Ambrose, On the Mysteries (De mysteriis)

(1) ‹LIBER UNUS› · printed under col 405

Script. circa an. 387.

Written about the year 387.

(2) ‹majorum ingredi vias› · printed under col 405

Cod. Alnet., ne assuesceretis malorum ingredi vias. Infra vero ubi vet. edit. et cuncti pene mss., obedire oraculis, Rom. edit. cum pauculis posuit obedire mandatis.

The Alnetan codex [has] ne assuesceretis malorum ingredi vias [lest you become accustomed to walk in the ways of the wicked]. Further below, where the old editions and almost all the manuscripts [have] obedire oraculis [to obey the oracles], the Roman edition, with a very few [manuscripts], put obedire mandatis [to obey the commandments].

delinquendi, significatur, nequaquam recte intellexerint in errorem inductos ad eum locum demonstrabimus (cap. 6, num. 32).

[…] of sinning, is signified, we shall show at that place (ch. 6, no. 32) that those led into error have by no means understood it rightly.

Ultima †Cociani editoris ratio tam futilis est, ut a nobis referri vix mereatur; ait enim quod in baptismo exprimendas esse tres personas divinas hic auctor dicit, cum eo pugnare quod in libris de Spiritu sancto asseritur, ad Baptismum invocationem unius personae divinae tantum sufficere. Sed si admitteretur haec consecutio, ii omnes libri in quibus tres divinas personas in baptismo proferendas traditur, abjudicandi essent Ambrosio: quod affirmare vel ipsi adversarii erubescerent. At enim quaenam in eo repugnantia, si quis de communi hujus sacramenti administrandi ratione agens, invocandas tres personas divinas dicat; idem tamen disputans utrum baptismum aliquando sub personae unius invocatione collatum pro valido haberi oporteat, affirmantem teneat opinionem. Sed ea de re agemus suo loco. Interim illos pudeat, qui tam levibus momentis bonam scriptionem et Ambrosio minime indignam legitimo parenti ereptum eunt, idque non tantum contra mss. omnium, verum etiam contra tot ac tantorum virorum qua catholicorum, qua sectariorum, qua veterum, qua recentium testimonia, ut si nolint eorum auctoritate persuaderi, saltem multitudine obrui possint. Nec dubitamus hoc pervidisse scriptores multos, magnique nominis in communione Calviniana (Blondel., Falcar., Albert., etc.); quandoquidem paucorum e suis censura insuper habita, calculum suum non subtraxere veritati.

The last argument of the editor †Cocianus is so futile that it scarcely deserves to be reported by us: for he says that what this author says, that the three divine Persons are to be expressed in baptism, conflicts with what is asserted in the books On the Holy Spirit, that for Baptism the invocation of one divine Person alone suffices. But if this inference were admitted, all those books in which it is taught that the three divine Persons are to be pronounced in baptism would have to be denied to Ambrose, which even the adversaries themselves would blush to affirm. But what contradiction is there in this, if someone, treating of the common manner of administering this sacrament, says that the three divine Persons are to be invoked, and yet the same man, discussing whether a baptism at some time conferred under the invocation of one Person ought to be held valid, holds the affirmative opinion? But we shall treat of this matter in its place. Meanwhile let those be ashamed who on such light grounds go about to snatch a good writing, by no means unworthy of Ambrose, from its lawful parent, and that not only against the manuscripts of all, but also against the testimonies of so many and such great men, Catholics as well as sectaries, ancients as well as moderns, so that if they will not be persuaded by their authority, they may at least be overwhelmed by their number. Nor do we doubt that many writers of great name in the Calvinist communion (Blondel, Falcar., Albert., etc.) saw this clearly, since, setting aside the censure of a few of their own, they did not withhold their vote from the truth.

Tractatibus, quos ante de moribus sanctus habuerat, subjecturum se mysteriorum expositionem spondet. Deinde cur ea non prius patefecerit declarato, mysticam aggreditur apertionem, quam a Christo ipso olim celebratam demonstrat.

To the treatises which the saint had previously delivered on morals he pledges that he will add an exposition of the mysteries. Then, having declared why he did not disclose them earlier, he approaches the mystical opening [of the ears], which he shows was once celebrated by Christ Himself.

(3) ‹sermo aliquis praecucurrisset› · printed under col 406

Mss. nonnulli, aliquo praecucurrisset. Et post pauca in bene multis habetur (illatum, in quibusdam illato) vobis munere sacramentorum capite; pro eo quod est in aliis et edit. omnibus, inhalatum vobis, etc.

Some manuscripts [have] aliquo praecucurrisset [had run before in some way]. And a little after, in a good many there is found (illatum, in some illato) vobis munere sacramentorum capite [by the gift brought to you at the head of the sacraments], in place of what stands in the others and in all the editions, inhalatum vobis [breathed upon you], etc.

Cum igitur Ambrosium hujus libri possessione nihil dejiciat, jam quaerendum est quotum eidem annum attribuamus. In ipso statim Operis initio illius innuere tempus videtur sanctus antistes: hic quippe (cap. 1, num. 1) ait de moralibus quotidianum sermonem in exponendis patriarcharum gestis se habuisse; ubi libros de Abraham, Isaac et Jacob, et alios ab eo intelligi veri certe simillimum est. Fatemur tamen inde aliquid oboriri difficultatis, quod eadem de materia variis annis habuerit sermones, quod et nos suis locis indicavimus (in Admonit.). Verumtamen cum credibile sit eum praecipuos tantum significare, non putamus eadem verba rectius ad alios referri posse quam ad memoratos; proindeque annum huic opellae 387 circiter duximus assignandum.

Since, then, nothing dislodges Ambrose from the possession of this book, we must now ask to which year we should assign it. At the very beginning of the Work the holy bishop seems to hint at its time: for here (ch. 1, no. 1) he says that he had given a daily discourse on morals in expounding the deeds of the patriarchs; by which it is certainly most probable that the books On Abraham, On Isaac, On Jacob and others are meant. We admit, however, that some difficulty arises from this, that he gave discourses on the same matter in various years, as we too have pointed out in their places (in the Admonitions). Nevertheless, since it is credible that he means only the principal ones, we do not think that the same words can more rightly be referred to other [books] than to those mentioned; and accordingly we have judged that the year 387, or thereabouts, should be assigned to this little work.

Porro ejusdem inscriptio alibi aliter invenitur. Legitur apud Amerbachium, De mysteriis initiandis: apud Erasmum et Gillotium, De iis qui mysteriis initiantur: in Rom. edit., De Initiandis; in mss. longe plurimis, De mysteriis sive Initiandis; nimirum prima eorumdem mysteriorum cognitione, nam alias scribendum esset de Initiatis; in antiquissimis denique inscribuntur De divinis Mysteriis, aut simpliciter, De Mysteriis: quos et sequimur.

Further, its title is found differently in different places. In Amerbach one reads De mysteriis initiandis [On Initiating into the Mysteries]; in Erasmus and Gillot, De iis qui mysteriis initiantur [On Those Who Are Initiated into the Mysteries]; in the Roman edition, De Initiandis [On Those to Be Initiated]; in by far the most manuscripts, De mysteriis sive Initiandis [On the Mysteries, or On Those to Be Initiated], that is, by the first knowledge of those same mysteries, for otherwise one would have to write de Initiatis [On the Initiated]; finally, in the most ancient ones they are entitled De divinis Mysteriis [On the Divine Mysteries], or simply De Mysteriis [On the Mysteries]: and these we follow.

(4) ‹celebrantes mysterium› · printed under col 407

De hac caeremonia Gregorius Magnus in Sacram., Ordo Rom , Albinus et alii scripsere: ignotam vero Graecis eam fuisse observavit Menardus noster in Sacram. pag. 139. Porro cum infra eamdem celebrasse Christus dicitur, hoc ita intellige non quod illam vere instituerit, sed ipsius institutioni causam praebuerit: quippe quae ad ejusdem miraculi celebraretur imitationem. Nam caeremonias varias ab aliis institutas recte admonet Val. Strabo lib. de Reb. Eccles., cap. 26. Quando autem fieret et quo ritu, explicatius docetur lib. de Sacramentis, cap. 1.

Of this ceremony Gregory the Great in the Sacramentary, the Roman Ordo, Albinus and others have written; and our Ménard observed, in the Sacramentary, p. 139, that it was unknown to the Greeks. Further, when below Christ is said to have celebrated it, understand this not in the sense that He truly instituted it, but that He gave occasion for its institution, since it was celebrated in imitation of that same miracle. For Walafrid Strabo, On Church Matters, ch. 26, rightly points out that various ceremonies were instituted by others. When it was performed and with what rite is taught more fully in the book On the Sacraments, ch. 1.

(5) ‹Sed ille os tetigit› · printed under col 407

Edit. Eras., Gill. et Rom., sed illi os tetigit: Amerb, et omnes mss., sed ille, etc. Consequenter autem ubi plures mss. et omnes edit., curabat et virum, legitur in mss. aliquot, curabat et surdum. Denique pro sonum vocis, quod exstat in cunctis edit. et mss. non paucis, melius in aliis, sono vocis, id est, ad sonum vocis emittendum.

The editions of Erasmus, Gillot and Rome [have] sed illi os tetigit [but He touched his mouth]; Amerbach and all the manuscripts, sed ille, etc. [but He …]. Next, where most manuscripts and all the editions [have] curabat et virum [He was healing a man too], in some manuscripts one reads curabat et surdum [He was healing a deaf man too]. Finally, in place of sonum vocis [the sound of the voice], which stands in all the editions and in not a few manuscripts, others have, better, sono vocis, that is, for the emitting of the sound of the voice.

(6) ‹Sancta sanctorum› · printed under col 407

Sancta sanctorum, hoc est regenerationis sacrarium, baptisterium, fons sacer; his enim nominibus locus ille cum ab Ambrosio, tum ab aliis Patribus appellatur. Caeterum sanctorum reliquias cum Paulinus epist. 22 Sancta sanctorum vocasse reperiatur, atque ex Ennodio Ticin. epist. ad Ital. et Gregorio Turon. lib. x Hist. cap. 31, sacra illa pignora in baptisteriis condi solita intelligamus; erit fortasse qui hac ipsa de causa locum istum putet ab Ambrosio ita vocatum Verumtamen metaphoram tantum hic esse probabilius est. De his autem omnibus quae hoc loco commemorantur, consul Cyrilium Hierosol. Catech. I, Mystag. et alios.

The Holy of holies, that is, the sanctuary of regeneration, the baptistery, the sacred font; for by these names that place is called both by Ambrose and by other Fathers. However, since Paulinus, Letter 22, is found to have called the relics of the saints the Holy of holies, and since we learn from Ennodius of Pavia, letter to Italicus, and from Gregory of Tours, History, book 10, ch. 31, that those sacred pledges were customarily laid up in baptisteries, there will perhaps be someone who thinks that that place was so called by Ambrose for this very reason. Nevertheless it is more probable that there is only a metaphor here. On all the things that are mentioned in this place, consult Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 1, Mystagogical, and others.

(7) ‹et operibus ejus› · printed under col 407

Etsi non omnes baptismi caeremonias enarret Ambrosius, hanc tamen cujus nemo fere Patrum non meminit, omissam noluit, utpote inter praecipuas annumeratam.

Although Ambrose does not recount all the ceremonies of baptism, he did not wish this one to be left out, which almost none of the Fathers fails to mention, since it is counted among the principal ones.

(8) ‹vidisti sacerdotem› · printed under col 407 (continued at the head of the footnotes of col 408)

Rom. edit. sola, vidisti sacerdotes, et sane in lib. I De Sacram., cap. 2, presbyter memoratur in singulari. Per hanc autem vocem non episcopum, ut solet, designat S. praesul, sed secundi ordinis sacerdotem, ad cujus distinctionem episcopus continuo post summus sacerdos nominatur. Iterum vero ubi Erasm. cum seq. edit. et mss. aliquot, mysteriorum gratiam: Amerb. cum pluribus ac potioribus, ut in textu.

The Roman edition alone [has] vidisti sacerdotes [you saw the priests]; and indeed in book 1 On the Sacraments, ch. 2, a presbyter is mentioned in the singular. By this word, however, the holy bishop does not designate a bishop, as he usually does, but a priest of the second order, to distinguish from whom the bishop is named immediately after the high priest. And again, where Erasmus with the following editions and some manuscripts [have] mysteriorum gratiam [the grace of the mysteries], Amerbach with more and better [manuscripts has it] as in the text.

Quid initiandi Ecclesiam ingressi promiserint, quibusve coram testibus, et quamobrem se converterint ad orientem?

What those to be initiated, having entered the Church, promised, and before what witnesses, and why they turned themselves to the east.

(9) ‹Domini omnipotentis› · printed under col 408

Mss. nonnulli cum textu Hebraeo et version. Vulg. et Chald. Domini exercituum. Reliqui et edit. omnes cum LXX, Syriaca et Arabica, Domini omnipotentis.

Some manuscripts, with the Hebrew text and the Vulgate and Chaldee versions, [have] Domini exercituum [of the Lord of hosts]. The rest and all the editions, with the Septuagint, the Syriac and the Arabic, [have] Domini omnipotentis [of the Lord almighty].

(10) ‹cui renuntiandum in os putaris› · printed under col 408

Omnes edit., cui renuntiandum mox putares. Omnes mss., cui renuntiandum in os, quidam putares, plures putaris, unus etiam sputaris. In os autem renuntiare idem est ac palam et aperte, Sic εἰς πρόσωπον sumitur in Didymo et Scholiis Graecis pro φανερῶς. Sumitur etiam in aliis scholiis pro ἀναισχύντως impudenter: quo forte sensu Job I, 11, invenitur. Nec etiam nimium displicet quod habetur in cod. Reg., sputaris, hoc est, os tibibi sputo illinitur. Sed tunc membra sic essent distinguenda, cui renuntiandum. In os sputaris, etc. Discimus autem ex hoc loco moris fuisse, ut qui diabolo renuntiabant, in occidentem obverterentur, quandoquidem postea ut Christum aspiciat, convertitur in orientem.

All the editions [have] cui renuntiandum mox putares [whom you would soon think must be renounced]. All the manuscripts [have] cui renuntiandum in os [to be renounced to his face], some putares, more putaris, one even sputaris [you are spat upon]. Now to renounce in os is the same as openly and plainly. So εἰς πρόσωπον [to the face] is taken in Didymus and the Greek Scholia for φανερῶς [openly]. It is also taken in other scholia for ἀναισχύντως, shamelessly: in which sense perhaps it is found in Job 1:11. Nor is what is found in the Royal codex, sputaris, altogether displeasing, that is, your mouth is smeared with spittle. But then the members would have to be divided thus: cui renuntiandum. In os sputaris, etc. [whom you must renounce. You are spat upon on the mouth, etc.]. We learn from this place, moreover, that it was the custom that those who renounced the devil turned towards the west, since afterwards, in order to look upon Christ, one turns towards the east.

(11) ‹et consecrantem› · printed under col 408

De fontis consecratione dicitur lib. I De Sacram. cap. 5, quam etiam constat notam fuisse non solum auctoribus Constit. Apost. lib. VII, cap. 4, et operis de Hierar. eccles., cap. de Baptismo; sed etiam SS. Cypriano epist. Synod. ad Januar. et caeteros Numidas episc.: Basilio In psal. LXX, Greg. Nysseno et aliis. Unde merito editor Anglus operum Cypriani loco citato, negat illas formulas tam nuperas esse quam novatores sibi et aliis persuadere conantur.

Of the consecration of the font it is spoken in book 1 On the Sacraments, ch. 5; and it is agreed that it was known not only to the authors of the Apostolic Constitutions, book 7, ch. 4, and of the work On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter On Baptism, but also to Saints Cyprian, in the synodal letter to Januarius and the other Numidian bishops, Basil, On Psalm 70, Gregory of Nyssa and others. Hence the English editor of Cyprian's works, at the place cited, rightly denies that those formulas are as recent as the innovators try to persuade themselves and others.

In aqua et sacris ministris praesentiam atque operationem divinitatis considerandam esse, pluribus figuris quibus baptisma jam inde a mundi creatione ac postea praenuntiatum est, docet.

He teaches that in the water and in the sacred ministers the presence and operation of the Godhead is to be considered, by several figures by which baptism was foretold from the very creation of the world and afterwards.

(12) ‹Sed quid dicam operabatur› · printed under col 409

Rom. edit. sola, Sed dicam operabatur. Quod ad praesentium spectat, superferebatur. Quod autem operabatur, qui superferebatur in illa mundi fabrica cognosce quando tibi, etc.

The Roman edition alone [has] Sed dicam operabatur. Quod ad praesentium spectat, superferebatur. Quod autem operabatur, qui superferebatur in illa mundi fabrica cognosce quando tibi, etc. [But I shall say ‘was working’. As regards the present, He was borne over. But that He Who was borne over was working in that fabric of the world, learn when [the prophet says] to you, etc.]

(13) ‹decedente diluvio› · printed under col 409

Mss. nonnulli, quando descendente diluvio.

Some manuscripts [have] quando descendente diluvio [when the flood was going down].

(14) ‹abluatur carnale peccatum› · printed under col 409

Omnes edit. ac mss. aliquot, abluatur peccatum. Sepelitur omne vitium: reliqui mss. majori numero et antiquitate, ut in textu; unus tamen, abluatur charitate peccatum.

All the editions and some manuscripts [have] abluatur peccatum. Sepelitur omne vitium [sin is washed away. Every vice is buried]; the remaining manuscripts, greater in number and antiquity, [have it] as in the text; one, however, [has] abluatur charitate peccatum [sin is washed away by charity].

(15) ‹innocentia tuta permansit› · printed under col 409

Vet. edit. ac pauci mss., tota permansit, Rom., tuta manet, mss. aliquot, tuta permanet, plures, tuta permansit.

The old editions and a few manuscripts [have] tota permansit [remained whole]; the Roman, tuta manet [remains safe]; some manuscripts, tuta permanet [remains safe]; most, tuta permansit [remained safe].

(16) ‹salutis est› · printed under col 410

Videbitur forte cuipiam in ea sententia hic esse Ambrosius, ut aquam nisi prius oratione sanctificata sit, baptismo penitus inhabilem existimarit. Sed observandum non hic agi de jure, ut aiunt, ac validitate: ac solum referri consuetudinem, et illi veterem figuram accommodari.

It will perhaps seem to someone that Ambrose here is of the opinion that he considered water wholly unfit for baptism unless it had first been sanctified by prayer. But it must be observed that he is not treating here of the law, as they say, and of validity, but is only reporting the custom, and fitting the old figure to it.

(17) ‹hoc est propheta› · printed under col 410

Abstulerat edit. Rom. voces, hoc est propheta, quae tamen vocabulo sacerdos per antithesin quamdam opponuntur.

The Roman edition had removed the words hoc est propheta [that is, the prophet], which, however, are set against the word sacerdos [priest] by a kind of antithesis.

(18) ‹a lepra esset ablutus› · printed under col 410

Edit., a lepra esset mundatus.

The editions [have] a lepra esset mundatus [he had been cleansed of leprosy].

Aquam non mundare sine Spiritu. Joannis testimonio et ipsis quibus idem sacramentum administratur verbis declaratur. Quod etiam asseritur significatum per Evangelicam piscinam, et paralyticum a Domino ibi sanatum: quo loco Spiritus sanctus in ejusdem Christi baptismo vere descendisse ostenditur, et quid in hoc mysterio intelligendum.

That water does not cleanse without the Spirit. This is declared by the testimony of John and by the very words with which that sacrament is administered. It is asserted too that this was signified by the pool of the Gospel and by the paralytic healed there by the Lord; in which place it is shown that the Holy Spirit truly descended at the baptism of that same Christ, and what is to be understood in this mystery.

(19) ‹et Spiritus sancti› · printed under col 411

Duo ex his verbis advertere est: 1° necessitatem baptismi ad peccatorum etiam in catechumenis ablutionem, quod similiter docetur in Psal. CXVIII, serm. 3, pag. 991, unde inferimus Ambrosium in ea opinione quae ipsi de Valentiniano imperatore tribuitur, nequaquam fuisse; 2° ad baptismi formam tres divinas personas necessario exprimi oportere; ex quo sententiam de sacramenti ejusdem sub Christi tantum nomine administrati validitate perperam ipsi imponi deducimus. At de utraque re suis locis.

Two things are to be noticed from these words: 1st, the necessity of baptism for the washing away of sins even in catechumens, which is taught likewise On Psalm 118, sermon 3, p. 991; whence we infer that Ambrose was by no means of the opinion that is attributed to him concerning the emperor Valentinian; 2nd, that for the form of baptism the three divine Persons must necessarily be expressed; from which we conclude that the opinion on the validity of that same sacrament administered in the name of Christ alone is wrongly imputed to him. But of both matters in their places.

(20) ‹baptizatus es› · printed under col 411

Rom. edit. cum uno aut altero mss., tu autem in gratia baptizatus es: melius vero vet. edit. cum cod. reliquis omittunt, in gratia.

The Roman edition, with one or two manuscripts, [has] tu autem in gratia baptizatus es [but you were baptized in grace]; but the old editions with the remaining codices better omit in gratia.

(21) ‹baptismus perfidorum› · printed under col 411 (continued under col 412 and at the head of the footnotes of col 413)

Voce perfidorum primum intelligi possunt ii qui fidem Christo de servandis ejus mandatis in baptismo datam fregerunt. Deinde strictius qui per haeresim a mystico Christi corpore sunt segregati. Postremo, qui oblatum fidei lumen repudiarunt, Primus sensus ut affingatur sancto praesuli, nihil suadet. Et certe is haereticus negari nequit, cum hunc Wiclefi quartum art.: « Si episcopus vel sacerdos est in peccato mortali, non ordinat, non conficit, non consecrat, non baptizat, » Constantiense conc., sess. 8, et Tridentinum, sess. 7, can. 17, condemnaverint. Qua de re adisis Guil. Estium in IV Sentent. dist. 1, et Mabillonium in serm. 66 sancti Bernardi. Quod autem ad acceptionem de baptismo haereticorum, ingentem olim fuisse super hac materia inter Cyprianum ac Stephanum controversiam nemo nescit: neque etiam quae fuerit Cypriani, Afrorumque sententia magis ignotum. Quod vero ad Stephani opinionem, exstiterunt nostra memoria, qui contra placita veterum eum in quibuslibet ab haeresi redeuntibus, licet in Trinitatis nomine non baptizatis, iterari baptisma vetuisse disputarent. Illorum momentum praecipuum est decretum ipsius Stephani a Cypriano contra ejusdem epistolam relatum, scilicet: « Si quis ergo a quacunque haeresi venerit ad nos, nihil innovetur, » etc. Item Augustini locus in lib. De Unico Bapt. contr. Petil. cap. 14, ita loquentis: « Stephanus baptismum haereticorum in nullo iterandum esse censebat. Verum forte an non satis advertere amborum verba ex usu qui per ea tempora vigebat, intelligenda, sicut Eusebius lib. VII, cap. 3, et Vincentius Lerin. Comm. I, cap. 19, satis indicant: haereticos autem rebaptizari ex traditione fere communi eos solos moris fuisse, qui tincti sub Trinitatis invocatione non fuerant, ut constat auctoritate non modo laudatorum auctorum, sed etiam Augustini passim contra Donatistas, Optati Milev., Facundi Hermian. atque aliorum. Et sane Leo Magnus eamdem criminationem non effugeret, nisi simili modo acciperitur id quod ait. epist. 89, ad Nicetam: « Qui baptismum ab haereticis receperant, sola S. Spiritus invocatione per impositionem manuum confirmandi sunt; » illic enim nulla haereticorum distinctio exprimitur. Attamen multo etiam probabilius est conditionem illam, modo baptisma in nomine Trinitatis collatum fuerit, a Stephano exaratam esse in sua epistola. Quid enim aliud sibi volunt Firmilianus, dum ita scripsit: « Illud quoque absurdum, quo non putant quaerendum esse quis sit ille qui baptizaverit: eo quod qui baptizatus sit, gratiam consequi potuerit invocata Trinitate nominum Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti? » Idem quoque post narratam daemoniacae cujusdam feminae historiam, subdit: « Quid igitur de hujusce baptismo dicemus... maxime cui nec Symbolum defuit Trinitatis, » etc. Adde his quod nec Patres Arelat. nec Augustinus cum Cypriani atque Afrorum causam aperte damnarint, in Stephanum et Rom. Ecclesiam quidquam dixere; imo Facundus diserte prodit Cyprianum a Stephano jure culpatum. Utcunque porro se res habeat, certum est perperam in hac controversia citari hunc Ambrosii locum, non enim in eo de haereticorum, sed de Judaeorum, aut etiam de infidelium, quae tertia acceptio est, baptismis agi tum ipsa orationis series, tum auctor operis de Sacram., lib. II, c. I, n. 2, testatum reddunt.

By the word perfidorum [of the faithless] may be understood, first, those who broke the faith given to Christ in baptism concerning the keeping of His commandments; next, more strictly, those who have been separated by heresy from the mystical body of Christ; lastly, those who rejected the light of faith offered to them. Nothing recommends that the first sense be ascribed to the holy bishop. And certainly it cannot be denied to be heretical, since the Council of Constance, session 8, and that of Trent, session 7, canon 17, condemned this fourth article of Wyclif: « If a bishop or priest is in mortal sin, he does not ordain, does not confect, does not consecrate, does not baptize. » On this matter consult William Estius on the Sentences, book 4, dist. 1, and Mabillon on sermon 66 of Saint Bernard. As to the sense concerning the baptism of heretics, no one is unaware that there was once a great controversy on this matter between Cyprian and Stephen; nor is the opinion of Cyprian and the Africans any less well known. As to the opinion of Stephen, there have been men within our memory who argued that, against the decisions of the ancients, he forbade baptism to be repeated in any persons whatever returning from heresy, even those not baptized in the name of the Trinity. Their chief ground is the decree of Stephen himself reported by Cyprian in [his letter] against that man's letter, namely: « If anyone, then, comes to us from any heresy whatever, let nothing be innovated, » etc.; and likewise the passage of Augustine in the book On the One Baptism against Petilian, ch. 14, speaking thus: « Stephen held that the baptism of heretics was in no case to be repeated. But perhaps they did not sufficiently notice that the words of both are to be understood according to the usage that prevailed in those times, as Eusebius, book 7, ch. 3, and Vincent of Lérins, Commonitory 1, ch. 19, sufficiently indicate: that by an almost universal tradition it was the custom to rebaptize only those heretics who had not been washed under the invocation of the Trinity, as is established by the authority not only of the authors cited but also of Augustine throughout [his works] against the Donatists, of Optatus of Milevis, of Facundus of Hermiane and of others. And indeed Leo the Great would not escape the same charge unless what he says in Letter 89, to Nicetas, were taken in a like manner: « Those who have received baptism from heretics are to be confirmed by the invocation of the Holy Spirit alone, through the imposition of hands »; for there no distinction between heretics is expressed. Yet it is far more probable still that that condition, provided that the baptism had been conferred in the name of the Trinity, was written by Stephen in his letter. For what else does Firmilian mean when he wrote thus: « This too is absurd, that they do not think it must be asked who it was that baptized, on the ground that he who was baptized could obtain grace when the Trinity of the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit had been invoked? » The same man too, after relating the story of a certain demoniac woman, adds: « What then shall we say of this woman's baptism … especially of one to whom the Creed of the Trinity was not lacking, » etc. Add to these that neither the Fathers of Arles nor Augustine, though they openly condemned the cause of Cyprian and the Africans, said anything against Stephen and the Roman Church; indeed Facundus expressly declares that Cyprian was rightly blamed by Stephen. However the matter may stand, it is certain that this passage of Ambrose is wrongly cited in this controversy; for both the very sequence of the discourse and the author of the work On the Sacraments, book 2, ch. 1, no. 2, make it plain that it does not treat of the baptisms of heretics, but of the Jews, or also of unbelievers, which is the third sense.

(22) ‹scriptum› · printed under col 413

Apud Lucam Graece hic locus ita exprimitur: σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡσεὶ περιστεράν.

In Luke this passage is expressed thus in Greek: σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡσεὶ περιστεράν [in bodily form as a dove].

(23) ‹Creatura autem› · printed under col 413

Edit. Creatura autem.

The editions [have] Creatura autem [But a creature].

(24) ‹et de Christo› · printed under col 413 (continued at the head of the footnotes of col 414)

Mss. plerique, ac edit. Amerb. hunc locum distinguunt alia ratione, hac videlicet, debere: speciem autem et pro veritate accipiendam. Legimus et de Christo. Potiorem tamen alteram esse subsequentia plane declarant.

Most manuscripts and Amerbach's edition punctuate this passage in another way, namely: debere: speciem autem et pro veritate accipiendam. Legimus et de Christo [… ought. But that the form is also to be taken for the truth. We read also of Christ]. But what follows shows plainly that the other [punctuation] is preferable.

(25) ‹qui sacrilegium consecravit› · printed under col 414

Rom. edit. sola, qui sacrificium consumpsit. De igne autem in Hierobaal sacrificium descendente, vidae quae in Admonitione diximus. Citatur porro hic locus ab Algero lib. III De Sacram., cap. 10, ut probet vera sacramenta esse apud haereticos. Gratianus quoque eodem consilio hunc ipsum adhibet in Decr., sed corruptum; cum pro Hierobaal praeferat Hieroboam. Observat vero ejusdem commentator istic non agi de sacerdotibus improbis, proindeque in ea causa male allegari hoc testimonium.

The Roman edition alone [has] qui sacrificium consumpsit [which consumed the sacrifice]. On the fire descending upon Jerubbaal's sacrifice, see what we said in the Admonition. This passage is further cited by Alger, On the Sacraments, book 3, ch. 10, to prove that there are true sacraments among heretics. Gratian too uses this very passage with the same purpose in the Decretum, but corrupted, since in place of Hierobaal he puts Hieroboam. His commentator, however, observes that it does not treat there of wicked priests, and that this testimony is therefore wrongly alleged in that cause.

(26) ‹nobis ad commonitionem› · printed under col 414

Mss. aliquot non inferioris notae, ac communitionem.

Some manuscripts of no inferior note [have] ac communitionem [and a fortifying].

(27) ‹credas in Filium› · printed under col 414

Non alia efficaciori probatione omnimodam personarum divinarum aequalitatem contra Arianos, aliosque veteres haereticos demonstrarunt antiqui Patres, quam ea quae petitur ex forma baptismatis. Quo telo etiamnum Sociniani confodiuntur. Adverte vero hic baptisma fieri per immersionem.

The ancient Fathers demonstrated the complete equality of the divine Persons against the Arians and other old heretics by no more effective proof than that which is drawn from the form of baptism. With this weapon the Socinians are still run through. Note, moreover, that baptism here is performed by immersion.

Confirmatur adesse Christum in baptismate, atque adeo non considerandos ejus ministros. Demum confessio Trinitatis a baptizatis edi solita paucis expenditur.

It is confirmed that Christ is present in baptism, and that therefore His ministers are not to be considered. Lastly, the confession of the Trinity customarily made by the baptized is weighed in a few [words].

(28) ‹Attrahe non post te› · printed under col 415

Rom. edit. sola., Attrahe nos post te. Et infra, in odorem unguentorum. Quod ad primum, ei congruit Hebr. textus atque Vulg., nobis autem LXX et reliquae vers. Quod vero ad alterum, omnia Scripturae idiomata eidem favent. Attamen locum hunc putamus ita citatum ab Ambrosio, ut simul ad fragrantiam vestimentorum Jacob fraternam benedictionem a patre suffurantis aluderet.

The Roman edition alone [has] Attrahe nos post te [Draw us after you]; and below, in odorem unguentorum [in the fragrance of the ointments]. As to the first, the Hebrew text and the Vulgate agree with it, but with us [agree] the Septuagint and the other versions. As to the second, all the idioms of Scripture favour it. Yet we think this passage was so cited by Ambrose that he might at the same time allude to the fragrance of the garments of Jacob when he stole his brother's blessing from his father.

(29) ‹in regnum Dei et in sacerdotium› · printed under col 415

Mss. non pauci, in regnum Dei et consacerdotium.

Not a few manuscripts [have] in regnum Dei et consacerdotium [into the kingdom of God and a shared priesthood].

Egressis e fonte baptismatis quare unctio fiat in capite, cum etiam pedum lotio post baptismum; quaeve peccata utrisque remittantur.

Why, for those who have come out of the font of baptism, the anointing is done on the head, while there is also a washing of the feet after baptism; and what sins are remitted by each.

(30) ‹lavit pedes› · printed under col 415

Eadem edit. Rom. sola, Jesus lavit pedes, sublato nimirum, in Evangelio. Infra vero, pro eo quod in edit. omnibus et mss. nonnullis habetur ministerium recusavit, legitur in reliquis mss. mysterium recusavit. Haud. satis recte.

The same Roman edition alone [has] Jesus lavit pedes [Jesus washed the feet], that is, with in Evangelio [in the Gospel] removed. Below, in place of what is found in all the editions and some manuscripts, ministerium recusavit [he refused the service], one reads in the other manuscripts mysterium recusavit [he refused the mystery]. Not rightly enough.

(31) ‹servi crederet› · printed under col 415

Mss. aliquot, gravari humilitate se servus credit.

Some manuscripts [have] gravari humilitate se servus credit [the servant believes he is burdened by the humility].

(32) ‹peccata tollantur› · printed under col 415 (continued through the footnotes of col 416)

Hic locus jam a longo negotium plurimis facessivit. Etenim in margine cod. Clarom. eadem qua textus manu notatum illud occurrit: Mirum quod dicit in baptismo propria peccata lavari, in pedum ablutione a Domino discipulis facta originalia peccata tolli. Non alio etiam respiciebat Hugo Victor, cum in Joan. XIII scriberet aliquos, lotione pedum peccatum originale dimitti post baptismum asseruisse. At multo vehementius nonnulli ex heterodoxis in eam sententiam, ut in Admonitione diximus, excandescentes, ob eam praecipue librum Ambrosio abjudicarunt. Verumtamen illis in mentem non veniebat duorum locorum, in quibus huic plane gemina docet S. doctor. Primum qui e deperditis in Isaiam Comment. petitus fuit, Augustinus, lib. IV cont. duas epist. Pelag. cap. 11 citat in haec verba: « Et alio loco in eodem Opera loquens de apostolo Petro: Ipse se, inquit, obtulit, quod ante putabat esse peccatum, lavari sibi non solum pedes et caput poscens; quod illico intellexisset lavacro pedum, qui in primo lapsi sunt homine, sordem obnoxiae successionis aboleri. » Secundus autem locus, qui ab eodem Augustino laudatur adversus Julianum, in exposit. psal. XLVIII, vers. 6, num. 8, sic habetur: « Alia est iniquitas nostra, alia calcanei nostri, in quo Adam dente serpentis est vulneratus, et obnoxiam haereditatem successionis humanae suo vulnere dereliquit, ut omnes illo vulnere claudicemus. Unde Dominus discipulis pedes lavit, ut lavaret venena serpentis: et Petrus reprehenditur, quod excusabat, ne sibi Dominus pedes lavaret... Cui Dominus respondet: « Qui lotus est non habet necesse ut lavet nisi pedes, sed est mundus totus. » Quid his tribus reperiri possit magis affine? Quanquam verro iisdem ad probandum originale peccatum utitur ibidem Augustinus, non est tamen existimandum Ambrosianam fuisse opinionem noxam originalem ejusmodi lotione aboleri. Quis enim credat Augustinum suis et Ecclesiae adversariis testimonia, quae a veritate ac fide abhorreant, oppositurum, maxime cum eadem illa caeremonia in Africa, ut alibi dicetur, non obtineret? Aut quis rursus Ambrosium qui ubique baptismo perfectam justitiam regenerationemque attribuit, et hoc ipso loco sicut et aliis non paucis agnoscit Petrum fuisse mundum, existimet in ea sententia esse potuisse, ut originis maculam pedum lotione, quam non ignorabat omitti multis in Ecclesiis, ablui contenderet? Sed nihil hic opus est conjecturis, ipse mentem suam satis aperit citata Expos. psal. XLVIII, num. 9, in hunc modum: « Unde reor, inquit, iniquitatem calcanei magis lubricum delinquendi, quam reatum aliquem nostri esse delicti. Meritoque Dominus... lavemus, inquit, et pedes, ut calcanei lubricum possimus auferre, quo fida statio possit esse virtutum; et ne paterno quis errore labatur, qui suo paratus est stare proposito; et non metuat lubricum haereditatis, qui cupit vestigium tenere virtutis. » Quid autem clarius, quam per lubricum delinquendi. lubricum calcanei, lubricum, haereditatis, nihil aliud indicari, ut ad hunc eumdem locum adnotavimus, quam concupiscentiam? quae tametsi vere ac proprie in renatis non sit peccatum, tamen quia ex peccato est, et ad peccatum inclinat, dicitur peccatum ab Apostolo. Ut igitur haec haereditaria peccata, sive illud quod Petrus habebat primi hominis de successione peccatum tolleretur, in pedum lotione peculiarem gratiam conferri existimabat Ambrosius: quod majus subsidium sanctificationis vocat fidus ejus interpres, si tamen non Ambrosius ipse, lib. III De Sacram., cap. 1. num. 7. Non ignoramus quosdam e catholicis esse theologis, qui peccata ista levia quae naturalia nominat. Augustinus, haereditaria ab Ambrosio dici arbitrentur. Sed cum venialia peccata non minus quam capitalia in baptismo elui fides doceat, omnino standum illi expositioni, quam ipse suppeditat S. doctor.

This passage has for a long time given trouble to very many. For in the margin of the Clermont codex, in the same hand as the text, this note is found: It is strange that he says that one's own sins are washed away in baptism, [but] that original sins are taken away in the washing of the feet done by the Lord for the disciples. Hugh of Saint Victor too had nothing else in view when, on John 13, he wrote that some had asserted that original sin is remitted after baptism by the washing of the feet. But some of the heterodox, blazing up far more vehemently against this opinion, as we said in the Admonition, on account of it chiefly denied the book to Ambrose. Yet it did not occur to them that there are two passages in which the holy doctor teaches what is plainly twin to this. The first, which was taken from the lost Commentary on Isaiah, Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, book 4, ch. 11, cites in these words: « And in another place in the same Work, speaking of the apostle Peter: He offered himself, he says, [for] what he had before thought to be a sin, asking that not only his feet but also his head be washed for him; because he had at once understood that by the washing of the feet the defilement of the guilty succession, [of us] who fell in the first man, is abolished. » The second passage, which the same Augustine adduces against Julian, is found in the Exposition of Psalm 48, verse 6, no. 8, thus: « Our iniquity is one thing, that of our heel another, in which Adam was wounded by the serpent's tooth, and by his wound left behind a guilty inheritance of human succession, so that we all limp with that wound. Hence the Lord washed the disciples' feet, to wash away the serpent's poisons; and Peter is rebuked because he was excusing himself, that the Lord should not wash his feet … To whom the Lord answers: « He who is washed has no need to wash except his feet, but is wholly clean. » What could be found more akin than these three? Although Augustine uses the same passages in that place to prove original sin, it is nevertheless not to be thought that it was Ambrose's opinion that original guilt is abolished by a washing of this kind. For who would believe that Augustine would set against his own and the Church's adversaries testimonies that are repugnant to truth and faith, especially since that same ceremony did not prevail in Africa, as will be said elsewhere? Or again, who would think that Ambrose, who everywhere attributes perfect righteousness and regeneration to baptism, and in this very place, as in not a few others, acknowledges that Peter was clean, could have been of the opinion that he contended that the stain of origin is washed away by the washing of the feet, which he knew was omitted in many Churches? But there is no need of conjectures here: he himself opens his mind sufficiently in the cited Exposition of Psalm 48, no. 9, in this manner: « Hence I think, he says, that the iniquity of the heel is rather the slipperiness of sinning than any guilt of our own offence. And rightly the Lord … let us wash, he says, the feet too, that we may be able to remove the slipperiness of the heel, so that there may be a secure footing for the virtues; and that he who is ready to stand by his own purpose may not slip through his father's error; and that he who desires to keep the footstep of virtue may not fear the slipperiness of the inheritance. » What is clearer than that by the slipperiness of sinning, the slipperiness of the heel, the slipperiness of the inheritance, nothing else is indicated, as we noted at this same passage, than concupiscence? which, although in the reborn it is not truly and properly sin, yet because it is from sin and inclines to sin, is called sin by the Apostle. So that these hereditary sins, then, or that which Peter had, the sin from the succession of the first man, might be taken away, Ambrose held that a special grace was conferred in the washing of the feet; which his faithful interpreter, if indeed it is not Ambrose himself, calls a greater aid to sanctification, On the Sacraments, book 3, ch. 1, no. 7. We are not unaware that there are some Catholic theologians who think that those light sins which Augustine calls natural are called hereditary by Ambrose. But since faith teaches that venial sins no less than capital ones are washed away in baptism, one must by all means stand by that explanation which the holy doctor himself supplies.

(33) ‹consistere ministerio› · printed under col 417

Quidam mss., consistere mysterium.

Some manuscripts [have] consistere mysterium [consists in the mystery].

(34) ‹vestimenta candida› · printed under col 417

Candidarum vestium, quibus indui solebant recens baptizati qui non meminerit, ex antiquis Patribus, Ecclesiasticarumque rerum scriptoribus vix illum reperias.

Among the ancient Fathers and the writers on Church matters you will hardly find one who does not mention the white garments with which the newly baptized were customarily clothed.

(35) ‹sanguinem agni› · printed under col 417

Rom. edit. sola, sanguinem avis. Ubi notavit in margine Levit XIV, sed consensus vet. edit. ac mss. omnium facit ut sit probabilius ad locum a nobis assignatum fieri allusionem.

The Roman edition alone [has] sanguinem avis [the blood of a bird], where it noted Lev. 14 in the margin; but the agreement of the old editions and of all the manuscripts makes it more probable that the allusion is made to the place assigned by us.

(36) ‹filiae Jerusalem› · printed under col 417

Sic omnes edit. cum mss. aliquot alii numerosissimi, filia Jerusalem; sed contra sacrorum cod. auctoritatem.

So all the editions with some manuscripts; very many others [have] filia Jerusalem [daughter of Jerusalem], but against the authority of the sacred codices.

(37) ‹Principis vestri› · printed under col 417 (continued at the head of the footnotes of col 418)

Mss. partim, principes vestri, partim principes vestras; alii qui et plures, principis vertri. De qua lectione dictum est ad lib. de Instit. Virg., cap. 5, num. 30. Ubi etiam de hac angelorum ignoratione nonnihil subjunximus: de qua insuper cum alibi, tum lib. I De Fide, cap. 6, tractat Ambrosius.

The manuscripts [have] partly principes vestri [your princes], partly principes vestras; others, and these more numerous, principis vestri [of your prince]. Of this reading it was spoken at the book On the Instruction of a Virgin, ch. 5, no. 30, where we also added something on this ignorance of the angels, of which Ambrose treats moreover both elsewhere and in On the Faith, book 1, ch. 6.

Vestimentis candidis peccatorum ablutionem indicari; cujus opera ut Ecclesia se nigram atque decoram diceret, effectum est. Angelos nitorem ejus sicut et Dominicae carnis miratos esse; quin imo ipsummet Christum sub variis figuris commendasse Sponsae suae formam: quorum in se mutui affectus describuntur.

That the washing away of sins is indicated by the white garments; by whose working it came about that the Church should call herself black and comely. That the angels marvelled at her brightness, as also at that of the Lord's flesh; nay more, that Christ Himself under various figures commended the beauty of His Bride: [and] their mutual affections towards one another are described.

(38) ‹oculi sicut columbae› · printed under col 418

Vet. edit. cum mss. plerisque, sicut diximus supra, quia sicut columba descendit. Et infra, etc. Melius Rom. edit., cum cod. reliquis, ut in contextu.

The old editions with most manuscripts [have] sicut diximus supra, quia sicut columba descendit. Et infra, etc. [as we said above, because He descended as a dove. And below, etc.]. Better the Roman edition, with the remaining codices, as in the text.

(39) ‹dulci comparatione› · printed under col 418

Rom. edit., Apta comparatione.

The Roman edition [has] Apta comparatione [by an apt comparison].

(40) ‹ades huc› · printed under col 418

Gem. cod., Adhuc es a Libano, sponsa, adhuc es, etc.

The Gemeticensis codex [has] Adhuc es a Libano, sponsa, adhuc es, etc. [Still you are from Lebanon, bride, still you are, etc.].

(41) ‹Adhuc quaerit› · printed under col 418

Ita edit. Rom. cum parte cod.; mss. veteres autem cum alia, quaerit suscitantem, et suscitari sibi eum, etc. Minus commode.

So the Roman edition with part of the codices; but the old manuscripts with another [edition have] quaerit suscitantem, et suscitari sibi eum, etc. [she seeks the one who stirs up, and that he be stirred up for her, etc.]. Less suitably.

(42) ‹delicta sorderent› · printed under col 419

Rom. edit. sola, quod ablutae nullis jam delictis sorderent. Timuit forte ne abuterentur Ambrosianis verbis novatores, ut delicta non tolli, sed tegi astruerent. Verum futilis esset istorum ea probatio; ibi siquidem non sordent delicta, ubi nulla sunt.

The Roman edition alone [has] quod ablutae nullis jam delictis sorderent [that, washed, they were no longer defiled by any sins]. Perhaps it feared that the innovators would misuse Ambrose's words to maintain that sins are not taken away but covered. But that proof of theirs would be futile, since sins do not defile where there are none.

(43) ‹pleno fulgeat sacramento› · printed under col 419

Eadem Rom. edit etiam hic sola post vocabulum sacramento ista subjunxerat: Ut signaculum super brachium tuum, quo opera tua.... facta es. Aqua multa non poterit exstinguere charitatem, ut charitas tua..... non possint. Unde? Repete, quia, etc.

The same Roman edition, here too alone, had added after the word sacramento these words: Ut signaculum super brachium tuum, quo opera tua … facta es. Aqua multa non poterit exstinguere charitatem, ut charitas tua … non possint. Unde? Repete, quia, etc. [As a seal upon your arm, by which your works … you have been made. Many waters cannot quench charity, so that your charity … they may not be able. Whence? Recall that, etc.]

(44) ‹accepisti signaculum› · printed under col 419 (continued under col 420)

De Confirmatione hoc dici extra dubium est. Sed cum chrismationis mentio hic nulla fiat, id multas parit nec exiguas difficultates. Nam contendebat P. Sirmondus recens baptizatis non aliam primis saeculis unctionem adhibitam in administrando hoc sacramento, nisi illam, quae superiori capite designatur, qua sacerdos egredientium e sacro fonte caput linibat: episcopo autem reservatam solam manuum impositionem. Acerrimum ea in re adversarium expertus est Petr. Aurelium, qui chrismationem a sacerdote fieri solitam verticis fuisse disputabat, ac proinde aliam, frontis videlicet, adjici debuisse ab episcopo. Dallaeus tutatur Sirmondi partes, et lib. III de Confirm., cap. 8, diserte negat ullam neque hoc loco, neque lib. III de Sacram. cap. I, alterum spiritus, de quo locis modo cit. primum chrismate ab eodem presbytero qui verticem unxerat, in fronte factum ad crucis instar: alterum quo per manuum antistitis impositionem septiformi gratia cor consignatur. Sed primo hic errat ille minister, quod unctionem cap. 6 hujusce libri, et cap. 1 lib. III de Sacram. significatam a presbytero fieri docet: cum ex simplici locorum inspectione manifestum sit soli episcopo hanc arrogari. Deinde quod infert eamdem illam consignationem inter baptismatis numerandam esse caeremonias, pari etiam jure idem de sacramento Eucharistiae colligi posset: quod ne ille quidem unquam concederet. Verum haec ulterius prosequi non est loci hujus. Addemus tamen Sanctiboeuvium, qui ex SS. PP. chrismationi effectum et gratiam Confirmationis dissert. 3, art. 21, attribuit, nunquam agere de impositione manuum, quin unctionem superiori capite memoratam ei adjungat. Si quis autem duas illas res tum hic apud Ambrosium, tum lib. III De Sacram. cap. 1 et 2, nimium separatas dixerit, quam ut unum ex eis coeat sacramentum, nullo negotio respondebitur fieri potuisse, ut non sejungerentur in administratione, quae in expositione disjunguntur. Certum enim est omnia eodem ordine, quo gerebantur non hic referri; imo vero nec pauca etiam praetermitti. Hoc quidem favet eorum opinioni, qui arbitrantur cum Petro Aurelio peculiarem hoc loco includi chrismationem. Sed quidquid dixerint heterodoxi, cum probabilibus sit unctionem, quemadmodum loco citato propos. 6 docet Sanctiboeuvius, tantummodo partem integrantem esse Confirmationis, sartam tectam ejusdem sacramenti substantiam semper habebimus. Caeterum duas chrismationes Greg. Sacramentarium distinctas notat; sed Gallic. Sacram. et Missale, atque item Missale Gothicum eam quae frontis est, solam memorant. Verticalem quam a Silvestro papa institutam volunt, in iis locis in quibus necdum admissa fuerat, verisimile est canone Arausic. recipi jussam: quanquam tamen affirmat P. Morinus ejusdem concilii mentem fuisse ut eam unctionem vel aboleret, vel declararet non necessariam. Quod autem addit frontalem diacono tributam a concilio, minime mirum videri debet, si non est illi sacramento essentialis.

That this is said of Confirmation is beyond doubt. But since no mention of chrismation is made here, that gives rise to many and no slight difficulties. For Father Sirmond contended that in the first centuries no other anointing was applied to the newly baptized in administering this sacrament than that which is indicated in the preceding chapter, by which the priest anointed the head of those coming out of the sacred font, and that only the imposition of hands was reserved to the bishop. He found a most vigorous adversary on this matter in Petrus Aurelius, who argued that the chrismation customarily performed by the priest was of the crown of the head, and that therefore another, namely of the forehead, must have been added by the bishop. Daillé defends Sirmond's side, and in book 3 On Confirmation, ch. 8, expressly denies [that there is] any [chrismation] either in this place or in book 3 On the Sacraments, ch. 1, [where there are] two seals of the Spirit, according to the places just cited: the first made with chrism by the same presbyter who had anointed the crown, on the forehead in the form of a cross; the second, by which through the imposition of the bishop's hands the heart is sealed with sevenfold grace. But in the first place that minister errs here in teaching that the anointing indicated in ch. 6 of this book and in book 3 On the Sacraments, ch. 1, is performed by a presbyter, since it is plain from a simple inspection of the passages that it is claimed for the bishop alone. Next, as to his inference that that same sealing is to be counted among the ceremonies of baptism, the same could with equal right be concluded of the sacrament of the Eucharist, which not even he would ever grant. But to pursue these things further is not for this place. We shall add, however, that Sainte-Beuve, who from the holy Fathers attributes the effect and grace of Confirmation to chrismation, Dissertation 3, art. 21, never treats of the imposition of hands without joining to it the anointing mentioned in the preceding chapter. If anyone says that those two things, both here in Ambrose and in book 3 On the Sacraments, ch. 1 and 2, are too far separated for one sacrament to be formed of them, it will be answered without difficulty that things which are separated in exposition could have been not disjoined in administration. For it is certain that here not everything is reported in the order in which it was done; indeed, not a few things are even passed over. This does indeed favour the opinion of those who think, with Petrus Aurelius, that a particular chrismation is included in this place. But whatever the heterodox may have said, since it is probable that the anointing, as Sainte-Beuve teaches at the place cited, proposition 6, is only an integral part of Confirmation, we shall always have the substance of that sacrament safe and sound. Moreover, the Gregorian Sacramentary notes two distinct chrismations; but the Gallican Sacramentary and Missal, and likewise the Gothic Missal, mention only that of the forehead. It is likely that the anointing of the crown, which they hold was instituted by Pope Silvester, was ordered by the canon of Orange to be received in those places in which it had not yet been admitted; although Father Morin affirms that the intention of that same council was either to abolish that anointing or to declare it unnecessary. And that he adds that the anointing of the forehead was assigned by the council to a deacon ought not to seem at all surprising, if it is not essential to that sacrament.

De mystico Dominici altaris convivio: quod ne quispiam

On the mystical banquet of the Lord's altar: lest anyone

(45) ‹altaria› · printed under col 420

Hic indicatur neophytorum a baptisterio ad altare, id est, ab infima Ecclesiae parte ad sanctuarium, processus, ut ibi sancta pascerentur Eucharistia. Hoc autem non fiebat sine pia quadam pompa, et plena majestatis. Singuli enim accensos cereos manu gerebant: cumque per totam octavam eodem ornatu accederent ad sacram synaxim, si quae puellae virginitatem in Paschatis festo essent professae, ipsae etiam inter hos innocentes greges deducebantur. Ultimum hoc liber de Lapsu virginis testatum facit: de luminibus autem agitur in opella De Mysterio Paschae, cap. 5, apud Gregorium Nazian. orat. 40 prope finem, Cyrillum Hieros. Procatech. et Catech. 1, Fortunatum, atque alios. Huc adjungemus ab Ambrosio, fere quoties sacramenti eucharistici mentionem facit, et sane facit non infrequentem, psalmum XLII, sed maxime XXII, adhiberi. Vide quae nos tomo super. ad Apologiam David priorem cap. 12, num. 59, observamus.

Here is indicated the procession of the neophytes from the baptistery to the altar, that is, from the lowest part of the church to the sanctuary, so that there they might be fed with the holy Eucharist. This was not done without a certain devout pomp, full of majesty. For each carried lighted candles in his hand; and since through the whole octave they approached the sacred synaxis in the same array, any girls who had professed virginity on the feast of Easter were also led among these innocent flocks. This last the book On the Fall of a Virgin attests; the lights are treated of in the little work On the Mystery of Easter, ch. 5, in Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 40, near the end, in Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatechesis and Catechesis 1, in Fortunatus, and others. To this we shall add that Ambrose, almost whenever he mentions the eucharistic sacrament, and he mentions it not infrequently, uses Psalm 42, but above all Psalm 22. See what we observe in the preceding volume on the first Apology of David, ch. 12, no. 59.

(46) ‹altare compositum› · printed under col 420 (continued at the head of the footnotes of col 421)

Altare compositum, hoc est ornatum. Etenim jam a primo Ecclesiae exordio, ut altaria sacra bissynis pallis, velis, variis ex aure atque argento donariis, cereis, floribus denique exornarentur, in more fuisse auctores sunt Optatus Milevit. lib. VI, Victor. de Persec. lib. I; Paulinus Nol., poem. 14, de sancto Felice; Hieronymus, epist. ad Nepot.; Augustinus, lib. XXII De Civit. Dei, cap. 8); Theodoretus, lib. I Hist. Eccles., cap. 31, et alii.

Altare compositum [the altar arranged], that is, adorned. For that from the very first beginning of the Church it was the custom for the sacred altars to be adorned with cloths of fine linen, with veils, with various gifts of gold and silver, with candles, and finally with flowers, the authorities are Optatus of Milevis, book 6, Victor [of Vita], On the Persecution, book 1, Paulinus of Nola, Poem 14, on Saint Felix, Jerome, letter to Nepotian, Augustine, City of God, book 22, ch. 8, Theodoret, Church History, book 1, ch. 31, and others.

minoris faciat, ostenditur Synagogae sacris antiquius esse, cum in sacrificio Melchisedech expressum fuerit: ipso autem manna longe praestantius, cum sit corpus Christi: ac inter utrumque perelegans comparatio instituitur.

should esteem it the less, it is shown to be more ancient than the rites of the Synagogue, since it was expressed in the sacrifice of Melchisedech; and far more excellent than the manna itself, since it is the body of Christ; and a most elegant comparison is drawn between the two.

(47) ‹et poculum tuum› · printed under col 421

Omnes edit. ac pauci mss. cum textu Hebraeo et Vulg., et poculum meum; mss. alii multo plures atque antiquiores, et poculum tuum. Sic etiam LXX et aliae versiones. Infra vero edit. Rom. sola, nec in cor hominis ascenderunt. Cui versio quoque Arabica istic concinit.

All the editions and a few manuscripts, with the Hebrew text and the Vulgate, [have] et poculum meum [and my cup]; other manuscripts, far more numerous and older, et poculum tuum [and your cup]. So too the Septuagint and other versions. Below, the Roman edition alone [has] nec in cor hominis ascenderunt [nor have they gone up into the heart of man], with which the Arabic version also agrees in that place.

(48) ‹vix justus sit› · printed under col 421

Mss. nonnulli, cum ipse victus justus sit; alii aliquot, cum ipse rex pacis vix justus sit.

Some manuscripts [have] cum ipse victus justus sit [since he himself, conquered, is just]; some others, cum ipse rex pacis vix justus sit [since he himself, the king of peace, is scarcely just].

(49) ‹Considera nunc› · printed under col 421 (continued through the footnotes of col 422)

Ab hisce verbis in superior. edit. caput 9 incipiebat: quam autem incongrue, nemo non videt. Porro ab hoc ipso loco ad finem usque operis tot tamque efficacia probandae Christi in sacramento reali, ut vocant, praesentiae suppetunt argumenta, ut ea depromere atque adversus temerariam Berengarii novitatem opponere strenuissimi ejusdem eucharisticae veritatis propugnatores Lanfrancus, Gutmundus, Algerus, Petrus Cluniacensis, aliique certatim contenderint. Neque vero ut easdem elevarent aut eluderent probationes, segniorem operam navaverunt heterodoxi. Verumtamen inanes, ne dicamus ineptas, eorum argutias atque cavillationes esse prudens lector facile deprehendit. Adi eminent. Card. Perronii lib. II De Euchar. sect. 14, ac tom. II operis De Perpetuitate fidei, etc., vernaculo sermone evulgati, et hoc ibi tam clare demonstratum leges, ut qui Romanae Ecclesiae fidem in iisdem testimoniis non videant expressam, haud vulgariter caecutire affirmaturus sis.

In the earlier editions chapter 9 began with these words; how unsuitably, everyone sees. Further, from this very place to the end of the work, so many and such effective arguments for proving the real presence, as they call it, of Christ in the sacrament are available, that the most vigorous champions of that same eucharistic truth, Lanfranc, Guitmund, Alger, Peter of Cluny and others, vied with one another in drawing them out and setting them against the rash novelty of Berengar. Nor did the heterodox put any less effort into weakening or evading these same proofs. Yet the prudent reader easily perceives that their subtleties and cavils are empty, not to say foolish. Consult his Eminence Cardinal du Perron, On the Eucharist, book 2, section 14, and volume 2 of the work On the Perpetuity of the Faith, etc., published in the vernacular, and you will read this so clearly demonstrated there that you would affirm that those who do not see the faith of the Roman Church expressed in these same testimonies are blind in no common degree.

Ne quis externa perculsus specie, in fide fluctuet, plurimis exemplis, quibus mutatam aut victam fuisse naturam constat, in medium allatis, e pane veram Christi carnem fieri evincit. Postremo nonnullis quae ad effectus ejus, utentium dispositiones ac similia pertinent, figurate propositis, tractatum claudit.

Lest anyone, struck by the outward appearance, should waver in faith, he proves, by bringing forward very many examples in which it is agreed that nature was changed or overcome, that true flesh of Christ is made from bread. Finally, having set forth figuratively a few things that pertain to its effects, to the dispositions of those who use it, and to like matters, he closes the treatise.

(50) ‹prophetae prece› · printed under col 423

Edit. omnes, et mss. nonnulli, ad prophetae preces: alii aliquot, et Lanfrancus cum illis, ad prophetae voces; omnium veterrimi, a prophetae prece, id est, statim finita ejus oratione.

All the editions and some manuscripts [have] ad prophetae preces [at the prophet's prayers]; some others, and Lanfranc with them, ad prophetae voces [at the prophet's words]; the oldest of all, a prophetae prece [from the prophet's prayer], that is, immediately when his prayer was finished.

(51) ‹Merrha fluvius› · printed under col 423

Veteres edit, cum mss. non paucis, Marath, fluvius; Rom. sola, Marath fons; alii mss. frequentissimi, ut in textu.

The old editions, with not a few manuscripts, [have] Marath, fluvius [Marah, a river]; the Roman alone, Marath fons [the spring of Marah]; the other manuscripts, very many, as in the text.

(52) ‹ferri species› · printed under col 423

Ferri species, hoc est, ferri natura et substantia. Namque isto significatu vocem species interdum sumi supra docuit ipse Ambrosius.

Ferri species [the species of iron], that is, the nature and substance of iron. For Ambrose himself has shown above that the word species is sometimes taken in this meaning.

(53) ‹majoris esse virtutis› · printed under col 423

Dictio virtutis in mss. ⟨d⟩esideratur, cum nec agnoscit Algerus lib. I, cap. 9. Exstat tamen apud Lanfrancum et in cunctis edit. Et certe si removeatur, subintelligenda necessario erit, vel alia non absimilis significationis.

The word virtutis [of power] is lacking in the manuscripts, since Alger, book 1, ch. 9, does not recognize it either. It stands, however, in Lanfranc and in all the editions. And certainly, if it is removed, it, or another word of not dissimilar meaning, will necessarily have to be understood.

(54) ‹consecratione divina› · printed under col 423 (continued at the head of the footnotes of col 424)

Hic apertissime sacramentalis consecratio fieri docetur ipsismet Domini verbis, illis videlicet quae S. praesul infra memorat; Hoc est corpus meum. Ita etiam lib. IV de Sacram., ubi eadem Eucharistiae consecratio Dominicis etiam verbis cap. 4 attributa fuit; quaenam illa sint, cap. seq. exponitur eo sane modo, quo nihil dici clarius potest. Semel enim atque iterum inculcat haec ipsa esse: Accipite, et edite ex hoc omnes, hoc est enim corpus meum; et alia illa: Accipite, et bibite ex hoc omnes, hic est enim sanguis meus. Et ne quid relinquat ambiguitatis, adjicit ante Christi verba panem ac vinum esse; illis autem pronuntiatis, jam esse corpus et sanguinem Domini. Non ignoramus quidem Graecos inter atque Latinos de forma consecrationis nonnihil intercedere dissidii, nec Scholasticis etiam omnino inter se convenire in hac materia; sed hoc loco sufficiat admonuisse omnino nullum ex antiquis Patribus hac de re manifestius locutum esse, quam hos duos, si tamen duo sunt, auctores; praetereaque consecrationem ac benedictionem hoc ipso loco idem sonare.

Here it is most plainly taught that the sacramental consecration is effected by the very words of the Lord, namely those which the holy bishop mentions below: This is My body. So too in book 4 On the Sacraments, where the same consecration of the Eucharist was attributed, in ch. 4, to the Lord's words as well; what these are is set out in the following chapter in a manner than which nothing clearer can be said. For he urges again and again that they are these: Take and eat of this, all of you, for this is My body; and those others: Take and drink of this, all of you, for this is My blood. And to leave no ambiguity, he adds that before the words of Christ there are bread and wine, but that once they have been pronounced there are now the body and blood of the Lord. We are indeed not unaware that there is some disagreement between the Greeks and the Latins over the form of consecration, and that the Scholastics too are not altogether agreed among themselves on this matter; but here let it suffice to have pointed out that none at all of the ancient Fathers has spoken more plainly on this matter than these two authors, if indeed they are two; and further, that in this very place consecration and blessing mean the same.

(55) ‹novas rebus dare› · printed under col 424

Ita edit. omnes, et mss., exceptis uno vel altero, quibuscum Algerus quoque lib. I De Sacram, cap. 9, sic legit: Nonne majus est novas rebus dare, etc. Iterum vero post pauca, ubi Rom. edit. cum mss. nonnullis, cumque Lanfranco, Guitmundo et Algero, ut nos in textu; vet. edit. et multo plures mss. omittunt vocem exemplo, et mss. etiam non pauci pro veritatem, exhibent veritate.

So all the editions and the manuscripts, except one or two, with which Alger too, On the Sacraments, book 1, ch. 9, reads thus: Nonne majus est novas rebus dare, etc. [Is it not greater to give new (natures) to things, etc.]. And again a little after, where the Roman edition with some manuscripts, and with Lanfranc, Guitmund and Alger, [reads] as we do in the text, the old editions and many more manuscripts omit the word exemplo; and not a few manuscripts also give veritate in place of veritatem.

(56) ‹alia species› · printed under col 424

Expuncta fuerat in Rom. edit. vox alia: quam tamen in caeteris et in cunctis mss. sicut apud Guitm. et Alger. legere est. At rursus vox Christi, quae habetur in edit. omnibus et apud Algerum ante verbum significatur, in mss. et apud Guitm. desideratur.

The word alia had been struck out in the Roman edition, though it is to be read in the others and in all the manuscripts, as in Guitmund and Alger. But again the word Christi, which is found in all the editions and in Alger before the word significatur, is lacking in the manuscripts and in Guitmund.

(57) ‹Verum est› · printed under col 424 (continued at the head of the footnotes of col 425)

Primis Ecclesiae incunabulis in more fuit, ut ex SS. Jacobi et Marci liturgiis intelligimus, missae canon clara voce recitaretur, prolatisque verbis consecrationis, populus, et secutis temporibus, ex liturgiis Basilii atque Chrysostomi, chorus responderet, amen. Hunc in Ambrosiana Ecclesia usum fuisse probat Menardus in S. Gregorii Sacram. pag. 385, hujus loci nec non alterius e lib. IV De Sacram., cap. 5, auctoritate. Item etiam de orientalibus Ecclesiis docet card. Bona Rerum Liturg, lib. II, cap. 13 et 25, laudata in hanc rem Dionysii Alex. ad Xystum Rom. Pont. epistola, et Tertull. De Spectac., cap. 25, quorum tamen testimonia num statim a consecratione Amen succineretur, an tantum post recitatas alias orationes, non liquido exponunt. Apertior autem est Flori locus, quem idem citat. Quod vero ad morem quo singuli Eucharistiam accipientes respondebant, Amen, ejus meminere auctor Constit. Apost. cap. 13, Cyrillus Hieros. Catech. 5; Augustinus, Serm. ad infantes, et auctor operis de Sacram. lib. et cap. supra laudatis. Ubi hoc maxime dignum est observatu, fideles in ipso articulo quo vel consecrabatur a sacerdote, vel ab iis accipiebatur Domini corpus, verae illius praesentiae expressum reddidisse testimonium. Plura de his ritibus reperies cum apud scriptores jam memoratos, tum apud Baronium ad an. 57, Pamelium et alios.

In the first cradle of the Church it was the custom, as we understand from the liturgies of Saints James and Mark, that the canon of the Mass was recited in a clear voice, and that when the words of consecration had been pronounced the people, and in later times, according to the liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom, the choir, answered Amen. Ménard, on the Sacramentary of Saint Gregory, p. 385, proves that this was the usage in the Ambrosian Church, on the authority of this passage and of another from book 4 On the Sacraments, ch. 5. Cardinal Bona, On Liturgical Matters, book 2, ch. 13 and 25, teaches the same of the Eastern Churches too, citing to this effect the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Xystus, Roman pontiff, and Tertullian, On the Shows, ch. 25, whose testimonies, however, do not make clear whether the Amen was sung in response immediately after the consecration or only after the other prayers had been recited. Plainer is the passage of Florus which the same [Bona] cites. As to the custom by which each of those receiving the Eucharist answered Amen, the author of the Apostolic Constitutions, ch. 13, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 5, Augustine, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, and the author of the work On the Sacraments, at the book and chapter cited above, make mention of it. Here this is most worth observing, that the faithful, at the very moment at which the body of the Lord was either being consecrated by the priest or received by them, gave express testimony to its true presence. You will find more on these rites both in the writers already mentioned and in Baronius at the year 57, Pamelius and others.

(58) ‹Favus distillans› · printed under col 425 (continued at the head of the footnotes of col 426)

Vet. edit. cum mss. pluribus potioribusque, Favus distillans: Rom. cum reliquis, Favum distillant. Primae lectioni favet sola Vulg.; sed forte ad ejus formam locum accommodavere scriptores librarii, quod saepe factum in mss. quivis non aegre deprehendet.

The old editions, with more and better manuscripts, [have] Favus distillans [a dripping honeycomb]; the Roman, with the rest, Favum distillant [they drip the honeycomb]. The Vulgate alone favours the first reading; but perhaps the copyists adapted the passage to its form, which anyone will without difficulty detect to have happened often in the manuscripts.

(59) ‹fructum pomiferarum suarum› · printed under col 426

Quidam mss. fructum pomorum suorum.

Some manuscripts [have] fructum pomorum suorum [the fruit of his apples].

(60) ‹fidelis intellige› · printed under col 426

Rom. edit. sola, manducabam panem meum, ... bibi vinum meum... Quare panem et vinum dixerim, fideles intelligunt. Vet. et cuncti mss. ut in textu; nisi quod nonnulli praeferunt partim dixerunt, partim dixerim; duo, fideles intelligite; unus, fidelis intelligis.

The Roman edition alone [has] manducabam panem meum, … bibi vinum meum … Quare panem et vinum dixerim, fideles intelligunt [I was eating my bread, … I drank my wine … Why I should have said bread and wine, the faithful understand]. The old [editions] and all the manuscripts [have it] as in the text, except that some offer partly dixerunt, partly dixerim; two, fideles intelligite [understand, you faithful]; one, fidelis intelligis [you, faithful one, understand].

(61) ‹Spiritus Christus› · printed under col 426

Mss. aliquot non inferioris notae, quia Spiritus Christi.

Some manuscripts of no inferior note [have] quia Spiritus Christi [because the Spirit of Christ].

(62) ‹generationem facit› · printed under col 426

Omnes edit. et mss. nonnulli, regenerationem facit; caeteri, qui et probatiores, regenerationem. Melius, ut ipse sensus aperte docet; nec enim regenerationis, sed generationis subjicitur exemplum.

All the editions and some manuscripts [have] regenerationem facit [brings about regeneration]; the rest, which are also the more approved, generationem [generation]. Better, as the sense itself plainly shows; for the example adduced is not of regeneration but of generation.