Section LXVII

For the explanation and vindication of these things, I judge it useful to make some observations point by point and deliberately to inculcate them. Among these, I. this ought to be recalled: that nothing was more ready to hand for the assailants¹ of Augustinian doctrine and the defenders of the Semipelagian error, whereby they might either kindle a more vehement hatred against it or display their error as more marketable, than to disseminate among the people that these two things were most closely joined with Augustine’s doctrine, which was most hostile to the Semipelagian heresy: a) that God does not will all men to be saved; and therefore b) that our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer for the salvation and redemption of all men. The Gauls employed both attacks,

and the author of the Vincentian objections repeated both. But how could it have entered their mind to trust so greatly in this attack unless, in the fifth century, it had been a most firmly established dogma in the Church both that God wills the salvation of all men and that, according to the norm of this will, Christ underwent death for all and poured forth his blood? It is therefore established that this was truly the judgment of the Church, and that every Catholic conspired in this profession.

The force of this certainty, II., will appear the greater, the more diligently the mind is directed to Prosper’s responses. For he begins the Responses to the Chapters of the Gauls with these words²:

The doctrine which Bishop Augustine of holy memory apostolically asserted against the Pelagians, the enemies of the grace of Christ and the embellishers³ of free choice, through many years and committed to writing, it has seemed good to some to censure either by not understanding it or by being unwilling that it should be understood; and to bring forward as a kind of compendium of knowledge for those who were led by their judgment this: that they should publish in lists of brief chapters those things which they boasted that they had found condemnable in the books of the aforesaid man; and that by such a fiction they should both obtain the detestation of him whom they attacked and turn the attention of the terrified reader away from those things which they had defamed. Therefore, lest anyone rashly receive this persuasion and think that such a meaning is contained in the writings of a Catholic doctor as those who calumniate him in vain display, I respond to the individual chapters, which they prefixed with the title of condemnation, with a brief and absolute profession, departing in nothing from the path of those definitions which are contained in the disputations of the holy man; so that an inspector even of slight diligence may easily perceive with what unjust reproaches the memory of a Catholic preacher is torn, and into what sin those fall who, moved by another’s instigation, are more ready to blame a writer of the most celebrated name than to know him.

But, responding to the chapters of the Vincentian objections, he writes far more bitterly⁴:

Certain men, forgetful of Christian and fraternal charity, strive in every way to injure our reputation to such a degree that, through their desire to harm, they do not see that they overturn their own. For they weave together and comprehend in whatever propositions they can the prodigious lies of certain most absurd blasphemies, and carry them about publicly and privately to be displayed and thrust upon many, asserting that such things are in our meaning as are contained in a diabolical indictment. We could easily and sufficiently prove, by subscribing one anathema, that these things are falsely cast upon us to stir up odium, if the malice of those who think themselves burdened whenever we are thought well of were not going to regard the very brevity of our subscription as suspect. Therefore, lest an occasion for this complaint be found, we have believed it necessary and fitting that—whether for soothing the minds of those who calumniate, or for instructing those in whose ears something of this kind has sounded—we should, so far as it can be done with the Lord’s aid, disclose fully and lucidly what we judge concerning these perverse definitions.

Therefore, after the sixteen chapters have been proposed individually, under each of them we shall place the words of our meaning and of the faith which, by the authority of the Apostolic See, we defend against the Pelagians; so that those who have deigned to occupy themselves a little in reading these things may clearly recognize that no vestige of impious and profane opinions has adhered to our hearts, and may judge that the blasphemies which they perceive to be condemned by our profession ought to be punished in those who devised them.

What, therefore, does Prosper determine concerning either the chapters of the Gauls or the Vincentian objections? He determines that they advance and contain fictions devised with this counsel: that they might both obtain the detestation of Augustine, whom they attacked, and turn the attention of the terrified reader away from those things which they had defamed; calumnies which no one should rashly receive; unjust reproaches; prodigious lies belonging to certain most absurd blasphemies; a diabolical indictment; perverse definitions; impious and profane opinions; and true blasphemies.

But among the chapters of the Gauls and the Vincentian objections, these hold no insignificant place: that the Savior was not crucified for the redemption of the whole world, and that our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer for the salvation and redemption of all men. Therefore, the marks and censures which we received heaped up by Prosper fit these statements: namely, that they are fictions, prodigious lies, perverse definitions, impious and profane opinions, and blasphemies; so that both those who erred and those who defended the orthodox profession in the fifth century conspired unanimously in this: that they detested with the greatest execration those who affirmed that our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer for the salvation and redemption of all men.