Project Canterbury
Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology
William Laud, Works, Volume Two
Conference with Fisher the Jesuit
Section 10
Transcribed by John D Lewis
AD 2001
Paragraph: | I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI | Notes |
[SECTION X.]
F. Whereupon I was forced to repeat what I had formerly brought against D. White concerning points fundamental, [first reading* the sentence of S. Augustine, Ferendus est disputator errans, &c., out of which is proved,+ that all points defined by the Church are fundamental.#] [A.C. p. 44.]
* [The Chaplain’s corrupt copy hath "righting," instead of "reading," the sentence of S. Austin. The whole sentence is set down by the Chaplain thus: "This is a thing founded. An erring disputer is to be borne withal in other questions not diligently digested, not yet made firm by full authority of the Church,—there error is to be borne with. But it ought not to go so far that it should labour to shake the foundation itself of the Church."—S. August. Serm. 14. de Verbis Apost. cap. 12.—A.C. marg. note to p. 44.]
+ [Out of this place we may gather that all points defined are fundamental. "All points defined are," as S. Austin speaketh, "made firm by full authority of the Church." But all points made firm by full authority of the Church are fundamental, in Such sense as the Jesuit taketh the word "fundamental," that is, in S. Austin’s language, Such as cannot be denied, or doubtfully disputed against, without shaking the foundation of the Church. For denying or doubtfully disputing against any one, why not against another, and another, and so against all?—since all are made firm to us by one and the same divine revelation, sufficiently applied by one and the same full authority of the Church; which being weakened in any one, cannot be to [so] firm in any other.—A.C. marg. note to p. 45.]
# [By the word "fundamental," is understood not only those prima credibilia, or prime principles, which do not depend upon any former grounds; for then all the articles of the creed were not, as both the B. and D. White say they are, fundamental points: but all which do so pertain to Supernatural, divine, infallible, Christian faith, by which faith Christ the only prime foundation of the Church doth dwell in our hearts (I Cor. iii. 11.), and which faith is to the Church the substance, basis, and foundation of all good things which are to be hoped for (Heb. xi. [1.]), as that, they being once confirmed or made firm by full authority of the Church, if they are wittingly, willingly, and especially obstinately, denied or questioned, all the whole frame, and in a sort the foundation itself, of all supernatural Divine Christian faith, is shaken.—A.C. marg. note to p. 45.]
§ 10. B. I.—Hereupon it is true, that you read a large discourse out of a book printed, which you said was yours; the particulars, all of them at the least, I do not now remember, nor did I then approve. But if they be such as were formerly brought against Doctor White, they are by him formerly answered. The first thing you did was the righting1 of S. Augustine: which sentence I do not at all remember was so much as named in the conference, much less was it stood upon, and then righted by you. Another place of S. Augustine indeed was (which you omit); but it comes after, about tradition, to which I remit it. But now you tell us of a great proof made out of this place:2 for these words of yours contain two propositions. One, "that all points defined by the Church are fundamental;" the other, "that this is proved out of this place of S. Augustine."II.—1. For the first, "that all points defined by the Church are fundamental." It was not the least means by which Rome grew to her greatness, to blast every opposer she had with the name of heretic, or schismatic; for this served to shrivel the credit of the persons; and the persons once brought into contempt and ignominy, all the good they desired in the Church fell to dust, for want of creditable persons to back and support it. To make this proceeding good in these later years, this course, it seems, was taken. The school, that must maintain, (and so they do,) "that all points defined by the Church are thereby fundamental,3 necessary to be believed,4 of the substance of the faith,5 and that, [32] though it be determined quite extra Scripturam."6 And then leave the wise and active heads to take order7 that there be strength enough ready to determine what is fittest for them.
III.—But since these men distinguish not, nor you, between the Church in general and a General Council, which is but her representation for determinations of the faith; though I be very slow in sifting or opposing what is concluded by lawful, general, and consenting authority; though I give as much as can justly be given to the definitions of Councils truly general; nay, suppose I should grant, which I do not, that General Councils cannot err; yet this cannot down with me, that all points even so defined are fundamental. For deductions are not prime and native principles; nor are superstructures foundations. That which is a foundation for all, cannot be one and another to different Christians in regard of itself ; for then it could be no common rule for any, nor could the souls of men rest upon a shaking foundation. No: if it be a true foundation, it must be common to all, [33] and firm under all; in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are fundamental. And Irenaeus8 lays this for a ground, that the whole Church, howsoever dispersed in place, speaks this with one mouth: "He, which among the guides of the Church is best able to speak, utters no more than this; and less than this, the most simple doth not utter." Therefore the creed, of which he speaks, is a common, is a constant foundation. And an explicit faith must be of this, in them which have the use of reason; for both guides and simple people, all the Church, utter this.
IV.—Now, many things are defined by the Church, which are but deductions out of this: which, suppose them deduced right, move far from the foundation—without which deductions explicitly believed, many millions of Christians go to heaven—and cannot therefore be fundamental in the faith. True deductions from the article may require necessary belief, in them which are able, and do go along with them from the principle to the conclusion. But I do not see, either that the learned do make them necessary to all, or any reason why they should. Therefore they cannot be fundamental; and yet to some men’s salvation they are necessary.
V.—Besides, that which is fundamental in the faith of Christ, is a rock immovable, and can never be varied; never.9 [34] Therefore, if it be fundamental after the Church hath defined it, it was fundamental before the definition; else it is movable; and then no Christian hath where to rest. And if it be immovable10 as indeed it is, no decree of a council, be it never so general, can alter immoveable verities, no more than it can change immovable natures. Therefore if the Church in a council define any thing, the thing defined is not fundamental because the Church hath defined it; nor can be made so by the definition of the Church, if it be not so in itself. For if the Church had this power, she might make a new article of the faith, which the learned among yourselves deny:11 for the articles of the faith cannot increase in substance, but only in explication.12 And for this, I will be judged by Bellarmine,13 who, disputing against Amb[rosius] Catharinus, about the certainty of faith, tells us, "that divine faith hath not its certainty because it is Catholic, i.e. common to the whole Church, but because it builds on the authority of God, Who is truth itself, and can neither deceive nor be deceived." And he adds, "that the probation of the Church can make it known to all, that the object of divine faith is revealed from God, and therefore certain, and not to be doubted; but the Church can add no certainty, no firmness to the word of God revealing it."
VI.—Nor is this hard to be farther proved out of your own school; for Scotus professeth it in this very particular of [35] the Greek Church:14 "If there be," saith he, "a true real difference between the Greeks and the Latins, about the point of the procession of the Holy Ghost, then either they or we be vere haeretici, truly and indeed heretics." And he speaks this of the old Greeks, long before any decision of the Church in this controversy: for his instance is in S. Basil, and Greg[ory] Nazianz[en] on the one side, and S. Jerome, Augustine, and Ambrose, on the other. "And who dares call any of these heretics?" is his challenge. I deny not, but that Scotus adds there, that howsoever this was before, yet ex quo, from the time that the Catholic Church declared it, it is to be held as of the substance of the faith. But this cannot stand with his former principle, if he intend by it, that whatsoever the Church defines, shall be ipso facto, and for that determination’s sake, fundamental. For if before the determination, supposing the difference real, some of those worthies were truly heretics, as he confesses, then somewhat made them so. And that could not be the decree of the Church which then was not. Therefore it must be somewhat really false, that made them so; and fundamentally false, if it made them heretics against the foundation. But Scotus was wiser than to intend this. It may be, he saw the stream too strong for him to swim against, therefore he went on with the doctrine of the time, That the Church’s sentence is of the substance of faith; but meant not to betray the truth. For he goes no further than ecclesia declaravit, "since the Church hath declared it," which is the word that is used by divers.15
[36]
VII.—Now the master16 teaches, and the scholars17 too, that every thing which belongs to the exposition or declaration of another, intus est, is not another contrary thing, but is contained within the bowels and nature of that which is interpreted; from which if the declaration depart, it is faulty and erroneous, because, instead of declaring, it gives another and contrary sense.18 Therefore, when the Church [37] declares any thing in a Council, either that which she declares was intus, or extra—in the nature and verity of the thing, or out of it. If it were extra, without the nature of the thing declared, then the declaration of the thing is false, and so, far from being fundamental in the faith.19 If it were intus, within the compass and nature of the thing, though not open and apparent to every eye, then the declaration is true, but not otherwise fundamental than the thing is which is declared: for that which is intus, cannot be larger or deeper than that in which it is; if it were, it could not be intus. Therefore nothing is simply fundamental because the Church declares it, but because it is so in the nature of the thing which the Church declares.VIII.—And it is a slight and poor evasion that is commonly used, that the declaration of the Church makes it [38] fundamental quoad nos, "in respect of us;" for it doth not that neither: for no respect to us can vary the foundation. The Church’s declaration can bind us to peace and external obedience, where there is not express letter of Scripture and sense agreed on; but it cannot make anything fundamental to us, that is not so in its own nature. For if the Church can so add, that it can by a declaration make a thing to be fundamental in the faith, that was not; then it can take a thing away from the foundation, and make it, by declaring, not to be fundamental; which all men grant, no power of the Church can do.20 "For the power of adding anything contrary, and of detracting anything necessary, are alike forbidden,"21 [Deut. iv. 2.] and alike denied. Now, nothing is more apparent than this to the eye of all men: That the Church of Rome hath determined, or declared, or defined (call it what you will), very many things, that are not in their own nature fundamental; and therefore neither are, nor can be, made so by her adjudging them. Now to all this discourse, That the Church hath not power to make anything fundamental in the faith, that intrinsically and in its own nature is not such, A.C. is content to say nothing.
IX.—2. For the second, That it is proved by this place of S. Augustine, "That all points defined by the Church are fundamental." You might have given me that place cited in the margin, and eased my pains to seek it; but it may be there was somewhat in concealing it. For you de so extraordinarily "right this place," that you were loth (I think) anybody should see how you wrong it. The place of S. Augustine is this, against the Pelagians, about remission of original sin in infants:22 "This is a thing founded: an erring disputer is to be borne with in other questions not diligently digested, [39] not yet made firm by full authority of the Church; there error is to be borne with; but it ought not to go so far that it should labour to shake the foundation itself of the Church." This is the place; but it can never follow out of this place, I think, that every thing defined by the Church is fundamental.
X.—For, first, he speaks of a "foundation of doctrine in Scripture," not "a Church definition." This appears: for, few lines before, he tells us,23 "There was a question moved to S. Cyprian, whether baptism was concluded to the eighth day, as well as circumcision? And no doubt was made then of the beginning of sin (origine peccati), and that out of this thing, about which no question was moved (ex ea re, unde nulla erat quaestio, soluta est exorta quaestio), that question that was made, was answered." And again, "That S. Cyprian took that which he gave in answer from the foundation of the Church, to confirm a stone that was shaking (Hoc de fundamento Ecclesiae sumpsit ad confirmandum lapidem nutantem)." Now S. Cyprian, in all the answer that he gives,24 hath not one word of any definition of the Church: therefore ea res, "that thing" by which he answered, was a foundation of prime and settled Scripture doctrine, not any definition of the Church: therefore, that which he took out of the foundation of the Church, to fasten the stone that shook, was not a definition of the Church, but the foundation of the Church itself, the Scripture upon which it is builded: as appeareth in the Milevitane Council;25 where the rule, by which Pelagius was condemned, is the rule of Scripture [Rom. v. 15.]; therefore S. Augustine goes on in the same sense, that "the disputer is not to be borne any longer, that shall endeavour to shake the foundation itself, upon which the whole Church is grounded" (ut fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quatere moliatur).
XI.—Secondly, if S. Augustine did mean by "founded," and "foundation," the definition of the Church, because of these words, "This thing is founded; this is made firm by full authority of the Church;" and the words following these, "to shake the foundation of the Church;" yet it can never follow, out of any or all these circumstances (and these are all), that all points defined by the Church are fundamental in the faith. For, first, no man denies but the Church is a foundation [1 Tim. iii. 15.]; that things defined by it, are founded upon it: and yet hence it cannot follow, that the thing that is so founded is fundamental in the faith: for things may be founded upon human authority,26 and be very certain, yet not [41] fundamental in the faith. Nor yet can it follow, This thing is founded: therefore every thing determined by the Church is founded. Again: that which follows, That those things are not to be opposed which are made firm by full authority of the Church, cannot conclude they are therefore fundamental in the faith. For full Church authority (always the time that included the holy Apostles being passed by, and not comprehended in it) is but Church authority; and Church authority, when it is at full sea, is not simply divine,27 therefore the sentence of it not fundamental in the faith. And yet no erring disputer may be endured to shake the foundation which the Church in council lays. But plain Scripture with evident sense, or a full demonstrative argument, must have room, where a wrangling and erring disputer may not be allowed it. And there is neither of these, but may convince the definition of the Council,28 if it be ill founded. And the articles of the faith may easily prove it is not fundamental, if indeed and verily it be not so.
XII.—And I have read somebody that says (is it not you ?) "that things are fundamental in the faith two ways:" one, in their matter—such as are all things which be so in themselves; the other, in the manner—such as are all things that the Church hath defined and determined to be of faith: and that so, some things that are de modo, "of the manner of being, are of faith." But in plain truth, this is no more than if you should say, some things are fundamental in the faith, and some are not. For, wrangle while you will, you shall never be able to prove that any thing which is but de modo, [42] a consideration "of the manner of being" only, can possibly be fundamental in the faith.
XIII.—And since you make such a foundation of this place, I will a little view the mortar with which it is laid by you. It is a venture but I shall29 find it "untempered." [Ezek. xiii. 11.] Your assertion is: "All points defined by the Church are fundamental." Your proof, this place: "Because that is not to be shaken, which is settled by full authority of the Church (plena ecclesiae authoritate.)" Then it seems your meaning is, that this point there spoken of, "The remission of original sin in baptism of infants," was defined, when S. Augustine wrote this, by a full sentence of a General Council. First, if you say it was, Bellarmine30 will tell you it is false; and that the Pelagian heresy was never condemned in an oecumenical council, but only in nationals. But Bellarmine is deceived: for while the Pelagians stood out impudently against national councils, some of them defended Nestorius, which gave occasion to the first Ephesine Council to excommunicate and depose them.31 And yet this will not serve your turn for this place. For S. Augustine was then dead; and therefore could not mean the sentence of that Council in this place. Secondly, if you say it was not then defined in an oecumenical synod; plena authoritas ecclesiae, "the full authority of the Church," there mentioned, doth not stand properly for the decree of an oecumenical council, but for some national; as this was condemned in a national council:32 and then the full authority of the Church here, is no more than the full authority of this33 Church of Africa.34 And I hope that [43] authority doth not make all points defined by it to be fundamental. You will say, yes, if that council be confirmed by the Pope. And then I must ever wonder why S. Augustine should say, "the full authority of the Church;" and not bestow one word upon the Pope, by whose authority only that Council, as all other, have their fulness of authority, in your judgment. An inexpiable omission, if this doctrine concerning the Pope were true.
XIV.—But here A.C. [A.C. p. 45.] steps in again to help the Jesuit, and he tells us, over and over again, "that all points made firm by full authority of the Church, are fundamental;" so, "firm" he will have them, and therefore "fundamental." But I must tell him, that first, it is one thing in nature, and religion too, to be firm, and another thing to be fundamental. These two are not convertible: it is true that every thing that is fundamental is firm; but it doth not follow that every thing that is firm is fundamental. For many a superstructure is exceeding firm, being fast and close joined to a sure foundation, which yet no man will grant is fundamental. Besides, whatsoever is fundamental in the faith is fundamental to the Church, which is "one by the unity of faith."35 Therefore, if every thing defined by the Church be fundamental in the faith, then the Church’s definition is the Church’s foundation. And so, upon the matter, the Church can lay her own foundation; and then the Church must be in absolute and perfect being before so much as her foundation is laid. Now this is so absurd for any man of learning to say, that by and by after A.C. is content to affirm not only that the prima credibilia, the articles of faith, but "all which so pertains to supernatural, divine, and infallible Christian faith, as that thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts, &c. is the foundation of the Church under Christ the prime foundation." And here he is out again. For, first, all which pertains to supernatural, divine, and infallible Christian faith, is not by and by [44] fundamental in the faith to all Men.36 And secondly, the whole discourse here is concerning faith, as it is taken objectivè, for the object of faith and thing to be believed; but that faith by which Christ is said to dwell in our hearts is taken subjective, for the habit and act of faith. Now to confound both these in one period of speech, can have no other aim than to confound the reader. But to come closer both to the Jesuit and his defender A.C.: if all points made firm by full authority of the Church be fundamental, then they must grant that every thing determined by the Council of Trent is fundamental in the faith. For with them it is firm and catholic which that Council decrees. Now that Council decrees, "That orders collated by the bishop are not void, though they be given without the consent or calling of the people, or of any secular power."37 And yet they can produce no author that ever acknowledged this definition of the Council fundamental in the faith. It is true, I do not grant that the decrees of this Council are made by full authority of the Church: but they do both grant and maintain it; and therefore it is argumentum ad hominem, a good argument against them, that a thing so defined may be firm, for so this is; and yet not fundamental, for so this is not.
XV.—But A. C. [A. C. p. 45.] tells us further, "That if one may deny, or doubtfully dispute against, any one determination of the Church, then he may against another, and another, and so against all; since all are made firm to us by one and the [45] same Divine revelation, sufficiently applied by one and the same full authority of the Church, which being weakened in any one, cannot be firm in any other." First, A.C. might have acknowledged that he borrowed the former part of this out of Vin. Lir.38 And as that learned father uses it, I subscribe to it, but not as A.C. applies it. For Vincentius speaks there de catholico dogmate, "of catholic maxims;" and A.C. will force it to every determination of the Church. Now catholic maxims, which are properly fundamental,39 are certain prime truths deposited with the Church, and not so much determined by the Church as published and manifested, and so made firm by her to us. For so Vincentius expressly.40 Where, all that the Church doth, is but ut hoc idem quod antea, "that the same thing may be believed which was before believed," but with more light and clearness, and, in that sense, with more firmness than before. Now. in this sense, give way to a disputator errans, "every cavilling disputer," to deny or quarrel at the maxims of Christian religion, any one, or any part of any one of them; and why may he not then take liberty to do the like of any other, till he have shaken all? But this hinders not the Church herself, nor any appointed by the Church, to examine her own decrees, and to see that she keep dogmata deposita, the principles of faith unblemished and uncorrupted. For if she do not so, but that novitia veteribus,41 "new doctrines " be [46] added to the old," the Church, which is sacrarium veritatis, "the repository of verity," maybe changed in lupanar errorum; I am loth to English it. By the Church, then, this may—nay it ought to be done; however, every wrangling disputer may neither deny, nor doubtfully dispute, much less obstinately oppose, the determinations of the Church; no, not where they are not dogmata deposita, these "deposited principles." But if he will be so bold to deny or dispute the determinations of the Church, yet that may be done without shaking the foundation, where the determinations themselves belong but to the fabric, and not to the foundation. For a whole frame of building may be shaken, [A.C. p. 46.] and yet the foundation, where it is well laid, remain firm. And therefore, after all, A.C. dares not say the foundation is shaken, but only in a sort. And then it is as true, that in a sort it is not shaken.
XVI.—2. For the second part of his argument, A.C. must pardon me if I dissent from him. For, first, all determinations of the Church are not made firm to us by one and the same Divine revelation. For some determinations of the Church are made firm to us per chirographum Scripturae,42 "by the handwriting of the Scripture," and that is authentical indeed. Some other decisions, yea, and of the Church too, are made, or maybe (if Stapleton43 inform us right,) without an evident, nay without so much as a probable, testimony of Holy Writ. But Bellarmine44 falls quite off in this, and confesses in express terms, "That nothing can be certain by certainty of faith, unless it be contained immediately in the word of God, or be deduced out of the word of God by evident consequence." And if nothing can be so certain,45 then certainly no determination of the Church itself, if that determination be not grounded upon one of these—either express word of God, or evident consequence out of it. So [47] here is little agreement in this great point between Stapleton and Bellarmine. Nor can this be shifted off, as if Stapleton spake of the word of God written, and Bellarmine of the word of God unwritten, as he calls tradition. For Bellarmine treats there of the knowledge which a man hath of the certainty of his own salvation. And I hope A.C. will not tell us, there is any tradition extant unwritten, by which particular men may have assurance of their several salvations. Therefore Bellarmine’s whole disputation there is quite beside the matter; or else he must speak of the written word, and so lie cross to Stapleton, as is mentioned. But to return: If A.C. will, he may, but I cannot, believe that a definition of the Church which is made by the express word of God, and another which is made without so much as a probable testimony of it, or a clear deduction from it, are made firm to us by one and the same Divine revelation. Nay, I must say in this case, that the one determination is firm by Divine revelation, but the other hath no Divine revelation at all, but the Church’s authority only.
2. Secondly, I cannot believe either, "That all determinations of the Church are sufficiently applied by one and the same full authority of the Church." For the authority of the Church, though it be of the same fulness in regard of itself, and of the power which it commits to General Councils lawfully called; yet it is not always of the same fulness of knowledge and sufficiency, nor of the same fulness of conscience and integrity, to apply dogmata fidei, that which is dogmatical in the faith. For instance, I think you dare not deny but the Council of Trent was lawfully called; and yet I am of opinion that few, even of yourselves, believe that the Council of Trent hath the same fulness with the Council of Nice, in all the forenamed kinds or degrees of fulness. Thirdly, suppose that all determinations of the Church are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation, and sufficiently applied by one and the same full authority; yet it will not follow, that they are all alike fundamental in the faith. For I hope A.C. himself will not say, that the definitions of the Church are in better condition than the propositions of Canonical Scripture. Now, all propositions of Canonical Scripture are alike firm, because they all alike [48] proceed from Divine Revelation; but they are not all alike fundamental in the faith. For this proposition of Christ to S. Peter and S. Andrew, " Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men," [Matt. iv. 19.] is as firm a truth as that which He delivered to His disciples, "that He must die, and rise again the third day." [Matt. xvi. 21.] For both proceed from the same Divine Revelation, out of the mouth of our Saviour, and both are sufficiently applied by one and the same full authority of the Church which receives the whole Gospel of S. Matthew to be canonical and infallible Scripture. And yet both these propositions of Christ are not alike fundamental in the faith. For I dare say, no man shall be saved, in the ordinary way of salvation, that believes not the death and the resurrection of Christ. And I believe A.C. dares not say, that no man shall be saved into whose capacity it never came, that Christ made S. Peter and S. Andrew fishers of men. And yet should he say it, nay, should he show it sub annulo piscatoris, no man will believe it that hath not made shipwreck of his common notions. Now if it be thus between proposition and proposition issuing. out of Christ’s own mouth, I hope it may well be so also between even just and true determinations of the Church, that, supposing them alike true and firm, yet they shall not be alike fundamental to all men’s belief.
ENDNOTES:
Note: Initial number/letter, eg. 31g, indicates page number and letter of original footnote. Other endnotes have been gathered from marginal notes in LACT No. 11.
1. 31g "First righting the sentence of S. Augustine, Ferendus est disputator errans, &c." Here A.C. p. 44, tells us very learnedly, that my corrupt copy bath righting instead of reading the sentence of S. Augustine. Whereas I here use the word righting, not as it is opposed to reading, (as any man ]nay discern A.C. palpably mistakes,) but for doing right to S. Augustine; and if I had meant it for writing, I should not have spelled it so.
2. 31h "By which is proved, that all points defined by the Church are fundamental."—[A. C. p. 44.]
3. 31i Your own word.
4. 31k Inconcussa fide ob omnibus.—Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. Q[uaest.] i. Art[ic.] 10. C[onclusio ... Respondeo dicendum, quod .... nova editio symboli necessaria est ad vitandum insurgentes haereses. Ad illius ergo auctoritatem pertinet editio symboli, ad cujus auctoritatem pertinet finaliter determinare ea quae sunt fidei, ut ab omnibus inconcussa fide teneantur. Hoc autem pertinet ad auctoritatem summi pontificis, ad quem majores et difficiliores Ecclesiae quaestiones, ut dicitur in v. Decret. Distinct. 43.]
5. 31/l Scotus [in] I. Sentent. D[istinct.]. xi. Q[uaest.] I. [Op., tom. v. par. 1. p. 858. Quicquid sit de eis, ex quo Ecclesia Catholica declaravit hoc esse tenendum, sicut de substantia fidei, sicut patet Extrav. de Summ. Trin. et Fid. Cathol. Cap. Firmiter, tenendum est, quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat ab Utroque.]
6. 32m [Tales autem sunt haereticorum profanae voces, non solum extra Scripturam, sed etiam extra omnem ecclesiasticam traditionem et auctoritatem privato judicio prolatae. Nam] eccleslasticas voces, etiam extra Scripturas, [iidem illi Sancti Patres studiosissime receperunt.]—Stapleton, [Relectio Scholastica principiorum fidei doctrinalium per controversias, quaestiones et articulos tradita;] Controv. [Capitalisl iv. [De Potest. Eccl.] Quaest. i. Art. 3. [solut. argumentorum, Op., tom. i. p. 743. D. ed. Paris. 1620.—[Sed] quae [Ecclesia ab Apostolorum usque temporibus firma et certa traditione accepit, vel contra haereses in causa fidei] maturo judicio definivit, [vel pro loco et tempore in moribus definiendum censuit,] etiam si nullo Scripturarum, aut evidenti, aut probabili, testimonio confirmetur, solidum tamen [et indubitatum cuivis fideli et vero ecclesiae filio esse debet.]—Ibid. [p. 744. A.]
7. 32n Et penes Cercopes victoria sit.—Greg. Nazian. de Differen. Vitae [Carm xvii. (al. x.) 1. 101. de diversis vitae generibus, et adversus falsos episcopos. Op., tom. ii. p. 854. ed. Benedict. 1840. et tom. ii. p. 81. B. ed. Paris. 1630.
Tauta men, oisi philon, kai kerkôpôn kratos ein; Autaregô Christou plêsomau atremeôn.]
—Cercopes vocat astutos et veteratoriae [cujusdam] improbitatis Episcopos, qui artibus suis ac dolis concilia omnia perturbabant.—Schol. ibid. [i.e. Jacob. Billii, in Carm. Greg. Nazianz. tom. ii. col. 1361. D. ed. Paris. 1630.—Agora Kerkôpôn; id est, Coetus Cercopum, de conciliabulo conventuque versutorum et improborum hominum dicebatur. Narrant enim, Cercopes quosdam in Epheso fuisse, notae fraudulentiae viros, qui suis dolis conati sint ipsi Jovi imponere. Hos admonuerat mater ne in Melampygum inciderent, id quod evenit. Nam post ab Hercule vincti sunt, jussu Omphales. Quidam aiunt, quosdam ob imposturas et malas artes kerkôpas, quasi caudatos, appellatos fuisse apud Ephesios atque Athenienses: ut idem sit sensus hujus adagionis, et illius cujus alibi meminimus, lukou dekas. (col. 584.) Torquet hoc convitium AEschines in Demosthenem (de Falsa Leg. c. xvii. et ibi Schol.) hoti men oun ên poth’ ho kerkôps,ê ti kaloumenon paipalêma, ouk êdein proteron;—Erasm. Adag. Chil. ii. cent. vii. 35. col. 592, 593. ed. Colon. 1612.]
8. 33o Quum enim una et eadem fides sit, neque is qui multum de ipsa dicere potest, plusquam oportet, dicit; neque qui parum, ipsam imminuit.—Iren. lib. i. Advers. Haeres. c. 3. [Kai oute ho panu dunatos en lugô tôn en yais ekklêsiais proestôtôn, hetera toutôn erei; (oudeis gar huper ton didaskalon,) oute hi asthenês en tô logô elattôsei tên paradosin; mias gar kai tês autês tên pisteôs ousês, oute ho polu peri autês dunamenos eipein, epleonasen, oute ho to oligon, êlattonêse—Iren. contra Haereses, lib. i. cap. 3. (al. x. 2.) in fin. pp. 47, 47. ed. Grabe. Oxon. 1702.]
9. 33p Resolutio Occhami est, quod nec tota ecclesia, nec concilium generale, nec summus pontifex potest facere articulum, quod non fuit articulus. Sed in dubiis propositionibus potest ecclesia determinare, an sint catholicae, &c. Tamen sic determinando non facit quod sint catholicae, quum prius essent ante ecclesiae determinationem, &c.—[Magistri Jacobi] Almain. in III. [Sentent.] D[istinct.] xxv. Q[uaest.] 1. [Conclus. 7. fol. lxxx. ed. Lugd. 1527.—Almain’s words are: Sed ecclesia bene determinat de propositionibus catholicis, de quibus erat dubium prius, an essent catholicae vel non, quod sint catholicae: nam sunt aliquae catholicae, et tamen est dublum, quia non continentur expressae in sacris literis. sed deducuntur ex aliquibus contentis in sacris literis. Ecclesia potest determinare quod sint catholicae: tamen sic determinando non tacit quod sint catholicae, quum prius essent ante ecclesiae determinationem, et sic facit ecclesia quod non remanet amplius dubium an illae sint catholicae. Exemplum: determinavit Ecclesia quod Spiritus Sanctus procedebat a Patre et Filio; non facit quod non prius fuerit Catholica; sed quod non amplius est dubium de illa, de qua licebat prius dubitare. —Cf. Gulielmi de Ockam Dialogus, liber secundus primae partis, c. 12. 14. It is contained in Melchior. Goldasti Monarchia S. Romani Imperii, tom. ii. p. 419. et sqq. ed. Francof. 1614.]
10. 34q Regula [quidem] Fidel una omnino est, sola immobilis, et irreformabilis.—Tertul. de Virg. vel. cap. i. [p. 173. A.] In hac fide, &c. Nihil transmutare, &c.—Athan. Epist. ad Jovian. de fide. [Tautê tê pistei, Auguste, pantas epimenein anagkaion, hôs theia kai apostolikê, kai mêdena metakinein autên pithanalogiais kai logomachiais, hoper pepoiêkasin hoi Areiomanitai; k.t.l.—Sect. iv. Op., tom. i. pars ii. p. 782 A. ed. Benedict ]
11. 34r Occham. [as quoted by] Almain. in III. Sent. D[istinct.] xxv. Q[uaest.] 1. [Sed utrum ecclesia possit facere articulum novum quod tangit Ocham in secundo libro dialogi in prima parte, dicit resolutorie, quod nec ecclesia nec papa potest facere novum articulum.—Ibid. paulo supra.]
12. 34s Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. Quaest. i. Art. 7. C[onclus. Dicendum est, quod quantum ad substantiam articulorum fidei, non est factum eorum augmentum per temporum successionem, quia quaecunque posteriores crediderunt continebantur in fide praecedentium patrum, licet implicite. Sed quantum ad explicationem crevit numerus articulorum; quia quaedam explicite cognita sunt a posterioribus, quae a prioribus non cognoscebantur explicite.]
13. 34t [Quod vero Concilium, (sc. Tridentinum), non rejiciat certitudinem solius fidei Catholicae, sed omnis divinae fidei, intelligi potest primum ex eo, quod Concilium, data opera, non fecit mentionem fidei Catholicae ut similibus glossis aditum praecluderet, et omnem fidem veram atque divinam includeret. Deinde ex eo quod disertis verbis docet, neminem esse, qui non possit de sua gratia formidare. At qui habet certitudinem fidei non possit formidare: alioqui facit injuriam divinae fidei. Tertio, quoniam omuis] fides divine [habet certitudinem fidei Catholicae, fides enim non est certa, quia Catholica, sed quia divine.] Non [enim] ideo certitudinem habet [fides] quia toti Ecclesiae communis est, sed quia nititur auctoritate Dei, qui nec falli, nec fallere, potest, cum sit ipsa veritas.—[Bellarmin.] de Justif. lib. iii. c. 3. [Op., tom. iv. col. 951. A. B.]—[At inquit Catharinus, soli fidei Catholicae, convenit, ut et falsum subesse nequeat, quoniam est de objecto probato ab Ecclesia, fidei autem divinae particulari falsum subesse potest, quoniam est de objecto non probato ab Ecclesia. Respondeo, novam atque inauditam hanc esse doctrinam, ut fidei divinae possit subesse falsum, antequam ejus objectum probatum fuerit ab Ecclesia.] Probatio [enim] Ecclesiae facit, ut omnibus innotescat, objectum illud (sc. fidei divinae) esse revelatum a Deo, et propter hoc certum et indubitatum; non autem tribuit firmitatem verbo Dei aliquid revelantis.—Ibid.
14. 35u Scotus in 1. Sent. D[istinct.] xi. Q[uaest.] 1. [ubi supra, p. 28. note c.]
15. 35x Bellarm. de Concil. auctoritat. lib. ii. cap: 12. [Op., tom. ii. col. 86. C. At concilia non habent, neque scribunt immediatas revelationes, aut verba Dei, sed tantum declarant, quodnam sit verbum Dei scriptum, vel traditum, et quomodo intelligi debeat, et praeterea ex eo per ratiocinationem deducunt conclusiones. Itaque] concilia cum definiunt, [qui sint libri canonici et divini,] non faciunt eos esse infallibilis veritatis, sed declarant [solum esse tales.]—[Haeretici multa quae erant implicita fidei nostrae, sua importunitate compuleruntl explicare.—Bonavent. in I. [Sentent.] Distinct. xi. Art. 1. Quaest. 1. [in conclus. ad vi. Op., tom. iv. p. 95. E. Ed. Mogunt. 1689.]—[Ad secundum dicendum ... Sequens concilium non faciebat aliud symbolum, quam primum; sed id quod implicate continebatur in primo symbolo, per aliqua addita] explanabatur [contra haereses insurgentes. Unde in determinatione Chalcedonensis synodi dicitur, quod illi qui fuerunt congregati in concilio Constantinopolitano, doctrinam de Spiritu Sancto tradiderunt: non quod minus esset in praecedentibus, qui apud Nicaeam congregati sunt, inferentes; sed intellectum eorum adversus haereticos] declarantes.—Thom. [Aquin.] I [Summ.] Quaest. xxxvi. Art. 2. in Conclus. Respons. ad 2.—Et, [Ad primum dicendum .... necessaria fuit temporibus praecedentibus] explicatio [fidei contra insurgentes errores.]—Thom. [Aquin.] Seund. Secund. Quaest. i. Art. 10. in Conclus. Respons. ad 1. —Quid unquam aliud (Ecclesia) Conciliorum decretis enisa est, nisi ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur, hoc idem postea diligentius crederetur?—Vin. Lir. cont. Haer. c. xxxii. [p. 71. ed. Colon. 1585.]
16. 36y [Petr. Lomb.] Sent. 1. D[istinct.] xi. [Quicunque, inquiunt Graeci, a Filio Eum procedere addunt, anathema incurrunt: unde et nos arguunt anathematis reos..... In symbolo enim Constantinopolitano, in processione Spiritus solus commemoratur Pater. ... Illud est symbolum, quod in missa cantatur, editum in Niceno concilio; in fine eujus subjunctum est, Qui aliud docuerit, vel aliter praedicaverit, anathema sit: ideoque Graeci nos anathematizatos dicunt, quia dicimus Spiritum Sanctum a Filio procedere, quod ibi non continetur .... a Latinis est additum filioque. Nos autem verba ita determinamus, Qui aliud docuerit, vel aliter praedicaverit, id est, contrarium docuerit, vel contrario modo praedicaverit, anathema sit. Aliud ergo posuit pro opposito, qualiter et Apost. in Epist. ad Galat. (i. 9.) Si quis aliud evangelizaverit, id est, contrarium, anathema sit. Non dicit, Si quis addiderit. Nam si illud diceret, sibi ipsi, ut ait Augustinus, praejudicaret, qui cupiebat venire ad quosdam quibus scribebat, sicut I. ad Thessalonien. (iii. 10.) ut suppleret quae illorum fidei deerant. Sed qui supplet quod minus erat, addit: non quod inerat, tollit.—fol. 30. C. ed. Paris. 1575.]
17. 36z Alb. Magn. in I. Sentent. D[istinct.] xi. Art. 7. [Contrarium sacrae Scripturae quid sit. Deinde quaeritur de his quod dicit, (Qui aliud docuerit, vel aliter praedicaverit, &c.) Illa enim expositio non videtur conveniens: quia non quodlibet aliud est contrarium. Ad hoc dicendum, quod in expositionibus tenet talis ratio: Quod nihil aliud est nisi contrarium: omne enim quod pertinet ad declarationem intus est; et id quod non est intus contrarium est. Unde Anselmus, Omnis veritas Sacrae Scripturae veritas est quae Sacrae Scripturae non contradicit.—Scriptum primum Alb. Magn. Ratisbon. Episcop. in Sentent. libros, tom. i. ed. Basil. 1506.]
18. 36a Hoc [inquam,l semper, nec quicquam praeterea.—Vin. Lir. c. xxxii. [p. 71.]
19. 37b In nova haeresi veritas prius erat de fide, etsi non ita declarata.—[Joannes Duns] Scotus, [Doctor Subtil.] in I. [Senten.] D[istinct.] xi. Q[uaest.] i. in fine. [His words are: multa igitur docuit eos, (sc. discipulos) Spiritus Sanctus, quae non sunt scripta in Evangelio, et illa multa quaedam per Scripturam, quaedam per consuetudinem tradiderunt. Similiter diversa symbola diversis temporibus sunt edita contra diversas haereses de novo orientes, quia quando insurgebat nova haeresis, necessarium erat declarare veritatem, contra quam erat illa haeresis: quae veritas, etsi prius erat de fide, non tamen erat prius tantum dectarata, sicut tunc contra errorem illorum, qui eam negabant.—Scoti Op., tom. v. p. 859. ed. Lugd. 1639.—Ad illud quod objicitur de conciliis, dicendum quod nec in conciliis illis sunt omnia institute, quae spectant ad mores, nec etiam omnia dicta quae ad fidem pertinent, sicut in Symbolo quod cantatur in missa nihil dicitur de descensu ad inferos. Sed nunquam latuit sanctos patres processio Spiritus Sancti a Filio: et si non latuit, quare non dixerunt? Credo quod non latuit, sicut per antiquos Graecorum, quorum Magister adducit auctoritatem in litera: sed tamen non fuit expressum, quia non erat opus. Nullus enim negabat, nec negare volebat. Sed] haeretici multa quae erant implicita fidei nostrae, [sua importunitate] compulerunt explicare.—Bonavent. in I. [Sentent.] D[istinct.] xi. A[rt.] 1. Q[uaest.] 1. [in conclus. ad vi.] ad finem. [Op., tom. iv. p. 95.—AD SECUNDUM dicendum, quod in quolibet concilio, institutum fuit symbolum aliquod propter errorem aliquem qui in concilio damnabatur. Unde sequens concilium non faciebat aliud symbolum quam primum, sed id quod implicate continebatur in primo symbolo, per aliqua addita explanabatur contra haereses insurgentes …. in tempore antiquorum conciliorum, nondum exortus fuerat error dicentium Spiritum Sanctum non procedere a Fillo; non fuit necessarium quod hoc explicite poneretur. …. Continebatur tamen implicite in hoc ipso, quod dicebatur Spiritus Sanctus a Patre procedere.]—Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] i. Q[uaest.] xxxvi. A[rt.] 2. [Resp.] ad 2. [Admonere tamen hic oportet, quod] quamvis Apostolica sedes, aut generale concilium de haeresi censere possit, non tamen ideo assertio aliqua erit haeresis quia Ecclesia definivit, sed quia fidei Catholicae repugnat. Ecclesia siquidem sua definitione non tacit talem assertionem esse haeresim, quum, etiamsi ipsa non definivisset, esset haeresis; sed id efficit [ecclesia] ut [nobis per suam censuram] pateat, [illud esse haeresim, quod contra nos latebat an merito haeresis dici posset.]—Alphon. a Castro. L[ib.] i. Advers. Haeres. c. viii. fol. 21. D. [Op., col. 49. E.]
20. 38c Ecclesia non amputat necessaria, non apponit superflua.—Vin. Lir. c. xxxii. [p. 71.]
21. 38d [Ministri Ecclesiae instituuntur in Ecclesia divinitus fundata et ideo institutio Ecclesiae praesupponitur ad operationem ministrorum .... ideo ad ministros Ecclesiaex novos articulos fidei edere, aut editos removere, aut nova sacramenta instituere, aut instituta removere non pertinet, sed hoc est potestatis excellentis quae soli debetur Christo, qui est Ecclesiae fundamentum.—Thom. [Aquin.] Supp. [Tert. part.Summ.] Q[uaest.] vi. A[rt.] 6. C. [Op., tom. ix.]
22. 38e Augustin. Serm. xiv. de Verb. Apost. c. 21. [Serm. ccxciv. de Baptism. Parvul. cap. 21. (20.) in fin. Op., tom. v. col. 1193. F. ed. Benedict. Impetremus ergo, si possumus, a fratribus nostris, ne nos insuper appellent haereticos, quod eos talia disputantes nos appellare possimus forsitan, si velimus, nec tamen appellamus. Sustinent eos mater piis visceribus sanandos, portet docendos, no plangat mortuos. Nimium est quo progrediuntur: multum est, vix ferendum est, magnae patientiae adhuc ferri. Non abutantur hac patientia Ecclesiae; corrigantur, bonum est. Ut amici exhortamur, non ut inimici litigamus. Detrahunt nobis, ferimus: canoni non detrahant, veritati non detrahant, Ecclesiae Sanctae pro remissione peccati originalis parvulorum quotidie laboranti non contradicant.] Fundata [ista] res est. Ferendus est disputator errans in aliis quaestionibus non diligenter digestis, nondum plena Ecclesiae authoritate firmatis; ibi ferendus est error: non tantum progredi debet, ut etiam fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae, quatere moliatur.
23. 39f Ibid. cap. 20. [Ad hoc ergo lego sanctum Cyprianum, ut videatis quomodo sit intellectus canonicus et catholicus sensus in his verbis, quae paulo ante tractavi. Interrogatus est, utrum infans baptizari debeat ante octavum diem: quia vetere lege non licebat circumcidi infantem, nisi octavo die. Quaestio inde erat nata, de die baptizandi: nam de origine peccati nulla erat quaestio; et ideo ex ea re, unde nulla erat quaestio, soluta est exorta quaestio. Sanctus Cyprianus dixit (in Epist. 59, ad Fidum.) inter caetera quae superius dixit: "Propter quod neminem putamus, &c." Videte quemadmodum de hac re nihil dubitans, solvit illam unde dubitabatur. Hoc de fundamento Ecclesiae sumsit, ad confirmandum lapidem nutantem.—Ibid. col. 1193. B.]
24. 39g [Propter quod neminem putamus a gratia consequenda impediendum esse ea lege quae jam statuta est, nec spiritalem circumcisionem impediri carnali circumcisione debere, sed omnem omnino hominem admittendum esse ad gratiam Christi, quando et Petrus in Actis Apostolorum (x. 28.) loquatur et dicat: Dominus mihi dixit neminem hominem communem dicendum et immundum. Caeterum si homines impedire aliquid ad consecutionem gratiae possit, magis adultos et provectos et majores natu possent impedire peccata graviora. Porro autem si etiam gravissimis delictoribus et in Deum multum ante peccantibus, cum postea crediderint, remissa peccatorum datur, et a baptismo atque a gratia nemo prohibetur, quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans, qui recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae prima nativitate contraxit, qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso facilius accedit quod illi remittuntur non propria, sed aliena, peccata.—S. Cyprian. Ep. lix. ad Fidum, de Infant. Baptizand. Op., p. 99. ed. Benedict.]
25. 40h Concil. Milevitan. [A.D. 416.] C[anon.] ii. [Item placuit, ut quicunque parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat, aut dicit, in remissionem quidem peccatorum nos baptizari, sed nihil ex Adam trahere originalis peccati, quod regenerationis lavacro expictur: unde fit consequens, ut in eis forma baptismatis in remissionem peccatorum, non vere, sed false, intelligatur, anathema sit. Quoniam non aliter intelligendum est, quod ait apostolus (Rom. v. 18.) Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines perlransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt, nisi quemadmodum ecclesia calholica ubique diffusa semper intellexit. Propter hanc enim regulam fidei, etiam parvuli, qui nihil peccatorum in semetipsis adhuc committere potuerunt, ideo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur, ut in eis regeneratione mundetur, quod generatione traxerunt.—Concil. tom. ii. col. 1538. C.]
26. 40i Mos fundatissimus.—S. Aug. Ep. 28. [His words are: Sed contra Cypriani aliquam opinionem, ubi quod videndum fuit, fortasse non vidit, sentiat quisque quod libet; tantum contra apostolicam manifestissimam fidem nemo sentiat, quae ex unius delicto omnes in condemnationem duci praedicat (Rom. v. 18); ex qua condemnatione non liberat, nisi gratia Dei per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, in quo uno omnes vivificantur, quicunque vivificantur. Contra Ecclesiae fundatissimum morem nemo sentiat, ubi ad baptismum, si propter sola parvulorum corpora curreretur, baptizandi offerentur et mortui.—S. Augustin. liber ad Hieronym. seu Epist. clxvi. (al. xxviii.) cap. 8. Op., tom. ii. col. 593. B. ed. Benedict.]
27. 41k Stapleton. Relect. Controv. iv. [de potestate ecclesiae in se], Q[uaest.] iii. [An vox determinantis Ecclesiae sit divina?] A[rtic.] 1. [Vox et determinatio ecclesiae est suo modo divina.—Op., tom. 1. p. 750.]
28. 41/l [Apud vos autem, (sc. Manichaeos) ubi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac teneat, sola personat veritatis pollicitatio;] quae quidem, si tam manifesta monstratur, ut in dubium venire non possit, praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus, quibus in Catholica teneor.—S. Aug. contra [Epistolam Manichaei quam vocant] Fund[amenti,] cap. iv. [Op., tom. viii. col. 153. D. ed. Benedict.—Quod] si [forte] in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum [de Manichaei apostolatu invenire potueris, infirmabis mihi Catholicorum auctoritatem, qui jubent ut tibi non credam; qua infirmata, jam nec evangelio credere potero quia per eos illi credideram; ita nihil apud me valebit, quidquid inde protuleris. Quapropter si nihil manifestum de Manichaei apostolatu in Evangelio reperitur, Catholicis potius credam quam tibi.—Ibid. cap. v. col. 154. C.]
29. [will …. Edit. 1686]
30. 42/l [The footnote indicated here is marked ‘l’ but is ‘m’ at the foor of the page. J.D.L.] Lib. ii. de Concil. Auctorit. cap. v. [Secundo, idem (sc. concilia particularia a summo pontifice confirmata, in fide et moribus errare non posse) probatur ex eo, quod si ejusmodi concilia errare possent, plurimae haereses, quae damnatae sunt] a solis [conciliis] particularibus, [iterum revocari possent in dubium, ut Pelagianorum, Priscillianistarum, Joviniani et aliorum.—Bellarmin. Op., tom. ii. Col. 59. B.]
31. 42m=n Can. i. & iv. [eitis ho mêtropolitês tês eparchias, apostatêsas tês hagias kai oikoumenikês sunodou, prosetheto tô tês apostasias sunedriô ê meta touto prostetheiê, ê ta Kelestiou ephronêsen, ê phronêsê, houtos kata tôn tês eparchias episkopôn diaprattesthai ti oudamôs dunatai, pasês ekklêsiastikês koinônias enteuthen êdê hupo tou sunodou ekbeblêmenos, kai anenergêtos huparchôn; alla kai autois tois tês eparchias episkopois, kai tous perix mêtropolitais, tois ta tês orthodoxias phronousin hupokeisetai, eis to pantê kai tou bathmou tês episkopês ekblêthênai.—Can i.—ei de tines apostatêsaien tôn klêrikôn, kai tolmêsaien ê kat’ idian ê dêmosia ta Nestoriou ê ta Kelestiou phronêsai, kai toutous eivai kathêrêmenous hupo tês hagias sunodou dedikaiôtaai.—Can. iv.—Concil. (an. 431.) tom. iii. col. 803, 806.]
32. 42n=o Concil. Milevit. Can. ii. [ubi sup. p. 40. note i.]
33. [the Church …. Editt. 1673 and 1686.]
34. 42o=p Nay, if your own Cappollus be true,—De Appell. Eccl. Afric. c. ii. n. 5,—it was but a provincial of Numidia, not a plenary of Africa. [Concilium Milevitanum, eo quod ad Romanum pontificem Innocentium de haeresi Pelagiana tunc orienti fratres scripsere, fuisse provinciale Numidiae, et non plenarium Africae, scribunt patres ipsi ad caput Epistolae suae: Haec ad sanctitatem tuam, &c.—pp. 20, 21. ed. Romae, 1722.]
35. 43q Almain. in III. Sent. Distinct. xxv. Quaest. 1. [Concl. 3. fol. lxxix. ed. Lugd. 1527.] 1 A fide enim una Ecclesia dicitur una.
36. 44r [RESPOND. Dicendum quod] ad fidem pertinet aliquid dupliciter. Uno modo directe, sicut ea quae nobis sunt principaliter divinitus tradita, ut Deus esse trinum [et unum, Filium Dei esse incarnatum, et hujusmodi.] Et circa haec opinari falsum hoc ipso inducit haeresim; [maxime si pertinacia adjungatur.] Indirecte [vero ad fidem pertinent ea] ex quibus consequitur aliquid contrarium fidei; [sicut si quis diceret, Samuelem non fuisse filium Helcanae; ex hoc enim sequitur, Scripturam divinam esse falsam. Circa hujusmodi ergo,] absque periculo haeresis, aliquis falsum potest opinari [antequam consideretur vel determinatum sit, quod ex hoc sequitur aliquid contrarium fidel, et maxime si non pertinaciter adhaereat. Sed postquam manifestum est, et praecipue si sit per ecclesiam determinatum, quod ex hoc sequitur aliquid contrarium fidei, in hoe errare non esset absque haeresi.]—Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] p[ars.] 1. Q[uaest.] xxxii. A[rt.] 4. [in conclus.]—There are things necessary to the faith; and things which are but accessory, &c. Hooker, Eccl. Pol. Book iii. ch. iii. [4. Works, vol. i. p. 450. ed. Keble.—His words are: It is not that we make some things necessary, some things accessory and appendant only: for our Lord and Saviour Himself doth make that difference, &c.]
37. 44s Si quis dixerit .... ordines ab episcopis collatos, sine populi vel potestatis saecularis consensu aut vocatione, irritos esse, .... Anathema sit.—[Decret.] Con. Trid. Sess. xxiii. die. xv. Julii, an. MDLXIII.] can. 7.
38. 45t [Vincent. Lirinens.] Cont. Haer. c. xxxi. Abdicata etenim qualibet parte Catholici dogmatis, alia quoque, atque item alia, [ac deinceps alia, et alia jam quasi ex more et licito abdicabuntur. Porro autem singulatim partibus repudiatis,] quid aliud ad extremum sequetur, nisi ut totum pariter repudietur?—[p. 70.]
39. 45u [V. infra,] Sect. xxxviii. 21.
40. 45x [Christi vero] Ecclesia, [sedula et cauta] depositorum apud se dogmatum custos, [nihil in iis unquam permutat, nihil minuit, nihil addit; non amputat necessaria, non apponit superflua, non amittit sua, non usurpat aliena: sed, omni industria hoc unum studet, ut vetera fideliter sapienterque tractando, si quae sunt illa antiquitus informata et inchoata, accuret et poliat: si qua jam expressa et enucleata, consolidet, firmet: si qua jam confirmata et definita, custodiat.] Denique quid unquam [aliud] Conciliorum decretis enisa est, nisi, ut quod antea simpliter credebatur, hoc idem postea diligentius crederetur? [quod antea lentius praedicabatur hoc idem postea instantius praedicaretur? quod antea securius colebatur, hoc idem postea sollicitius excoleretur?]—Vin. Lir. cont. Haeres. c. xxxii. [p. 71.]
41. 45y Vin. Lir. cont. Haeres. cap. xxxi. [Sed et e contra, si novitia veteribus, extranea domesticis, et profana sacratis admisceri coeperint, proserpat hic mos in universum necesse est, ut nihil posthac apud ecclesiam relinquatur intactum, nihil illibatum, nihil integrum, nihil immaculatum, sed sit ibidem deinceps] impiorum ac turpium errorum lupanar, ubi erat ante castae et incorruptae sacrarium veritatis.—[Ibid. p. 76.]
42. 46z Vin. Lir. cont. Haeres. cap xxxii. [Conciliorum suorum decretis Catholica perfecit Ecclesia, nisi ut quod prius a majoribus sola (al. sua) traditione susceperat, hoc deinde posteris etiam per Scripturae chirographum consignaret.—pp. 71, 72.]
43. 46a Relect. Cont. iv. Q[uaest.] 1. Art. 3. Etiamsi nullo Scripturarum, aut evidenti, aut probabili testimonio, &c.—[ubi sup. p. 32. note m.]
44. 46b Non potest aliquid certum esse certitudine fidei, nisi, aut immediate contineatur in verbo Dei, aut ex verbo Dei per evidentem consequentiam deducatur: [fides enim non est, nisi verbi divini auctoritate nitatur. Neque de hoc principio vel Catholici vel haeretici dubitant.]—Bellarmin. de Justificat. Lib. iii. cap. 8. § 2. [Op., tom. iv. col. 963.]
45. [be certain but so …. Editt. 1673 and 1686.]