Project Canterbury
A
RELATION OF THE CONFERENCE
BETWEEN
WILLIAM LAUD,
THEN LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID’S, NOW LORD ARCHBISHOP OF
CANTERBURY,
AND
MR. FISHER THE JESUIT,
BY THE COMMAND OF KING JAMES OF EVER BLESSED MEMORY.
WITH AN ANSWER TO SUCH EXCEPTIONS AS
A. C. TAKES AGAINST IT.
[SECTION I]F
B. The occasion of this third conference you should know sufficiently. You were an actor in it, as well as in two other. Whether you have related the two former truly, appears by Doctor White, the late Reverend Lord Bishop of Ely, his relation,2 or exposition of them. I was present at none, but this third; i. of which I here give the church an [2] account. But of this third, whether that were the cause which you allege, I cannot tell. You say,
[SECTION II]
F. [for that] it was observed, that in the3 second conference [with D. White,] all the speech was about particular matters; [and] little or none4 about a continual, infallible, visible Church, which was the chief and only point in which a certain lady required satisfaction; as having formerly settled in her mind, that it was not for her, or any5 other unlearned persons, to take upon them to judge* of particulars, without depending upon the judgment of the true Church. [A.C.p.41]
*[To wit, absolutely, and to rely upon their private judgment, so as to adventure salvation upon it alone, or chiefly.—A. C. marg. note to p. 41.]
§ 2. B. The opinion of that honourable person in this, was never opened to me. And it is very fit the people should look to the judgment of the Church, before they be too busy with particulars. [1 Cor. x. 15.] But yet neither scripture, nor any good authority, denies them some moderate use of their own understanding and judgment, especially in things familiar and evident; which even ordinary6 capacities may as easily [3] understand, as read. And therefore some particulars a Christian may judge without depending.[SECTION III.]
F. This lady, therefore, having heard it granted in the first conference, That there must be a continual, visible company ever since Christ, teaching unchanged doctrine in all fundamental points,7 that is, [in all] points necessary to salvation, desired to at hear this confirmed, and proof brought [to show] which was that continual, infallible,* visible Church, in which one may, and out of which one cannot, attain salvation. And, therefore, having appointed a time of meeting between8 a [certain] B. and me,9 and thereupon having sent for the B. and me, before the B. came, the lady, and a friend of hers, came first to the room where I was, and debated before me the aforesaid question, and not doubting of the first part, to wit, That there must be a continual visible Church, as they had heard granted by D. White, and10 L. K .[&c.] .... [A.C. p.42.]
*[The Chaplain noting the word infallible to be sometimes put in, sometime. left out, taxeth M. Fisher of speaking distractedly. But I note herein, that M. Fisher spake most advisedly, and with precise care of punctual truth: for when he speaketh of what was observed, or desired by the lady, he putteth in the word infallible, because he knew it was an infallible Church which she sought to rely upon. Butwhen he speaketh of what D. White or L.K. granted, he leaveth it out, because they did not mention the word infallible, but only granted a visible Church in all ages, teaching unchanged doctrine, in all matters necessary to salvation.—A. C. marg. note to p. 42.]
§ 3. I.—B. What D. White and L. K. granted, I heard not: but I think, both granted a continual and a visible Church; neither of them an infallible, at least in your sense. And yourself, in this relation, speak distractedly; for, in these few lines, from the beginning hither, twice you add "infallible" between "continual" and "visible," and twice you leave it out. But this concerns D. W., and he bath answered it.
II.—Here A.C. steps in, and says, "The Jesuit did not speak distractedly, but most advisedly. For," saith he, "where he relates what D. White or L. K. granted, he [4] leaves out the word ‘infallible,’ because they granted it not; but where he speaks of the lady, there he adds it, because the Jesuit knew it was an infallible Church which she sought to rely upon."11 How far the Catholic Militant Church of Christ is infallible, is no dispute for this place, though you shall find it after. But sure the Jesuit did not speak most advisedly, nor A.C. neither, nor the lady herself, if she said she desired to rely upon an infallible Church. For an infallible Church denotes a particular Church, in that it is set in opposition to some other particular Church, that is not infallible. Now I, for my part, do not know what that lady desired to rely upon. This I know: if she desired such a particular Church, neither this Jesuit, nor any other, is able to show it her; no, not Bellarmine himself, though of very great ability to make good any truth, which he undertakes for the Church of Rome. But no strength can uphold an error against truth,12 where truth hath an able defendant. Now, where Bellarmine sets himself purposely to make this good, that "The particular Church of Rome cannot err in matter of faith,"13 out of which it follows, that there may be found a particular infallible Church, you shall see what he is able to perform.
III.—I. First, then, after he hath distinguished, to express his meaning, in what sense the particular Church of Rome cannot err in things which are de fide, of the faith; he tells us, this firmitude is, because the See Apostolic is fixed there. "And this," he saith, "is most true."14 And for proof of it, he brings three Fathers to justify it.
[5]
(1.) The first, S. Cyprian,15 whose words are, "That the Romans are such, as to whom perfidia cannot have access." Now, perfidia can hardly stand for error in faith, or for misbelief; but it properly signifies malicious falsehood in matter of trust and action; not error in faith, but in fact, against the discipline and government of the Church. And why may it not here have this meaning in S. Cyprian?IV.—For the story there16 it is this. In the year 255, there was a council in Carthage, in the cause of two schismatics, Felicissimus and Novatian, about restoring of them to the communion of the Church which had lapsed, in time of danger, from Christianity to idolatry. Felicissimus would admit all, even without penance; and Novatian would admit none, no, not after penance. The Fathers, forty-two in number, went, as the truth led them, between both extremes. To this council came Privatus, a known heretic, but was not admitted, because he was formerly excommunicated, and often condemned. Hereupon he gathers his accomplices together, and chooses one Fortunatus, (who was formerly condemned, as well as himself,) Bishop of Carthage, and set him up against S. Cyprian. This done, Felicissimus and his fellows haste to Rome with letters testimonial from their own party, and pretend that twenty-five bishops concurred with them; and their desire was to be received into the communion of the Roman Church, and to have their new bishop acknowledged. Cornelius, then pope, though their haste had now prevented S. Cyprian’s letters, having formerly heard from him both of them and their schism in Africa, would neither hear them nor receive their letters. They grew insolent and furious, (the ordinary way that [6] Upon this, Cornelius writes to S. Cyprian; and S. Cyprian, in this epistle, gives Cornelius thanks for refusing these African fugitives, declares their schism and wickedness at large, and encourages him, and all bishops, to maintain the ecclesiastical discipline and censures against any, the boldest, threatenings of wicked schismatics. This is the story; and in this is the passage here urged by Bellarmine. Now I would fain know why perfidia, all circumstances considered, may not stand here in its proper sense, for cunning and perfidious dealing, which these men, having practised at Carthage, thought now to obtrude upon the Bishop of Rome also, but that he was wary enough not to be overreached by busy schismatics?
V.—(2.) Secondly, let it be granted that perfidia doth signify here, error in faith and doctrine. For I will not deny but that among the African writers, and especially S. Cyprian, it is sometimes so used; and therefore here, perhaps. But then this privilege, of not erring dangerously in the faith, was not made over absolutely to the Romans, that are such by birth and dwelling only; but to the Romans, qua tales, as they were such as those first were, "whose faith was famous through the world," and as long as they continued such; which, at that time, it seems they did. And so S. Cyprian’s words seem to import, eos esse Romanos, that the Romans then, under Pope Cornelius, were such as the apostle spake of, [Rom. i. 8.] and therefore to whom, at that time, (or any time, they still remaining such,) perfidious misbelief could not be welcome; or rather, indeed, perfidious misbelievers or schismatics could not be welcome. For this very phrase, perfidia non potest habere accessum, directs us to understand the word in a concrete sense: "perfidiousness could not get access;" that is, such perfidious persons, excommunicated out of other Churches, were not likely to get access at Rome, or to find admittance into their communion. It is but a metonymy of speech, the adjunct for the subject; a thing very usual even in elegant17 authors, [7] and much more in later times, as in S. Cyprian’s, when the Latin language was grown rougher. Now, if it be thus understood, I say, in the concrete, then it is plain. that S. Cyprian did not intend by these words to exempt the Romans from possibility of error, but to brand his adversaries with a title due to their merit, calling them perfidious, that is, such as had betrayed or perverted the faith. Neither can we lose by this construction, as will appear at after.
VI.—(3.) But thirdly, when all is done, what if it be no more than a rhetorical excess of speech; perfidia non potest, for non facile potest; it "cannot," that is, "it cannot easily?" Or what if S. Cyprian do but laudando praecipere, by commending18 them to be such, instruct them that such indeed they ought to be, to whom perfidiousness should not get access? Men are very bountiful of their compliments sometimes. Synesius,19 writing to Theophilus of Alexandria, begins thus: Ego kai boulomai, kai anagkê moi theia, [nomon hêgeisthai touto ho ti an ekeinos ho thronos thespisê;] "I both will, and a divine necessity lies upon me, to esteem it a law, whatsoever that throne," (meaning his of Alexandria,) "shall determine." Nay, the word is thespizeiv, and that signifies to determine like an oracle, or as in God’s stead. Now, I hope you will say, this is not to be taken dogmatically; it is but the epistler’s courtesy only. And why not the like here? For the haste which these schismatics made to Rome prevented S. Cyprian’s letters; yet Cornelius, very careful of both the truth and peace of the Church, would neither hear them, nor receive their letters, till20 he had written to S. Cyprian. Now this epistle is S. Cyprian s answer to Cornelius, in which he informs him of the whole truth; and withal gives him thanks for refusing to hear these African fugitives. In which fair way of returning his thanks, if he make an honourable mention of the Romans and their [8] faith, with a little dash of rhetoric, even to a non potest for a non facile potest, it is no great wonder.
VII.—But, take which answer you will of the three, this is plain, that S. Cyprian had no meaning to assert the unerring infallibility of either Pope or Church of Rome. For this is more than manifest by the contestation which after happened between S. Cyprian and Pope Stephen, about the rebaptization of those that were baptized by heretics; for he saith21 expressly, that "Pope Stephen did then not only maintain an error, but the very cause of heretics, and that against Christians and the very Church of God." And after this he chargeth him with obstinacy and presumption.22 I hope this is plain enough to show, that S. Cyprian had no great opinion of the Roman infallibility: or if he had it when he writ to Cornelius, certainly he had changed it when he wrote against Stephen. But I think it was no change; and that, when he wrote to Cornelius, it was rhetoric, and no more.
VIII.—Now, if any man shall say, that, in this point of rebaptization, S. Cyprian himself was in the wrong opinion, and Pope Stephen in the right, I easily grant that; but yet that error of his takes not off his judgment, what he thought of the Papal or Roman infallibility in those times. For though afterwards23 S. Cyprian’s opinion was condemned in a council at Rome under Cornelius, and after that by Pope [9] Stephen, and after both in the first Council of Carthage,24 yet no one word is there in that council which mentions this as an error, that he thought Pope Stephen might err in the faith, while he proclaimed he did so. In which, though the particular censure which he passed on Pope Stephen was erroneous, for Stephen erred not in that, yet the general which results from it, namely, that for all his being in the popedom, he might err, is most true.
IX.—2. The second Father which Bellarmine cites, is S. Jerome:25 his words are: "The Roman faith commanded by the apostle, admits not such praestigias, ‘deceits and delusions,’ into it, though an angel should preach it otherwise than it was preached at first, (and) being armed and fenced by S. Paul’s authority, cannot be changed." Where, first, I will not doubt but that S. Jerome speaks here of the faith; for the praestigiae here mentioned are afterwards more plainly expressed: for he tells us after,26 "That the Bishop of Rome had sent letters into the East, and charged heresy upon Ruffinus." And farther, "that Origen’s books peri archôn were translated by him, and delivered to the simple people of the Church of Rome, that by his means they might lose the verity of the faith, which they had learned from the apostle." Therefore the praestigiae before mentioned, were the [10] Cunning illusions of Ruffinus, putting Origen’s book under the martyr Pamphilus’ name, that so he might bring in heresy the more cunningly under a name of credit, and the more easily pervert the people’s faith. So, of the faith he speaks. And secondly, I shall as easily confess that S. Jerome’s speech is most true, but I cannot admit the Cardinal’s sense of it: for he imposes upon the word fides. For by Romana fides, the Roman faith, he will understand the particular Church of Rome; which is as much as to say, Romanos fideles, the faithful of that Church; and that no wily delusions, or cozenage in matter of faith, can be imposed upon them. Now, hereupon I return to that of S. Cyprian: if fides Romana must signify fideles Romanos, why may not perfidia before signify perfidos? especially since these two words are commonly used by these writers, as terms opposite;27 and therefore, by the law of opposition, may interpret each other proportionably. So with these great masters—with whom it is almost grown to be, quod volumus, rectum est, what we please, shall be the author’s meaning—perfidia must signify absolutely error in faith, or misbelief; but fides must relate to the persons, and signify [11] the faithful of the Roman Church. And now I conceive my answer will proceed with a great deal of reason. For Romana fides, "the Roman faith," as it was commanded by the apostle, of which S. Jerome speaks, is one thing, and the particular Roman Church, of which the Cardinal speaks, is another. The faith indeed admits not praestigias, wily delusions, into it; if it did, it could not be "the whole and undefiled faith" of Christ, which they learned from the apostle; and which is so fenced by apostolical authority as that it cannot be changed, though an angel should preach the contrary. But the particular Church of Rome hath admitted praestigias, divers crafty conveyances, into the faith, and is not fenced as the faith itself is: and therefore, though an angel cannot contrary that, yet the bad angel hath sowed tares in this. By which means Romana fides, though it be now the same it was for the words of the Creed, yet it is not the same for the sense of it, nor for the super and praeter structures built upon it, or joined unto it. So the Roman faith, that is, the faith which S. Paul taught the Romans, and after commanded in them, was all one with the Catholic faith of Christ. For S. Paul taught no other than that one; and this one can never be changed in or from itself by angel or devil. But in men’s hearts it may receive a change; and in particular churches it may receive a change; and in the particular Church of Rome it hath received a change. And ye see, S. Jerome himself confesses, that the Pope himself was afraid ne perderent,28 lest by this art of Ruffinus, "the people might lose the verity of the faith." Now that which can be lost, can be changed; for usually habits begin to alter, before they be quite lost. And that which may be lost among the people, may be lost among the bishops, and the rest of the clergy too, if they look not to it; as it seems they after did not at Rome, though then they did. Nay, at this time the whole Roman Church was in danger enough to swallow Origen’s book, and all the errors in it, coming under the name of Pamphilus; and so S. Jerome himself expressly, and close upon the place cited by Bellarmine. For he desires Ruffinus to "change the title of the book,"29 that error [12] may not be spread under the specious name of Pamphilus, "and so to free from danger the Roman simplicity." Where, by the way, Roman unerring power now challenged, and Roman simplicity then feared, agree not very well together.
X.—3. The third Father alleged by Bellarmine, is S. Gregory Nazianzen.30 And his words are, "That ancient Rome from of old hath the right faith, and always holds it, as becomes the city which is governess over the whole world, to have an entire faith in and concerning God." Now certainly it became that city very well, to keep the faith sound and entire. And having the government of a great part of the world then in her power, it became her so much the more, as her example thereby was the greater. And in S. Gregory Nazianzen’s time, Rome did certainly hold both rectam et integram fidem, the right and the whole entire faith of Christ. But there is nor promise nor prophecy in S. Gregory, that Rome shall ever so do. For his words are plain; semper decet,31 " it always becomes" that great city to have, and to hold too, integram fidem, "the entire faith." But at the other semper, it is retinet,32 that city from of old "holds" the right faith yet; but he saith not retinebit semper, that the City of Rome "shall retain it ever," no more than it shall ever retain the empire of the world. Now it must be assured that it shall ever hold the entire faith of Christ, before we can be assured that that particular Church can never err, or be infallible.
XI.—Besides these, the Cardinal names33 Cyrillus and [13] Ruffinus, but he neither tells us where, nor cites their words. Yet I think I have found the most pregnant place in S. Cyril,34 and that makes clearly against him. For I find expressly these three things: First, that the Church is inexpugnable, and that "the gates of hell shall never prevail against it," but that it shall in perpetuum manere, "remain for ever." And this all Protestants grant. But this, that it shall not fall away, doth not secure it from all kinds of error. Secondly, Bellarmine quotes S. Cyril for the particular Roman Church; and S. Cyril speaks not of the Roman at all, but of the Church of Christ, that is, the Catholic Church. Thirdly, that the foundation and firmness, which the Church of Christ hath, is placed not in, or upon, the person, much less the successor, of S. Peter; but upon the faith,35 which by God’s Spirit in him, he so firmly possessed: which is the common received opinion both of the ancient Fathers and the Protestants. "Upon this rock," that is, upon this faith, "will I build my Church." [S. Matt. xvi. 18.] So here is all the good he hath gotten by S. Cyril, unless he can cite some other place of S. Cyril, which I believe he cannot.
XII.—And for Ruffinus, the place which Bellarmine aims at, is in his Exposition upon the Creed; and is quoted in [14] part the chapter before.36 But when all his words shall be laid together, they will make no more for Bellarmine and his cause, than the former places have done. Ruffinus’ words then run thus:37 "Before I come to the words of the Creed, this I think fit to warn you of:— That in divers Churches some things are found added to the words (of the Creed). But in the Church of the city of Rome, this is not found done. and as I think, it is for that no heresy did take its rise or beginning there; and for that the old custom is there observed, namely, that they which are to receive the grace of baptism do publicly repeat the Creed in the hearing of the people, who would not admit such additions. But in other places, as far as I can understand, by reason of some heretics, some things were added, but such as were to exclude the sense of their novel doctrine." Now these words make little for Bellarmine, who cites them, and much against Ruffinus that uttered them. They make little for Bellarmine. First, because, suppose Ruffinus’ speech to be true, yet this will never follow. In Ruffinus’ time, no heresy had taken its beginning at Rome; therefore no heresy hath had rooting there so many hundred years since. Secondly, Bellarmine takes upon him there to prove, that the particular Church of Rome cannot err. Now neither can this be concluded out of Ruffinus’ words: First, because, as I said before, to argue from non sumpsit to ergo sumere non potest, —no heresy hath yet begun there, therefore none can begin there, or spring thence,—is an argument drawn ab actu ad [15] potentiam negative, from the act to the power of being, which every novice in learning can tell proceeds not negatively. And common reason tells every man, it is no consequence to say, Such a thing is not, or hath not been, therefore it cannot be. Secondly, because though it were true, that no heresy at all did ever take its beginning at Rome, yet that can never prove that the particular Church of Rome can never err, (which is the thing in question.) For suppose that no heresy did ever begin there, yet if any, that began elsewhere, were admitted into that Church, it is as full a proof that that Church can err, as if the heresy had been hatched in that nest. For that Church errs which admits a heresy into it, as well as that which broaches it. Now, Ruffinus says no more of the Roman Church than non sumpsit exordium, "no heresy took its beginning there;" but that denies not, but that some heretical taint might get in there. And it is more than manifest, that the most famous heresies in their several times made their abode even at Rome. And it is observable too, that Bellarmine cites no more of Ruffinus’ words than these: In ecclesia urbis Romae neque haeresis ulla sumpsit exordium, et mos ibi servatur antiquus, as if this were an entire speech; whereas it comes in but as a reason given of the speech precedent; and as if Ruffinus made the Church of Rome the great observer of the customs of the Church; whereas he speaks but of one particular custom of reciting the Creed before baptism. But after all this, I pray, Did no heresy ever begin at Rome? Where did Novatianism begin? At Rome, sure. 38For Baronius,39 Pamelius,40 and Petavius,41 do all dispute the point, whether that sect was denominated from Novatianus the Roman priest, or Novatus [16] the African bishop; and they conclude for Novatian. He then that gave that name is in all right the founder, and Rome the nest of that heresy: and there it continued with a succession42 of bishops from Cornelius to Caelestine, which is near upon two hundred years. Nay, could Ruffinus himself be ignorant that some heresy began at Rome? No, sure. For in this I must challenge him either for his weak memory or his wilful error; for Ruffinus had not only read Eusebius’ history, but had been at the pains to translate him. Now, Eusebius43 says plainly, that "some heretics spread their venom in Asia, some in Phrygia, and others grew at Rome, and Florinus was the ringleader of them." And more clearly after, "Irenaeus" saith he, "directed divers epistles against this Florinus, and his fellow Blastus, and condemns them of such heresies as threw them and their followers into great impiety, &c.; those at Rome corrupting the sound [17] doctrine of the Church. Therefore most manifest it is, that some heresy had its rise and beginning at Rome. But to leave this slip of Ruffinus, most evident it is, that Ruffinus neither did nor could account the particular Church of Rome infallible; for if he had esteemed so of it, he would not have dissented from it in so main a point as is the canon of the Scripture, as he plainly doth; for, reckoning44 up the canonical books, he most manifestly dissents from the Roman Church. Therefore, either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome was infallible, or else the Church of Rome at this day reckons up more books within the canon than heretofore she did. If she do, then she is changed in a main point of faith, the canon of Scripture, and is absolutely convinced not to be infallible; for if she were right in her reckoning then, she is wrong now; and if she be right now, she was wrong then; and if she do not reckon more now than she did when Ruffinus lived, then he reckons fewer than she, and so dissents from her; which doubtless he durst not have done, had he thought her judgment infallible. Yea, and he sets this mark upon his dissent besides,45 that he reckons up the [18] books of the canon just so and no otherwise than as "he received them out of the monuments of the forefathers, and out of which the assertions of our faith are to be taken." Last of all, had this place of Ruffinus any strength for the infallibility of the Church of Rome, yet there is very little reason that the pope and his clergy should take any benefit by it. For S. Jerome46 tells us, That when Ruffinus was angry with him for an epistle which he writ not, he plainly sent him to the Bishop of Rome, and bade him expostulate with him for the contumely put upon him, in that he received not his exposition of the faith, which, said he, all Italy approved; and in that he branded him also, dum nesciret, "behind his back," with heresy. Now, if the pope which then was, rejected this exposition of the creed made by Ruffinus, and branded him besides with heresy, his sentence against Ruffinus was just, or unjust. If unjust, then the pope erred about a matter of faith; and so neither he nor the Church of Rome infallible. If just. then the Church of Rome labours to defend herself by his pen, which is judged heretical by herself. So, whether it were just or unjust, the Church of Rome is driven to a hard strait, when she must beg help of him whom she branded with heresy, and out of that tract which she herself rejected; and so uphold her infallibility by the judgment of a man, who in her judgment had erred so foully. Nor may she by any law47 take benefit of a testimony which herself hath defamed and protested against.
[19]
XIII.—With these Bellarmine is pleased to name six48 popes, which, he saith, are all of this opinion. But49 he adds50 "that these testimonies will be contemned by the [20] heretics." Good words, I pray! I know whom the Cardinal means by heretics very well; but the best is, his call cannot make them so. Nor shall I easily contemn six51 ancient bishops of Rome concurring in opinion, if apparent verity in the thing itself do not force me to dissent; and in that case I shall do it without contempt too. This only I will say,52 [21] that six53 popes concurring in opinion shall have less weight with me in their own cause than any other six54 of the more ancient Fathers. Indeed, could I swallow Bellarmine’s55 opinion, that the pope’s judgment is infallible, I would then submit without any more ado. But that will never down with me, unless I live till I dote, which I hope in God I shall not.XIV.—Other proofs than these Bellarmine brings not to prove that the particular Church of Rome cannot err in or from the faith; and of what force these are to sway any judgment, I submit to all indifferent readers. And having thus examined Bellarmine’s proofs that the particular Church of Rome cannot err in faith, I now return to A. C. and the Jesuit, and tell them, that no Jesuit, or A.C. p. 42. any other, is ever able to prove any particular Church infallible.
XV.—But for the particular Church of Rome, and the pope with it, erred it hath, and therefore may err. Erred [22] I say it hath, in the worship of images, and in altering Christ’s institution in the blessed sacrament, by taking away the cup from the people, and divers other particulars, as shall appear at after.56 And as for the ground which is presumed to secure this Church from error, it is very remarkable how the learned Cardinal57 speaks in this case; for he tells us, that this proposition, So long as S. Peter’s chair is at Rome, that particular Church cannot err in the faith, is verissima, "most true;" and yet, in the very next words, it is fortasse tam vera, "peradventure as true" as the former: that is, That the pope, when he teaches the whole Church in those things which belong to the faith, cannot err in any case. What! is that proposition "most true," and yet is it but at a "peradventure it is as true as this ?" Is it possible any thing should be absolutely most true, and yet under a peradventure that it is but as true as another truth? But here, without all peradventure, neither proposition is true. And then, indeed, Bellarmine may say, without a fortasse, that this proposition, The particular Church of Rome cannot err, so long as the see apostolic is there, is as true as this: The pope cannot err, while he teaches the whole Church in those things which belong to the faith. For neither of them is true. But he cannot say that either of them is verissima, "most true," when neither of them hath truth.
XVI.—2. Secondly, if the particular Church of Rome be infallible, and can neither err in the faith nor fall from it, then it is because the see apostolic cannot be transferred from Rome, but must ever, to the consummation of the world, remain there, and keep that particular Church from erring. Now, to this what says Bellarmine? What? Why, he tells us,58 that it is a pious and most probable opinion to [23] think so. And he reckons four probabilities that it shall never be removed from Rome. And I will not deny but some of them are fair probabilities; but yet they are but probabilities, and so unable to convince any man. Why but then, what if a man cannot think as Bellarmine doth, but that, enforced by the light of his understanding, he must think the quite contrary to this, which Bellarmine thinks pious, and so probable? What then? Why, then Bellarmine himself tells you, that "the quite contrary proposition to this," namely, that S. Peter’s chair may be severed from Rome, and that then that particular Church may err, "is neither heretical nor manifestly erroneous."59 So then, by Bellarmine’s own confession, I am no heretic, nor in any manifest error, if I say, as indeed I do, and think it too, that it is possible for S. Peter’s chair to be carried from Rome, and that then at least, by his own argument, that Church may err.
XVII.—Now, then, upon the whole matter, and to return to A.C. If that lady desired to rely upon a particular infallible Church [A. C. p. 42.], it is not to be found on earth. Rome hath not that gift, nor her bishop neither. And Bellarmine, who, I think, was as able as any champion that Church hath, dares not say it is either heresy or a manifest error to say, that the apostolic see may be removed thence, and that Church not only err in faith, but also fall quite away from it. Now I, for my part, have not ignorance enough in me to believe that that Church which may apostatize at some one time, may not err at another; especially since both her erring and failing may arise from other causes besides that which is mentioned by the Cardinal. And if it may err, it is not infallible.
ENDNOTES:
Note: Initial number/letter, eg. 1a, indicates page number and letter of original footnote. Other endnotes have been gathered from marginal notes in LACT No. 11.
1: 1a [The title of this work of Fisher (so called) is: TRUE RELATIONS OF SUNDRY Conferences had between certain Protestant Doctours, and a JESUITE called M. Fisher, (then Prisoner in London, for the Catholique Fayth:) togeather with Defences of the same. IN WHICH is shewed, that there hath alwayes beene, since Christ, a Visible Church, and in it a Visible Succession of Doctours and Pastours, teaching the unchanged Doctrine of Fayth, left by Christ and his Apostles, in all points necessary to Salvation. AND THAT, Not Protestants, but only Roman Catholiques have had, and can show such a Visible, Church; and in it such a Succession of Pastours and Doctours, of whome men may securely learne what points of Fayth are necessary to Salvation. By A.C. I beseech you, Brethren, marke them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine you have learned, and avoyd them. Rom. xvi. 17. Permissu Superiorum. MDCXXVII]
2: 1b [The title of this work is: A Replie to Jesuit FISHER’S answere to certain questions propounded by his most gratious Matie, King JAMES. By Francis WHITE, D. of Div. Deane of Carlile, Chaplaine to his Matie. Hereunto is annexed a Conference of the right R. B. of St. David’s with the same Jesuit. Ciprianus de Lapsis. Nec Ecclesiae jungitur qui ab Evangelio separatur. LONDON: Printed by Adam Islip. 1624.]
3: [a ... A.C.]
4: [nothing … A.C.]
5: [any, caret A.C.]
6: 2c [Quis enim non intelligat, quod impassibilis sit divinitas, passibilis vero sit humana fragilitas? Cum ergo tam ex eo quod Deus est, quam etiam ex illo quod homo est Christus, intelligatur esse permixtus et esse sociatus. Verbum enim caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis,] quis non sine ullo magistro, aut interprete ex se [sese] facile cognoscat, [non illud in Christo mortuum esse quod Deus est, sed illud in illo mortuum esse quod homo est?]—Novat. de Trin. c. 23.—[c. xx. p. 719. C. ad calcem Op. Tertull.] (et loquitur [sc. Novatianus] de mysterio Passionis Christi.)—Dijudicare est mensurare, etc. Unde et mens dicitur a metiendo. [¶ 4. Praeterea, Damascen. dicit quod ex imagination fit opinio, deinde mens dijudicans opinionem sive veri sit, sive falsa, dijudicat veritatem. Unde et mens dicitur a inetiendo. De quibus igitur judicatum est jam et determinatum, vere dicitur intellectus.] Tho. [Aquin. Summ.] pars 1. Q[uaest]. 79. A[rt]. 9. ad 4. [p. 145.]—To what end, then, is a mind and an understanding given a man, if he may not apply it to measure truth? Et dianoia [dicitur] apo tou dianoein, i.e. ab eo quod consideret, ac discernat.—Damasc. 1. ii. Fid. Orth. c. 22. Quia [ait Damasc.] discernit inter verum et falsum. [ek de phantasias ginetai doxa; eita hê dianoia ankrinasa tên doxan, eite alêthês estin, eite pseudês, krinei to alêthes; hothen kai dianoia legetai apo tou dianoein, kai diakrinein.—S. Joann. Damascen. de Fid. Orthodox. lib. ii. cap. 22. Op., tom. i. p. 187. B. ed. Lequien. Paris. 1712.]
And A.C. himself, p. 41, [v. supra,] denies not all judgment to private men; but says, "they are not so to rely absolutely upon their private judgment, as to adventure salvation upon it alone, or chiefly;" which no man will deny.
7: [points fundamental … A.C.]
8: [betwixt … A.C.]
9: [myself ... A.C.]
10: [and, caret A.C.]
11: AC. p. 42. [marg. not.]
12: 4d [Non enim bonum hominis est hominem vincere; sed bonum est homini ut eum veritas vincat volentem; quia malum est homini ut eum veritas vincat invitum. Nam ipsa] vincat necesse est, sive negantem, sive confitentem.—S. Augustin. Epist. 174. [238. ad Pascentium, sect. 29. Op., tom. ii. col. 863. A. ed. Benedict.] Occultari potest ad tempus veritas, vinci non potest.—S. Aug. [Enarr] in Psal. lxi. [sect. 16. Op., tom. iv. par. 1. col. 599. G. ed. Benedict.]
13: 4e Lib. iv. De Rom. Pont. c. 4. sect. 1. [Secunda Propositio: Non solum Pontifex Romanus] non potest errare in fide sed neque Romana particularis Ecclesia. [Est autem observandum hoc loco, in alio sensu accipi debere firmitatem Ecclesiae Romanae in fide, et in alio firmitatem pontificis: nam pontifex non potest errare errore judiciali: id est, dum judicat et definit quaestionem fidei. At Ecclesia Romana, id est, populus et clerus Romanus, non potest errare errore personali, ita ut omnes omnino errent, et nulli sint in Romana Ecclesia fideles, pontifici adhaerentes. Tametsi enim unusquisque seorsim errare potest, tamen id fieri non potest, ut omnes errent simul, et tota Romana Ecclesia apostatica efficiatur.—Bellarmin. Op., tom. i. col. 811, 812. ed. Colon. 1620.]
14: 4f Ibid. sect. 2. [Observandum est praeterea, Ecclesiam Romanam non posse errare modo explicato, adhuc dupliciter posse intelligi. Uno modo, ut non possit errare, persistente Romae apostolica sede: secus autem, si sedes auferretur. Altero modo, ut simpliciter non possit errare, vel deficere, quia nec sedes Apostolica possit unquam Roma alio transferri. Et quidam secundum priorem sensum propositio nostra est verissima.]
15: 5g [Post ista adhuc insuper pseudo-episcopo sibi ab haereticis constituto,] navigare audent, [et] ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclersiam principalem, [undo unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, a schismaticia et profanis literas ferre;] nec cogitare eos esse Romanos [quorum fides apostolo praedicante (Rom. i.) laudata est,] ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum.—S. Cypr. 1. i. Ep. 3. [Ep. iv. ad Cornelium de Fortunato et Felicissimo, Op., p. 86. ed. Benedict.]
16: 5h Bin. Concil. tom. i. p. 152. edit. Paris. 1636. [Concil. Roman. ii.—Concil. ed. Labb. et Cossart., tom. i. col. 715, A. B. C.] Baron. Annal. an. 253, [num. 109,] 254, [num. 32-107,] 255, [num. 1-30, tom. ii. ed. Romae, 1594.]
17: 6i ...... Ego tibi istam Scelestam,scelus, linguam abscindam—Plaut. Amphit. [act. ii. sc. 1. v. 6.]—Ex hac enim parte pudor pugnat, illine petulantia, &c.—Cic. [in L. Catilin. Orat. ii. sect. 25. (all: 11.)] ..... latuit plebeio tectus amictu Omnis honos: nullosb comitata est purpura fasces. —Lucan. [de Bell. Civil.] lib. ii. [18.]
18: 7k Nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo praedicante, &c. [vide supra, p.5, note 15.]
19: 7/l Epist. 67. [ad Theophilum Alexandr. Synesii Episcop. Cyrens. op., p. 208. A. (ad calcem Op., S. Cyril. Hierosol.) ed. Dionys. Petav. Paris. 1640]
20: 7m For so S. Cyprian begins his epistle to Cornelius. Legi literas tuas, frater [carissime, quas per Saturum fratrem nostrum acolythum misisti, et dilectionis fraternae et ecclesiasticae disciplinae et sacerdotalis censurae satis plenas.—S. Cyprian. Epist. lv. ad Cornelium, Op., p. 79. ed. Benedict.] And after: Sed enim lecta alia tua epistola, frater, &c.—S. Cypr. lib. i. Epist. 3. [Epist. lv. ad Cornelium, Op., p. 80.]
21: 8n [Cyprianus Pompeio fratri salutem. Quanquam plene ea quae de haereticis baptizandis dicenda sunt complexi sumus in Epistolis, quarum ad te exempla transmisimus, frater carissime, tamen quia desiderasti in notitiam tuam perferri quid mihi ad literas nostras] Stephanus frater noster [rescripserit, misi tibi rescripti ejus exemplum: quo lecto, magis ac magis ejus errorem denotabis, qui] haereticorum causam contra Christianos et contra ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur.—S. Cypr. ad Pompeium contra Epist. Steph. edit. per Erasmum, Basil.p. 327. [Epist. lxxiv. p. 138.Op., ed. Benedict.]
22: 8o [Cum vero nulla omnino haeresis, sed neque aliquod schisma habere salutaris baptismi sanctificationem foris possit, cur in tantum] Stephani fratris nostri obstinatio dura [prorupit, ut etiam de Marcionis baptismo, item Valentini et Apelletis, et caeterorum blasphemantium in Deum patrem, contendat filios Deo nasei?—Ibid. p. 140.] And it would be marked by the Jesuit and his A.C., that still it is Stephani fratris nostri, and not capitis, or summi pastoris nostri.
23: 8p Caranza in Concil. Carthag. sub Cornel. fine. [Cyprianus Carthaginensis dixit: Censeo secundum Evangelieam et Apostolicam contestationem, adversarios Christi et Antichristos appellatos, quando ad Ecclesiam venerint, unico Ecclesiae baptismo baptizandos esse, ut posint fieri de adversariis amici, et de Antichristis Christiani.—Revocata sunt haec per Cornelium in sacerdotali concilio Romae, et per Stephanum Papam. —Caranzae Summ. Concil. p. 38. ed. Duaci, 1679. This Council, (the third of those held at Carthage and not received by the Church,) is of the date A.D. 258, (al. 256,) during the pontificate of Pope S. Stephen I., not S. Cornelius.—Cf. Concil., tom i. col. 796. C.]
24: 9q Can. 1. [This council, held during the pontificate of Pope S. Julius I.—not S. Sylvester I., as Caranza incorrectly states—by Gratus, Archbishop of Carthage, A.D. 348, was not strictly the first Council of Carthage, for several had been held there under S Cyprian; but it is styled the first Council of Carthage, "quia inter orthodoxa et approbata Concilia Carthagine habita, ea quae etiamnum extant, primum sit et antiquissimum." (Bin. not. Concil., tom. ii. col. 719.) Can. 1.—Ergo, si vobis placet, consideremus primum titulum rebaptizationis. Unde sanctitatem vestram postulo, ut mentis vestrae placita producatis ad descendentem in aquam, et interrogatum in Trinitate secundum evangelii fidem et apostolorum doctrinam, et confessum bonam conscientiam in Deum, de resurrectione Jesu Christi, si liceat iterum interrogari in eadem fide, et in aqua iterum intingi. Universi Episcopi dixerunt: Absit, absit. Illicitas esse sancimus rebaptizationes, et satis esse alienum a sincera fide et catholica disciplina.—Concil., tom. ii. col. 714. A. B.]
25: 9r Attamen scito Romanam fidem, Apostolica voce laudatam, istiusmodi praestigias non recipere, etiam si Angelus aliter annunciet, quam semel praedicatum est, Pauli auctoritate munitam non posse mutari.—S. Hieron. lib. iii. Apol. contra Ruffinum, tom. ii. fol. 84. K. ed. Paris. 1534. [adv. Rufin. lib. iii. Op., tom. iv. par. ii. col. 449. ed. Benedict.] Peradventure it is here to be read et jam si, for so the place is more plain, and more strong; but the answer is the same.
26: 9s Deinde, ut epistolas contra to ad Orientem mitteret, et cauterium tibi haereseos, [dum nescis,l inureret; diceretque libros Origenis peri archôn, a te translatos, et simplici Romanae, Ecclesiae plebi traditos, ut fidei veritatem quam ab Apostolo didicerant, per te perderent.—S Hieron. ibid. fol. 85. K. [Ibid. col. 457.]
27: 10t [Graviter et dolenter motus sum, fratres carissimi, quod cognoverim Fortunatianum quondam apud vos episcopum post gravem lapsum ruinae suae pro integro nunc agere velle et episcopatum sibi vindicare coepisse. Quae res contristavit me, primo propter ipsum, qui miser, vel diaboli tenebris in totum excoecatus, vel quorundam sacrilege persuasione deceptus, cum debeat satisfacere et ad Dominum exorandum diebus ac noctibus lacrymis et orationibus et precibus incumbere, audet sibi adhuc sacerdotium, quod prodidit, vindicare, quasi post aras diaboli accedere ad altare Dei fas sit, aut non majorem in se iram et indignationem Domini in die judicii provocet,] qui cum fidei [et virtutis] dux [fratribus] esse non potuerit, perfidiae [et audaciae et temeritatis magister] existat. — S. Cyprian. lib. i. Epist. 7. [Epist. lxiv. ad Epictetum, pp. 110,111.]—[Unde et ipsam venisse perspicimus et credimus de Dei exploratione censuram, ne apud altare consistere et contrectare ulterius perseverarent pudorem incesti,] fidem perfidi, [religionem profani, divina terreni, sancta sacrilegi.]—Ibid. [p. lll.]—[Quanquam etsi aliquis ex talibus fuerit apprehensus, non est quod sibi quasi in confessione nominis blandiatur, cum constet, si occisi ejusmodi extra ecclesiam fuerint, fidei coronam non esse, sed poenam potius esse perfidiae.—S. Cyprian. Epist. lvil. ad Cornelium, Op., p. 95.—Nulla societas fidei et perfidiae potest esse.—S. Cyprian. Epist. lv. ad Cornelium, Op., p. 89.]—Ex ovibus subito facti sunt vulpes, ex fidelibus perfidi.—S. Optatus, lib. vii. [lib. vi. c. 8. De Schism. Donatist. Op., p. 100. ed. Dupin. 1700.]—[Quaeris a me, Utrum parentes baptizatis parvulis suis noceant, cum eos daemoniorum sacrificiis sanare conantur. Et si non nocent], quomodo eis prosit cum baptizantur parentum fides, quorum eis non potest obesse perfidia?—S. Aug. Epist. xxiii. [xcviii. Bonifacium, Op., tom. col. 263. F. ed. Benedict.] Quanto [ergo] potius fides aliena potest consulere parvulo, cui sua perfidia [non potest imputari?]—S. Aug. lib. iii. de Lib. Arb. c. 23. [c. 67. Op., tom. i. col. 637. F. ed. Benedict.]
28: 11u Ne fidei veritatem quam ab Apostolo didicerant, per te perderant. [S. Hieron.] ut sup. [p. 9. note 25 ].
29: 11x [Ergo frater, sive a te falsatus est liber, ut multi putant; sive ab altero, ut forsitan persuadere conaberis, et temere credidisti, haeretici hominis suntagma esse martyris,] muta titulum, et Romanam simplicitatem tanto periculo libera —[S. Hieron.] Ibid. fol. 84. K. [col. 449.]
30: 12y Vetus aroma ab antiquis temporibus habet rectam fidem, et semper eam retinet, sicut decet urbem, quae toti orbi praesidet, semper de Deo integram fidem habere.—Greg. Naz. in Carmine de Vita Sua, ante medium, p. 9. ed. Paris. 1609.
[Duô men ou dedôken hêlious phusis,
Dissas de Rômas, tês holês oikoumenês
Lamptêras, archaion te kai neon kratos,
Toson diapherontas allêlôn, hosan
Tên men prolampeinêlion, tên d’ hesperas;
Kallei de kallos antanischein suzugôs.
Toitôn de pistis, he men hên ek pleionos,
Kai nun et’ estin eudromos, tên hesperan,
Pasan deousa tô sôtêriô logô,
Kathôs dikaion tên proedron tôn holôn,
Holên sebousan tên Theou sumphônian;
k.t.l. 562-573, Op. tom. ii. p. 704. ed. Paris. 1840.]
31: [decet semper, it becomes that great city always to have … Editt 1663 and 1686.]
32: 12z The words in the Greek are, hê men ên ek pleionos, kai nun et’ estin eudromos. Haec quidem fuit diu, et nunc adhuc est rectigrada: estin, est; so S. Gregory says, but of an estai, or a retinebit, he says nothing. [ ... nor is semper in the text of Nazianzen. — Editt. 1663 and 1686.]
33: 12a [Nam auctores citati, ut Lucius et Felix papae et martyres; Agatho et Nicolaus papae et confessores; item Cyrillus et Ruffinus, non solum pontificem, sed etiam Eccelesiam Romanam, asseruerunt non posse errare.—Bellarmin. de Rom. Pontif. lib. iv. c. 4. Op., tom. i. col. 812. B.]
34: 13b Petram opinor per agnominationem nihil aliud, quam inconcussam et firmissimam discipuli fidem vocavit. In qua, Ecclesia Christi ita fundata et firmata esset, ut non laberetur, et esset inexpugnabilis inferorum portis, in perpetuum manens.—S. Cyril. Alex. Dial. de Trin. lib. iv p. 278. Paris. an. 1604. [Petran oimai parônumôs, heteron ouden ê tên akataseiston kai hedraiotaton tou mathêtou pistin apokalôn, eph’ hê kai adiaptôtôs erêreistai te kai diapepêgen hê ekklêsia Christou, kai autais analôtos tais adou pulais eisaei diamenousa.—De Sancta Trinitate, Dialog. iv. Op., tom. v. pp. 507. E 508. A. ed. Paris. 1638.]
35: 13c Et ego dico tibi) hoc est, tuae confessione, quâ, mihi dixisti, Tu es Christus, [vicisissitudinem et praemium reddo, et dico, dicendoque facio, quoniam meum dixisse fecisse est, Quia tu es Petrus, id est, principalis; et in fide firmus. Vel Petrus, id est, verae petrae, qui es Christi dignus confessor. Sic ergo imponitur ei novum nomen propter novam confessionem. Et dicitur Petrus, qui Symon vocabatur.] Et super hanc petram) hoc est, fidei hujus firmitatem et fundamentum. Vel, super hanc petram quam confessus es, hoc est, super Meipsum ipsum lapidem angularem, [montem altissimum de quo ait apostolus, Fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere, praeter id quod positum est, quod est Christus Jesus …. In hac igitur fide, quod Jesus est Christus, filius Dei vivi, fundatur atque salvatur ecclesia.] — Dion[ysii] Carthus[iani in quatuor Evangelia Enarrationes, art. xxix.] in S. Matth. xvi. 18. [fol. lv. C. ed. Paris. 1542. —Dionysius a Rickel, cognomento de Leewis, natione Belga .… doctor ecstaticus dictus .... anno aetatis suae 21, Carthusianis nomen dedit .... claruit anno 1450, Cardinalis Cusani amicus …. vir in divinis scripturis, ait Trithemius, studiosissimus .... ingenio subtilis; sermone scholasticus.—Henr. Wharton, sub voc. in append. ad Cavei Histor. Literar. Saec. Synod. tom. ii. (app.) p. 166.]
36: 14d Bellar. lib. iv. de Rom. Pont. cap. iii. sect. penult. [In primis constat, omnes patriarchales sedes defecisse a fide: ita ut haeretici, et haeresim profitentes ac docentes, in illis sederint, excepta Romana sede .... Nihil tale de Romana Ecclesia potest ostendi: ex quo apparet, revera pro ipsa Dominum orasse, ne deficeret fides ejus. Unde Ruffinus in expositione Symboli: In Ecclesia. inquit, urbis Romae, neque haeresis ulla sumpsit exordium, et mos ibi servatur antiquus.—Op., tom. 1. col. 811. C.]
37: 14e Illud non importune commonendum puto, quod in diversis ecclesiis aliqua in his verbis inveniuntur adjecta. In ecclesia tamen urbis Romae hoc non deprehenditur factum [quod ego] pro eo [esse] arbitror, quod neque haeresis ulla illic sumpsit exordium, et mos ibi servatur antiquus, eos qui gratiam baptismi suscepturi sunt, publice id est, fidelium populo audiente,symbolum reddere, et utique adjectionem unius saltem sermonis, eorum qui praecesserunt in fide non admittit auditus. In caeteris autem locis, quantum intelligi datur, propter nonnullos haereticos addita quaedam videntur, per quae novellae doctrinae sensus crederetur excludi, &c.—Ruffin. in Exposit. Symbol. (ut habetur inter Opera S. Cypriani,) Praefat. Expos. [Opusc. vulgo S. Cypr. adscript. col. cxcix. ad calcem ed. Benedict.]
38: [Note: On pages 15 and 16 of the text of LACT No. 11, there is some confusion of the lettering of footnotes. On p. 14: letter d = fn d = endnote 36; e = e = 37; but p. 15: c = f = 39; d = g = 40; e = h = 41; p. 16: f = i = 42; g = k = 43; p. 17: l = l = 44. etc. J.D.L.]
39: 15f Baron. tom. ii. an. 254. num. 62. [Sed de iis illud in primis commonendum, similitudine nominum factum, ut nonnulli antiqui scriptores alterum pro altero interdum usurparint, et alii unum eundemque Novatum cum Novatiano conflaverint: .... porro Novatianos a Novatiano ut principaliori denominatos, constat ex his quae Cyprianus (epist. lxxiii.) scribit ad Fabianum, ubi eosdem quos dicimus Novatianos, a Novatiano derivans, Novatianensces appellat.]
40: 15g Pamel. in Cyprian. Epist. xli. [Erat hic Novatianus Ecclesiae Romanae presbyter. .... Hic autem primum In ecclesia schisma concitavit. .... Eusebius et Nicephorus ..... uterque, et sic etiam Socrates, vicinitate nominum (sc. Novatiani et Novati) falsi, Novatum illum vocant non recte.—In Epist. xli. ad Cornelium, p. 80. ed. Paris. 1616, et p. 55. ed. Benedict.] et lxxiii. [Hinc etiam patet a Novatiano dictos illos haereticos, non a Novato. —Id. in Epist. lxxiii. ad Jubaianum, Op., p. 188, et p. 129. ed. Benedict.]
41: 15h Petavius in Epiphan. Haeres. lix. [sc. Novatianorum. In quo plerosque veterum patrum, ac potissimum Graecorum, aberrasse constat: qui duos sectae hujus architectos in unum miscent similitudine nominum decepti, Novatum et Novatianum. .... Sic igitur Novatianorum secta .... a posteriore praesertim, hoc est Novatiano, magnam incrementum accepit. —Petav. Animad. in Epiph. Haeres. tom. ii. p. 226. ed. Paris. 1622.]
42: 16i Onuph. in Notis ad Plat. in vita Cornelii. [Post S. Fabiani obitum et Cornelii electionem, primum in Ecclesia Romana schisma fuisse constat. Novatianus enim quidam presbyter S.R.E. ambitionis spiritu inflattis .... pontificatum contra Cornelium Romae assumpsit .... a quo haeresis Novatianorum manavit.... Hujius Novatiani in episcopatu successores Romae usque ad Caelestini Papae pontificatum permanserunt. — Onuphr. in Platin. Vit. Pontific. p. 33. ed. Colon. 1568.]
43: 16k Haeretici alii in morem venenatorum serpentum in Asiam et Phrygiam irrepserunt, hoi epi Rômês êkmazon, quorum Dux Florinus.—Euseb. lib. v. cap. 14. [et 15. ap. Hist. Eccl. Script. ed. Reading, tom i. p. 227. Misokalos ge men es ta malista kai philoponêros ôn ho tês ekklêsias tou Theou polemios, mêdena te mêdamnôs tês kata tôn anthrôpôn epiboulês apolipôn tropon, aipesias xenas authis epiphuesthai kata tês ekklêsias enêrgei; ôn hoi men iobolôn dikên herpetôn epi tês Asias kai Phrugias eirpon ton men paraklêton Montanon, tas de ex autou gunaikos, Priskillan kai Maximillan, hôs an tou Montanou prophêtidas gegonuias auchountes. Hoi d’ epi Rômês êkmazon, hôn hêgeito Phlôrinos, presbuteriou tês ekklêsias apopesôn; Blastos te sun toutô paraplêsiô ptômati kateschêmenos; hoi kai pleious tês ekklêsias perielkontes, epi to sphan upêgon boulêma; thateros idiôs peri tên alêtheian neôterizein peirômenos.] And in Ruffinus’ translation, c. 15. [Sed in urbe Romae Florinus quidam gradu presbyteri de ecclesia lapsus una cum Blasto socio criminis et furoris, plurimos de ecclesia in suum barathrum deducebant nova adversum veritatem figmenta machinantes. — p. 115. B. Euseb. Ruffino interpret. apud Autor. Hist. Ecclesiast. ed. Frobenii, Basil. 1539.] And then afterwards, c. 19 and 20. ex enantias de tôn epi Rômês ton hugin tês ekklêsias thesmon paracharattontôn, [Eirênais diaphorous epistolas suntattei tên men epigrapsas, pros Blaston peri schismatos tên de pros Phlorinon peri monarchias, ê peri tou mê einai to Theon poiêtên kakôn tautês gar toi tês gnômês outos edokei proaspizein; di’ hôn authis huposuromenon tê kata Oualentinon planê, k. t. l.—Euseb. Ibid. p. 237. ed. Reading.] Now this Blastus taught [Now these taught. ... Editt. 1663 and 1686.] that God was the author of sin.
44: 17/l Ruff. in Exposit. Symbol. p. 188. [sect. 37,38. co. ccxxiv. ad calcem S. Cyprian. ed. Benedict. Itaque veteris instrumenti primo omnium Moysi quinque libri sunt traditi, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium. Post hos Jesu Nave, et Judicum simul cum Ruth: quatuor post haec Regnorum libri, quos Hebraei duos numerant; Paralipomenon, qui dierum dicitur liber; et Esdrae libri duo, qui apud illos singuli computantur et Esther: Prophetarum vero Esaias, Hieremias, Ezechiel et Daniel: praeterea duodecim Prophetarum liber unus: Job quoque et Psalmi David singuli sunt libri: Salomonis vero tres Ecclesiis traditi, Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Cantica Canticorum. In his concluserunt librorum numerum veteris Testamenti. Novi vero, quatuor Evangelia, Matthae, Marci, Lucae, Joannis: Actus Apostolorum, quos descripsit Lucas, Pauli Apostoli Epistolas quatuordecim, Petri Apostoli Epistolas duas, Jacobi fratris Domini et Apostoli unam, Judae unam, Joannis tres, Apocalypsim Joannis. Haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt; ex quibus fidei nostrae assertiones constare voluerunt. Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt qui non Canonici, sed Ecclesiastici, a majoribus appellati sunt: ut est Sapientia Salomonis, et alia Sapientia, quae dicitur filii Syrach, qui liber apud Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus appellatur; quo vocabulo non auctor libelli, sed scripturae qualitas cognominata est. Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobiae, et Judith, et Machabaeorum libri. In Novo vero Testamento libellus qui dicitur Pastoris, sive Hermetis, qui appellatur duae viae, vel judicium Petri ; quae omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Caeteris vero Scripturas apocryphas nominarunt, quas in ecclesiis legi noluerunt.]—In which reckoning he plainly agrees with the Church of England, Art. vi.
45: 17m [Et ideo quae sunt] novi ac veteris Testamenti [instrumenti] volumina, [quae secundum majorum traditionem per ipsum Spiritum Sanctum inspirata creduntur, et Ecclesiis Christi tradita, competens videtur in hoc loco evidenti numero,] sicut ex Patrum monumentis accepimus, [designare.]—Ruffin. in Symb. p. 188. [sect. 36. col. ccxxiv. ]—Et haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt; et ex quibus fidei nostrae assertiones constare voluerunt.—Ib. p. 189. [ubi sup.]
46: 18n Si [autem] Romani Episcopi est, stulte facis ab eo exemplar Epistolae petere, cui missa non est: [et non ab illo qui miserit de oriente exspectare testimonium, cuius auctorem et testem habeas in vicino.] Vade potius Romam, et praesens apud eum expostula cur tibi et absenti et innocenti fecerit injuriam [contumeliam.] Primum, ut non reciperet expositionem fidei tuae, quam omnis, ut scribis, Italia comprobavit; [et baculo tuarum uti noluerit literarum contra canes tuos.] Deinde, ut Epistolas contra te ad Orientem mitteret, et cauterium tibi haereseos, dum nescis, inureret.—S. Hieron. Apol. iii. advers. Ruffin. fol. 85. K. [Op., tom. iv. par. ii. col. 457. ubi sup. p. 9. note r.]
47: 18o Quum quis se velle personae testium post publicationem repellere fuerit protestatus. Si quid pro ipso dixerint, iis non creditur.—Extra. Tex. et ibi Gloss. c. Praesentium, xxxi. de Testibus. [This is not from the Extravagantes, but from the Decretals of Gregory IX.—Lib. ii. sect. xx.; de Testibus, cap. (xxxi.) Praesentium. (Publicatis attestationibus non opponitur in personas testium; tres casus excipit; et ad secundum determinationem subdit.)—Cap. xxxi. Praesentium auctoritate statuimus, ut si quis post depositiones testium publicatas objicere voluerit in personas eorum, ei tunc tandem id liceat, cum juramento firmaverit, quod ad hoc ex malitia non procedat: nisi forsan ante publicationem id fuerit protestatus; vel ostendere poterit, quod post publicationem didicerit, quod objicit in personas. Caeterum, cum quis personas testium se velle post publicationem depositionum repellere, fuerit protestatus, si quid pro ipso dixerint, de facili non credatur.—Gloss. Per hanc protestationem videtur quod noluit fidem adhibere dictis illorum testium contra se: non ergo debet habere pro se. …. est absurdam redire ad hoc, cui renunciatum est.—Decret. Greg. IX. cum Gloss. p. 726. ed. Taurini, 1621; et Corpus Jur. Canon. tom. ii. p. 97. ed. Pithoei, Paris. 1687.]
48: [or seven …. Editt. 1673 and 1686]
49: [of popes’ opinions he saith …. Editt. 1673 and 1686.]
50: 19p Bell. lib. iv. do Rum. Pontif. c. 4. sect. 5. [Nam auctores citati, ut Lucius et Felix, papae et martyres; Agatho et Nicolaus, papae et confessores …. non solum pontificem, sed etiam Ecclesiam Romanam, asseruerunt non posse errare] .... Addo etiam [duorum pontificum testimonia] quae etsi ab haereticis contemnantur, [tamen a Catholicis cum honore recipienda sunt. Unum est Martini Papae V. qui in Bulla (§ 3.) quam edidit (an. 1418. cf. Bullarium, tom. i. pp. 288, 289, ed. Luxemburg. 1727.) concilio Constantiensi approbante, haereticos haberi censuit eos, qui de Sacramentis, aut fidei articulis aliter sentiunt, quam Romana Ecclesia sentiat. Alterum est Sixti Papae IV. (an. 1478.) qui primum per Synodum Complutensem, deinde etiam per se, damnavit articulos Petri eujusdam Oxoniensis, (Osmensis) quorum articulorum unus erat, Ecclesiam urbis Romae errare posse. Et quanquam haec intelligi debere videntur, praecipue ratione pontificis, tamen quia Ecclesia Romana non est solus Pontifex, sed Pontifex et populus, ideo cum dicunt Patres, aut Pontifices, Romanam Ecclesiam non posse errare, dicere volunt; in Romana Ecclesia semper futurum Episcopum Catholice docentem et populum Catholice sentientem. —Bellarmin. Op. tom. i. col. 812. (ubi sup. p. 12. note x.)—The constitution of Sixtus IV. condemned certain propositions of Peter de Osma, which he had taught in the University of Salamanca. See Aguirre’s Concilia Hispaniae, tom. v. p. 351, Conventus Theologorum apud Complutum (Alcala) …. habitus. A.D. 1479. (1478.) So Labbe. Concil. tom. xiii. col. 1465, Neque alienum fuerit observare eodem anno 1479, (1478,) errores quibus Petrus de Osma Salmanticensem Academiam infecerat, tum ab ipso pope Sixto IV. condemnatos fuisse. The bull of Sixtus IV. anno 1478, is in the Bullarium (tom. i. pp. 416, 417); but in reciting the erroneous propositions which it condemns, there is none stronger than one which asserted, "Romanum pontificem purgatorii poenam remittere, et super his quae universalis Ecclesia statuit, dispensare non posse." Peter do Osma afterwards submitted. (Aguirre, ibid. p. 358.) The testimonies of the other seven popes are thus cited by Bellarmine in the previous chapter:–1. Lucius I. (an. 256. cf. Concil. tom. i. col. 725.) papa et martyr, in Epistola prima ad Episcopos Hispaniae et Galliae. Ecclesia, inquit, (§ 6.) Romana Apostolica est, et mater omnium Ecclesiarum, quae a tramite Apostolicae traditionis nunquam errasse probatur, nec haereticis novitatibus depravata succubuit, secundum ipsius Domini pollicitationem dicentis, Ego rogavi pro te, &c.—2. Felix I. (an. 273. cf. Concil. tom. i. col. 911.) in Epistola ad Benignum, de Romana Ecclesia loquens: Ut, inquit, (§ 2.) in exordio normam fidei Christianae percepit ab auctoribus suis, Apostolorum Christi principibus, illibata manet, juxta illud, Ego rogavi pro te, &c.—3. Leo (an. 447.) Sermone iii. (al. iv.) de Assumptione sua ad Pontificatum, [c. 4. Op., tom. i. col. 14. ed. Ballerini,] Specialis, inquit, cura Petri a Domino suscipitur, et pro fide Petri proprie supplicatur, tanquam aliorum status certior sit futurus, si mens principis victa non fuerit. In Petro ergo omnium fortitudo munitur: et divinae gratiae ita ordinatur auxilium, ut firmitas, quae per Christum Petro tribuitur, per Petrum caeteris (al. apostolis) conferatur. Ubi Leo utrumque privilegium agnoscit, illud primuin, cum ait; Si mens Principis victa non fuerit: illud secundum, cum subjungit; Firmitas, quae per Christum Petro tribuitur, per Petrum caeteris conferatur. Non enim confertur aliis firmitas, nisi veram fidem exponendo.—4. Agatho (an. 679. cf. Concil. tom. vi. col. 636.) papa in epistola ad Constantinum imperatorem, quae lecta est in Sexto Synodo, actionem 4. et postea actione 8. ab omnibus probata: Haec est, inquit, verae fidei regula, quam et in prosperis et in adversis vivaciter tenuit Apostolica Christi ecclesia, quae per Dei gratiam a tramite Apostolicae traditionis nunquam errasse probatur, nec haereticis novitatibus unquam depravata succubuit, quia dictum est Petro, Simon, Simon, ecce Satanas, &c. Ego autem rogavi pro te, &c. Hic Dominus fidem Petri non defecturam promisit, et confirmare eum fratres suos admonuit, quod Apostolicos pontifices meae exiguitatis praedecessores confidenter fecisse semper cunctis est agnitum.—5. Nicolaus I. (an. 858. cf. Concil. tom. viii. col. 314.) in Ecistola (viii.) ad Michaelem: Privilegia, inquit, istius sedis (vel Ecclesiae) perpetua sunt; divinitus radicata, atque plantata sunt; impingi possunt, transferri non possunt; trahi possunt, evelli non possunt. Quae ante imperium vestrum fuerunt, (et) permanent, Deo gratias, hactenus illibata, manebuntque post vos, et quousque Christianum nomen praedicatum fuerit, illa subsistere non cessabunt (immutilata).—6. Leo IX. an. 1049. cf. Concil. tom. ix. col. 975. in Epistola ad Petrum Antiochenum: Nimirum, inquit, solus est, pro quo, ne deficeret fides ejus, Dominus et Salvator asseruit se rogasse, dicens, Rogavi pro te, &c. Quae venerabilis et efficax oratio obtinuit, quod hactenus fides Petri non defecit, nec defectura creditur in throne illius.—7. Innocentius III. (IV.) (an. 1250. cf. Decret. Greg. IX. Lib. iii. Tit. xlii.) in Epistola ad Episcopum Arelatensem, et habetur cap. Majores, Extrav. de Baptismo et ejus effectu: Majores, inquit Ecclesiae causas, praesertim articulos fidei contingentes ad Petri sedem referendas intelligit qui novit pro eo Dominum exorasse, ne deficiat fides ejus.—Bellarmin. de Rom. Pout. lib. iv. c. 3. Op., tom. i. col. 807.—Of these testimonies, it may be observed that the two earliest, those of Popes Lucius and Felix, are admitted to be spurious—cf. Concil. tom. i. col. 721. "Suspecta eodem jure cum aliis Isidori mercibus," and Concil. tom. i. col. 903. "Suppositiae hae epistolae doctis habentur."]
51: [seven …. Editt. 1673 and 1686]
52: 20q [De reliquis auctoritatibus quae ex scriptis Romanorum pontificum proferuntur, et ix. Quaestion. 3 (sc. Gratian. in Decret.) leguntur non est magnopere laborandum, quia Johannes Gerson, atque alii doctores Parisienses uno verbo respondent,] nemini in sua causa credendum, nisi conformiter ad legem divinam, naturalem, et canonicam loquatur: [juri autem divino et naturali repugnat, caput ministeriale imperium habere absolutum in Ecclesiam.]—So Jo. Gerson, and the doctors of Paris cited in Lib. Anon. do Ecclesiastica et Politica Potestate, c. xvi. ed. Paris. 1612. Now these popes do not speak here conformably to these laws.—[The author of this work, first published anonymously, Paris 1612, was Edmund Richer, Syndic of the faculty of divinity in the Sorbonne. Of the circumstances attending its publication, a full account is in Bossuet, Def. Cler. Gall. lib. vi. cap. 25. (OEuvres de Bossuet, tom. xxxii. p. 389. ed. Versailles, 1817. An English translation of it appeared in the same year, under the title "A Treatise of Ecclesiasticall and Politike Power, &c. Faithfully translated out of the Latin originall, of late publicly printed and allowed in Paris. Now set foorth for a further warrant and encouragement to the Romish Catholikes of England, for theyr taking of the Oath of Allegiance; seeing so many others of their owne profession in other countries doe deny the Popes infalibility in judgement and temporall power over Princes, directly against the doctrine of Jesuits." London. 1612. The last and most complete edition of the work, with the Defences, documents, references, &c., together with some curious opuscula connected with it, is that of Cologne, 1701, in two volumes quarto. In Lib. i. cap. i. sect. 12. of the Defensio Libelli de Eccl. et Politic. Potest. tom. 12. ed. Colon., Richer recites the ancient doctrine held on the Gallican liberties by the Paris Schools. These principles are fully indicated in the Decree which they passed in 1429, against John Sarrazin, (printed in the Libell. de Eccl. et Politic. Potest. Demonst. cap. xviii.) and repeated in the decree of 1611, (printed in the preface to the Def. Libelli, &c. p. i.-iii.) Sarrazin in his recantation subscribed the following articles, which may be considered as a summary of the views of Gerson, Almain, &c., formally embodied by their successors in the Parisian Schools:—1. Omnes potestates jurisdictionis Ecclesiasticae, aliae a papali potestate, sunt ab ipso Christo quantum ad institutionem et collationem primariam: a Papa autem et ab Ecclesia quantum ad limitationem et dispensationem ministerialern.—2. Hujus modi potestates sunt de jure divine, et immediate institute a Deo.—3. Invenitur in sacra Scriptura Christum Ecclesiam fundame, et potestates alias a papali expresse ordinasse.—4. Quandocunque in aliquo concilio aliqua instituuntur, tota auctoritas dans vigorem statutis residet non in solo summo Pontifice, sed principaliter in Spiritu Sancto et Ecclesia Catholica. —5. Ex textu Evangelii et doctrina apostolorum habetur expresse, apostolis et discipulis a Christo missis auctoritatem jurisdictionis fuisse collatam.—6. Dicere inferiorum praelatorum potestatem jurisdictionis, sive sint episcopi, sive sint curati, esse immediate a Deo, evangelicae et apostolicae consonat veritati. —7. Aliqua potestas, scilicet potestas Ecclesiae, de jure potest aliquid in certis casibus contra summum pontificem.—8. Quicunque purus viator habens usum rationis cujuscumque dignitatis, auctoritatis aut praeeminentiae, etiamsi Papalis existat, simoniam potest committere.]
53: [seven … Editt. 1673 and 1686.]
54: [seven … Ibid.]
55: 21r Lib. iv. de Rom. Pont. c. iii. [in initio .... Editt. 1673 ind 1686.] [Sit igitur prima propositio: Summus Pontifex, cum totam ecclesiam docet, in his quae ad fidem pertinent, nullo casu errare potest.—Op., tom. i. col. 805.]
56 22s [V. infra,] Sect. xxxiii. (vii.) 5, 12.
57: 22t Romana Ecclesia particularis non potest errare, persistente Romae apostolica sede. Propositio haec est verissima, et fortasse tam vera quam illa prima de Pontifice.—Lib. iv. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. § 2. [ubi sup. p. 4. note f.] —And that first proposition is this: Summus Pontifex, cum totam ecclesiam docet, in his quae ad fidem pertinent, nullo casu errare potest.—Ibid. c. 3. § 1. [ubi sup. p. 21. note n.]
58: 22u [At secundum posteriorem sensum, Ecclesiam Romanam non posse deficere, est quidem pia et probabilissima sententia, non tamen adeo certa, ut contraria dici possit haeretica, vel manifeste erronea, ut recte docet Joannes Driedo, lib. iv. c. 3. par. 3, de Ecclesiast. Dogmat. et Scripturis. Quod non sit omnino de fide, a Romana Ecclesia non posse separari Apostolicam sedem, patet: quia neque scriptura, neque traditio, habet, sedem Apostolicam ita fixam esse Romae, ut inde auferri non possit. Et omnia testimonia Pontificum et Patrum, qui dicunt Romanam ecclesiam non posse errare, possent exponi de Romana ecclesia, donec in ea Apostolica sedes permanet: non autem absolute, et simpliciter. Quod nihilominus tamen] pia et probabilissima sit sententia, non posse separari Petri Cathedram a Roma, et proinde Romanam Ecclesiam absolute non posse errare, nec deficere, [probatur primo ex eo quod tamdiu mansit Romae sedes Apostolica non obstantibus infinitis persecutionibus, &c.—Bellarm. de Rom. Pont.] lib. iv. c.4. sect. 5. [ubi sup. p. 4. note c.]
59: 23x Contraria sententia nec est haeretica, nec manifeste erronea.—[Bellarm.] lib. iv. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. sect. 5. [ubi sup.]