Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book III: On Confession
Chapter 13: Calvin's First Argument, from Innocent III, Is Solved; and His Second, from the Deed of Nectarius
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, Book III, the fourth general controversy on the sacraments. 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).
It follows that we dissolve the arguments of the adversaries. And to begin with Calvin, he in book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 7, objects first in this manner: “I wonder with what face they dare contend that the confession of which they speak is of divine law; whose most ancient use we indeed confess, but which we can easily prove was of old free. Certainly their own annals also relate that no fixed law or constitution was made about it before the times of Innocent III.” And below: “So by their own witnesses three hundred years have not yet elapsed since the noose was cast by Innocent III and the necessity of confessing imposed. And to say nothing of the time, the mere barbarism of the words abrogates faith in the law. For as to what the good Fathers command, that everyone of both sexes should once a year confess all his sins to his own priest, witty men pleasantly take it that by this precept only hermaphrodites are bound, and that it regards no one who is either male or female.” I answer that Calvin, after his manner, relies more on lies and calumnies than on solid reasons. For first, what he says, that no law about the confession of all sins is extant before the constitution of Innocent III, or rather of the Lateran Council, over which Innocent presided, is false, and can be understood from so many arguments of ours. For the law of Christ is extant, as we deduced above copiously; nor was there need that councils or pontiffs should command by their laws what they knew to have been commanded by Christ himself and strengthened by the custom of many centuries. But neither did Innocent or the Lateran Council command confession simply, but only determined the time at which it was to be made; just as also the ancient councils cited above, from Greece, Africa, Gaul, Germany, and the decrees of the pontiffs Innocent I and Leo I, did not command confession simply, but laid down rules either about the secrecy of confession or about other circumstances of that kind. Which can be proved from a similar decree of Pope Zephyrinus. For Zephyrinus, as Platina relates in his life, decreed that all adult Christians on the solemn day of Easter should receive the sacrament of the Eucharist; by which decree he is not understood to have wished to command that Christians should at some time receive the Eucharist, which neither Catholics nor heretics deny to have been commanded by Christ himself, but only to meet the negligence of some, and to determine a time beyond which it would not be lawful to put off the reception of so saving a sacrament. So then Innocent III also did not institute confession, or command it simply, but most usefully prescribed a time beyond which no Christian should put it off. Nor indeed ought this decree of Innocent to be called new, but rather renewed, and, a penalty being added, more severely commanded, the condition of the times demanding it. For already above we have demonstrated from Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom that about the celebration of Easter all Christians had to come to confession. Then, since it has always been certain and settled in the Church that it is not lawful for those who are conscious to themselves of mortal sins to come to the Eucharist unless they have been purged through confession and reconciliation, as is most well known from Cyprian in the sermon On the Lapsed, and from Leo in the letter to Theodore, bishop of Forum Julii, and from others; and again, since all Christians at least at Easter have always been accustomed and bound to come to the Eucharist; certainly it follows that this law was always in the Church, that all Christians should confess their sins at least once every year. Then, what the same Calvin says, that it is contained in our annals that there was no fixed law about confession before the constitution of Innocent, and that on our own testimony three hundred years have not yet elapsed since the necessity of confessing was cast on us by Innocent, I believe can safely be called a lie. For Platina alone it is who, in the life of Zephyrinus, writes that the decree of Zephyrinus about receiving the Eucharist at Easter was extended by Innocent III to confession. But neither did Platina write those lives of the pontiffs by public authority and from public archives, so that they could be called our annals; and he is often reprehended by our historians because, following Martin of Poland, he fell into various errors; nor does the same Platina say that there was no law before about the necessity of confession. For this alone he wrote: that it was decreed by Zephyrinus about the Eucharist, by Innocent about confession, that no one should put off the reception of those sacraments beyond a year; which indeed is true, but it does not follow from it that before the times of Zephyrinus and Innocent there was no law about making confession or receiving the Eucharist. For, as we have already said, not even the adversaries deny that Christians are bound by the precept of Christ to receive the Eucharist at some time; and it was most well known to the Fathers that it was never lawful for those who had the consciousness of deadly crimes to come to the Eucharist without exomologesis first made; for so, to omit the rest, Saint Leo speaks, letter 91 to Theodore: “Christ Jesus delivered to those set over the Church this power, that they should both give the doing of penance to those confessing, and admit them, purged by a saving satisfaction, to the communion of the sacraments through the door of reconciliation.” Lastly, as to the barbarism which Calvin objects to Innocent on account of those words, “everyone of both sexes,” and from the barbarism gathers that no faith is to be had in his decree, it is an argument at once of incredible impudence and arrogance, and also of stupidity and rashness. For granted that the words were barbarous, the diction of Innocent barbarous, would faith therefore have to be withdrawn from his decree, which, published in the greatest and most celebrated council of the whole world of all that were ever held, the universal Church received with due honour and devotion? Does not the apostle Paul say, “Though rude in speech, yet not in knowledge”? Could not Matthew and John, James and Jude, and Peter himself, prince of the apostles, have said the same? Do the writings of the apostles therefore not deserve faith because they lack elegance of speech? But neither would I easily grant that in those words, “everyone of both sexes,” there is any barbarism. For Saint Jerome, whom we cannot call barbarous, and who knew Latin words far better than Calvin, chose more than once to use the same words in the interpretation of the Scriptures. In Deuteronomy 7, what in the Hebrew was, “There shall not be among you a barren man, nor a barren woman,” Jerome rendered thus in Latin: “There shall not be among you one barren of either sex”; nor did he fear lest some smatterer should say that that blessing pertained to hermaphrodites alone. Likewise Judges 16, where it could have been translated word for word, “About three thousand men and women, looking on while Samson played,” Jerome translated thus: “About three thousand of both sexes looking on Samson playing”; nor did he fear lest he seem to introduce three thousand hermaphrodites. In 2 Chronicles, chapter 31, we read thus, by the same interpreter Jerome: “To the whole multitude, both their wives and their children, of both sexes, victuals were faithfully given”; nor did Jerome fear that barbarism would be objected to him unless he translated, “To sons and daughters,” as we read in the Hebrew. I could, if it pleased me, demonstrate from Marcus Tullius also and other excellent authors that those words of Innocent not only have no barbarism, but even savour of elegance; but I do not wish to waste time in these trifles.
Chapter XIV. The second argument of Calvin is solved, where the history of the deed of Nectarius is treated
Calvin objects secondly, in the same section, the testimonies of the ancients, in these words: “Then there are extant clear testimonies, both in the histories and in other ancient writers, which teach that this was a political discipline instituted by bishops, not a law laid down by Christ or the apostles. One only out of many I shall bring forward, which will be no obscure proof of the matter. Sozomen relates that this constitution of the bishops was diligently observed in the western churches, but especially at Rome; by which he signifies that it was not a universal institution of all churches. And he says that one of the presbyters was peculiarly appointed to preside over this office; by which he abundantly confutes what these men lie about the keys given promiscuously to the whole priestly order for this use; since it was not the common function of all priests, but the special part of one, who had been chosen for it by the bishop. He it is whom today also in the single cathedral churches they call the penitentiary, the examiner of graver crimes, and of those whose censure pertains to example. He then adds that this custom was also at Constantinople, until a certain matron, feigning to confess, was discovered to have covered under that appearance an intimacy which she had with a deacon. On account of that deed Nectarius, a man famous for holiness and learning, bishop of that Church, abrogated the rite of confessing. Here, here let those asses prick up their ears. If auricular confession were a law of God, how could Nectarius have dared to abolish and root it out? Will they accuse Nectarius, a holy man of God, approved by the votes of all the ancients, of heresy and schism? With the same vote they will condemn the Church of Constantinople, in which Sozomen affirms that the custom of confessing was not only dissembled for a time, but had grown obsolete even to his own memory; nay, not the Church of Constantinople only, but all the eastern churches they will say are guilty of defection, which neglected an inviolable law, if they speak the truth, and one commanded to all Christians.” I answer that there are many lapses extant in this one objection of Calvin, which we shall briefly note, and then at length clearly dissolve the objection itself. First, then, it is strange why Calvin so boldly boasted that clear testimonies are extant, both in the histories and in other ancient writers, if he had resolved to bring forward Sozomen alone into the midst. Nor are we ignorant that Sozomen in his history lied in many things, as Saint Gregory witnesses, book 6, letter 31, and that he is not to be compared either in antiquity or in learning with many of those whom we have cited. Then it is strange why Calvin did not notice that Sozomen himself, in the same place which is cited by him, asserts in express words the necessity of confession, as we noted above. Thirdly, Calvin assumes as certain that the constitution of the bishops which in the time of Sozomen was in force in the western churches, and especially at Rome, was a constitution about the confession of all sins to be made simply; which had to be proved, not assumed. For Sozomen, as we shall presently demonstrate, does not speak of the confession of all sins to be made absolutely, which he confesses to be necessary, and which we contend to be of divine law, but of a confession to be made to one fixed presbyter, by a fixed rite; about which the bishops had published a certain constitution when the Novatian heresy was beginning to spread. Fourthly, from this, that in the single churches one fixed presbyter was of old set over the penitents, Calvin wrongly gathers that the keys were not given to the whole priestly order. For that one presbyter, as we shall teach a little later, was set not over all penitents, but over the public ones only, who were called penitents simply; wherefore those whose sins were hidden could confess privately to other priests. And even if that presbyter alone had been set over all penitents altogether, yet it would not follow that Catholics lie when they say that the keys were given to the whole priestly order; for all Catholics understand that of the power of order, which all priests receive in ordination, and which they cannot exercise unless they receive jurisdiction besides from the bishops. Fifthly, Calvin depraves the history when he says that a certain woman feigned to confess, and under that appearance covered the intimacy which she had with a deacon. For neither Sozomen, book 7, chapter 16, nor Socrates, book 5, chapter 19, nor Nicephorus, book 12, chapter 28, nor any other of the ancients writes that that woman feigned to confess, and so on. But Socrates, who is the most ancient, and who had heard the matter from that very man who had been present, writes that that woman of her own accord opened in confession her crime with the deacon. Wherefore so far is it from the truth that that woman covered her intimacy with the deacon under the appearance of confession, which Calvin impudently invented to defame confession, that on the contrary rather she laid open her shameful deed in confession, as we have said. Sixthly, Calvin writes two falsehoods at once when he adds: “Nectarius, a man famous for holiness and learning, bishop of that Church, abrogated the rite of confessing.” For Nectarius was already an old man and a layman, and, what is more, not yet baptised, when he was taken up to the episcopate; so that it is not credible either that at that time he was famous for learning, or that afterwards he could have come to any notable glory of learning. Wherefore Sozomen, book 7, chapter 8, praises him for his grey hairs and the sweetness of his manners; of holiness and learning he makes no mention. But whatever Nectarius at last may have been, he did not abrogate the rite of confessing, but only deposed the presbyter who presided over the public penitents; for Socrates, Sozomen and Nicephorus, in the places noted, have handed down that alone to memory. Perhaps Calvin did not read Sozomen in Greek, or some faithful version, but fell upon Musculus, who thus rendered the title of chapter 16 of book 7 of Sozomen: “How private confession was abrogated”; which title, how false it is, is clear from the beginning of the chapter of Sozomen itself, from which the title ought to have been gathered; for he says thus in Greek, which can be rendered word for word thus: “At this time Nectarius was the first who did not permit the presbyter appointed over the penitents to exist any longer.” Seventhly, to those insulting words, and proper to heretics, “Here, here let those asses prick up their ears,” Calvin joins a manifest lie when he writes that auricular confession was abrogated by Nectarius. For not only has none of the historians written this, but the whole of that narration also cries out that not auricular but public confession was abrogated by Nectarius; for from auricular confession that shameful deed could not have been made public, for whose manifestation alone Nectarius abrogated that rite of public confession.
These things, then, being briefly noted against Calvin, the whole of that history must be explained, that it may clearly appear that no argument can be gathered from that narration against the necessity of confession. The whole of that narration is comprehended under three heads. For first the authors cited, Socrates, Sozomen and Nicephorus, relate that a certain presbyter was set over the penitents. Then they add the shameful deed of a deacon with a woman, on the occasion of that penitential rite. Then they teach that, on account of the scandal born of that shameful deed, the power was taken from the presbyter, and it was permitted to all that each should come to the sacred mysteries according to his own conscience. As to the first head, it is settled first from Socrates that that constitution about a fixed presbyter to be set over the penitents was made by the bishops on the occasion of the heresy of the Novatians; for he writes thus, book 5, chapter 19: “From that time when the Novatians had separated themselves from the Church, and had refused to communicate with those who had lapsed in the time of the persecution stirred up in the reign of Decius, the bishops of the churches added to the canon that in the single churches a certain presbyter should preside over penance, that those who had lapsed after Baptism might confess their sins before the presbyter designated for that matter.” But what the function of that presbyter was is not altogether certain; for what Sozomen handed down Cassiodorus and Nicephorus have related in a contrary sense, on account of the different punctuation of the Greek codex of Sozomen. For the former, in the Tripartite History, book 9, chapter 35, thus rendered the words of Sozomen: “Since not to sin at all is known to be divine, and beyond human nature, but to those sinning and doing penance God commanded pardon to be given; and those who shrink from confessing acquire a greater burden of sins; therefore it seemed good to the ancient pontiffs that, as in a theatre, under the witness of the ecclesiastical people, offences should be laid open; and for this matter they appointed a presbyter of good conversation and keeping secrets, and a wise man, to whom those who had offended, coming, confessed their own offences,” and so on. But Nicephorus, book 12, chapter 28, thus narrates the same matter from Sozomen: “Since to commit no sin is proper not to human but to divine and immortal nature, and we through transgression have once entered upon the inheritance of sinning, God commanded pardon of offences to be granted to those who, having used lawful and fitting penance, thereafter at once both turn from sin and confess it. But it seemed a grave thing to the bishops who were next after Christ to confess a fault in the midst of the people, or in a theatre. Wherefore they chose one of the presbyters who was of approved life, and at once silent and prudent, before whom those coming to their senses through penance should bring forth their deeds,” and so on. And although this latter opinion is not improbable, which John Christopherson also followed in the interpretation of Sozomen, yet the former seems to be preferred, which John of Hasselt followed, as Ruard Tapper witnesses in the explication of article 5 of the Louvain articles; for Cassiodorus flourished not far from the age of Sozomen, but Nicephorus is more than eight hundred years later than Sozomen. Wherefore it is credible that the codex which Cassiodorus had, or Epiphanius, who first compiled the Tripartite History, was more certain and more entire and uncorrupted, both as to punctuation and as to the rest, than that which Nicephorus or Christopherson had. Then, that the bishops wished sins to be recited publicly as in a theatre, as Cassiodorus has, and not that they should not be recited, as Nicephorus writes, seems to be gathered from Chrysostom, who in homily 5 On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, and homily 4 on Lazarus, and homily 8 On Penance, and the homily on the publican, on chapter 18 of Luke, alluding openly to the deed of Nectarius and the abrogation of the ancient constitution of the bishops, everywhere repeats that there is no need now to lay open sins as in a theatre. The words of Chrysostom you will find in the following chapter. Lastly, the same can be gathered from this very narration. For both Socrates and Sozomen, and Nicephorus himself also, while they reprehend the deed of Nectarius, who took away that rite, give the cause, that, that rite being taken away, we cannot rebuke one another’s sins, according to that of the Apostle, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works, but rather reprove them”; and that, that bridle of public confusion being taken away, greater and more sins are now committed than of old; which causes certainly require that that rite which Nectarius took away, and which the bishops had of old constituted, contained public confession. You will say: if sins were to be published, why was it needful that that presbyter who presided over the penitents should be tenacious of secrets and silent? I answer: because not all sins were to be published, but those only for which public penance was imposed. So the presbyter heard all the sins of the penitents altogether; but those which were hidden he kept secret, and for this silence was required; but those which were public, although perhaps unknown to many, were laid open openly in the Church as in a theatre. And hence perhaps those differing narrations of Cassiodorus and Nicephorus can be reconciled. For what Cassiodorus says, that it seemed good to the ancient bishops that sins be pronounced publicly in the Church as in a theatre, ought to be understood of public sins; but what Nicephorus writes, that it seemed a grave thing that sins should be brought forth before the assembly of the multitude as in a theatre, will have to be taken of hidden sins.
And that those bishops did not wish hidden sins, but public ones only (in which I am compelled to dissent from Ruard and Hasselt), to be subjected to public confession, I shall prove by three arguments. First, Sozomen and Nicephorus witness, in the places noted, that that rite which Nectarius took away at Constantinople persevered entire at Rome in their time, as also in the remaining churches of the west; but from Leo, who was contemporary of Sozomen, it is most openly settled that there was never at Rome a rite of that kind, that hidden sins should be published. For in letter 80 to the bishops of Campania he vehemently rebukes certain bishops, I know not whom, who wished all the sins of penitents to be recited in the Church by a written paper, and says that that presumption fights with the apostolic rule, and is a rite not to be approved, and to be removed by all means. Wherefore there was never at Rome, nor in the rest of the west, such a custom that all sins, however secret, should be brought forth publicly, but only in a corner of Campania a certain abuse, which also was straightway taken away. Then, if all sins, even the most hidden, were to be published, to what purpose was that silence and tenacity of secrecy required in the penitentiary presbyter, which all the historians mention? Lastly, since to reveal secret sins received in confession is against the law of nature, as the theologians teach, and against the apostolic rule, as Saint Leo notes, if that constitution of the ancient bishops had contained that, it would with the best right have been abrogated by Nectarius; nay, it could even seem strange that it could have been tolerated by Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Athanasius and the other Greek doctors who preceded Nectarius. But we see Nectarius on account of that matter rather reprehended than praised by Socrates, Sozomen, Cassiodorus, Nicephorus and the other writers; it is not therefore probable that the rite which the ancient bishops introduced contained this, that secret sins should be subjected to public confession. This also is to be observed in this place: that that penitentiary presbyter was set not over all the faithful who in any way whatever did penance, but over the public penitents alone; which can be demonstrated by three other arguments. First, Sozomen, when he had affirmed in express words that the constitution about the penitentiary presbyter, which the ancient bishops had introduced, and Nectarius afterwards had abrogated at Constantinople, was most accurately kept at Rome, straightway began to explain the rite of public penance which was kept at Rome in his time; therefore that constitution pertained to the public penitents alone. Then, it could in no way come about that one presbyter should satisfy so great a multitude as at Constantinople, or in other cities, needed the remedy of penance; therefore not all were compelled to go to that presbyter, but those only who undertook public penance. Lastly, among the ancients by the name of penitents the public penitents alone were accustomed to be understood, as we noted above in book 1; since therefore the historians often cited say that a presbyter was set over the penitents, that is to be taken of those who were called penitents simply, that is, of the public ones. From these things which have hitherto been said we gather that the constitution of the bishops of which the historians speak embraced this only, that those who had publicly lapsed after Baptism should not come to the sacred Eucharist unless they had privately confessed all their sins to the penitentiary presbyter, and then at his judgement had publicly disclosed their public sins before the assembly of the Church, and had done public penance. Which constitution Socrates rightly calls an appendix added to the ancient canons; for before the heresy of Novatus arose no one was compelled to go to a fixed presbyter, nor to confess any sins publicly. Some indeed were accustomed, according to the counsel of the priest to whom they had confessed all their sins, to confess publicly some graver and public sins, as can be learned from Origen, homily 2 on Psalm 37; yet, as I said, they were not bound, but it was enough to confess all sins privately, and to do private or public Penance according to the command of the priest. But after the heresy of Novatus was stirred up, it pleased the bishops to add something, lest the Novatians should be able to reprehend Catholics for admitting the lapsed too easily to communion. So much of the first head.
Now as to the second, of the shameful deed of the deacon with the woman, Sozomen writes, but Nicephorus more clearly, that the occasion of that shameful deed was that that woman had been ordered by the penitentiary presbyter to remain longer in the church for the sake of prayer; for from this, that the woman often and long stayed in the church, the deacon had occasion of perpetrating the shameful deed with her. Further, this crime came to the ears of the people from the public confession of the woman herself. For although the sin was hidden, and the presbyter had not commanded her to lay it open to the people, yet she herself, while she confessed publicly other sins which were public, going further than was fitting, confessed this sin also. Socrates narrates all this, who distinctly relates the twofold confession of that woman: one secret before the presbyter alone, the other public before the people. “A noble woman,” he says, “comes to the penitentiary presbyter, and confesses one by one the sins which she had committed after Baptism”; behold the private confession of all sins. He then adds the penalty enjoined: “The presbyter,” he says, “gives the woman a command to give herself to fasts and continual prayers, so that together with the confession of her sins she might show a work worthy of penance”; behold the satisfaction after private confession. He then adds the public confession, which had been enjoined on her together with the fasts and prayers: “The woman,” he says, “going further in confessing, accuses herself of another fault; she declares that the deacon of the Church had slept with her.” Where that “going further in confessing” signifies what we said, that the woman had not been commanded to disclose that sin publicly, but that she herself did it from indiscreet devotion. And that the woman confessed this her deed publicly Socrates teaches in these words, which he joined straightway to the preceding: “On account of which deed, thus made public, the deacon was cast out of the Church; a tumult thence arose in the multitude of the people,” and so on. As to the third head: Nectarius, by the consent of all, abrogated the penitentiary presbyter, for all the historians commonly hand this down. He abrogated also public Penance, for on its occasion the shameful deed of the deacon with the woman had happened, and thence a tumult against the clergy had arisen. He abrogated lastly public confession, both because it was a part of public penance, and because from it the sacrilege of the deacon and the woman had been learned; for both displeased the people; and so great a crime perpetrated in the church, as Sozomen writes; and from its publication a great mark of infamy branded on the priestly order, as Socrates hands down. But he did not abrogate, nor could he abrogate, private confession and Penance. Wherefore what Socrates and Sozomen write, that it was permitted by Nectarius that each should come to partake of the sacred mysteries according to his own conscience, does not signify that it was permitted to the faithful to become partakers of the sacred table without confession and the judgement of the priest; but that they should not be compelled to go to the public tribunal of the Church, but should themselves take account of their own conscience, and if indeed they were without mortal sin, should safely come to the communion of the divine mysteries; but if not, should choose one of the presbyters to whom they might privately confess their sins. And that this is the sense of those words, and that private confession was not abrogated by Nectarius, can be confirmed by these arguments. First, Nectarius took away nothing but the appendix to the ancient canons which had been added at the beginning of the Novatian heresy; but that appendix, as we have already sufficiently shown, pertained to public Penance only. Then, Nectarius took away nothing but what was necessary for quieting the tumult of the people stirred up on the occasion of that shameful deed detected; but for this it was enough and more to remove from the midst public confession and Penance, for from private confession and Penance no tumult could arise. Thirdly, after the times of Nectarius the use of private confession always remained in the Greek Church, as is clear from Chrysostom, Nicephorus Chartophylax, the Council in Trullo, and other testimonies cited above. But no history relates that what Nectarius had done was revoked and retracted by any bishop or council; therefore he had not abrogated private confession. Fourthly, Sozomen, who wrote that history more fully, and whom the adversaries chiefly cite, affirms that God himself commanded that pardon be given to penitents, and that confession is necessary; and the same Sozomen does not reprehend Nectarius as an overthrower of the divine law, but only doubtfully and moderately carps at him, that he took away the occasion of rebuking one another’s sins. Nor has any other writer in so many centuries of years accused Nectarius; which certainly many would have done if one bishop by himself had attempted to abrogate a thing so necessary and frequented in the Church from the times of the apostles. Fifthly, the adversaries themselves also do not admit men to the Eucharist unless first examined, as can be understood from Philip in the Augsburg Confession, article on confession, where he says thus: “Confession is not abolished among us; for the body of the Lord is not accustomed to be given except to those first examined and absolved.” Likewise from Calvin, who in book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 13, says thus: “Meanwhile I am so far from objecting that the sheep present themselves to the pastor whenever they wish to partake of the sacred supper, that I should greatly wish this to be observed everywhere.” Who then would believe that Nectarius was so imprudent as not to see how evil it would be to permit to each access to the sacred mysteries without any purgation and reconciliation? Let these things suffice in this place about the history of Nectarius. I am not ignorant that Thomas Waldensis, in volume 2, chapter 141, was of the opinion that confession was simply abrogated by Nectarius, and that he gravely erred in that matter; but I would not easily grant this, both because Pope Nicholas, in the letter to Photius which is recited in the eighth synod, action 4, calls Nectarius a conqueror of heretics and defender of the churches; and because Saint John Chrysostom most openly defends the opinion of Nectarius, as we shall show in the following chapter; and lastly because all the churches of the east followed the opinion of Nectarius. I know also that it has seemed to some that this whole history was invented by Socrates; but I cannot easily be brought to believe that history to be false which was being written while those were still living who had been present at the deed; especially since the thing which is narrated is said to have happened not in some corner, but in a most celebrated city, with the whole people privy to it.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII.
Solvitur arqumentum I. Joannis Calvini.
Sequitur ut adversariorura argumenla diluamus.
Ac ul a Cakino inripiamus, is lib. ?,. inslit. cap.4.
§ 7. ohjicil Primo iii liuiic inodmii:.l//r((7- (/iia/^/Y)?/-
/(' ausint contciuUwe. confcssioncni, dc qua /o-
quuntnr, jnris cssciUvini: cnjus equidcm rcta-
stissiinnin cssc usnni falcmur : scd (lucni fac.ile
possumus cvinccrc. oUin fni.ssr. Ubcrain. (lcrle
nnUain dc ea statam fuisse Unjeni aut consUtu-
tioncin , anle InnoccnUi IIL tcmpora, eornni
(inoquc aniKdcs narrant. Fliiitr;i: llaqne ipsis lc,-
slibus. nondnm cUipsi snni. a,nni Ircccnli. ex quo
injcciusab Innoccnlio III. Ukjucus el imposila
confUendi neccssUas. AUjuc ul dc tcmporc ta-
ceam, sola verboruni barbarics fidcm lcqi abro-
qat. Nam quod jubenl honi Palrcs, omncin u-
Iriusquc sccus quotannis senud proprio sacer-
doli confilcri omnia pccc-a/a ; faccli komines ,
lcpide excipiunl, hoc praeceplo teneri solos ker-
maphrodilos . ad ncminem vero spectare , qui
sit vel mas vel foemina.
Respondeo: Calvinum niore suo, mendaciis cl
c;ilumniis inagis niti, quam solidis ralionihus. Pri-
mum enim quod ;iil.legem de confossione omniiiiii
peccatorum, nuUam exslare,aiile coslilulioiiem lii-
nocenlii III. sivc polius concilii laterancnsis, ciii
Innocentius praefuit, falsum esse. el lam nuillis
noslris argumentis intelligi polesl. Exslat eiiim lex
Chrisli, ul supra co|)iose deduximus: ncque opiis
fuil,ut concilia aul ponlifices id lcgibus suis pr;ie-
ciperenl, quod ab ipso Chrislo imperalum.cl mul-
lorum saeculorum consueludine roboralum esse
noveranl.
Sed neque Innocenlius aul laleranense concili-
um. confessionem simpliciter imperavit,sed soliiiii
lempus delerminavil,quo ea facienda esset; quem-
admodum eliam concili;i velera supra cil;it;i, ex
(ir;iecia, Africa, Gallia, Germania, el ponlincupj,
Innocentii I. ac Leonis I. dccrela, non confessio-
nem simpliciter impcrarunl, sed aul de secrclo
confessionis, aul de aliis id genus circumslantiis
regiilas slatuerunt. Id quod ex simili decrelo Zc-
pherini pontificis prob;iri potest.Zepherinus enim,
ut in ejus vila refert Platina, slatuit, ul omnes
Chrisliani aduUi in soleinni die paschae,Eucha.-
ristiae sacrameiilum perciperent: quo decrelo,
non intelligilur praecipere voluissc, ul Eucharisti-
am Chrisliani aliquando sumerent, quod a Christo
ipso esse praeccplum. neque cathoIici,neque h;ie-
retici negant; sed l;inlum negligenliae aliquonim
occurrere ac lcmpus determinare.ultra quod per-
ceplioncm lam salutiferi sacraraenti differre non
liceret. Sic igilur et Innocentius III. non confessio-
ncm instiluit, aut simpliciler imperavil, sed tem-
pus, ullra quod nemo Christianus eam difFerrel,u-
tdiler omnino praescripsit.
Neque vero decretum hoc Innocentii novum dici
debei, sed innovalum potius, el adjuncta poena,
severius, id postulanlc condilione temporum, im-
peratum. Jam enim supra ex Gregorio nysseno, et
Joanne chrysostomo demonslravimus, circa pa-
schae celebritalem Chrislianos omnes ad confes-
sionem accedere debuisse.
Deinde, cum cerlum, alque exploratum scmper
in Ecclesia fueril, non licere iis, qui pecc;itorum
mortalium sibi conscii sunt.ad Eucl)arisli;im acce-
dere, nisi per confessionem el reconcilialionem
LIBEU TKHTIIJS
701
purgali esseiil. iil r.\ Cypriano in serm. de lapsis,
el ex Leone episl. ad Tlieodorum Forojulii episco-
pum, el ex aliis nolissimum esl: el rursus cum o-
mnes Chrisliani saltem in paschale ad Eucharisli-
am accedere semper consueverinl, etobligali lue-
rint; cerle sequilur, semper hanc legem in Ecclc-
sia luisse,ut omnes Chrisliani saltera semel singu-
lis annis peccala sua conQterentur.
Deinde. quod idcm Calvinus ail: Nullam stalam
legemdeconfessionefuisseantelnnocentiiconslitu-
lionemjn nostris annalibus contineri.et nobisipsis
leslibus. nondum elapsos esse trecentos annos, ex
quo ab Innocentio confilendi necessitas injecta est:
credo inendaciuiii lulo appellari posse.Solus enira
esl Plalina, qui in vila Zepherini scribil , decre-
lum Zepherini de percipienda Eucharislia in pa-
schale, exlensum fuisse ab Innocenlio III. ad con-
fessionem.
Sed neque Platina publica auclorilale, et ex pu-
blicis arcinviis vilas illas pontificum scripsil,ui an-
nales nostri dici possinl:et saepe ab hisloricis no-
stris reprehendilur, quod Marlinum polonum se^
(|uutus, in varios errores incideril: neque idem
Plalina dicit, nullam antea fuisse legem de confes-
sionis necessilate. Id enim solum ille scripsil: a
Zepherino de Eucharistia, ab Innocenlio de con-
fessione decrelum fuisse, ut nemo eorum sacra-
mentorum perceptionera ultra annuin differret :
quod quidem veruin est , sed non inde sequitur,
ul ante Zepherini el Innocentii lerapora nulla fuc-
rit lex (ie confessione facienda , vel Euciiarislia
percipienda. l\am, ul jam diximus, ne adversarii
quidem negant.Chrisli praeccplo obligari Christia-
nos ad Eucharisliam aliquando percipiendara: et
ea Palribus nolissiraura esl , numquam licuisse,
non praemissa exomologesi, ad Euchiuisliain ac-
cedere iis, qui lethaliura criminum conscienliam
liabcrenl: sic cnim, ut caeteros omitlam , loquilur
s. Leo cpist. 91. ad Tlieodorum: Christus Jesus
hanc praepositis Ecclesiae tradidit polcstalem ,
ul et confitenlibus actionem poenitenliae darent,
fAsaliibri satis['aclione purgatos, ad communio-
nem sacramenlorum perjanuam reconcilialioms
admillerent.
Deniquc, quod barbaricm objicil Calvinus Inno-
ccntio, propler voccs illas: Omnis utriusque se-
2CU.S, el cx barbarie colligit, nullam fidein d(*crelo
iliius habendam: incredibilis lum irapudenliae et
arrogantiae, tum etiam stullitiac et temerilatis ar-
gumenlum est. Eslo enira barbarae essent voc(!S,
barbara dictio Innocentii, nurn ideo fides ejus de-
creto abroganda esset, quod in concilio orbis ler-
rac maxiiiio el C(;leberrimo omnium quae unquam
habila fuerint, edituni, universa Ecclesia dcbito
cura honore ac devotione suscepil? nura apostolus
Paulus non ait: FAsi imperilus sermone , sed non
scientia'/ num hoc idera Mallliaeus el Joaiines,
.liicobus el Judas, el ipse priiu eps a[)OsloI(uiim
Pelrus, dicere non potuisscnl? \n idcu apostolo-
luin scripla fidem non raerentur, (juod sermonis
eleganlii) care;ml?
Sed neque facile concesserim , in vcrbis iliis:
Omnis ulriusquc sexus, ullam inesse barbariiMu.
Wam s. Hieronymus, quem barbaruin direrc non
litl.l.lKMIM. \ii[ !ll
possumus, iinnin qui longe iiielius lalinas voccs
noveral quam Calvinus, iisdem vocibus non semel
uli voluil iii iiilerpretatione Scriplurarnm.
Deul. 7. (juod in hebraeo eral: Non erit apud
tevir sterilis, neque mulier sleritis, sic llierony*
mus laline reddidii; Non erit apud te slerilis u-
Iriusque sexua, iieqiK! limiiil. ne sciolus aliqiiis
dicerct, ad solos hermiipliroditos eam benediclio-
iiem pertinere. Ilem Judic. lO.iibi art verbuin verli
[loluissel: Quasi Iriamilliaviri et foeininap, spe-
clanles duiu luderet Saimon. sic Hicronymus ver-
lil: Circiler Iria millia ulriusque sexus speclanles
ludeiUein Samson, {mqna Umml , ne tria millia
hermaplirodiloruin inliodiicere videretur. Lib. 2..
Paralip. cap. 31. ita legimns , eodem inlerprete
IIieronymo:(/nii;e?*safi mulUludini, tam uxoribus
quam liberis eorum, ulriusque sexus, fideliler ei-
bi praebebantur, nequeHieronymus timuii, ne si-
bi barbaries objicerelur, nisi verlerel; Filiis et fi-
liabus, ut iu hebraeo legimus.
Possem si liberet, ex Marco Tullio qunque aliis-
que o[)liinis auclorihus demonslriire. verba illa In-
naceiilii non tnodo iiullam barbiiriem , sed eliam
elegaiiliam redolere;sed nolo in his migis lempus
lerere.
C.4PUT XIV.
Solvitur arfiumenlum II. Calvini, ubi Iractalur
liisloria de faclo ^^cclarii.
Objicit Secuiido Ciilvinus in eadem seclione ,
velerum leslimonia, his vnrbis: Deinde luculenla
testimonia cxslant. lumin liisloriis, lum apud
anliquos alios Scriptores, quae docent.hanc fuis-
se politicain discipUnam, ab episcopis instilulam
non legem a Cliristo,aul aposlolis positam.Unum
dumlaxat e multis proferam, quod non obscii-
rum cjus rei documentum erit.Iiefert Sozomenvs
faisse hanc episcopo7'um comtlluUoncm . dili-
genter observalam in ecclesiis occidenlalibus ,
praeserlim vero Ilomae: quo significal. non fuisse
uuiversaLc omniam ecclesiaram iiislilulum. U-
nuin autein e presbyteris pecuiiariler destinatum
fnisse dicit , qui hilic niuneri jiraeesset: quo a-
bunde confutat, quod isli de clavibus , universo
sacerdotali ordini in hunc usum promiseue da-
lis, meiitiunlur .siq nideni non oninium sacerdo-
lum commnnis eral fuiiclio.sed singulares unius
partes, qui ad id electus ab episcopo fuerat. Is
est,(]ueni hodie quoque insingulis calhcdralibus
ecctesiis poenilenliarii vocanl, graviorum crimi-
num, et quorum censura ad oxeinpluin perlinel,
cognilor. Subjir.it deinde, eum qu(>(]ue morcm
Constanlinopidi fuisse. donec matrona quaedaui
eonfilenteni simuiuus. ea specie consuetudiuem ,
qiiain liabcbul cam diacono , praelexuisse de-
prehensa essel. Ob id facinus, Kectarius vir el
xanclilatc el erudilionc clarus , illius Eccle^iae
1'piscopus, confilendi riluin abrogavil. Hic hic
aures asiniiyli c.rriganl. Si le.v, Dei tral aurica-
:oi
DM POKNHKMU
iuris coules$io,qui au^ua fsse/ jyo.ctarius eam re-
fiyere e/ cDtucUrvey .ycctariiim sanrtinn Dci lio-
inincni, uniniUus vclcruni ■s(////(i(/(j.s jirobalnni ,
haereseos el scliisnialis accusahunt? >Vt( codcni
talculo daninabunl Eccle^iani constnnlinopo-
litanani . in (jna . confilcndi niurcni tion ad
lempusniodo dissiniulatnni fuisse, scd ad. snani
mque mcnioriani obsolevisse, alfirmat So.zonie-
nuf. iniino non constantinopolitanam.f^cd oricn-
tales omnc:i ecclcsias , dcfcctionis rcas ajanl ;
quae iniiolabHem. si verum dicunl , legem cl
Cliristianis omnibus mandalum nc(}h\v.erunt.
Jlospoiideo: Mullos iit luic uiia objcclioiio Calvi-
ni iapsiis cxslare. (|uos br(nil(-'r aiinolabimus, ac>
tum tlenujiii objoclionom ipsani perspicuc dilue-
nius. Primuui i^ilur mirum esl. cur lam audacler
jaclavenl Calviiius, luculeiila leslimonia exslare .
lum iii hisloriis, Uim apud aiilitiuos alios Scriplo-
res: si unum Sozoinenum proferre ad mcdium con-
slilueral. Ne(]ue cium ijziu^ramus , Sozoincnum in
liisloria mulla esse mcniilum , lcsle s. Gregorio ,
lib. 6. epislol. 31. el ncque anliquilale, ncque do-
cirina cuin inullis eorum comparandum, quos nos
cilavimus.
Deinde inirum esl, cur non adverleril Calvinus,
ipsum Sozomenum in eodem loco. qui ab eo cila-
ijr, diserlis verbis assererc confessioais necessi-
lalem. ul nos supra nolavimus.
Terlio: Assumil lamquam cerlum Calvinus, con-
slilulionem episcoporum, quae lempore Sozomeni
in occidenlalibus ecclesiis. et pracserlim Homae
vigcbat, fuisse constilulionem de confcssione o-
iiinium peccatorum siiiipliciler facionda;quod pro-
baiidum, non assumendum fuerat. Sozomenum e-
nim.ul inox dcmonslrabimus.non loquilur de con-
fessione oinnium peccatorum absolute facienda ,
quam necessariam esse faletur. el nos divini juris
esse conlendimus; sed de confcssione uni cerlo
presbylero, cerlo rilu facienda : de qua constitu-
tioiiem quandam episcopi ediderant,Novatiana hae-
resi grassari incipienle.
Quario ex eo, quod in singulis ecclesiis unus
cerius presbyler super poenitentes olim constilue-
balur, perperam colligit Calvinus, claves non esse
dalas nniverso ordiiii sacerdolaJi. Nam unus ille
prosbyler, ul paulo post docebimus . non super
omnes poenilentes, sed super publicos lanlum ,
qui simpliciler poenitentes dicebanlur , conslitu-
tus eral: quare ii. quorum peccata occulla crant ,
poleranl aliis sacerdolibus privatim confiteri. Et
licei cliam solus ille presbyler super omnes omni-
110 poenitenlcs conslilutus fuisset, non tamen se-
queretur. menliri calholicos, cum dicunt universo
urdini sacerdolali datas esse claves: id enim catho-
lici oinn<>s inlelligunt de potestate ordinis , quam
saccrdoles omnes in ordinatione suscipiunl,quam-
qiie exercere non possunl . nisi praeteren jurisdi-
clionem ab episcopis accipiant.
Quinlo: Depraval Calvinus historiam., cum dicit,
foeminam (luamdain con(ilenlem simulasse, eaque
specie consueludinem, quam cum diacono habe-
bal, praelexuisse. Nam neque Sozomenus , lib. 7:
cao. 16. neque Socrates, lib. o. cap. 11). neque
iNicephorus. lib. 12. cap. "28. neque alius ullus
cx vcterilnis scribil Ibpininam illam ronfllonlrm
simulassc olc. Socralos aulom . (pii anli(piissiiiuis
osl, ol (|ui rcin ab illo ipso au(liv(;ral, (pii iiilorfne-
ral, scribit foominam illam scolns suum cum dia-
coiio. sponte in confcssionc aporuissc. Quarc lan-
lum abesl. ut specic confossioiiis consuoludinoin
cum diacono foiiinina illa praoloxuorit . (piod Cal-
viiiiis ad infanuindam cnnlessioiiem impiidenler
conlinxil; iil oonlra polius nap;iliuni suum in con-
fcssione, ut di.\iinus. palefecoiit.
Sexto: Duo siiiuil falsa Calvinus sori!)it, cnm ad-
dit: IScrtarius vir sanctitalc et crudiLinnc clarus^
illius 1'Jcclcsiae cpiscopus, confdcndirituni abro-
gacit. Ncclarius (Miiin jam seiuix et laicus,cl (juod
inajus est, nondum ba[)tizatus erat^cumnd episco-
paluin assiimerolur: ut non sit credibilc, aul co
lemporc clarum oruditionc fuissc , aul postea ad
insii^nem aliquam erudilionis gloriain pervenire
poluisse. Qiiocirca Sozomenus lib. 7. cap. 8. lau-
dat cuin a canitic, et inorum suavitate; sanctitatis
ct crudilionis incnlionem iiullam facit. Sed qualis-
ciimque tandem Nectarius fuerit: non ritum con-
fitcndi abrogavit, sed presbytcrum dumtaxat exau-
ctoravit. qui publicis poenitenlibiis praccrat; So-
crales eiiim. Sozomenus et Nicephorus locis nota-
lis, id solum rnemoriac prodiderunl. Forlasse Cal-
vinus Sozomenum graccnm iion lo"it. aut lidelem
aliquam vcrsionem, sed in Musculum incidit, qui
ita reddidit titulnm cap. 1G. lib. 7. Sozomeni :
Quomodo abrogata fueril privata confcssio, qui
tilulus quam sit falsus, perspicuum est ex princi-
pio capitis ipsius Sozomeni, ex quo titulus colligi
debuil: sic cnim ait; ev TOUTto 8k ItiI tiov |X£xavodv-
Ttov "cTaYixsvov z^zT^'j-ziooz ob xeti (TTUVcy^topyjo-sv
slvat rpioTO^ iNsxTdsiOs, qiiod sic ad verbum reddi
polest: /foc tempore presbyterum constilutum su-
per poenitenles, non permisit amplius esse, pri-
mus Neclarius.
Septimo: Conlumeliosis illis vocibus, atque hae-
relicorum propriis: Hic, hic aures asini isti arri-
gant, manifeslum meiidacium Calvinus adjungil ,
(Jum auricularem confessionem a Neclario abroga-
lam scribil. Nam non modo nullus historicorum
hoc scripsit, sed etiam tota illa narratio clamat,non
auricularem, sed publicam confessionem a Necta-
rio abrogatain; neque enim ex auriculari confes-
sione flagitium illud palefieri potuisset , ob cujus
solius manifestalionem, Nectarius ritum illum con-
fessionis publicac abrogavit.
llis igilur in Calvinum breviler annotatis , lola
illa hisloria explicanda est, ut perspicue pateat ,
iiullum argumentum ex ea narratione adversus
confessionis necessilalem posse colligi.
Tribus capitibus tota illa narratio comprehendi-
lur. Primum enim refcrunl auctores citali, Socra-
les, Sozomenus et Nicephorus, presbytcrum quen-
dam poenilenlibus.praeposilum fuisse. Deinde ad-
duntflagilium diaconi cum muliere, ex occasione
illius rilus poenitentialis. Tum docenl, ob scanda-
lum ex eo flagitio natum,abrogalarn fuisse presby-
tero potestatem, ac permissiim fuisse omnibus, ut
pro sua quisque conscienlia ad sacra mysteria ac-
cederel.
De Primo capite constal Primum ex Socrate,con-
LlUliH TLUTIUS
'/03
slilulionem illam de ccrlo prcsbyloro poenitciili-
bus praonciendo. faclam essc ab episcopis occa-
sione haeresis Novalianorum: sic enim scnbil lib.
o. cap. 19. Ab illo lempore quo Novaliani sc ab
Ecclesia sojanxcrant. reciisavcranlque cum /iis,
qui lempore persequulionis regnanle Decio con-
citatae, lapsi crant. comniunicare ; ecclesiarum
episcopi canoni adjunxcrunt, ut in singulis ec-
clcsiis presbyler quidam poenitenliae praeessct ;
quo qui post Baptismum tapsi fuissent , coram
presbijtcro ad eam rem designato peccata sua
con[itcrenlur.
Quae aulem essct funclio ejus presbyleri, non
csl omiiino cerluin: quod enim Sozomenus Iradi-
dit. coulrario sensu reluierunt Cassiodorus el Ni-
cephorus, ob variain inlerpunctionem gracci co-
dicis Sozomeni.Ille enim in historia Triparl. iib.D.
cap. 35. ita reddidil verba Sozomeni: Quoniam o-
innino non peccare. divinum, et ullra kumanam
naturam esse cognoscitur , pcccantibus autem
et poenilcntiam agenlibus , veniam Deus dari
praecepit; qui vcro confiteri refugiunt, majus
peccatorum onus acquirunt proplereavisum esl
antiquis poniijicibus. utvelul in tliealro , sub te-
stimonio ecclesiastici populi delicta pandanlur ;
et ad hanc rcm presbyterum bonae conversalionis
servantemquc secretum. ac sapientem virum sta-
tuerunt, ad quem accedentes ii. qui deliqueranl,
delicta propria fatebantur etc. Nicephorus aulcm
lib. 12. cap. 28.ila ex Sozomeno rem eandcm liar-
ral: Quandoquidem niliil pcccati admittere, non
humanae , sed divinae ct imniorlalis naturae
proprium esl, nos auleni per transgressionem
semel peccandi haeredilatem adirnnius; deiiclo-
runi cis veniani Deus concedere jussit, qui lcgi-
lima el convenienti poenitenlia usi , deinceps
simul peccatum, el aversantur et confifentur.
Grave autem episcopis quiproxiniepost Christuni
fucrc, visum est, in niedia plebe, vel in theatro,
noxani confiteri. Quapropler ex presbylcris unum
dctegere, qui probata vita esset, et simul tacitur-
nus et prudens, apud quem per poenilentiam
resipiscentcs, commissa sna proferrent etc.
El quamvis scntcntia haec posterior non sil im-
probabilis, quam cliam soquulus csl Joanncs chri-
slophursonus in inlerprclaliune Sozomeni : prior
tamen anleponenda vidclur , quam sequutus est
Joannes Ilasselanus, lcste liuardo Tappcro. in n.\-
plical. arl. 5. Lovanicnsiiim; nam Cassiodorus llo-
niit non longc ab aelale Sozomeni; Kicephorus au-
lcm annis phis oclingimtis Sozomeno poslcriur
cst. Quarc crc.dibilc csl, codicem qucm liabuit
Cassiodorus. vcl Kpiphaniiis.qui primus hisloriam
Triparlilam conlecil, ccrliorem fuisso , magis^iuo
integniin cl incorroplum, liim quoad inlerpunclio-
nem, lum quoad caclc.ra, qiiaiu cum. quein INice-
phorus aut Chrislophorsonus habuere.
Dcindc voluisso opisoopos, ut pcccata quasi iii
Iheatro publioc rccilaronliir,ul habcl Cassiodorus.
non auloin ul non rccilanmlur, utscribil Niccpho-
rus, colligi vidctur cx Chrysoslomo , qui hom. .">.
dc incomprchcnsibili nalura I)'m. ct hom. i. do
bazaro, cl hoiu. 8. dc pocnilci.tia, el hoinil. do
liublicdiio ia cap. 18. Lucac , ailmicMs apcrlo ad
factiim Neclarii, et abrogalionem priscae consti-
lulioiiis episcoporum, ubique repelit , non esse
opus jam quasi in Iheatro peccata pandere. Verba
Chrysoslomi in sequonli capile reperics.
Denique idem colligi polcsl ex hac ipsa narralio-
no. Nain et Socrales et Sozomonus , el ipse eliam
Nicepiiorus , duin reprehendunt factuin Neclarii,
(lui rilum illum suslulil;caussam reddunl. quia co
rilu sublalo,non possumus invicem peccala argue-
re,juxla illud Aposloli:;Voli7e communicarc opcri-
bus infrugiferis, sed ea potius arguite; et quia
sublalo illo frcno publicae confusionis, majora ac
plura nuuc fiant peccala, quam oliin: quae cerlo
caussae id requirunt, ul rilus ille, quem Neclarius
sustulit.quemque olim episcopi consliluerant con-
fcssionem publicam conlinuerit.
Dices: Si peccata publicanda erant , cur oporte-
bat presbyterum illum socretorum tenacom ac la-
cilurnum esse, qui poenitentibus praesidebal? Re-
spondeo: Quia non omnia peccata publicanda e-
rant, sed ea solum, ob quae poenilentia publica
indicebatur. llaque audiebat presbyler omnia o-
mnino pocnilcnlium peccala; sod quae occulla e-
rant,secrcla habebat,atque ad hoc lacilurnilas ix-
igebatur ; quae autcm publica eraiit , licet multis
fortasse incognila, ea palam in Ecclesia lamquam
in theatro pandebantur.
Atque hinc forle conciliari possunt diversae illae
narraliones Cassiodori et NicephorL Quod enim
Cassiodorus dicil. visum esse priscis episcopis, ut
peccala publico in EccJesia tamquam in Ihealro ,
pronunciarentur, de publicis pcccalis inlelligi de-
bel: quod autem scribit Nicephorus, grave visum
osso. ut peccala coram coetu multiludinis , quasi
in theatro efferrenlur; dc peccalis occullis acci-
picndum erit.
Noluisse aulem cpiscopos illos,peccala occulla,
sed publica dumlaxat (in quo a Ruardo el Hassela-
110 dissenlirc cogor) confessioni publicac subjice-
re, tribus argumcnlis comprobabo.
Primum testantur Sozomonus et Nicephorus, lo-
cis nolalis, rilum illum, qucm Neclarius Constan-
linopoli suslulil, Romae suo tomporc integre per-
severasse,ut etiam in reliquis occidentis ecclesiis:
cx Leono autcm qui Sozomeni aoqualis fuit, aper-
tissime conslat numquam Romae fuisse ejusmodi
rilum.ut poccala occuUa publicarenlur.Siquidem in
opist.80. ad cpiscopos Campaniae. vehomenlor ob-
jiirgat nescio, quos episcopos, qui omnia peccala
poenitenlium per libellum lu Ecclesia recilari vole-
banl.ac dicil:cam praosumplionem pugnare cum a-
poslolicarcgula.ot rilum esse improbabilem,ac mo-
(iis omnibus submovondum.Quare non fuil Romae,
iicque in rcliquo occidenlo unquam lalis consuotu-
do.ul pcccala omnia,quamvis socrcla.publicc effor-
roiilur, sed solum iii angulo Campaniae , abusus
(juidam, qui etiam conlinuo sublatus fuil.
Doindo: Si poccata oinnia eliam occullissima ,
publicanda crant , quorsum iii prcsbylcro poe-
uitonliario lacilurnilas illa et socreli tenacilas re-
(piirebalur, cujus omnes historici meminerunl?
Deniquo: Cum secrcla peccala iu confossione
oxccpta rcvclarc, sit cfuitra jus nalurac,ut Ihcologi
doccut, el conlra aposlolicam rcgulam , ul s. Lco
101 UK rOL.MIKMlA
:inirii):il: sl consUliilio ill-i vfloruiii rpiscoponiin id miilior ill;i jiissn (»ss(>l ;i |)rosIiytor(i pociiiliMili:iiio
hiibuissfl. oplinio )iir(* ;i >'('clurio abro;;;il;i fiiisscl, iii Kcclrsiii tliiiliiis poriii;iii(>ic <ir;itioiiis ciiussa: cx
(luiii cli.iin iiiiriiin vulcri possct.:i (Irc^Hirio ii;i/.i:ui- co {Miiin.ipiinl s;iepe cl diu imili{>r iii KccU^si:! mo-
/»MU). B;isilio. AlluMasio el cacl(Tis gniecis (ioclo- nihnliir, occasioncm lialjuil (liaronus ciim (;a lla-
nbus. (pii Npclarium pr;iocossoninl . tolcr;iri po- ^itinin p(M'pclraiidi.Porro ( rimcn lioc :iil :iiir('s po-
liiissc. VidLMiius iiUtiMU >cclarium ob cani rcm |io- puli p(MV(Miil, ox ipsios muliciis pubhc;! ( (inics-
liirs rcprelicndi, (luam landari, :i Socralc. Snzoinc- sionc. Tiiinctsi enim percalum 0(M',ulturn csscl, ne-
no. Tassiodoro, Nicoplioro ot c;ioloris Scriplorilms (luc prosbyt^M' ci mambisscl, ul illiid |iopul(i p;itc-
iion ijiiliir probabilo osl. rilum (luom votiMcs opi- hiccrol; ips;i laincii (Miin ali;i porc;ii;i. (luac piiblica
scopi introdu\or.ini, id b.ibuissc . ul sccnMa pcc- craiil.publicc coiililcndnr.loii^^ius progrcssii (lUiiin
oaia publicac confessioni subjiccrcntur. par oral, cliain hoc pcccaluin confcssa csl.
Illud oliiiin hoc loco osl obscrv;iiidum: Prosby- N;irr;il hoc lotum Socr:ilos: (]ui diiplicem confcs-
loruin illuin poonilonliariuin.iioiiomnibusridolihus, sioncm illius uiulioris dislinctc rcferl.Unain sccre-
tiui (luocuinquc niodo poeni'ontiaiii ac;eba:il , scd l;iin corain solo prcsbytcro. Allcr;im publicam co-
solis [lublicis pooiiiloniibus praopositiim fuissc: id nuii populo: Malier, iiK^uil, nobilis ad prcshjjle-
(pii»d inbus aliis ;ir^u;ncntisdeinonstr;iri piilost. rinn pncniliinlidrium accedil. peccata quae iml
Primuin. So7.oiiionus , ubi discrtis vcrbis allir- liaplisninni comniiseraJ,parliculalim confUelur,
masscl, consliinlionom dc presbylero pocnilcnlia- (m-cc privalain confcssioncm omnium peccaiorum:
rio. (luac.i prisci opiscopi iuvoxoranl, ot .>'cct;irius subjuiif^it dciiido mulcliim injuiicliun ; Prenbi/ler.
posioii ('.onstiiiiiinopoli iibro^Mvcral . Romac [lolis- imiuil. mulicri 'mandalum dal . lU jcjuniis et
siniuin acciiriile servari: contiiiuo explicarc coe()il eonlinuis precibus se dederel, quo una cumpee-
riluMi pooiuliMitiiic publicae, (luac Homac suo lciii- ealorum confessione opus dignuin poenUcnlia o-
pore scrvabalur:igitur conslitulio illa ad solos poc- slcnderel. cccc siitisfaclioncm post privatam cou-
iiil(Miios publico^ |iortiiicbat. fcssioncm: iiddil doiiide coiifessionein publicam ,
Deinde nullo inoilo liori poluit. ul unus prcsby- (^uae fueral illi injuncta una cum jcjuniis et pro-
lor s;itisfacorol liMitiic multiludiiii, quanlii Coiisliin- cibus: Mulier, inquil, lonqius in confilcndo pro-
tiiiopoli, vol iu aliis civitalibus.poonilcntiac rcmc- gressa. allerius culpae seipsa insimulat : docel
dio indigob.it: uou igitiir omnes cum prcsbytcrum diaconum Ecclesiae cum ipsa dormivisse, ubi il-
iidirc cogohiintur, scd ii soium, qui pocnitcntiam \u^]: Longiusin cnvfitendo progressa, id signi(i-
|uibliciiiii suscipiohiiiil. c;il quod di.Minus; iion fuisse maiidiilum mulieri ut
I)iMii(]uc. apud votcres nominc poonilonlium , peccalum illud publice detegeret,scd ipsam ex in-
soli publici pucnitenles inlclligi solebanl, ul in lib. discrcla devotione id fecisse. Pubiice aulem con-
l.suli timMii annotavimus:cuin igilur historici siie- h^ssam esse mulicrem hoc suum facinus, docet
pe citali diciinl. prosbytcrum siipcr pocnilenles Socriitcs his verbis, quae superioribus continuo
conslitulum fuisso, id acciiiienduin esl de iis, (lui siibjunxit:06 quod facinus hoc modo patefaclurii
sinipliciter poenitcntes diccbalur, hoc est, de pu- diaconus ab Ecclesia ejeclus esl; tumulius indc
blicis. in populi multitudine excitatus etc.
Kx his.duae hactenus dicta sunt,colligimus, con- Quod ad terlium pertinet : abrogavit Neclarius
stiiutionem episcoporum, de qua historici loquun- omniurn consensu, presbyterum poenitenliarium ,
lur. id sidum complexam. ut qui publicc lapsi es- id enim omnes historicicoramuniler tradunt.Abro-
senl post Baptismum, ii ad sacram Eucharisliam gavit eliam Pocnitentiam publicam, nam ex occa-
non accedcronl, nisi prcsbylero poenilentiario pri- sioneejus acciderat flagilium diaconi cummuliere,
valim oiniiia peccata sua confessi essenl, et deinde et inde lumultus conlra clerum exorlus fuerat. Ab-
ad ejus arbitrium publice corara coetu Ecclesiac rogavil denique confessionem publicam, tum quia
poocala publica dctcxisscnt. et poenitentiam pu- pars erat poenilenliae publicae,lura quia ex ea co-
blicam egissenl.Quam conslilutionem Socrales re- gnituin fucrat sacrilegiuin diaconi el mulieris: u-
cle vocai, appcndicom additam ad vcteres canones: Irumque enim populo displicebat;et tantum scelus
nam aiitc o.xorl;iin hacrcsim Novali, nemo cogeba- in Ecclesia perpetratum. ut scribil Sozomenus; et
lur ccrtum prosbytcrum adiro. ncque peccata ulla ex ejus publicalioue magnam infamiae notam or-
publice conlitori. Consueverdut quidem aliqui .ju- dini sacerdotali inustam, ut tradit Socrales. Non
xla odiisiliiiin sacerdolis. cui pcccata omnia con- autem ahrogavit, nec abrogarc potuil, confcssio-
fossi tuiTanl. aliqua graviora et publica publicc ncin cl Poenitentiam privatam.
coniileri. ul ex Origene cognosci polest, liom. 2. Ouare quod scribunl Socrates el Sozomenus ,
in psal. 37. taincn ut dixi , non tcnebantur , sed permissum esse a Nectario, ut unusquisque sccun-
salis erat. peccala omiiia privatim conritcri,el Poe- dum conscientiam suam ad sacra inysleria partici-
nitentiam privalam vcl puldicam juxta sacerdotis panda accederet; non significat , permissum essc
iinperium, agere. Caeterum post Novati haeresim lidclibus.ut sine confessione et judicio sacerdolis,
excilatam. placuit cpiscopis aliquid addcrc,ne No- sacrae mensae parlicipes fierent: sed ut non cogc-
vatibui calliolicos rcprehendere possent, quod ni- ronlur adirc publicum Ecclesiae tribunal , verum
misfacile lapsos ad communionem admitlcrcnl. ipsi conscientiae suae rationera haberent,ct si qui-
Haec de primo capite. dcm sine peccato mortali essent , ad communica-
Jam quod atlinet ad sccundum de flagitio diaco- tionem divinorum mysteriorum tuto accederenl ;
ni cum mulierc, scribit Sozomcnus , scd clarius sin autem, unum cx presbyleris cligercnl, cui pri-
i^icephorus, occasioncm illius flagitii fuissc, quod vatim peccala sua confiterentur.
inm\ TKmius
7o:
Essc aulem liunc sonsum eoriim verborum, el a
Ncclario non fuisse confessionem prlvatam al)roga-
lam, his argunienlis confirraari polest. Priraum ,
non suslulit Nectarius, nisi appendicem ad veleres
canones, quae acccsserat initio haercsis Novalia-
nae: illa aulem appendix, ut jam salis ostcndimus,
ad publicam tantiim Poenitenliam perlinebal.
Deinde non susluUl Neclarivis, nisi id quod ne-
cessarium eral ad sedandum populi lumuIUim ex
occasione detecli illius flagitii excilalura: ad hoc
autem salis superque eral, de medio lollere con-
fessionem el Poenilentiam publicam , neque enim
ex confessione Poenilenliaque privala ullus tumul-
lus exoriri poleral.
Terlio: Post Neclarii lempora mansit semper in
Ecclesia graeca, usus confessionis privalae,ut per-
spicuum est ex Chrysoslomo , Nicephoro , Carlo-
phylace. concilio Irullano, aliisque testimoniis su-
pra cilatis. Nulla autem historia refert, ab ullo e-
piscopo vel concilio revocalura esse ac relraclatum
id quod Nectarius fecerat: non igitur abrogaverat
ille confessionem privatani.
Quarto: Sozomenus, qui fusius hisloriam istam
conscripsit.etquidemadversarii polissimum cilanl,
atrirmat Dcum ipsum praecepisse , ut poenilcnti-
bus venia darelur et necessariam esse confessio-
iiem: idera aulem Sozomenus non reprehendit Ne-
clarium, ut eversorem juris divini, sed tantum du-
bilanler et modice illum carpit, quod occasionera
susluleril peccala invicem arguendi. Neque ullus
alius scriplor in lot annorum cenluriis Neclarium
accusavil: quod cerle mulli fecissent , si rem tam
necessariam et ab aposlolorum lemporibus in Ec-
clesia frequentatam, ipse unus cpiscopus abrogare
tcntasset.
Quintorlpsi etiam adversarii non admillunlhomi-
nes ad Eucharisliam , nisi prius exploratos, ul in-
lelligi potest ex Philippo in confess. auguslana
arl. cle confcssione , ubi sic ait: Confessio apud
nos non cst abolita: non enim solet porrigi cor-
pus Domini, nisi anlea exploralis et absolutis.
Ilem cx Calvino. qui lib. 3. Inslil. cap. 4, § I3.sic
ail: Inlcrim quin sistant sc oves pastori quoiies
sacram coonam. parlicipare volunt, adeo non
reclamo., ul maxime velim hoc ubique observari.
Quis igilurcredat Ncctarium lam fuisse iraprudcn-
leni, ul non vidcrel, quam malum cssct, permillr-
re unicuiquc accessum ad sacra mystcria, sine ul-
la purgatione ac reconcilialione? Ilaec dc hisloria
Nedarii hoc loco sufliciant.
Noo ignoro Thoraam waldensem in 2. tomo ,
rap. 141. in ca senlcntia fiiisse, ut exislimarel. a
.\cclario confessionera siraplicitcr abrngalam fuis-
sc, eumque in ea re graviler errasse : scd non fa-
cile id co.nredcrem, tum quod NJcolaus papa in c-
pislola ad Photium, quae rccitalur in VIII. synodo
acl. 4. Neclarium voccl haerclicorum expugnalo-
rem, el ecclcsiarum dcfcnsorcm; tum quod Nccta-
rii senlcntiam s. Joannes chrysostoraus apcrlissi-
nie luealur.ul in se(|uenti capite ostendeinus; tmn
denique, quod Ncclarii scntcnliam omncs orienlis
Lcclesiae scquulac sinl.
Scio cliam, quibusdara visum essc , tolara hanc
hisloriam esse confictam a Socralc: sed non facilc
adduci possum, ul credam hisloriam iliara falsani
esse, quae tum scribebatur, cum adhuc viverenl ,
qui rei gestae interfueranl : praescrlim cum res ,
quac narralur, non in angulo aliquo, sed in urbc
ccleberrima, conscio populo universo conligissc
dicalur.