctus, sed improbus et impurus, optimam sententiam dixit, quae cum placeret omni¬ bus, et juxta eam decretum faciendum vi¬ deretur, et tamen ferre non possent, ut op¬ timum consilium turpitudine actoris foedare¬ tur, electus est vir quidam gravissimus, qui omnium consensu eamdem sententiam dice¬ ret, et nulla prioris habita mentione, hujus sententia in decretum referretur. Ad Primam confirmationem de scriptis Patrum, respondeo in primis, Patres non esse hostes Ecclesiae, et eorum errata non haereses, sed humanos esse errores. Praete¬ rea errores Patrum, esse errores exti netos et mortuos, qui nocere non possunt; nam error nocet quamdiu defenditur pertinaci¬ ter : Patrum autem errores non fuerunt de¬ tecti, dum Patres ipsi viverent, alioqui enim vel ipsi eos emendassent, vel ab Ecclesia ejecti fuissent: sed post mortem eorum de¬ tecti, notatique sunt, et ab omnibus impro¬ bati, sicut etiam ab ipsis improbarentur, si viverent. Ad illud de Gentilibus dico eos tolerari, quia non nocent, cum sint errores mortui. Nulli enim nunc sunt, qui non rideant dog¬ mata Gentilium ; nec unquam audimus Christianos depravatos libris Gentilium, de¬ ficere ad Gentilismum, ut quotidie deficiunt ad haereticos ; Quia vero tempore Apostolo¬ rum multi erant, qui propugnabant dogma¬ ta Gentilium, Clemens scribit interdictos, fuisse Gentilium libros, lib. I. Const. cap. 7. et eadem de causa prohibentur libri Gen¬ tilium in Concilio Carthaginiensi IV, cap, 16. Ad illud de Judaeorum et Turearum li¬ bris dico, libros Judaeorum et Turearum melioris conditionis esse, quam haeretico¬ rum ; illi enim sunt aperti hostes Christiano¬ rum, nec fallunt sub nomine Christiano, ut haeretici faciunt. Itaque etiam simplicissi¬ mi quique norunt discernere dogmata Ju¬ daeorum et Turearum a Christianis dogma¬ tibus, discernere autem haereses non pos¬ sunt, nisi homines valde docti. Praeterea etiam Judaeorum et Turearum libri prohi¬ bentur, quando continent blasphemias in Christum, aut judicantur perniciosi Chris¬ tianis, ut patet de Thalmud Judaeorum. Ad illud de Origene, Tertulliano, Euse- bio, Pelagio, dico, eorum libros permitti, quia haereses illae sunt extinctae, et libri pro- (1) Luc. IV, 41 ; Act. XVI. 17. 40 LIBER III. sunt propter antiquitatem. Adde quod Pela¬ gii nihil habemus sub nomine Pelagii, sed sub nomine S. Hieronymi , qualia sunt commentaria brevia in omnes epistolas B. Pauli, Symbolum falso inscriptum ad Da- masum, et epistola qusedam ad Demetria¬ dem, quae hebetur in IV. tomo ubi sunt etiam alia Pelagii haeresim sapientia. Argumentum Secundum: ex Paulo, quii. Thessal. V. dicit : P?'ophetias nolite spernere , omnia probate , quod bonum est, tenete (i) : est enim sensus ; Si quis futura praedicat, vel scripturas interpretetur, aut verbo, aut scripto, nolite rejicere, sed audite, vel le¬ gite, et quod Catholicae fidei consonum est, accipite, reliquum omittite. Respondeo, Apostolus loquitur de pro¬ phetia et scriptis, quae nondum constat, an sint bona vel mala, et talia non vult rejici, nisi prius examinata ; sed quando scrip¬ tum aliquod jam est examinatum, et cons¬ tat esse malum, vult omnino rejici, et talia sunt scripta omnia, quae nobis prohibentur; sunt enim probata, id est, examinata omnia, et ideo prohibita, quia mala reperta sunt. Deinde licet Apostolus ad totam Eccle¬ siam scribat, tamen non vult omnia fieri ab omnibus, sed ab iis, qui possunt, et quibus ex officio incumbit, sicut cum ad Universi¬ tatem aliquam mittuntur articuli aliqui sus¬ pecti examinandi, non ad omnes, qui sunt in Universitate, pertinet eos examinare, sed solum ad Magistros, vel quos ipsi designa¬ verint; ita igitur cum Apostolus jubet, in Ecclesia examinari prophetias et Scriptura¬ rum interpretationes, certe non vult hoc fieri a sartoribus et caementariis, sed ab Episcopis, et aliis, quos Episcopi sibi adjun¬ gunt. Aliud argumentum sumunt ex testimoniis quatuor veterum Patrum, Dionysii Alexan¬ drini, Theophili item Alexandrini, B. Hie¬ ronymi, et Gelasii ; nam Dionysius, ut scri¬ bit Eusebius lib. VII. hist. cap. 6. cum re¬ prehenderetur quod libros haereticorum le¬ geret, respondit, se visionem habuisse, qua sibi dicebatur : « Lege omnia, quae in manus tuas veniunt, valebis enim omnia expende¬ re, et probare. » Theophilus, quoque cum argueretur quod Origenem legeret, respon¬ dit, ut Socrates refert lib. VI. hist. cap. 15. se legere, ut quod bonum est excerperet, quod malum respueret. B. Hieronymus in epistola ad Alexandrum et Minerium, dicit, se legere libros haereticorum, ut bona inde excerpat, etiamsi sciat, aliquos propterea de se murmurare. Gelasius in tomo de vinculo anathematis, probare volens, posse Concilium Chalcedo- nense partirn recipi, partim non recipi, af¬ fert exemplum librorum haereticorum, qui partim recipiuntur, partim rejiciuntur, et al¬ legat illud : omnia probate, quod bonum est, tenete. Ad hoc ultimum respondeo, exemplum Gelasii in eo consistere, quod sicut in Con¬ cilio Chalcedonensi quaedam erant bona, quaedam mala; et quaedam recipienda, quae¬ dam rejicienda, ita et in libris haereticorum: non tamen vult dicere, posse recipi libros ipsos haereticorum propter vera admixta, sicut recipitur Concilium Chalcedonense, nam alia ratio est Concilii sanctorum Pa¬ trum, alia librorum haereticorum, ut dixi¬ mus, quamquam veritas ipsa inserta libris haereticorum bona sit, et recipienda, si ta¬ men alibi reperiatur; verba ejus haec sunt : « Numquidnam in ipsorum haereticorum li¬ bris non multa, quae ad veritatem pertine¬ ant, posita leguntur ? Numquidnam ideo veritas refutanda est, quia illorum libri, ubi pravitas inest, refutantur ? Aut ideo pravi libri suscipiendi sunt eorum, quia veritas, quae illic inserta est, non negatur? » Ad alia respondeo. Primum ; ex his locis colligi, semper in Ecclesia fuisse morem vi¬ tandi lectionem librorum haereticorum, alioqui enim nemo istos Patres reprehendis¬ set. Dico Secundo , semper concessum fuisse, et modo etiam concedi Episcopis, et aliis multis lectionem librorum haeretico¬ rum, et ideo non mirum, si Dionysius et Theophilus, qui Patriarchae erant, et S. Hie¬ ronymus, qui semper doctissimus est habi¬ tus, poterant suo jure omnes libros legere. Dico Tertio, nullam tunc fortasse fuisse le¬ gem universalis Ecclesiae, sed solum consue¬ tudinem de nonlegendis libris haereticorum, exceptis libris Arii ; at nunc lex est Ecclesiae universalis, cui parendum est. (1) I. Thessal. V, 20 et 21. CAPUT XXI. 41