18.—The Same Continued.

But perhaps the point requires some consideration, whether he was right in saying that “such as held the opinions in question deserved anathema, not as heretics, but as fools, since it was no dogma.” The question, when fairly confronted, is no doubt far from being an unimportant one,—how far a man deserves to be described as a heretic; on this occasion, however, the judges acted rightly in abstaining from it altogether. If any one, for example, were to allege that eaglets are suspended in the talons of the parent bird, and so exposed to the rays of the sun, and such as wink are flung to the ground as spurious, the light being in some mysterious way the gauge of their genuine nature, he is not to be accounted a heretic, if the story happens to be untrue.42    It is told by Pliny, Hist. Nat. x. 3 (3), and Lucan, Pharsalia, ix. 902, etc. And, since it occurs in the writings of the learned and is very commonly received as fact, ought it to be considered a foolish thing to mention it, even though it be not true? much less ought our credit, which gains for us the name of being trustworthy, to be affected, on the one hand injuriously if the story be believed by us, or beneficially if disbelieved.43    Creditum, however, is read in both clauses; we should expect non creditum in one, as one reading has it. [?—W.] If, to go a step further in illustration, any one were from this opinion to contend that there existed in birds reasonable souls, from the notion that human souls at intervals passed into them, then indeed we should have to reject from our mind and ears alike an idea like this as the rankest heresy; and even if the story about the eagles were true (as there are many curious facts about bees before our eyes, that are true), we should still have to consider, and demonstrate, the great difference that exists between the condition of creatures like these, which are quite irrational, however surprising in their powers of sensation, and the nature which is common (not to men and beasts, but) to men and angels. There are, to be sure, a great many foolish things said by foolish and ignorant persons, which yet fail to prove them heretics. One might instance the silly talk so commonly heard about the pursuits of other people, from persons who have never learned these pursuits,—equally hasty and untenable whether in the shape of excessive and indiscriminate praise of those they love, or of blame in the case of those they happen to dislike. The same remark might be made concerning the usual curent of human conversation: whenever it does touch on a subject which requires dogmatic acuracy of statement, but is thrown out at random or suggested by the passing moment, it is too often pervaded by foolish levity, whether uttered by the mouth or expressed in writing. Many persons, indeed, when gently reminded of their reckless gossip, have afterwards much regretted their conduct; they scarcely recollected what they had never uttered with a fixed purpose, but had poured forth in a sheer volley of casual and unconsidered words. It is, unhappily, almost impossible to be quite clear of such faults. Who is he “that slippeth not in his tongue,”44    See Ecclus. xix. 16. and “offendeth not in word?”45    See Jas. iii. 2. It, however, makes all the difference in the world, to what extent, and from what motive, and whether in fact at all, a man when warned of his fault corrects it, or obstinately clings to it so as to make a dogma and settled opinion of that which he had not at first uttered on purpose, but only in levity. Although, then, it turns out eventually that every heretic is a fool, it does not follow that every fool must immediately be named a heretic. The judges were quite right in saying that Pelagius had anathematized the vague folly under consideration by its fitting designation for even if it were heresy, there could be no doubt of its being foolish prattle. Whatever, therefore, it was, they designated the offence under a general name. But whether the quoted words had been used with any definitely dogmatic purpose, or only in a vague and indeterminate sense, and with an unmeaningness which should be capable of an easy correction, they did not deem it necessary to discuss on the present occasion, since the man who was on his trial before them denied that the words were his at all, in whatever sense they had been employed.

18. An et illud fortasse tractandum est, utrum recte dictum sit «non tanquam haereticos, sed tanquam stultos anathematizandos qui ita sentirent, quoniam dogma non esset?» Sed ab hac quaestione non levi, ubi quaeritur, quatenus sit definiendus haereticus, recte se in praesentia judices abstinuerunt . Non enim, si quisquam, verbi gratia, dixerit aquilarum pullos paterno ungue suspensos et radiis solis oblatos, si oculis palpitaverint, tanquam adulterinos in terram, luce quodam modo convincente, dimitti, si forte hoc falsum est, haereticus judicandus est. Et hoc, quia in hominum doctorum litteris invenitur, famaque vulgatum est, nec stulte dici putandum est, etiam si verum non est; nec fidem nostram, propter quam fideles vocamur, aut creditum laedit, aut creditum juvat. Porro, si ex hoc sensu quis contenderit, animas rationabiles inesse volucribus, ex eo quod in eas revolvantur humanae: tum vero tanquam haeretica pestis, ab auribus animoque pellenda est; agendumque et demonstrandum, etiam si hoc de aquilis verum est, sicut multa mira ante oculos nostros de apibus vera sunt, longe tamen ab hujusmodi irrationabilium animantium, quamvis mirabili sensu, distare rationem, quae non hominibus et pecoribus, sed hominibus Angelisque communis est. Multa vero etiam stulta dicuntur ab imperitis et vanis, nec tamen haereticis; qualia sunt eorum qui de alienis artibus, quas non didicerunt, temere judicant, aut immoderato et caeco affectu vel laudant quos diligunt, vel vituperant quos oderunt; et quidquid aliud in consuetudine sermonis humani, non statuto dogmate, sed passim, ut ad tempus occurrerit, per stultitiae levitatem, vel ore profertur, vel stilo etiam litterisque committitur. Multos denique de his paululum admonitos, talia dixisse mox poenitet: ita ea non placito quodam fixa retinebant, sed quasi undecumque rapta, et non considerata, profuderant. Vix est autem carere istis 0331 malis: et quis est qui non labitur lingua, et offendit in verbo (Eccli XIX, 16, et Jacobi III, 2)? Sed interest quantum, interest unde, interest postremo utrum admonitus corrigat, an pertinaciter defendendo etiam dogma faciat, quod levitate, non dogmate dixerat. Cum igitur omnis haereticus consequenter et stultus sit, non autem omnis stultus continuo sit appellandus haereticus; recte judices incertum stultiloquium propria voce Pelagium anathematizasse dixerunt: quia et si haeresis esset, procul dubio stultiloquium esset. Proinde quidquid illud sit, generalis vitii nomine appellaverunt. Utrum autem ex aliquo dogmate ista sint dicta, an vero non fixa placitaque sententia, sed facile emendabili vanitate, quoniam ille qui audiebatur, quoquo modo dicta essent, sua esse negaverat, discutiendum in praesentia non putarunt.