§1
Indeed, this cause for conspiring against us is also handed down: that it appears possible from the example of many who were afterward reconciled. Why, therefore, could not the controversies of those called Evangelicals be syncretized or removed? Saint Cyprian and Stephen; Saint Basil the Great and Eusebius of Caesarea; Saint Jerome and Augustine; Saint Jerome and Rufinus; Saint Jerome and John, bishop of Jerusalem; Saint Epiphanius and Chrysostom; the orthodox and the Novatians; Catholics among themselves; the other Lutherans and the Concordists disagreed, and yet they did not break peace but admitted reconciliation. Why, then, should not we Evangelicals do so? This is the sum of Chapter 15.
§2
This argument drawn from examples is indeed not unusual in rhetorical amplifications, but in disputations it is weak and, unless all things are equal and similar, faulty and captious.
But in this passage, since all things—both matters and persons—are plainly contrary, it is foolish and ridiculous. I confess that the Church was never so fortunate that all agreed entirely in all things; nor do we dare to hope that this will ever occur except when God will be all in all and, error having been removed, we shall behold uncreated truth in heavenly light. Nevertheless, judgment must be formed concerning the kind of dissension, the mind of those teaching contrary things, the gravity of the question, and the obscurity of the matter; likewise, whether anything was defined in councils and whether anything was always believed in the Church. For not every dissension makes a heresy, nor are the dissensions and hatreds of heretics to be estimated from the discord of the orthodox.
Let us reconsider the examples one by one.
§3
Cyprian and Stephen, the Roman Pontiff, disagreed concerning the baptism of heretics. Cyprian rejected it; Stephen approved it. Cyprian possessed the error, Stephen the truth. Cyprian added a small agitation to his error, for he wrote somewhat angrily about Stephen to Pompeius, bishop of Sabrata. Augustine grieves over that letter and says he cannot excuse Cyprian, in the Letter to Pompeianus and Book 5, Chapter 25, Against the Donatists, On Baptism. But he erred in a question that had not yet been examined with the most clarified insight; see Augustine, Book 3, Chapter 3, Against the Donatists. Therefore Cyprian erred, and the council moved by his authority nevertheless did not condemn those who thought differently. “It remains,” he says, “that concerning this very matter we each set forth what we think, judging no one and removing no one from the right of communion if he thinks differently.” Meanwhile Stephen threatened the Africans with excommunication unless they corrected the error.
But those who erred obeyed those who thought rightly, as is evident from Augustine, Book 3, Chapter 1, Against Cresconius; for Cyprian both died in the Catholic faith and the bishops rescinded their former opinion by a contrary decree, as Jerome testifies against the Luciferians; see also Augustine, Letter 48. Indeed, most of the Asians returned to concord. Baronius, volume 2, may be consulted.
To what purpose, therefore, is this adduced? Let the Zwinglians change their errors and sing a recantation; the Lutherans will not be difficult in receiving them, provided they think them to act sincerely. If they persevere in error, they will be judged no less heretics than those rebaptizers. But what proportion does one error have to innumerable heresies? Yet why is nothing written concerning Cyprian’s changed opinion? Because Valerian immediately intensified the persecution in the year 259, while the controversy had fallen in the year 258; therefore the tyrant’s violence suppressed ecclesiastical proceedings.
§4
“A grave dissension arose,” he says, “between Basil and Eusebius of Caesarea, and hostilities burned to such a degree that Basil departed into Pontus, abandoning the Church.” Pareus recalls the deeds of the saints in bad faith and with a calumnious exaggeration. The matter stands thus. After Hermogenes died, Eusebius, still a catechumen, was elected bishop by the Caesareans; for Basil had withdrawn himself so that he would not be elected. The electors presently repented of their vote, but Eusebius prevented them from creating another bishop and by his constancy easily dispelled the danger which Julian threatened.
Meanwhile the monks who lived under Basil’s care condemned the election of Eusebius. For this reason Eusebius held Basil suspect and oppressed him beyond his deserts. But Basil, so that the monks might be quiet and the Church not be rent on his account, withdrew into solitude—not while burning with hatred and hostilities, but from love of peace and quiet. We gather these things from Gregory Nazianzen’s letter to Eusebius. These things occurred in the year 362. But in the year 366 they contended in acts of duty: Eusebius of his own accord sent Basil letters of entreaty and recall, and Basil, having remitted the injury, returned to Caesarea. Therefore in this passage no conflict of dogmas is observed, but virtue, modesty, and prudence in Basil; suspicion and hostility, and finally serious repentance and humility, in Eusebius. What do these things have to do with thunderbolts of condemnations, with the exiles and tortures by which the Evangelicals rage against one another, or with most bitter contests concerning heads of faith and salvation?
Saint Jerome and Augustine also disputed concerning the passage of Saint Paul, Galatians 2:11, and not without sharpness of words; but what will he establish from this? That a Syncretism of all heresies must therefore be made?
§5
The controversy between Jerome and John was lighter than John’s imprudence or malice afterward made it. For John was thought to favor Pelagius, as Augustine has it in Letter 252. He also came under suspicion as though he had been the author of the pillage committed in Bethlehem, as is clear from Innocent’s letter written to him. But since the cause is doubtful, neither Jerome nor Innocent condemned him absolutely, and death forestalled full knowledge of the matter, he is not to be summoned back to a tribunal and pleading of the cause after so long a time; much less is confusion of all religions to be introduced from the deed of one bishop who offended many orthodox men and rendered himself suspect.
As for Jerome and Rufinus, I confess that the matter is very similar to those things now disputed among the Evangelicals. Jerome’s innocence is sufficiently attested, and in his second Apology there survives an oath denying calumny: “I call Jesus the Mediator to witness that unwilling and resisting I descended to these words, and that unless you had provoked me I would always have remained silent. Finally, cease accusing, and I shall cease defending. For what edification is there for the hearers when two old men fight one another on account of heretics, especially when both wish to appear Catholic? Let us abandon the patronage of heretics, and there will be no contention between us.”
But Rufinus, after the manner of heretics, not only resisted wholesome admonitions but grew hardened. He refused the judgment of Pope Anastasius. It is evident from Augustine, Book 2, Chapter 2, Against Pelagius, that he was the forerunner of Pelagius. Concerning him Caelestius professes thus in the Council of Carthage: “The holy presbyter at Rome, who remained with Saint Pammachius, said this. I heard him saying that there is no propagation of sin.” Thus Caelestius cites not Pelagius but Rufinus as the author of so abominable a heresy. Yet all these things became manifest after his death, although while alive he was both condemned by Anastasius and thereafter absolved by no one. If this example effects anything, it serves to signify that in a cause of religion there can be no peace between heretics and Catholics—not that contrary heresies can be fused into one.
§6
The dissension of the bishops Chrysostom and Epiphanius concerned fact and forum, not religion and dogmas. The condemnation of the Origenists was in question. Epiphanius judged that they should be condemned at once, as though sufficiently heard and known; Chrysostom judged that they should be heard again. Therefore Epiphanius refused to reside in the patriarchal palace and communicate with Chrysostom, with whom heretics were staying. Chrysostom thought communion lawful for himself with those whom he judged not yet heard and condemned. Hence arose the dissension, since in one hatred of heresy prevailed, in the other care for judicial process and order.
Baronius thinks the mutual prophecies a fiction: namely, that Epiphanius said to Chrysostom, “You will not die a bishop,” and Chrysostom to Epiphanius, “You will not die in your homeland.” For Epiphanius died the following year at his own home, although Chrysostom, after experiencing various exiles, was extinguished by the importunity of soldiers. I repeat again what indeed could seem tiresome but is nevertheless necessary to the cause: this little dissension contributes nothing to making a Syncretism of all who call themselves Evangelicals.
§7
Concerning the orthodox and the Novatians, their statement is a manifest falsehood to those practiced in history.
It is evident that the Novatians were not restrained with the severity with which they ought to have been, because they thought rightly concerning Christ against the Arians. This was the reason that in the year 326 Constantine issued a rescript on their behalf: “We have not found the Novatians to have been condemned beforehand, so that we would believe that those things which pertained to them ought by no means to be granted.” But afterward the great Emperor discovered the matter, as Eusebius reports in Life of Constantine, Book 3, Chapters 61 and 62. For first he reckons them among heretics; they were condemned in the Council of Constantinople; Chrysostom attacked them vehemently; Innocent expelled them from Rome; and in the year 413 Theodosius proscribed them by edicts and condemned them to deportation, as the words of the law declare. Do you now wish Lutherans to be tolerated for a little while, so that afterward you may do what was done to the Novatians?
Finally, concerning the dissensions of Catholics this must be established universally: one who pertinaciously protects an error contrary to the Catholic faith is not a Catholic. If the error belongs to the class of those in which neither party has been condemned, dissension does not remove fraternity or rend unity. But I shall speak of these things in their place.
I conclude the argument by a reversed syllogism. No heresies have ever been able to oppress the Catholic faith by conspiracy and attempted Syncretism; therefore neither will the Evangelical heresies be able to do so. No syncretization has been able to endure; therefore neither will the syncretization of the Evangelicals.