SR
← Isteni Igazságra Vezérlő Kalauz (Guide to Divine Truth)/Book 1 · Isteni igazságra vezérlő kalaúz (Guide to Divine Truth)
Chapter 2PazmanyKalauz.1.2

Előljáró levél

The King's Example and Our Present Duty

Drawing on Hezekiah's reform, the author compares the mixed reception of his own efforts to reclaim the lost, acknowledging that though some are won, many resist and even attack the defenders of truth.

Wanting to bring back onto the right path the multitude that had fallen away from the Lord God and rushed headlong after foul idols, King Hezekiah sent swift messengers to every corner of his kingdom and, with fatherly admonitions, urged everyone to recognize their fall, abandon their sins, and honor the true God with due reverence. The holy king's labor wasn't fruitless for everyone; but many received that noble effort half-heartedly—in fact, they mocked it with disgraceful jokes.1 It's hardly any different with us now, when we try to lead those who've lost the way of the faith onto paths that lead to salvation. For though our teaching takes hold in some, many among those who've gone astray and broken onto untrodden paths angrily sharpen their teeth against us and grind them with spite.✦2 They protect the arsonists who set fire to discord in Christendom; they savage those who want to put out the burning fire. They praise and favor those who poison the well of Israel—the spring of pure truth—with pestilent teachings; but they revile, and hate and shame as common peacespoilers, those who point out the poison and warn people not to drink of it if they don't want to perish.✦3 They're sorry that we wound the harmful schisms with pointed writings, though the anger should fall on those who, by causing schism, give cause for the mending: As a skilled tailor, when he wants to restore a torn garment to its former look, pricks the neighboring threads.4 Does the tailor displease you—the one who, while he heals the tear, also wounds? Let the one who made it possible for the tailor to err displease you more.5

The Duty to Speak Truth Despite Hatred

The author resolves that pastoral duty compels him to speak out for truth, even if it brings hatred, and he announces his intention to inform the reader about the matters at hand.

Given how things stand, if we only wanted to please people and chase worldly ease, it would be better to fold our hands, keep silent, and cry out to our God than to earn hatred by proclaiming the truth. But since for those of us appointed to protect Christ’s sheep this is a matter not of our skin but of our soul—that we take a stand for the truth, endure hardship for divine teaching, and fight with both our tongue and our pointed writing against wolves in sheep’s clothing—I too, keeping before my eyes the duty that comes with the faithfulness of my church office, though I place no trust in my own mind or in my slight and deficient learning, yet leaning on the invincible pillar of truth and the immovable stronghold of the good cause, step forward to defend the truth: so that, as far as God enables me, I may smother the many false schemes and blasphemous babblings raised against us, and place before the world’s eyes the unsoundness of the inventions that have broken away from the ancient truth.67 So that we don't take up the matter unprepared and, as they say, with unwashed hands, I want to inform the devout reader about these things.8

Humility and Dependence on Tradition

The author humbly admits his limitations, insists he will not invent new doctrines but rely on ancient tradition, and explains that novelty in expression is permissible only if the faith remains unchanged.

I. I don't dare claim for myself that in my writing I can satisfy people's desires and minds. So if I set forth the truth either obscurely or more weakly than the matter's worth requires; if I don't strike the subject with a sharp point at every place: let no one discount the true teaching because of that, since the shortcoming comes not from any weakness in it, but from my own sluggishness and meager worth: "Whoever, when he has read these things, says, 'This is not well said' — let him blame my way of speaking, not the Faith."910 II. Let no one expect from me new inventions or things spun from my own head. For I know that a spider's web is no better than comb honey—though the spider spins its fly-catching web from its own guts, while the bee gathers its honey from the flowers.11 So I have tried not to step off the path of the ancients, but to take from their armories the victorious swords with which the necks of the old errors were cut. Novelty is for those who write either for mental exercise or to parade the keenness of their wisdom.12 But lovers of the truth teach what they have learned in such a way that they say things in a new way, not new things; though they may innovate in the manner and form of writing, or in presenting the proofs and explaining them more clearly, or in reinforcing them more strongly, they must not proclaim a new teaching. Rather they are bound to chew the old truth afresh into people's ears: It is useful for many books to be made by many authors, in a different style but not a different faith, even on the same questions, so that the matter itself may reach as many as possible.1314 That is why Saint Paul writes that one should not be reluctant to bring up again things already said: To write the same things to you is not tedious for me, and for you it is necessary. For this is necessary not only so that we may help the mind's forgetfulness with writings that often remind it, but also so that the deceit of false teachers may become plain—those who, by crafty silence, shrug off and let slip past their ears what we so often press into their mouths.15

False Charges Against the Catholic Faith

The author lists common false accusations made by innovators, and explains that his writing aims to expose these errors and warn the simple, not out of spite but from pastoral concern.

The new teachers make such accusations against us to simple people that, if they were true, no teaching would deserve more hatred than ours. Even though we have proven their lies false countless times, they simply stay silent about it, and by repeating the same old claims, they keep the poor, ignorant people bound by their lies.1617 They proclaim about us that we despise Holy Scripture, hold human inventions more honorable, and even forbid the people the Holy Scripture. They write that among us there is not even a memory of the faith or of Christ's merit, but that we trust in our own merits. They say that we look for our good things not from Christ our Lord but from the saints, and that we ask help from wooden images.18 They pin a thousand such falsehoods on us. Although they are rebuked countless times for fabrications of this kind, they still renew these hatred-stirring falsehoods day after day.19 That is why we, too, must often renew our writing against them. III. So that I may make the new doctrines properly known, I must also set down things that I know will be hard for those who have turned away to swallow.20 But I write these things neither out of spite nor to rub anyone's nose in them; rather, I am trying to press my hand upon the new teachers' hearts, and to warn the people who have been led astray not to rush blindfolded into the plague.21 I know that telling the truth earns hatred from those whose pride is restless; but in the things of God we cannot curry favor with anyone. It is also easier to bear people's anger for what we write than to feel our conscience accuse us for our silence.22

On the Sources and Their Integrity

The author assures readers that his citations come from the actual books of Luther, Calvin, and others, and he defends against charges of forgery by noting that heretics themselves have a history of pseudepigraphy and textual tampering.

IV. In the writings of the partisan teachers there are such unbridled and outrageous wickednesses that if I did not read them with my own eyes in their own books, it would never even enter my mind that a sensible, sober person could think such things. So if some of the teachings noted from the new preachers' books also seem astonishing to you, Christian reader, remember what Epiphanius and Irenaeus write about the teachers of error: Their books contain such things that if anyone endowed with good sense should read them, he would marvel and be stunned—and would not believe that these things are done by human beings, not only those who live in the city with us, but even those who live among the beasts.23 So believe me for certain: what I write I did not invent out of thin air, nor did I fabricate it falsely; rather, I gathered it from Luther's, Calvin's, and others' own books.24 If you doubt this: for the salvation of your soul I compel you to look up the cited places after me in the books of the separated teachers; I guarantee that you will not find them otherwise. I do not claim that in so many citations and recorded numbers no error has somewhere crept in from the printer's accidents, or from the weakness of my hand, eye, or memory; for only someone who prints knows how hard it is to keep clear of every fault of that kind. But I declare boldly and truly that I have falsely charged nothing against anyone; indeed I can boast of what Eusebius does: "I will write not my own words, but the very words of those among them who were most devoted students of divine things, so that no one can suspect that we are telling a fabricated and invented tale."25 Some ignorant people say that whatever we bring forward from Luther's or Calvin's writings, we ourselves stuck into their books—that we wrote it under their names. But only the densest of bumpkins say this, because the learned are certain that we have never printed the books of the erring teachers; and the truth doesn't need such charlatan's tricks either.2627 The habit of both the old and the present-day erring teachers is to write books under other people's names. Just listen to how Saint Jerome complains against Pelagius: Who could put into words worthy of it that madness—that he titled a book by Sextus the Pythagorean, a pagan man, with the name of Sixtus the martyr and bishop of the Roman Church?28 He had done this also under the name of Saint Pamphilus the martyr, so that he might title Eusebius of Caesarea's book The Defense of Origen (and there is no one who does not know that Eusebius was an Arian) with the name of Pamphilus. On this matter Saint Clement writes as follows: We know that Simon and Cleobius composed poisonous books under the name of Christ and of his disciples; and even in ancient times some people wrote books under the names of Moses, Enoch, Adam, and Elijah. Saint Gregory and Saint Dionysius of Corinth complain that the erring teachers defiled their writings and sprinkled them with heretical tares.29 In our own day Calvin issued his Institutes under the name of Alcuin, though Alcuin was the tutor of Emperor Charlemagne; and after the birth of our Lord, in 791.30 That year, in Paris, he founded the famous university there. Feuardentius says, "We have seen Calvin's Institutes, published in 1534,31 under the name of Alcuin, once the teacher of Charlemagne."32 We've also seen Homilies on the sacramentarian question, published by Beza under the title Nathanaël Nesekius.33 Calvin published his other books under the name Lucianius, about which a learned man says: He wanted to be Alcuinus; he wanted to be Lucanius—Calvin's verses, but he was Lucanius.34 Schüsselburg, the Lutheran superintendent, complains bitterly about how the Calvinists go about in carnival masks, setting down in a long list the books they issued under foreign names. The Lutherans too (though they are so sharp-eyed about others' trash) share in similar deceit, as Schüsselburg himself does not deny, writing as follows: Philip carefully struck out more than a whole leaf, with several paragraphs, from Luther's book—namely, that the words of the Son of God still stand. But these things aren't private and secret; they're public and notorious. For Doctor Amsdorf, in a German book published in quarto in the year 1549, publicly convicted Philip of this falsification of Luther's books. Likewise Flacius, Wigand, Heshusius, and Amsdorf complain that the Lutherans often altered the Augsburg Confession. Indeed, the Lutherans more than once also forged, doctored, cleaned up, and scrubbed Luther's books themselves, wiping much out of his writings—as we showed in our writing against Balduinus. Anyone who is skilled in something is suspect in that same thing.35 That is why the innovators, judging us by themselves, think that we have corrupted Luther's or Calvin's books.36 But let them set aside that doubt: Catholics never printed these men's books. Rather, we read them exactly as they themselves published them in Leipzig, Wittenberg, Jena, Torgau, Geneva, and Basel, and that is how we bring them forward.

Method of Citation and Proof

The author explains his editorial method of gathering Latin witnesses, revising his own earlier works, and using dialectical syllogisms in the manner of Christ and the apostles.

V. Whatever witnesses I cite in this book, I write out briefly their own Latin words that fit the matter—but I gather into one place even what they do not write consecutively, so that their meaning stands out more clearly.37 And what Saint Augustine wrote about himself, I intend to follow as well; and I arrange the parts of my earlier published books into suitable places in this present writing: “These I transferred from another book of mine into this one, because it was easier for me to recast them this way than it would have been to put the same thing into other words.”38 I also retain my rights to these as to my own works: and as I see fit, I improve them, shorten them, or expand them where I judge it right.39 Indeed, even in the current printing of this same book, I often lengthen or shorten my writing with clearer sense, better order, more polished expression, and newer proofs. VI. For the most part, I frame my proofs — with which I either attack the new doctrines or establish the old truth — according to the rules of dialecticians, in a formal structure, as a short chain of reasoning in a definite form, so that their force may stand out more clearly.40 Those who have broken the pin of Christ's yoke don't like fighting within such tight bounds. They forbid arguing when the matter concerns things that pertain to Jesus. But we, for our part, don't want to hang back in this either, since Christ himself often followed this form of proof.✦41 In one place, with a complete syllogism, he proves that he does not cast out demons by a demon's power.✦42 Elsewhere, with a syllogism of this kind, he shows that Abraham is alive: God isn't the God of the dead, but of the living.✦ But God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.✦ Therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob aren't dead, but living.✦ He also proves by syllogism that the Jews are not of God, because they don't listen to God's word.✦ Saint Peter also calls the prophets' sayings what, though they did not write it word for word, he drew out from the prophets' words by good consequence—per bonam consequentiam, by sound inference.43

Obstacles to Receiving the Truth

Drawing on Tertullian and Hilary, the author identifies two great obstacles: willful ignorance and stubborn will, and he applies these to the innovators who refuse to hear the truth and instead cling to novelties.

VII. The early teachers mention two great obstacles that hold people back from turning to the truth. Tertullian recorded the first when he complained that people, plugging their ears, refuse to understand the truth as it really is, fearing that if they understood it for what it is, they would no longer be able to hate it: She knows that she lives as a stranger on earth; among foreigners she easily finds enemies. It wants only one thing: not to be condemned out of ignorance. But they refuse to hear what, once heard, they could not condemn; they prefer to condemn the truth unheard. Nothing is more unjust than for people to hate what they do not know—even if the thing deserves hatred, for it only then deserves it when it is known whether it deserves it. When knowledge of what it deserves is lacking, there is no just defense of hatred. As soon as they stop being ignorant, they will stop hating too: only here does human curiosity grow dull.44 They prefer to remain ignorant, because they already hate. So much so that they prejudge what they don't know—namely, the very thing that, if they knew it, they couldn't hate. How much more would Anacharsis have branded these people as the imprudent judging the prudent, rather than as the unmusical judging musicians?45 Saint Hilary raises the second obstacle, rebuking people because in matters of faith they don't follow reason, but bind themselves to whatever their obstinate will prefers. Though the will should follow reason, and it's not right to harden the will until reason has thoroughly examined everything: "Every obstinacy of wills once taken up is immoderate, and zeal for opposing persists with an unbending drive where the will is not subjected to reason, and no effort is spent on teaching; instead we hunt for reasons for what we want, and we snatch at teaching for what we are already bent on."46 Moreover, if the will did not go ahead of reason, but through understanding of the truth was moved to will what is true, teaching would never be sought to serve the will; rather, the reasoning of teaching would move every will. All discourse of the truth would be without contradiction, since each person would not defend as true whatever he wanted, but would begin to want what is true.47 We can clearly see these two obstacles in the quarrelers who have turned away from us. Because the majority of ordinary people cling to these new ideas not through reason but with obstinate recklessness to the point that they won't even try to understand our teaching—as if they were afraid they'd have to admit the truth if they ever started to understand what we teach.48 That's why they won't accept what we believe and teach; instead, they accuse us of professing things we never even imagined, because the teachers in those pulpits instill such claims about our teaching into their listeners' hearts that, if those claims were true, people would rightly turn away from us.49

An Appeal for Fair Hearing and Open Confession

The author urges readers to examine Catholic teaching directly, using the example of the Israelites' inquiry about the altar, and he emphasizes that the Roman Church does not hide its faith but openly confesses it, unlike the dissembling of innovators.

If the new teachers love the truth, they should do what the people of Israel did: when they learned that the descendants of Reuben and Gad had built an altar, they became suspicious that those tribes might have turned to idolatry, and they armed themselves to cut them down to the last man. Before they attacked them, they asked: 'Why did you build the altar?' And when they understood that the altar had been built as a memorial, not for worshiping foreign gods, they joyfully thanked God that their kinsmen were free from the sin they had suspected them of. This is how the innovators should deal with us as well: they should not make up a host of idolatries out of their own heads and pin them on us—things that never even crossed our minds.50 But as for what they themselves do—let them answer for it before God.✦ I ask every Christian reader—indeed, I bind them by the living God—not to accuse us of anything beyond what they hear from us.✦ No one knows better than we do what's in our hearts.✦ Nor do we hide or conceal from anyone what we believe. Indeed, according to our faith, we hold that whoever defends the truth by lying is a traitor to the truth: he is a traitor to the truth who, for the sake of the truth, tells a lie. Since, then, the faith demands from us not only the heart but the mouth as well—faith requires of us the duty of both heart and tongue—that is why the holy martyrs, though they could have saved their lives by a single denial, preferred to suffer death rather than say with their mouths anything different from what they held in their hearts, knowing that no one is free to lie in his faith: it is not lawful for anyone to lie in his religion.51 For that reason the Roman Church condemned the error of the Priscillianists and the Elchasaites, who left people free to deny their faith in time of need: for whoever denies that he is what he is either condemns, by that denial, the very thing that he is, or, knowing himself unworthy of it, flees confession—none of which is found in a true Christian.52 Therefore Saint Jerome calls it a mark of heresy when someone is ashamed to say aloud what he believes. So that kind of thing suits Ecebolus, not us: shaping himself to people's favor and changing his faith as he sees what will please them better. Ecebolus, following the emperors' lead, under Constantine pretended to be a most fervent Christian; under Julian he quickly became a pagan; and after Julian he wanted to be a Christian again—throwing himself face-down before the doors of the Church, he cried out in a loud voice, "Trample me, salt that has lost its savor!" The foolish opinion of Arhetorius, Apollinaris, and Themistius is this: that whatever anyone professes does no harm to salvation.53 The wickedness of the Dochitae and of Abelard is this: that the Christian faith is only an opinion.54 It is the Lutherans' and Calvinists' way to hide their confessions and teachings and, out of hypocrisy, pretend something other than what they actually advocate—as we will later make clear. The Roman Church does not tolerate this kind of concealment: on the contrary, even in other matters—and especially in matters of faith—it regards every hypocrisy as a great sin; and with Saint Augustine it teaches: Pretended innocence is not innocence; pretended equity is not equity, but double iniquity, because it is both iniquity and pretense. Therefore the Roman Church openly expresses its faith in God's truth and brings it into the light of day. Nor does it fear anything else, except that people might fail to understand its teaching properly—knowing that those who do not understand hate the truth: Truth blushes at nothing except being hidden.

Final Warning and Submission to the Church

The author concludes by stating that any misrepresentation of Catholic teaching is a lie, and he submits his entire work to the judgment of Holy Mother Church, ready to correct any error.

I have recalled all this for this purpose, in so many words: that if the preachers who have seceded speak of our religion differently from what we ourselves say, everyone can know for certain that they are lying at the peril of their own heads and souls.5556 Finally, if through forgetfulness or ignorance I don't get something quite right in my writing, I leave it to the judgment of Holy Mother Church and bind myself to obedience; and with Saint Bernard I say: I reserve this whole work to the authority and examination of the Roman Church, as I do everything else of this kind; and if I think differently on any point, I am ready to correct it by her judgment.57

Read the original Hungarian

Az Úristentűl elfajult és undok bálványok után hanyatt-homlok rohant sokaságot útra akarván hozni Ezechias király, országának minden szegeletire gyors követeket bocsáta, és atyai intésekkel serkengete mindeneket, hogy esetöket megismérvén, vétköket elhagyják, és az igaz Istent méltó tisztelettel uralják. Gyümölcstelen nem lén némelyekben a szent király fáradsága; de sokan a szép igyekezetet fél kedvvel fogadák: sőt gyalázatos tréfákkal csúfolák.

Aligha most is így nem járunk, mikor a hitnek útjavesztettit üdvösséges ösvényekre akarjuk vezetni. Mert noha némelyekben foganatos tanításunk; de sokan az eltébolyodtak és töretlen utakra szakadtak közül haraggal fenik és agyarkodva köszörülik fogokat ellenünk. Oltalmazzák a keresztyénség egyenetlenségének gyújtogatóit; mardossák azokat, kik oltani akarják az égő tüzet. Dicsérik és kedvelik, akik dögletes tanításokkal mérgesítik az Izráel kútját, a tiszta igazság forrását; szidalmazzák pedig, és mint közönséges békesség bontogatóit, gyűlölik, gyalázzák, akik a mérget megmutatják és az embereket intik, hogy abban ne igyanak, ha veszni nem akarnak. Sajnálják, hogy az ártalmas szakadásokat hegyes írásokkal sértegetjük, noha azokra kellene neheztelni, kik szakadást szerezvén, okot adnak a varrogatásra: Sartorae artifex, dum scissam vestem vult in antiquam faciem revocare, vicina fila compungit. Displicet tibi Sartor, qui, scissuram dum sanat, vulnerat? Ille tibi magis displiceat, qui fecit, ut Sartor peccare potuerit.

Ezek így lévén, ha csak embereknek akarnánk kedveskedni és evilági nyugodalmat űzni, szaporább volna kezünket egybekulcsolván hallgatni és Istenünkhöz fohászkodni, hogysem igazsághirdetéssel gyűlölséget szerezni. De mivel nékünk a Krisztus juhai oltalmára rendelt személyeknek nem bőrünkben, hanem lelkünkben jár, hogy az igazság mellett kitámadjunk, az isteni tudományért bajt álljunk, a báránybőrrel béllett farkasok ellen mind nyelvünkkel, mind szeges írásunkkal vitézkedjünk: én is, egyházi hivatalomnak hívségéhez illendő kötelességemet szemem előtt viselvén, noha sem elmémben, sem csekély és fogyatkozott tudományomban nem bizakodom, de az igazságnak győzhetetlen oszlopához és a jó igynek mozdíthatatlan erősségéhez támaszkodván, az igazság oltalmáért kiszállok: hogy az ellenünk támasztott sok hamis fondorlásokat és káromló nyelveskedéseket, amennyire Isten tudnom adja, megfojtsam, és a régi igazságtúl elszakadott találmányok alkalmatlanságit szem és világ eleibe terjesszem.

Hogy pedig készületlen és (amint szokták mondani) mosdatlan kézzel ne nyúljunk a dologhoz, tudósítani akarom ezekrűl a kegyes olvasót.

I. Nem merészlem magamnak tulajdonítani, hogy az emberek kívánságinak és elméjeknek eleget tegyek írásomban. Azért, ha az igazságot vagy homályosban, vagy gyengébben, hogysem a dolognak érdeme kívánná; ha tőheggyel nem illetem mindenütt a tárgyot: senki ebből meg ne jegyezze az igaz tudományt, mivel nem ennek erőtlenségéből, hanem az én késedelmességemből és vékony értékemből esik fogyatkozás: Quisquis, cum legerit haec, dicit: Hoc nen bene dictum est: locutionem meam reprehendat, non Fidem.

II. Új találmányokat és magam fejéből költött dolgokat tőlem senki ne várjon. Mert tudom, hogy a pókháló nem jobb a lépes méznél; noha a pók béliből szövi légyfogó hálóját, a méh pedig virágokrúl szedegeti mézét. Azért igyekeztem azon, hogy a régiek nyomából ki ne lépjem, hanem az ő fegyverházokból vegyek diadalmas kardokat, melyekkel a régi tévelygések nyaka szakasztatott. Azoknak való az újság, kik vagy elmefuttatásért, vagy a bölcsességben való élességnek mustrálásáért írogatnak. De az igazságszeretők, quae didicerunt, ita docent, ut dicant nove, non dicant nova; noha az írás módjában és formájában, vagy a bizonyságok állatásában és világosb magyarázatjában, vagy erősebb vastagításában újítást tehetnek; de új tudományt nem hirdethetnek; hanem arra kötelesek, hogy a régi igazságot újonnan rágják az emberek fülébe: Utile est plures a pluribus fieri Libros, diverso stylo, non diversa fide, etiam de Quaestionibus eisdem, ut ad plurimos res ipsa perveniat. * Azért írja Szent Pál, hogy nem kell restelleni a megmondott dolgokat másszor is előhozni; Eadem vobis scribere, mihi quidem non pigrum, vobis autem necessarium. Mert ez nemcsak azért szükséges, hogy az elmének feledékenységét gyakran emlékeztető írásokkal segétsük; hanem azért is, hogy a hamis tanítók álnaksága megtessék, kik mesterséges hallgatással elnyegik és fülök mellől bocsátják, amit gyakran szájokba rágunk.

Olyakat kérődnek ellenünk az együgyű község előtt az új tanítók, hogy ha azok igazak volnának, semmi tudomány nagyobb gyűlölséget nem érdemlene a miénknél. És noha számtalanszor heveny torkokba verjük az ő hazugságokat; mindazáltal ők azt csak elhallgatják, és azonegy régi bakot nyúzván, a szegény tudatlan községet hazugsággal kötve tartják. Azt hirdetik felőlünk, hogy mi a Szentírást utáljuk, és az emberi találmányokat böcsületesbnek tartjuk, sőt a községet a Szentírástúl eltiltjuk. Azt írják, hogy nálunk a hitnek és a Krisztus érdemének emlékezete sincsen, hanem magunk érdemében bizakodunk. Azt mondják, hogy nem Krisztus Urunktúl, hanem a szentektűl várjuk javainkat, faképektűl kérünk segítséget. Ezer ilyen hamisságokat fognak reánk. És noha szám nélkül pirongattatnak efféle költésekért, mégis naponként újítják a gyűlöltető hamisságokat. Azért szükség nékünk is gyakran újítanunk, ellenek való írásunkat.

III. Hogy az új tudományokat voltaképpen megismértessem, oly dolgokat is ki kell fejeznem, melyek tudom, nehezen férnek az elidegenültek fogára. De ezeket sem gyomroskodásból, sem avégre nem írom, hogy valakinek tormát törjek orra alá; hanem igyekezem azon, hogy az új tanítók szívére tegyem kezemet, és az elámíttatott községet intsem, hogy szembékötve ne rohanjon a mételyre. Tudom, hogy az igazmondás gyűlölséget szerez azoknál, kikben a vadhús nyughatatlankodik; de az Isten dolgában senkinek nem kedveskedhetünk; künnyebb is írásunkért emberek haragját viselnünk, hogysem hallgatásunkért lelkiisméretünk vádolását éreznünk.

IV. A pártos tanítók írásiban oly féktelen és képtelen gazságok vannak, hogyha ezeket szemmel nem olvasnám a magok könyvében, elmémbe sem tűnnék, hogy eszes és józan ember efféléket gondolhatna. Azért, ha neked is, keresztyén olvasó, csudásoknak tetszenek némely tanítások, melyeket az új prédikátorok könyveiből feljegyzék, eszedbe jusson, mit ír Epifanius és Irenaeus a tévelygések tanítóirúl: Talia habent ipsorum libri, ut, si quis prudentia praeditus legat, admiretur, et stupeat: et non credat, quod haec ab hominibus fiant, non solum his, qui civitatem nobiscum inhabitant, sed etiam qui cum bestiis. Elhidd azért bizonyoson, hogy amit írok, újomból nem szoptam, és hamisan sem költöttem: hanem, a Luther, Calvinus, és egyebek tulajdon könyveiből szedtem. Melyben ha kételkedel: lelked üdvösségére kényszerítlek, hogy az elszakadott tanítók könyveiben keresd utánam a feljegyzett helyeket: reáfelelek, hogy különben sem találod. Arra nem felelek, hogy ennyi citációkban, feljegyzett számokban, a nyomtató esetiből, vagy kezem, szemem, emlékezetem fogyatkozásából, vétek nem esett valahol; mert csak az tudja, aki nyomtat, mely nehéz távoztatni minden efféle vétkeket. De arra bátran és igazán felelek, hogy hamisan senkire semmit nem fogtam; sőt azzal dicsekedhetem, amivel Eusebius: Scribam non mea, sed eorum ipsorum verba, qui apud ipsos studiosissimi rerum Divinarum fuerunt; ut nemo, a nobis commeratam, fictamque fabulam narrari, suspicari possit.

Némely tudatlanok azt beszélik: hogy amit Luther vagy Calvinus írásiból előhozunk, azt mi toldottuk az ő könyvökhöz: mi írtuk ő nevökre. De ezt csak az igen sült parasztok beszélik: mert a tudósok bizonyosok abban, hogy mi a tévelygők könyveit soha ki nem nyomtattuk; nem is szűkölködik az igazság, efféle cigánymesterségek nélkül. A régi és mostani tévelygők szokása az, hogy egyebek nevére könyveket írnak. Hallhaddsza, mint panaszolkodik Szent Jerónimus, Pelagius ellen: Illam insaniam, quis digno possit explicare sermone, quod librum Sixti Pythagoraei, hominis Ethnici, nomine Sixti martyris, & Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopi, praenotavit? Fecerat hoc & in Sancti Pamphili martyris nomine, ut librum Defensionis Origenis, Eusebii Caesariensis (quem fuisse Arianum, nemo est qui nesciat), nomine Pamphili praenotaret. Ezen dologrúl így ír Szent Kelemen: Scimus, Simonem & Cleobium, venenatos libros, nomine Christi, & Discipulorum ejus composuisse: atque etiam priscis temporibus quidam Libros scripserunt, Moysis, Enoch, Adam, Eliae. Panaszolkodik Szent Gergely és Corintusi Szent Dienes, hogy az ő írásokat megmocskolták, és eretnek konkollyal béhintették a tévelygők. Mi üdőnkben Calvinus az ő Istitutió-ját, Alcuinus neve alatt bocsátá ki, noha Alcuinus a Nagy Károly császár mestere volt; és Urunk születése után 791.

esztendőben, Páris várasában kezdője volt az ott lévő nevezetes Universitasnak: Vidimus (úgymond Feuardentius) Institutiones Calvini, editas anno 1534. nomine Alcuini, Praeceptoris quondam Carodi Magni. Vidimus & Homilias, de re Sacramentaria; editas a Beza, titulo Nathanaëlis Nesekii. Más könyveit Lucianius neve alatt nyomtatá Calvinus; kirűl így szól egy tudós ember:

Alcuinus voluit, voluit Lucanius esse Versus Calvinus, sed Lucanius erat.

Schüsselburgius lutherista superattendens, nagy panasszal említi, mely farsangos álorcáson járnak a kálvinisták, hosszú lajstromban írván idegen név alatt kibocsátott könyvöket. A lutheristák is (noha ily szemesek az egyebek szemetén), hasonló csalárdságban részesek amint maga sem tagadja Schüsselburgius, imígyen írván: Philippus, ex libro Lutheri, quod verba Filii Dei adhuc constent; plus quam integrum folium, cum aliquot paragraphis, studiose expunxit. Haec vero, non sunt privata et arcana, sed publica & notoria. Nam Doctor Amsdorffius, libro germanico, in quarto edito, anno 1549. Philippum de ista librorum Lutheri falsatione, publice convicit. Hasonlóképpen panaszolkodik Flacius, Vigandus, Heshusius, Amsdorffius, hogy az Augustai Confessió-t gyakran változtatták a lutheristák. Sőt a Luther könyveit is egynéhányszor koholták, csáválták, tisztogatták, mosogatták a lutheristák: sokat kitörölvén írásiból; mint Balduinus ellen való írásunkban megmutattuk.

Aki miben tudós, abban gyanós. Azért, magokrúl ítélvén minket az újítók, vélekednek, hogy mi a Luther vagy Calvinus könyveit megvesztegettük. De kivegyék abból kétségöket: mert soha ezeknek könyveit a katolikusok ki nem nyomtatták; hanem, amint Lipsiában, Wittenbergában, Jénában, Torgában, Genevában, Basileában magok kibocsátották, úgy olvassuk, és úgy hozzuk elő.

V. Aminémű tanúkat e könyvben állatok, azoknak tulajdon szavait, melyek a dologhoz illenek, rövideden kiírom deákul: de úgy, hogy amit ezek nem szintén egymás után írnak is, együvé hordom, hogy nyilvábban kitessék értelmök. Amit pedig Szent Ágoston magárúl írt, azt én is követni akarom; és az elébb kibocsátott könyveim részeit, mostani írásomban alkalmatos helyekre rendelem: Haec ex alio Libro meo, in istum transtuli, quia facilius hoc a me recenseri potuit; quam idipsum alio modo eloquendum fuisset. Meg is tartom ezekben, mint saját munkáimban igazságomat: és tetszésem szerént megjobbítom, megrövidítem, megtoldom, ahol helyesnek alítom lenni. Sőt ugyanezen könyvnek is mostani nyomtatásában, sokszor világosb értelemmel, jobb renddel, ékesebb szólással, újabb bizonyságokkal hosszabbítom vagy rövidítem írásomat.

VI. Bizonyságimat, melyekkel vagy az új tudományokat ostromlom, vagy a régi igazságot állatom; nagy részre a dialektikusok törvénye szerént, in forma, rövid kötésbe és bizonyos formába foglalom; hogy nyilvábban kitessék erősségök. Akik a Krisztus igája járomszegét kitörték, nem szeretik az ilyen szoros korlátban való harcolást; Prohibent argumentari, cum de rebus agitur quae pertinent ad Jesum: De mi sem akarunk ebben hátra állani; mivel ő maga, Krisztus, sokszor követte az ilyen bizonyítás formáját. Együtt, egész szillogizmussal bizonyítja, hogy ő nem űz ördögöt, ördög hatalmával. Másutt, ilyen szillogizmussal mutatja, hogy Ábrahám eleven: Isten nem holtak Istene, hanem eleveneké. De Isten Ábrahám, Isaák, Jákob Istene. Tehát Ábrahám, Isaák, Jákob nem holtak, hanem elevenek. Azt is szillogizmussal állatja, hogy a zsidók nem Istentűl valók: mert Isten igéjét nem hallgatják.

Szent Péter is próféták mondásinak nevezi, amit noha szórúl szóra nem írtak, de Per bonam consequentiam,* jó következéssel kihozott a próféták szavaiból.

VII. Két nagy akadékot említnek a régi doktorok, mely az embereket tartóztatja, hogy az igazságra ne hajoljanak: Elsőt Tertullianus jegyzette fel; midőn azon panaszolkodik, hogy az emberek, fülöket bédugván, nem akarják az igazságot voltaképpen érteni; félvén attúl, hogy ha ezt úgy értik, amint magában vagyon, nem gyűlölhetik: Scit se peregrinam in terris agere; inter extraneos, facile inimicos invenire. Unum gestit, ne ignorantia damnetur. Sed audire nolunt, quod auditum damnare non possint inauditam condemnare malunt veritatem. Nihil iniquius, quam ut oderint homines quod ignorant, etiamsi res mereatur odium, tunc enim meretur quum cognoscitur an mereatur. Vacante meriti notitia, nulla est odii justa defensio. Simul ut desinent ignorare, cessabunt & idisse: Hic tantum humana Curiositas torpescit. Malunt ignorare, quia jam oderunt.

Adeo quod nesciunt, praejudicant id esse: quod si sciant, odisse non poterunt. Quanto magis hos Anacharsis denotasset imprudentes de Prudentibus judicantes, quam immusicos de Musicis? A második akadékot Szent Hilárius hozza elő; dorgálván az embereket, hogy a hit dolgainak követésében nem indulnak okosság után: hanem átalkodott akaratjok tetszésén megkötik magokat. Noha az akaratnak okosság után kellene járni: és nem illenék addig megkeményíteni az akaratot, míg az okosság mindeneket jól meg nem vizsgál: Immoderata est omnis susceptarum Voluntatum pertinacia, et indeflexo motu adversandi studium persistit, ubi non Rationi Voluntas subjicitur, nec studium doctrinae impenditur; sed his, quae volumus, rationem conquirimus; et his, guae studemus, doctrinam captamus. Ceterum, si non praeiret Rationem Voluntas, sed per Veri intelligentiam, ad velle id, guod Verum est, movetur; nunquam Doctrina Voluntati quaereretur, sed Voluntatem omnem Doctrinae ratio commoveret: esset omnis sine contradictione Veritatis sermo; quum unusquisque, non quod vellet, id verum esse defenderet, sed quod Verunt est, id velle coepisset.

Ez a két akadék nyilván találtatik a tőlünk idegenült viszálykodókban. Mert a községnek nagyobb része nem okkal, hanem általkodott vakmerőséggel ragaszkodik az újságokhoz: úgy, hogy érteni sem akarja tanításinkat; mintha félne, hogy az igazságot meg kellene ismérni, ha tanításunkat meg kezdené érteni. Azért nem akarják tőlünk venni, mit hiszünk és tanítunk: hanem reánk fogják, hogy azt valljuk, amivel nem is álmodoztunk, mivel az a rendeken való álnak tanítók oly dolgokat csepegetnek hallgatójok szívébe a mi tanításunkrúl, melyek, ha igazaknak találtatnának, méltán idegenednének tőlünk.

Ha igazságszeretők az új tanítók, azt kell cselekedniek, amit az Izráel fiai cselekedének: kik megértvén, hogy a Ruben és Gad maradéki oltárt emeltek, gyanúságba esének, hogy talán bálványozásra hajlottak; és felfegyverkezének, hogy egy lábig levágják őket. Minekelőtte reájok rohannának, megkérdék: Mi okon emelték az oltárt? És értvén, hogy emlékezetre, nem idegen istenek tiszteletire raktak oltárt: nagy örömmel hálákat adának Istennek, hogy az ő atyjokfiai üresek attúl a vétektűl, melyrűl gyanakodnak vala. Így kellene bezzeg velünk is bánni az újítóknak: nem kellene magok agyából, temérdek bálványozásokat reánk fogni, melyek gondolatunkba sem tűntek. De ők, amit cselekesznek; adjanak Isten előtt számot róla. Én minden keresztyén olvasót arra kérek, sőt az élő Istenre kényszerítek, hogy egyebet annál reánk ne fogjon, amit tőlünk hall. Senki nálunknál jobban nem tudja, mi vagyon szívünkben. Nem is titkoljuk vagy rejtegetjük senki előtt, amit hiszünk.

Sőt hitünk szerént azt tartjuk; hogy igazság árulója, valaki az igazságot hazugsággal oltalmazza: Proditor est veritatis, qui pro veritate mendacium loquitur. Mivel azért a hit nem csak szűvet; hanem szájat is kíván tőlünk; Fides a nobis officium exigit, & Cordis, & Linguae: innén vagyon, hogy a szent mártírok, noha egy tagadással megtarthatták volna életöket, inkább halált szenvedtek, hogysem szájjal különbet mondanának annál, amit szívökben viseltek; tudván, hogy senkinek nem szabad hitiben hazudni: Non est fas ulli, in sua Religione mentiri. Annak okáért a Római Ecclesia kárhoztatta a Priscillianus és Helchesiták tévelygését, kik szabaddá hagyták az embereket, hogy szükség idején megtagadják hitöket: Etenim qui, quod est, esse se negat: aut id, quod est, negan do condemnat; aut se ipsum ea re indignurn sciens, Confessionem fugit, quorum nihil in vero Christiano reperitur. Azért Szent Jerónimus eretnekség jelének mondja azt, hogy amit hiszen, szégyenli kimondani: Ecebolushoz fér tehát, nem mihozzánk, hogy az emberek tetszéséhez szabván magát, hitit úgy változtassa, amint látja kedvesbnek: Ecebolus, mores imperatorum sequens, sub Constantino quidem ferventissimum se finxit Christianum; sub Juliano, Paganus celeriter est effectus; & rursus, post Julianum, volebat esse Christianus: Prosternens etenim semetipsum ante januas Ecclesiae pronum, magna voce clamabat; Conculcate me, sal insensatum. Arhetorius, Apollinaris, Themistius balgatag vélekedése az; hogy akárki mit valljon, nem árt az üdvösségnek. A Dochiták és Abailardus gazsága; hogy a keresztyén hit, csak vélekedés. A lutheristák és kálvinisták dolga, hogy vallásokat és tudományokat rejtegetvén, képmutatásból mást tettessenek, hogysem amit valójában javallanak; mint ezt majd nyilván megismértetjük.

Efféle palástolást nem szenved a római eklézsia: sőt nagy véteknek tart egyéb dologban is, de főképpen a hitben, minden képmutatást; és azt tanítja Szent Ágostonnal: Simulata innocentia, non est innocentia: simulata aequitas, non est aequitas, sed duplex iniquitas, quia & iniquitas est, & simulatio. Azért a római eklézsia nyilván, Isten igazában kifejezi és napvilágra terjeszti vallását. Nem is fél egyébtűl, hanem hogy voltaképpen ne értsék az emberek tanítását: tudván, hogy azok gyűlölik az igazságot, akik nem értik; Nihil Veritas erubescit, nisi solummodo abscondi.

Mindezekrűl avégre emlékezém ennyi szóval, hogy ha az elhasonlott prédikátorok különbet beszéllenek a mi vallásunkrúl, hogysem amit mi mondunk: bizonnyal tudja minden ember, hogy fejökre és lelkökre hazudnak.

Végezetre; ha feledékenységem vagy tudatlanságom miatt, nem szinte helyén ejtek valamit írásomban: az anyaszentegyház ítéletire hagyom, és engedelmességre kötelezem magamat; és Szent Bernárddal azt mondom: Romanae Ecclesiae autoritati, atque examini, totum hoc, sicut & cetera quae ejusmodi sunt universa, reservo; ipsius, si quid aliter sapio, paratus judicio emendare.

Scripture echoes

  1. ↩Ps.35.16;Acts.7.54 — Among the godless mockers at feasting, they gnash their teeth at me. Acts.7.54 — When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart and gnashed their teeth at him.
  2. ↩Jer.2.13 — For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewn out for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold the water.
  3. ↩Matt.11.29-Matt.11.30 — Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. Matt.11.30 — For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
  4. ↩Matt.12.24-Matt.12.28;Mark.3.22-Mark.3.26;Luke.11.15-Luke.11.20 — But the Pharisees, when they heard it, said, "This man does not cast out demons except by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons." Matt.12.25 — But knowing their thoughts, he said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." Matt.12.26 — And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? Matt.12.27 — And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. Matt.12.28 — But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Mark.3.22 — And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, 'He has Beelzebul,' and, 'By the ruler of the demons he casts out demons.' Mark.3.23 — And he called them to himself and began speaking to them in parables: "How can Satan cast out Satan?" Mark.3.24 — If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Mark.3.25 — And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. Mark.3.26 — And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end. Luke.11.15 — But some of them said, 'By Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, he casts out the demons.' Luke.11.16 — Others, testing him, were seeking a sign from heaven from him. Luke.11.17 — But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and house falls upon house." Luke.11.18 — If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. Luke.11.19 — And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. Luke.11.20 — But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
  5. ↩Matt.22.32;Mark.12.27;Luke.20.38;Exod.3.6 — I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Mark.12.27 — He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are greatly mistaken. Luke.20.38 — Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him. Exod.3.6 — And he said, 'I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.
  6. ↩Exod.3.6;Matt.22.32 — And he said, 'I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. Matt.22.32 — I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
  7. ↩Matt.22.31-Matt.22.32 — But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, Matt.22.32 — I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
  8. ↩John.8.47 — Whoever is from God listens to the words of God. This is why you do not listen—because you are not from God.
  9. ↩Rom.14.12;Heb.13.17 — So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Heb.13.17 — Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account—so that they may do this with joy and not with groaning; for that would be of no benefit to you.
  10. ↩Matt.26.63 — But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
  11. ↩1Cor.2.11 — For who among people knows the things of a person except the person's own spirit within? So also no one has known the things of God except the Spirit of God.

Notes

  1. 1 ↩Rendered as half-heartedly (lukewarm, half-willed reception). The following sőt clause escalates from cold reception to open mockery.
  2. 2 ↩töretlen utakra: literally 'onto unbroken/untrodden paths'—new, unworn, deviant routes rather than the established way of the faith.
  3. 3 ↩Izráel kútját is apposed to 'the spring of pure truth'; rendered as a doctrinal metaphor for pure teaching, not a literal geographic well.
  4. 4 ↩Latin proverb embedded as printed: 'Sartorae artifex, dum scissam vestem vult in antiquam faciem revocare, vicina fila compungit.' 'Sartorae' is treated as the tailor-craftsman (cf. next sentences' Sartor).
  5. 5 ↩Force of the proverbial close: blame the tear-maker (schism-causer), not the mender whose needle must prick nearby cloth.
  6. 6 ↩szeges literally means spiked/nail-studded; here figurative for sharp, pointed polemical writing (cf. hegyes írások in the previous section).
  7. 7 ↩igy is older orthography for ügy (cause/affair); rendered as good cause.
  8. 8 ↩Hungarian proverb equivalent to the classical 'with unwashed hands' (illotis manibus): approaching a serious task without due preparation or reverence, not a literal hygiene remark.
  9. 9 ↩Source Latin has "Hoc nen bene dictum est"; treated as the expected "Hoc non bene dictum est" ("This is not well said").
  10. 10 ↩"tőheggyel nem illetem" is a pointed-tool image (awl/tip): rendered as failing to strike the subject with a sharp point at every place, i.e., not treating every point with exact force.
  11. 11 ↩lépes méz: honey in the comb (not merely generic honey); the contrast is original invention vs. gathering from sources.
  12. 12 ↩elmefuttatás: mental exercise / running of the mind; mustrálás: display/parade (not merely 'examination').
  13. 13 ↩Embedded Latin maxims kept as sense-translated English: dicant nove, non dicant nova (speak newly, not new things); the second is a patristic commonplace on plural books/styles, same faith (commonly associated with Augustine).
  14. 14 ↩vastagítás: reinforcement/strengthening (literally 'thickening'); rágják az emberek fülébe: idiomatic force-feeding by repetition, preserved as 'chew...into people's ears'.
  15. 15 ↩elnyegik: archaic 'shrug off / dismiss / neglect'; fülök mellől bocsátják: let pass beside their ears.
  16. 16 ↩"azonegy régi bakot nyúzván" is an idiom: keep rehashing the same old tale (literally, flaying the same old goat). Rendered with the colorful source image to keep Pázmány's polemic force.
  17. 17 ↩"heveny torkokba verjük" = force/thrust into their hot throats; idiomatic for throwing the lies in their faces, not a medical sense of "acute."
  18. 18 ↩"faképektűl" = from wooden images/icons/statues (literally wooden pictures); rendered "wooden images" for plain modern English.
  19. 19 ↩"gyűlöltető" = that which stirs up / incites hatred; rendered "hatred-stirring."
  20. 20 ↩"nehezen férnek … fogára" is an idiom of hard chewing/acceptance; rendered as "hard … to swallow." "elidegenültek" = those alienated/estranged (from the Church).
  21. 21 ↩"tormát törjek orra alá" is a Hungarian idiom for humiliating someone / rubbing something under their nose. "gyomroskodás" = spiteful grudge-nursing. "métely" = murrain/plague, here spiritual contagion.
  22. 22 ↩"vadhús" is the medical image of proud flesh (excess, unhealed granulation tissue); metaphorically, corrupted pride irritated by truth. Kept as "proud flesh" to preserve the image.
  23. 23 ↩The embedded Latin citation ends abruptly at 'qui cum bestiis' in the supplied source; the English follows that truncated reading rather than completing a longer known form of the patristic passage.
  24. 24 ↩Hungarian 'újomból nem szoptam' is the idiom 'I did not suck it from my finger,' rendered here as 'out of thin air' for natural modern English.
  25. 25 ↩Source Latin has 'commeratam, fictamque fabulam'; most plausible intended reading is commentam/commenticiam ('invented/fabricated') with 'fictamque,' which the English follows.
  26. 26 ↩«igen sült parasztok» is a strong early-modern Hungarian idiom for utter yokels/boors; rendered as «the densest of bumpkins».
  27. 27 ↩«cigánymesterségek» is period pejorative for fraudulent sleight-of-hand; rendered by sense as «charlatan's tricks».
  28. 28 ↩Latin Sixti / Sixti is the same orthography for the pagan author Sextus and the Christian martyr-bishop Sixtus; English distinguishes them by conventional forms.
  29. 29 ↩«konkoly» is the biblical tare/darnel image (weeds mixed into the crop); kept as «tares» for that force.
  30. 30 ↩Source spelling «Istitutió-ját» = Calvin's Institutes (Institutio).
  31. 31 ↩Continues the previous section's clause about Alcuin and the year 791 after Christ's birth ("Urunk születése után 791. esztendőben…").
  32. 32 ↩Source has "Carodi Magni"; almost certainly a corruption of "Caroli Magni" (Charlemagne), matching the previous section's "Nagy Károly".
  33. 33 ↩"de re Sacramentaria" points to the Reformation controversy over the sacraments (the "sacramentarian" dispute), not sacramental devotion in the Catholic sense.
  34. 34 ↩Latin epigram quoted in the Hungarian preface. Versus Calvinus is read as 'Calvin's verses' (the poems/lines are Calvin's), with sed Lucanius erat pointing the irony that the published name was Lucanius. Alternative punctuation would make Calvinus the subject of versus ('Calvin, turned/opposed'), which fits the context far less well.
  35. 35 ↩Proverbial Hungarian: Aki miben tudós, abban gyanós — skill in a craft also marks one as a plausible suspect of abuse in that craft.
  36. 36 ↩újítók = the innovators, Pázmány's standard polemical label for the Protestant reformers; megvesztegettük = corrupted/tampered with (of printed texts).
  37. 37 ↩Archaic állatok = ‘I set forth/cite’ (not ‘animals’). deákul = ‘in Latin.’
  38. 38 ↩Embedded Latin is Augustine’s own self-description of reusing earlier writing; rendered into English here with the surrounding Hungarian.
  39. 39 ↩igazságomat here read as proprietary/editorial claim over one’s own prior material, not abstract ‘truth’ alone; fits the improve/shorten/expand sequel.
  40. 40 ↩tudományokat: in this polemical preface, 'doctrines/teachings' (not modern 'sciences'). in forma kept as the scholastic technical term for formal logical shape; kötés rendered as 'chain of reasoning' (syllogistic linkage).
  41. 41 ↩járomszeg: the pin/peg that holds a yoke in place; breaking it = casting off Christ's yoke (rebellion/apostasy idiom). Embedded Latin Prohibent argumentari... rendered in English as the quoted claim of opponents.
  42. 42 ↩Együtt read as 'in one place / at one point,' parallel to Másutt ('elsewhere') in the next sentence.
  43. 43 ↩Per bonam consequentiam is a scholastic logical term: not that the prophets wrote the claim verbatim, but that it follows validly from their words. The Hungarian gloss jó következéssel restates that sense; both surfaces are kept so the technical force stays clear.
  44. 44 ↩Source reads 'idisse'; translated as 'odisse' (to hate), the reading required by sense and by the following Latin context (odisse non poterunt).
  45. 45 ↩Anacharsis: the Scythian sage of classical anecdote who rebuked those unqualified to judge an art; Pázmány applies the comparison to the imprudent judging the wise in matters of faith.
  46. 46 ↩Embedded Latin ends with 'his, guae studemus'; treated as 'quae' (which), a likely typographical corruption.
  47. 47 ↩Source has 'guod Verum est' and later 'quod Verunt est'; translated as 'quod Verum est' / 'what is true'—standard Hilary reading; 'Verunt' is almost certainly a corrupt form of 'Verum'.
  48. 48 ↩általkodott is read as átalkodott (obstinate/stubborn), matching the prior section’s átalkodott akarat; újságok means doctrinal novelties, not news.
  49. 49 ↩a rendeken való álnak tanítók is rendered as teachers who stand in those pulpits (rend = platform/pulpit or rank; álnak = stand). If the intended reading were álnok tanítók (deceitful teachers), the sense would shift slightly toward fraud rather than office/station.
  50. 50 ↩újítók here names the Protestant reformers/innovators in Pázmány's polemic, not innovators in a neutral modern sense.
  51. 51 ↩Source szűvet is archaic for szívet (heart); confirmed by the embedded Latin Cordis & Linguae.
  52. 52 ↩Embedded Latin has likely print/OCR breaks (negan do → negando; indignurn → indignum); sense translated from the corrected reading.
  53. 53 ↩Proper name Arhetorius left as in the source; identification is uncertain and may reflect an early-modern or print form of another name.
  54. 54 ↩Dochiták kept as Dochitae; group identity is not certain from this sentence alone (possibly a traditional heresiological label in Pázmány's usage).
  55. 55 ↩Hungarian elhasonlott prédikátorok names preachers who have broken away from the Roman Church (Pázmány’s usual polemic term for Protestant/schismatic preachers), not merely “other” preachers.
  56. 56 ↩fejökre és lelkökre hazudnak is a strong Hungarian idiom: the falsehood rests on the speakers’ own heads and souls—they lie at the risk of their own guilt and damnation, not that they are lying “to” someone else’s head.
  57. 57 ↩The Latin is Pázmány's citation of St. Bernard: he submits the whole work (and all similar writings) to the Roman Church's authority and scrutiny, and pledges to amend anything in which he judges otherwise.

Isteni Igazságra Vezérlő Kalauz (Guide to Divine Truth) companion

Rule yourself daily, not just on retreat

Chosen Portion turns the mirror into a daily practice — a short reading and examining question each morning before you lead anyone.

Chosen Portion makes the mirror daily: the ruler-formation questions this collection preserves become a two-minute morning examination in the app.

  • A daily formation reading drawn from centuries of counsel to those in authority
  • One pointed examination question a day — two minutes, before the meetings start
  • Track your practice over weeks and watch the examined life become a habit
Chosen Portion — Daily Prayer (free iOS app) →