Project Canterbury
Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology
William Laud, Works, Volume Two
Conference with Fisher the Jesuit
Sections 25c-26c
Transcribed by John D Lewis
AD 2001
Section: | XXV par: xiv. xv. xvi. xvii. xviii. | XXVI par: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. | Notes |
[205] cont’d
[SECTION XXV C.]
XIV.—But to this place of Irenaeus, A.C. [p. 58.] joins a reason of his own. For he tells us, "the bishop of Rome is S. Peter’s successor," and therefore to him we must have recourse. The fathers, I deny not, ascribe very much to S. Peter; but it is to S. Peter in his own person. And among them, Epiphanius is as free and as frequent in extolling S. Peter as any of them, and yet did he never intend to give an absolute principality to Rome in S. Peter’s right. There is a noted place in that father, where his words are these: "For the Lord Himself made S. Peter the first of the apostles, a firm rock, upon which the Church of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, &c. For in him the faith is made firm every way, who received the key [206] of heaven, &c. For in him all the questions and subtleties of the faith are found."1 This is a great place at first sight too, and deserves a marginal note, to call young readers’ eyes to view it. And it hath this note in the old Latin edition, at Paris, 1564: "Petri principatus et praestantia," "Peter’s principality and excellency." This place, as much show as it makes for the Roman principality, I shall easily clear, and yet do no wrong either to S. Peter or the Roman Church. For most manifest it is, that the authority of S. Peter is urged here to prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost.2 And then follow the eulogies given to S. Peter, the better to set off and make good that authority: as that he was "princeps apostolorum,3 ‘the prince of the apostles,’ and pronounced blessed by Christ; because as God the Father revealed to him the Godhead of the Son, so did the Son the Godhead of the Holy Ghost." After this, Epiphanius calls him "solidam petram,4 ‘a solid rock,’ upon which the Church of God was founded, and against which the gates of hell should not prevail." And adds, "that the faith was rooted and made firm in him5 every way, in him who received the key of heaven." And after this, he gives the reason of all: "Because in him,"—mark, I pray, it is still "in him," as he was blessed by that revelation from God the Father, S. Matt. xvi. [17.]—"were found all the leptologêmata, ‘the very niceties’ and exactness of the Christian faith."6 For he professed the Godhead of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and so, omni [207] modo, every point of faith was rooted in him. And this is the full meaning of that learned father, in this passage. Now, therefore, "building the Church upon S. Peter," in Epiphanius’s sense, is not as if he and his successors were to be monarchs over it for ever; but it is the edifying and establishing the Church in the true faith of Christ, by the confession which S. Peter made. And so he expresses himself elsewhere most plainly: "S. Peter," saith he, "who was made to us indeed a solid rock, firming the faith of our Lord; on which rock the Church is built juxta omnem modum, ‘every way.’7 First, that he confessed Christ to be the Son of the living God; and by and by he heard, ‘Upon this rock of solid faith I will build My Church.’ And the same confession he made of the Holy Ghost." Thus was S. Peter a solid rock, upon which the Church was founded omni modo, "every way;" that is, the faith of the Church was confirmed by him in every point.8 But that S. Peter was any rock or foundation of the Church, so as that he and his successors must be relied on in all matters of faith, and govern the Church like princes or monarchs, that Epiphanius never thought of. And that he did never think so, I prove it thus. For beside this apparent meaning of his context, as is here expressed, how could he possibly think of a supremacy due to S. Peter’s successor, that in most express terms, and that twice repeated,9 makes S. James, the brother [208] of our Lord, and not S. Peter, "succeed our Lord in the principality of the Church?" And Epiphanius was too full both of learning and industry, to speak contrary to himself in a point of this moment.
XV.—Next, since A. C. speeds no better with Irenaeus, he will have it out of Scripture. And he still tells us, "the bishop of Rome is S. Peter’s successor." Well, suppose that. What then? What? Why then he succeeded in all S. Peter’s prerogatives10 [A.C. p. 58.] which are ordinary, and belonged to him as a bishop,—though not in the extraordinary, which belonged to him as an apostle. For that is it which you all say, but no man proves.11 If this be so, yet then I must tell A.C., S. Peter in his ordinary power was never made "pastor of the whole Church;" nay, in his extraordinary, he had no "more powerful principality"12 than the other apostles had. A "primacy of order"13 was never denied him by the Protestants; and an "universal supremacy of power" was never granted him by the primitive Christians. Yea, but "Christ promised the keys to S. Peter." [Matt. xvi. [19]] True, but so did He to all the rest of the apostles; and to their successors as much as to his. [Matt. xviii. [18]] So it is tibi et illis, not tibi non illis, "I give the keys to thee and them," [John xx. [23.]] not "to thee to exclude them;" unless any man will think heaven-gates so easy, that they might open and shut them without the keys. And S. Augustine is plain: "If this were said only to S. Peter, then the Church hath no power to do it;"14 which, [209] God forbid! The keys therefore were given to S. Peter and the rest, in a figure of the Church, to whose power and for whose use they were given. But there is not one key in all that bunch, that can let in S. Peter’s successor to a "more powerful principality universal" than the successors of the other apostles had.
XVI.—Yea, but Christ prayed "that S. Peter’s faith might not fail." [Luke xxii. 32.; A.C. p. 58.] That is true; and in that sense that Christ prayed, S. Peter’s faith failed not; that is, in application to his person, "for his perseverance in the faith," as S. Prosper15 applies it. "Which perseverance yet he must owe and acknowledge to the grace of Christ’s prayer for him, not to the power and ability of his own free will," as S. Jerome16 tells us. Bellarmine17 likes not this, "because," saith he, Christ here obtained some special privilege for S. Peter, whereas perseverance in grace is a gift common to all the elect." And he is so far right. And the special grace which this prayer of Christ obtained for S. Peter was, that he should not fall into a final apostasy; no, not when Satan had sifted him to the bran, that he fell most horribly even into a threefold denial of his Master, and that with a curse. And to recover this, and persevere, was aliquid speciale, I trow, if any thing ever were. But this will not down with Bellarmine. No; "The aliquid speciale,18 ‘the special thing’ [210] here obtained was," saith he, "that neither S. Peter himself, nor any other that should sit in his seat, should ever teach any thing contrary to the true faith." That S. Peter, after his recovery, should preach nothing, either as apostle or bishop, contrary to the faith, will easily be granted him; but that none of his successors should do it, but be all infallible, that certainly never came within the compass of Rogavi pro te, Petre, "I have prayed for thee, Peter." And Bellarmine’s proof of this is his just confutation. For he proves this exposition of that text only by the testimony of seven19 popes in their own cause; and then takes a leap to Theophylact, who says nothing to the purpose. So that, upon the matter, Bellarmine confesses there is not one father of the Church, disinterested in the cause, that understands this text as Bellarmine doth, till you come down to Theophylact. So the pope’s infallibility appeared to nobody but the popes themselves, for above a thousand years after Christ—for so long it was before Theophylact20 lived. And the spite of it is, Theophylact could not see it neither. For the most that Bellarmine makes him say, is but this: "Because I account thee as chief of My disciples, confirm the rest; for this becomes thee, which art to be a rock and foundation of the Church after Me."21 For this is personal too, and of S. Peter, and that as he was an apostle; for otherwise than as an apostle, he was not a rock or foundation of the Church, no, not in a secondary sense. The special privilege therefore which Christ prayed for, was personal to S. Peter, and is that which before I mentioned. [211] And Bellarmine himself says, that "Christ obtained by this prayer two privileges, especial ones, for S. Peter:"22 the one, " that he should never quite fall from the true faith, how strongly soever he were tempted;" the other, "that there should never be found any sitting in his seat, that should teach against it." Now for the first of these, Bellarmine23 "doubts it did not flow over to his successors." Why, then, it is true which I here say, that this was personal to S. Peter. "But the second," he, says, "out of all doubt passed over to his successors." Nay, that is not out of all doubt neither: First, because many learned men have challenged many popes for teaching heresy; and that is against the true faith. And that which so many learned men have affirmed, is not out of all doubt; or if it be, why does Bellarmine take so much pains to confute and disprove them as he doth?24 Secondly, because Christ obtained of His Father every thing that He prayed for, if He prayed for it absolutely, and not under a condition: "Father, I know that thou hearest Me always." [John xi. 42.] Now, Christ here prayed absolutely for S. Peter; therefore, whatsoever He asked for him was granted. Therefore, if Christ intended his successors as well as himself, His prayer was granted for his successors as well as for himself. But then, if Bellarmine will tell us absolutely, as he doth, "that the whole gift obtained by this prayer for S. Peter did belong to his successors;"25 and then by and by after, break this gift into two parts, and call the first part into doubt, whether it belongs to his successors or no, he cannot say the second part is out of all doubt. For if there be reason of doubting the one, there is as much reason of doubting the other, since they stand both on the same foot, the validity of Christ’s prayer for S. Peter.
XVII.—Yea, but "Christ charged S. Peter to govern and [212] feed His whole flock." Nay, soft! It is but His sheep and His lambs; and that every apostle, and every apostle’s successor, hath charge to do.26 [John xxi. 15.] But over the whole flock I find no one apostle or successor set. And it is a poor shift to say, as A.C. [p. 58.] doth, "that the Bishop of Rome is set over the whole flock, because both over lambs and sheep;" for in every flock, that is not of barren wethers, there are lambs and sheep, that is, weaker and stronger Christians;27 not people and pastors, subjects and governors, as A.C. expounds it, to bring the necks of princes under Roman pride. And if kings be meant, yet then the command is, Pasce, "feed" them; but deponere, or occidere, to "depose," or "kill" them, is not pascere in any sense: lanii id est, non pastoris; "that is the butcher’s, not the shepherd’s, part." If a sheep go astray never so far, it is not the shepherd’s part to kill him; at least if he do, non pascit dum occidit, "he doth not certainly feed while he kills."
XVIII.—And for the close, "That the bishop of Rome shall never refuse to feed and govern the whole flock in such sort, as that neither particular man, nor Church, shall have just cause, under pretence of reformation in manners or faith, to make a separation from the whole Church;" [A.C. p. 58.]—by A.C.’s favour, this is mere begging of the question. He says, the pope shall ever govern the whole Church so as that there shall be no just cause given of a separation. And that is the very thing which the Protestants charge upon him; namely, that he hath governed, if not the whole, yet so much of the Church as he hath been able to bring under his power, so as that he hath given too just cause of the present continued separation. And as the corruptions in the doctrine of faith in the [213] Church of Rome were the cause of the first separation, so are they at this present day the cause why the separation continues. And further, I, for my part, am clear of opinion, that the errors in the doctrine of faith which are charged upon the whole Church, at least so much of the whole as in these parts of Europe hath been kept under the Roman jurisdiction, have had their original and continuance from this, That so much of the universal Church (which indeed they account all) hath forgotten her own liberty, and submitted to the Roman Church and bishop; and so is in a manner forced to embrace all the corruptions which the particular Church of Rome hath contracted upon itself; and being now not able to free herself from the Roman jurisdiction, is made to continue also in all her corruptions. And for the Protestants, they have made no separation from the general Church, properly so called (for therein A.C. [p. 58.] said well, "the pope’s administration can give no cause to separate from that"), but their separation is only from the Church of Rome, and such other churches as, by adhering to her, have hazarded themselves, and do now miscall themselves the whole Catholic Church. Nay, even here the Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her essence, but in her errors; not in the things which constitute a Church, but only in such abuses and corruptions as work toward the dissolution of a Church.
[SECTION XXVI.]
F. I also asked, Who ought to judge in this case? The B. said, A General Council.* [A.C. p. 59.]
* [It is true, when the question is about the general faith of the Church, the matter may be made most firm, if the Church in a General Council, with the full authority of her chief pastor, and all other pastors, whom all people must obey, (Rom. xv.; Heb. xiii.) decree what is to be held for divine truth, by Visum est Spiritui Sancto et nobis, (Acts xv.) and by adding Anathema to such as resist this truth. For if this be not firm and infallible, what can be so firm and well-founded in the Church, which, under pretext of seeming evident Scripture or demonstration, may not he shaken and called in question by an erring disputer? For if all pastors being gathered together in the name of Christ, praying unanimiter for the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost, making great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures, and other grounds of faith, and hearing each pastor declare what hath been the ancient tradition of his Church, shall, in fine, conclude and decree, in manner aforesaid, what is to be held for Divine truth,—if, I say, the Council in this decree may err, and may be controlled by every particular or any particular, unlearned or learned, man, or Church, pretending evident text of Scripture, or clear demonstration—supple, Teste et judice seipsis—remain firm or certain upon earth, which may not by a like be controlled, or at least, by one or other, called in question? A General Council therefore, being lawfully called, [214] continued and confirmed, is, doubtless, a most competent judge of all controversies of faith. But what is to be done when a General Council cannot be called, as many times it cannot by reason of manifold impediments; or if, being called, all will not be of one mind? as among Protestants and others, who admit no infallible means, will, or judge, beside "only Scripture," which each, man will interpret as seemeth best to his several private judgment or spirit, it is scarce to be hoped that all, or the major part, will ever so agree, as to remain constant in one and the same mind. Hath Christ our Lord in this case provided no means, no rule, no judge, which may infallibly determine and end controversies, and procure unity and certainty of belief, being so necessary for the honour of God, and the good of His Church? Must people, for want of such a judge, rule, or means, continue, not only months and years, but whole ages, in uncertainty and disunity of faith, and in perpetual jars about even main matters of divine truth? There is no earthly kingdom that, in case matters cannot be composed by Parliament—which cannot be called upon all occasions and at all times—hath not, beside the law-books, some living magistrates and judges, and, above all, one visible king, the highest magistrate and judge, who hath authority sufficient to end controversies, and procure peace and unity, and certainty of judgmeiats, about all temporal affairs; and shall we think that Christ, the wisest King, hath provided in His kingdom, which is the Church, only the law-books of Holy Scriptures, and no living visible magistrates and judges; and, above all, one chief magistrate and judge, so assisted with His Spirit and Providence, as may suffice to end controversies, and breed unity and certainty of faith? which never can be while every man may interpret Holy Scripture, the law-book, as he list.—A.C. marg. note to p. 59).]
§ 26. B. I.—And surely, what greater or surer judgment you can have, where sense of Scripture is doubted, than a General Council, [A.C. p. 59.] I do not see, nor do you doubt. And A.C. grants it to be "a most competent judge of all controversies of faith, so that all pastors be gathered together, and in the name of Christ, and pray unanimously for the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost, and make great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures, and other grounds of faith, and then decree what is to be held for Divine truth. For then," saith he, "it is firm and infallible, or else there is nothing firm upon earth." As fair as this passage seems, and as freely as I have granted that a General Council is the best judge on earth where the sense of Scripture is doubted, yet even in this passage there are some things considerable. As first, When shall the Church hope for such a General Council, in which "all pastors shall be gathered together?" There was never any such General Council yet, nor do I believe such can be had; so that is supposed in vain: and you might have learned this of Bellarmine,28 if you will not believe me. Next, saith he, "If all these pastors pray unanimously for the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost." Why, but if all pastors cannot meet together, all cannot pray together, nor all search the Scriptures together, nor all upon that search decree together; so that is supposed in vain too. Yea, but thirdly, "If all that meet do pray unanimously." What then? "All that meet" are not simply all. Nor doth the Holy Ghost come and give His assistance upon every prayer that is made unanimously, though by very many prelates or other faithful people met together, unless all other requisites, as well as unanimity, to make their prayer to be heard and granted, be observed by them; so that an unanimous prayer is not adequately supposed, and therefore concludes not. But lastly, how far a General Council, if all A.C.’s conditions be observed, is "firm and infallible," that shall be more fully discussed at after.29 In the mean time, these two words, "firm," and "infallible," are ill put together as synonyms. For there are some things most infallible in themselves, which yet could never get to be made firm among men: and there are many things made firm by law, both in churches and kingdoms, which yet are not infallible in themselves. So to draw all together: to settle controversies in the Church, there is a visible judge and infallible but not living; and that is the Scripture30 pronouncing by the Church. And [216] there is a visible and a living judge, but not infallible; and that is a General Council, lawfully called, and so proceeding. But I know no formal confirmation of it needful, though A.C. require it31 but only that, after it is ended, the whole Church admit it, be it never so tacitly.
[217]
II.—In the next place, A.C. interposes new matter quite out of the Conference. And first, in case of distractions and disunion in the Church, he would know "what is to be done to re-unite, when a General Council" (which is acknowledged a fit judge) "cannot be had by reason of manifold impediments, or if, being called, will not be of one mind? Hath Christ our Lord," saith he, "in this case provided no rule, no judge, infallibly to determine controversies, and to procure unity, and certainty of belief? Indeed, the Protestants admit no infallible means, rule, or judge, but only Scripture, which every man may interpret as he pleases, and so all shall be uncertain." [A.C. pp.59, 60.] Truly, I must confess, there are many impediments to hinder the calling of a General Council. You know in the ancient Church there was32 hindrance enough, and what hurt it wrought. And afterward, though it were long first, there was provision made for frequent calling of councils,33 and yet no age since saw them called according to that provision in every circumstance: therefore "impediments" there were enough; or else some declined them wilfully, though there were no impediments. Nor will I deny but that when they were called there were as many practices to disturb or pervert the Councils.34 And these practices [218] were able to keep many Councils from being all of one mind. But if, being called, they will not be of one mind, I cannot help that; though that very not agreeing is a shrewd sign that the other spirit hath a party there against the Holy Ghost.III.—Now A.C. would know what is to be done for reuniting of a Church divided in doctrine of the faith, when this remedy by a General Council cannot be had. "Sure Christ our Lord," saith he, "hath provided some rule, some judge, in such and such like cases, to procure unity and certainty of belief." I believe so too; for He hath left an infallible rule, the Scripture. And that, by the manifest places in it which need no dispute, no external judge, is able to settle unity and certainty of belief in necessaries to salvation;35 and in non necessariis, in and about things not necessary, there ought not to be a contention to a separation.36
IV.—And therefore A.C. does not well, to make that a crime, that the Protestants admit no infallible rule, but the Scripture only: or as he (I doubt, not without some scorn) terms it, beside "only Scripture." For what need is there of another, since this is most infallible; and the same which the ancient Church of Christ admitted?37 And if it were [219] sufficient for the ancient Church to guide them, and direct their councils, why should it be now held insufficient for us, at least till a free General Council may be had? And it hath both the conditions which Bellarmine requires to a rule; namely, that it "be certain, and that it be known; for if it be not certain, it is no rule, and if it be not known, it is no rule to us."38 Now the Romanists dare not deny, but [220] for this rule is "certain;"39 and that it is sufficiently "known" in the manifest places of it, and such as are necessary to salvation, none of the ancients did ever deny; so there is an infallible rule.
V.—Nor need there be such fear of a "private spirit" in these manifest things, which being but read, or heard, teach themselves. Indeed, you Romanists had need of some other judge, and he a propitious one, to crush the pope’s "more powerful principality" out of Pasce oves, "Feed My sheep." And yet this must be the meaning (if you will have it), whether Gideon’s fleece be wet or dry [Judges vi.]; that is, whether there be dew enough in the text to water that sense or no. But I pray, when God hath left His Church this infallible rule, what warrant have you to seek another? You have showed us none yet, whatever you think you have. And I hope A.C. cannot think it follows, that Christ our Lord hath provided no rule to determine necessary controversies, because He hath not provided the rule which he would have.
VI.—Besides, let there be such a living judge, as A.C. would have, and let the pope40 be he; yet this is not sufficient against the malice of the devil, and impious men, to keep the Church at all times from renting, even in the doctrine of faith, or to solder the rents which are made. For oportet esse haereses, "heresies there will be;" [I Cor.xi.19.] and heresies properly there cannot be, but in doctrine of the faith. And what will A.C. in this case do? Will he send Christ our Lord to provide another rule than the decision of the bishop of Rome, because he can neither make unity, nor certainty of belief? And as it is most apparent he cannot do it de facto, so neither hath he power from Christ over the whole Church to do it; nay, out of all doubt, it is not the least reason why [221] de facto he hath so little success, because de jure he hath no power given. But since A.C. requires another judge besides the Scripture, and, in cases when either the time is so difficult that a General Council cannot be called, or, the council so set, that they will not agree, let us see how he proves it.
VII.—It is thus: "Every earthly kingdom," saith he, "when matters cannot be composed by a parliament, which cannot be called upon all occasions," (Why doth he not add here, "and which being called, will not always be of one mind," as he did add it in case of the council? ) "hath, besides the law books, some living magistrates and judges, and above all, one visible king, the highest judge, who hath authority sufficient to end all controversies, and settle unity in all temporal affairs. And shall we think that Christ, the wisest King, hath provided in His kingdom, the Church, only the law-books of the Holy Scripture, and no living visible judges, and above all, one chief, so assisted by His Spirit, as may suffice to end all controversies for unity and certainty of faith? which can never be, if every man may interpret Holy Scripture, the law-books, as he list." [A.C. p. 60.] This is a very plausible argument with the many, but the foundation of it is but a similitude;41 and if the similitude, hold not in the main, the argument is nothing; and so, I doubt, it will prove here. I will observe particulars, as they lie in order.
VIII.—And first, he will have the whole militant Church, for of that we speak, "a kingdom." But this is not certain; for they are no mean ones, which think our Saviour Christ left the Church militant, in the hands of the apostles and their successors, in an aristocratical, or rather, a mixed government; and that the Church is not monarchical,42 [222] otherwise than the triumphant and militant make one body under Christ the Head. And in this sense indeed, and in this only, the Church is a most absolute kingdom. And the very expressing of this sense is a full answer to all the places of Scripture, and other arguments brought by Bellarmine,43 to prove that the Church is a monarchy. But the Church being as large as the world, Christ thought it fitter to govern it aristocratically—by divers, rather than by one viceroy. And I believe this is true; for all the time of the first three hundred years, and somewhat better, it was governed aristocratically, if we will impartially consider, how the bishops of those times carried the whole business of admitting any new consecrated bishops or others to, or rejecting them from, their communion. For I have carefully examined this for the first six hundred years, even to and within the time of S. Gregory the Great;44 who, in the beginning of the seventh hundred year, sent such letters to Augustine, then archbishop of Canterbury, and to Quirinus,45 and other [223] bishops in Ireland. And I find, that the literae communicatoriae, which certified from one great patriarch to another who were fit or unfit to be admitted to their communion, if they upon any occasion repaired to their sees, were sent mutually; and as freely, and in the same manner, from Rome to the other patriarchs, as from them to it. Out of which I think this will follow most directly, That the Church government then was aristocratical. For had the bishop of Rome been then accounted sole monarch of the Church, and been put into the definition of the Church, as he is now by Bellarmine,46 all these communicatory letters should have been directed from him to the rest, as whose admittance ought to be a rule for all to communicate; but not from others to him, or at least not in that even, equal, and brotherly way, as now they appear to be written. For it is no way probable that the bishops of Rome, which even then sought their own greatness too much, would have submitted to the other patriarchs voluntarily, had not the very course of the Church put it upon them.
IX.—Besides, this is a great and undoubted rule, given by Optatus,47 "That wheresoever there is a Church, there the Church is in the commonwealth, not the commonwealth in the Church. And so also the Church was in the Roman empire" Now from this ground I argue thus: If the Church be within the empire or other kingdom, it is impossible the government of the Church should be monarchical. For no emperor or king will endure another king within his dominion that shall be greater than himself, since the very enduring it makes him that endures it, upon the matter, no monarch. Nor will it disturb this argument, that two great kings in France and Spain permit this. For he that is not blind may see, if he will, of what little value the pope’s [224] power is in those kingdoms, farther than to serve their own turns of him, which they do to their great advantage. Nay, farther, the ancient canons and fathers of the Church seem to me plain for this, for the Council of Antioch48 submits ecclesiastical causes to the bishops. And what was done amiss by a bishop, was corrigible by a synod of bishops,49 but this with the metropolitan.50 And in case these did not agree, the metropolitan51 might call in other bishops out of the neighbouring provinces. And if things settled not this way, a General Council, under the Scripture,52 and directed by it, was the highest remedy. And S. Cyprian, even to Pope Cornelius himself, says plainly, that "to every bishop is ascribed a portion of the flock for him to govern."53 And so not all committed to one. In all this the government of the Church seems plainly aristocratical. And if all other arguments fail, we have one left from Bellarmine, who opposes it as much as any, twice for failing.54 And yet, where he goes to exclude secular princes from Church [225] government, all his quotations55 and all his proofs run upon this head, to show "that the government of the Church was ever in the bishops." What says A.C. now to the confession of this great adversary, and in this great point, extorted from him by force of truth? [A.C. pp.64, 65.] Now if this be true, then the whole foundation of this argument is gone. The Church militant is no kingdom, and therefore not to be compared or judged by one: the resemblance will not hold.
X.—Next, suppose it a kingdom; yet the Church militant remaining one, is spread in many earthly kingdoms, and cannot well be ordered like any one particular kingdom.56 And therefore, though in57 one particular kingdom there be many visible judges and one supreme, yet it follows not that in the universal militant Church there must be one supreme. For how will he enter to execute his office, if the kings of those kingdoms will not give leave?
1 206b Ipse autem Dominus constituit eum primum apostolorum, petram firmam super quam Ecclesia Dei aedificata est, et portae inferorum non valebunt adversus illam, &c. Juxta omnem enim modum in ipso firmata est fides, qui accepit clavem coelorum, &c. In hoc enim omnes quaestiones ac subtilitates fidei inveniuntur.—Epiphan. in Ancorato. [cap. ix.] ed. Paris. Lat. 1564. fol. 497. A. ed. vero Graeco-Latin. tom. ii. p. 14. [B. ed. Petav. Paris. 1622. Edei ton prôton tôn Apostolôn tên petran tên sterean, eph’ hên hê Ekklêsia tou Theou ôkodomêtai, kai pulai hadou ou katischusousin autês, pulai men hadou hai haireseis kai hoi hairesiarchai, kata panta gar tropon en autô estereôthê hê pistis en tô labonti tên klein tôn ouranôn, en tô luonti epi tês gês, kai deonti en tô ouranô, en toutô gar esti panta ta zêtoumena leptologimata tês pisteôs heuriskomana.]
2 206c [Phêsi oun ho makarios Petros tois peri Ananian,] ti hoti epeirasen [humas ho Satanas pseusasthai tô Pneumati tô hagiô; kai phesi, Ouk epseusô anthrôpois alla Theô ara Theos ek Patros, kai Huiou to Pneuma hô epseusanto hoi apo tou timêmatos nosphisamenoi] (For there begins the argument of Epiphanius.)—[ibid. p. 14. A.]
3 206d [kathôs marturei] ho koruphaiotatos [tôn Apostolôn, ho kataxiôtheis makaristhênai hupo Kuriou, hoti ho Patêr autô apekalupse, —ibid.]
4 206e tên sterean petran—[ibid.]
5 206f kai panta gar, k.t.l.—[ibid.]
6 206g en toutô gar, k.t.l.—[ibid.]
7 207h hos gegomen [hêmin alêthôs sterea Petra themeliousa tên pistin tou Kuriou, eph’ hê ôkodomêto hê ekklêsia kata panta tropon, prôton men hoti hômologêse Christon ton huion tou Theou tou zôntos, kai êkousen, hoti epi tê petra tautê tês asphalês pisteôs oikodomêsô mou tên ekklêsian, epeidê saphôs auton hômologêsen Huion alêthinon . . . Alla kai peri tou hagiou Pneumatos ho autos asphalizetai hêmas, legôn tois peri Ananian, k.t.l.] Qui factus est nobis revera solida petra firmans fidem Domini. In qua (petra) aedificata est ecclesia juxta omnem modum. Primo, quod confessus est Christum esse Filium Dei vivi, et statim audivit, Super hanc petram solidae fidei aedificabo Ecclesiam meam . . . Etiam de Sp. Sancto idem, &c.—Epiphan. [adversus Haeres.] lib. ii. tom i. [cap. 7, 8.] Haeres. lix. contra Catharos, [Op.,] tom. i. p. 500. ‘[B, C.] ed. Graeco-Latin. [Petav. Paris. 1622.]
8 207i peri tou hagiou Pneumatos ho autos asphalizetai hêmas.—ibid. [cap. 8.]
9 207k Ille primus, (Speaking of S. James, the Lord’s brother), episcopalem cathedram cepit, quum ei ante caeteros omnes suum in terris thronum Dominus tradidisset. [Kai prôtos houtos eilêphe tên kathedran tês episkopês, hô pepisteuke Kurios ton thronon autou epi tês gês prôtô,]—Epiphan. [adversus Haeres.] lib. iii. tom. ii. [cap. 7.] Haeres. lxxviii. [contra Antidicomarianitas, Op., tom. i.] p. 1039. [B. ed. Petav. Paris. 1622.]—Et fere similiter, [Katastathentos euthus Iakôb tou adelphou Kuriou kaloumenou kai apostolou, episkopou prôtouhuiou tou Iôsêph phusei ontos, k.t.l. —Epiphan. [adversus Haeres.] lib. i. tom. ii. [cap. 3. in fin.] Haeres. xxix. [contra Nazaraeos, Op., tom. i. p. 119. A.]
10 208(l) Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. i. cap. 9. § 45. [ubi sup. p. 186. note r.]
11 208m Sect. xxv. No. 10. [ubi sup. p. 185.]
12 208n Bellarmin. ibid. [ubi sup. p. 186. note r.]
13 208o "The fathers gave three prerogatives to S. Peter: of Authority, of Primacy, and of Principality; but not of supremacy of power."—Rainoldes against Hart, chap. v. Divis. iii. And he proves it at large. [His words are: "These sayings, and the like, which are alleged out of the fathers, do touch three prerogatives which they give to Peter: the first, of Authority; the second, of Primacy; the third, of Principality. But none of them all doth prove the supremacy which you pretend to Peter, and mean to the pope. For by that supremacy is signified the fulness of ecclesiastical, or rather papal, power, even a power sovereign of governing the Church throughout the whole world, in all points and matters of doctrine and discipline."—The Sum of the Conference between John Rainoldes and John Hart, &c. p. 172. ed. London, 1609.]
14 208p [Unus malus corpus malorum significat: quomodo Petrus corpus bonorum, immo corpus ecclesiae, sed in bonis. Nam si in Petro non esset Ecclesiae sacramentum, non ei diceret Dominus, Tibi dabo claves, &c.] Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non facit hoc Ecclesia. [Si autem et in Ecclesia fit, ut quae in terra ligantur, in coelo ligentur, et quae solvuntur in terra, solvantur in coelo, &c. Si hoc ergo in Ecclesia fit, Petrus, quando claves accepit, ecclesiam sanctam significavit. Si in Petri persona significati sunt in Ecclesia boni, &c.]—S. Augustin. in Johann. Evang. [cap. xii.] Tractat. I. [12. Op., tom. iii. par. 2. col. 633. D, E,.]
15 209q [In evangelio autem secundum Lucam,] Deum dare, ut in fide perseveretur [ita promitur: Dixit autem Jesus Petro, Simon, Simon, &c.]—S. Prosper. [seu potius ignot. auctor.] de Vocat. Gent. lib. i. cap. 24. [apud Op. S. Prosper. col. 885. A.]
16 209r [Ego autem] rogavi [pro te] ut non deficaret, &c. Et certe juxta vos in apostoli erat positum potestate, si voluisset, ut non deficeret fides ejus, [qua utique deficiente, peccatum subingreditur.]—S. Hieron. [Dialog.] adversus Pelagianos, lib. ii. [Op., tom. iv. par. 2. col. 521.]
17 209s [Altera expositio est quorumdam, qui hoc tempore vivunt, qui docent, Dominum orasse hoc loco pro perseverantia solius Petri in gratia Dei usque ad finem. At contra: primo, quia oravit Dominus paulo post pro perseverantia omnium apostolorum, immo etiam omnium electorum, (Joan. xvii. 11.) Pater Sancte, serva eos, &c.; non erat igitur ratio cur his pro perseverantia Petri oraret. Secundo, quia sine dubio hic Dominun] aliquid speciale [Petro impetravit, ut patet ex designatione certae personae: perseverantia autem in gratia est donum commune omnium electorum.]—Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. iv. cap. 3. [§ 3. Op., tom i. col. 806. A.]
18 209t [Est igitur tertia expositio vera, quod Dominus duo privilegia Petro impetraverit. Unum, ut ipse non posset unquam veram fidem amittere: . . . . Alterum privilegium est,] ut ipse tanquam pontifex non posset unquam docere aliquid contra fidem, sive, ut in sede ejus nunquam inveniretur, qui doceret [contra veram fidem. Ex quibus privilegiis, primum fortasse non manavit ad posteros: at secund.m sine dubio manavit ad posteros, sive successores.]—Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. iv. cap. 3. [§ 5, 6. Op., tom. i. col. 806. C.]
19 [ubi sup. p. 19 note p.]
20 210u Theophylactus, [patria Constantinopolitanus, Achridiae primariae Bulgarorum ecclesiae archiepiscopus (Cave, sub voc.),] floruit circa An. Dom. 1072.
21 210x Praeter hos [pontifices, non desunt etiam alii auctores, qui eodem modo exponunt. Theophylactus in cap. xxii. Lucae aperte docet, dari Petro hoc privilegium, quia ipse futurus erat princeps, et caput aliorum, ac proinde dari omnibus aliis, qui illi in principatu succederent:] Quia te habeo, inquit, principem discipulorum, confirma caeteros. Hoc enim decet te, qui post me ecclesiae petra es et fundamentum.—Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. iv. cap. 3. [§ 13. Op., tom. i. col. 807. D. The original words. are: Hoti epeidê se tôn mathêtôn exarchon echo . . . stêrizon tous loipous. touta gar prosêkei soi, hôs met’ eme onti tês ekklêsias petra kai stêrigmati.]—Theophylact. in Luc. xxii. [p. 517. B. ed. Paris. 1635.]
22 211y Impetraverit, &c.-ibid. § 5. [ubi sup. p. 209. note t.]
23 211z Ex quibus privilegiis primum fortasse non manavit ad posteros, at secundum sine dubio manavit ad posteros sive successores.—Bellarmin. ibid. [ubi sup. p. 209. note t.]
24 211a Bellarmin. [de Rom. Pont.] lib. iv. cap. 8. [Op., tom. i. col. 819. et seqq. This chapter, and those which follow it, are occupied by Bellarmine with refuting charges which had been made, chiefly by the Magdeburg Centuriators, against several of the popes, forty in number.]
25 211b [Quarto] donum hoc loco Petro impetratum, etiam ad successores pertinet: [nam Christus oravit pro Petro in utilitatem ecclesiae; ecclesia autem semper indiget aliquo, a quo confirmetur, cujus fides deficere non possit.]—Bellarmin. de Pont. lib. iv. cap. 3. § 3. [Op., tom. i. col. 806. B.]
26 212c Matt. xxviii. 29, [19.] and Matt. x. 17, [7.] the same power and charge is given to them all.
27 212d And this seems to me to allude to that of S. Paul, I Cor. iii. 2. and Heb. v. 12: "Some are fed with milk, and some with stronger meat." The lambs with milk, and the sheep with stronger meat. But here A.C. follows Pope Hildebrand close, who in the case of [Henry IV.] the emperor then, [quum instabant ex his, qui aderant, nonnulli regem non ita cito anathematizandum esse,] asked this question, [Quibus ita pontitex:] Quando, [inquit,] Christus ecclesiam suam Petro commisit, et dixit, Pasce oves meas, excepitne reges? [Nam cum eidem ligandi et solvendi potestatem daret, nullum excepit, vel neminem ejus potentiae subtraxit.]—Platina, [Vitae Pontific.] in vita Greg.VII. [p. 373.] And certainly kings are not exempted from being fed by the Church; but from being spoiled of their kingdoms by any churchmen, that they are.
28 214e [Praeter haec argumenta haereticorum, movent Catholici unum dubium de his, qui interesse debent in concilio; nam vel ad generale concilium faciendum requiruntur omnes episcopi totius orbis, vel aliqui tantum:] si omnes, nullum fuit [ergo] hactenus concilium generale, neque etiam videtur deinceps futurum; [si aliqui tantum, quinam illi sunt? Non enim videtur major ratio de uno, quam de alio.]—Bellarmin. de Conciliis [et Ecclesia,] lib. i. cap. 17. § 1. [Op., tom. ii. col. 34. C.]
29 215f Sect. xxxiii. Consid. 1.
30 215g And this was thought a sufficient judge, too, when Christians were as humble as learned. I am sure Optatus thought so. Quaerendi sunt indices: si Christiani, de utraque parte dari non possunt, quia studiis veritas impeditur. De foris quaerendus est judex: si paganus, non potest christiana nosse secreta: si Judaeus, inimicus est christiani baptismatis: ergo in terris de hac re nullum poterit reperiri judicium; de coelo quaerendus est judex. Sed ut quid pulsamus ad coelum, cum habeamus hic in evangelio testamentum? Quia hoc loco recte possunt terrena coelestibus comparari: tale est quod quivis hominum habens numerosos filios, quamdiu pater praesens est, ipse imperat singulis; non est adhuc necessarium testamentum: sic et Christus, quamdiu praesens in terris fuit, (quamvis nec modo desit,) pro tempore quicquid necessarium erat, apostolis imperavit. Sed quomodo terrenus pater, dum se in confinio senserit mortis, timens ne post mortem suam, rupta pace, litigent fratres, adhibitis testibus, voluntatem suam de pectore morituro, transfert in tabulas diu duraturas: et si fuerit inter fratres nata contentio, non itur ad tumulum, sed quaeritur testamentum; et qui [in] tumulo quiescit, tacitus de tabulis loquitur. Vivus, cujus est testamentum, in coelo est: ergo voluntas Ejus, velut in testamento, sic in Evangelio requiratur.—S. Optat. [de Schism. Donatist.] adv. Parmen. lib. v. [cap. 3. Op., p. 81. ed. Dupin. ubi sup. p. 79. note i.] This pregnant place of Optatus, (that the Scripture is the judge of Divine truth whenever it is questioned,) though Balduin dare not deny, yet he would fain slide both by it and by a parallel place as full in S. Augustine in Psalm. xxi. Enarr. 2. [30. Op., tom. iv. col. 101. F. Quare litigas? Fratres sumus, quare litigamus? Non intestatus mortuus est Pater. Fecit testamentum, et sic mortuus est: mortuus est, et resurrexit. Tamdiu contenditur de haereditate mortuorum, quamdiu testamentum proferatur in publicum; et cum testamentum prolatum fuerit in publicum, tacent omnes, ut tabulae aperiantur et recitentur: judex intentus audit, advocati silent, praecones silentium faciunt, universus populus suspensus est,ut legantur verba mortui, non sentientis in monumento. Ille sine sensu jacet in monuments, et valent verba ipsius: sedet Christus in coelo, et contradicitur testamento Ejus? Aperi, legamus. Fratres sumus, quare contendimus?] with this shift, that S. Augustine in another place [de Baptismo, lib. ii. cap. 7; lib. iv. cap. 6, and lib. v. cap. 23.] had rather use the testimony of tradition [non tam Scripturam quam traditionem apostolicam] that is, the testimony nuncupativi, potius quam scripti, testamenti—of the nuncupative, rather than the written will of Christ. Balduin. [Annotat.] in S. Optat. lib. v. [apud Op., p. 145. ed. Dupin.] But this is a mere shift. First, because it is petitio principii, the mere begging of the question. For we deny any testament of Christ but that which is written. And A.C. cannot show it in any one father of the Church, that Christ ever left behind him a nuncupative obligatory will. Secondly, because nothing is more plain in these two fathers, Optatus and S. Augustine, than that both of them appeal to the written will, and make that the judge, without any exception, when a matter of faith comes in question. In Optatus the words are habemus in Evangelio, We have it in the Gospel. And in Evangelio inquiratur, Let it be inquired in the Gospel. And Christ put it in tabulas diu duraturas, into written and lasting instruments. In S. Augustine the words are: Our Father did not die intestate, &c.; and tabulaea periantur, Let His will, His written instruments, be opened; and legantur verba mortui, Let the words of him that died be read. And again, aperi, legamus; Open the will, and let us read. And legamus, quid litigamus? Why do we strive? Let us read the will. And again, aperi testamentum, lege; Open the will, read. All which passages are most express and full for His written will, and not for any nuncupative will, as Balduin would put upon us. And Hart, who takes the same way with Balduin, is not able to make it out, as appears by D. Rainoldes in his Conference with Hart, chap. 8. divis. i. p. 396, &c. [ed. London, 1609.]
31 216h Sect. xxviii. No. 1. And so plainly S. Augustine, speaking of S. Cyprian’s error about rebaptization, &c. says,. Illis temporibus, ante quam plenarii concilii sententia quid in hac re sequendum esset, totius ecclesiae consensio confirmasset, visum est ei cum [ferme octoginta coepiscopis suis Africanarum ecclesiarum,] &c.—De Baptism. contra Donatist. lib. i. cap. 18. [Op., tom. ix. col. 93. G.] So here is first sententia concilii; and then the confirmation of it is totius ecclesiae consensio, the consent of the whole Church yielding unto it. And so Gerson . [Attendendum tamen est, quod non omnia quae tradit vel tolerat ecclesia publice legenda, sunt de necessitate salutis credenda . . . . sed duntaxat illa quae sub definitione judiciali tradit esse credenda, vel opposita reprobanda,] concurrente universali totius ecclesiae consensu [implicate, vel explicite, vere vel interpretative.]—In Declarat. Veritatum, quae credendae sunt [de necessitate salutis,] § 4. [inter Gerson. Op., tom. i. col. 22. C. ed. Dupin. Antwerp. 1706.] For this, that the pope must confirm it, or else the General Council is invalid, is one of the Roman novelties. For this cannot be shown in any antiquity void of just exception. The truth is, the pope, as other patriarchs and great bishops used to do, did give his assent to such councils as he approved. But that is no corroboration of the council, ia if it were invalid without it, but a declaration of his consenting with the rest. Sect. xxxiii. Consid. 4. No. 6.
32 217i [Canones generalium conciliorum] a temporibus Constantini [coeperunt. In praecedentibus namque annis,] persecutione saeviente, [docendariim plebium minime dabatur facultas. Deinde,] Christianitas in diversas haereses scissa est, quia non erat licentia episcopis in unum convenire, nisi tempore supradicti Imperatoris.—Isidor. praefat. in Concil. [Origo Conciliorum generalium, quo tempore scil. concilia celebrari coeperunt; et de quatuor Conciliis principalibus: Ex Isidoro. Concil. tom. i. p. 5.] ed. Venetiis, per Nicolinum, 1585. [This short treatise occurs in the above edition before Isidore’s Preface, prefixed to the ordinary editions of the Councils.]
33 217k Frequens generalium conciliorum celebratio agri Dominici praecipua cultura est, [quae vepres, spinas et tribulos haeresum, errorum et schismatum extirpat, excessus corrigit, deformata reformat, et vineam Domini ad frugem uberrimae fertilitatis adducit.] Illorum [vero] neglectus praemissa disseminat atque fovet. Haec praeteritorum temporum recordatio et praesentium consideratio ante oculos nostros ponunt. [Ea propter hoc edicto perpetuo] sancimus, [decernimus atque ordinamus,] ut amodo concilia generalia celebrentur; ita quod primum a fine hujus concilii in quinquennium immediate sequens. Secundum vero a fine illius [mediate sequentis concilii] in septennium, et deinceps in decennium perpetuo celebretur. &c.—Concil. Constant. Sess. xxxix. [Octob. 9. an. 1417.] apud Gerson. [Op.,] tom. i. p. 230. [ed. Paris. 1606. et, tom. ii. col. 290. B. ed. Dupin.]—Et, Pet. de Aliaco Card. Cameracensis libellum obtulit in Concil. Constant. de Reformatione Ecclesiae contra opinionem eorum qui putarunt concilia generalia minus necessaria esse, quia omnia bene a patribus nostris ordinata sunt, &c.—In fascic. Rerum Expetendarum, [per Orthuinum Gratium, &c. ed. Colon. 1535.] fol. 28. [ccviii.]—Et schismatibus debet ecclesia cito per concilia generalia provideri, ut in primitiva ecclesia docuerunt apostoli, ut Act. vi. et Act. xv.—Ibid. fol. cciv. A.
34 217(l) [Hoc est illud Homouision, quod in Concilio Nicaeno adversus haereticos Arianos, a catholicis patribus veritatis auctoritate et auctoritatis veritate firmatum est: quod postea in concilio Ariminensi, [propter novitatem verbi minus quam oportuit intellectum, quod tamen fides antiqua pepererat,] multis paucorum fraude deceptis, [haeretica impietas, sub haeretico imperatore Constantio labefactare tentavit.]—S. Auguistin. contra Maximinum Arianum, lib. iii [ii.] cap. 14. [Op., tom. viii. col. 704. E.]
35 218m Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam vitam quaestiones vocat, [nec multiplici eloquentis facundiae genera sollicitat.] In absoluto nobis et facili est aeternitas, Jesum [et] suscitatum a mortuis per Deum credere, et Ipsum esse Dominum confiteri. [Nemo itaque ea, que ob ignorationem nostram dicta sunt, ad occasionem irreligiositatis usurpet.]—S. Hilar. de Trinitate, lib. x. ad fin. [sect. 70. Op., col. 1080. E.]
36 218n [Quomodo ergo non perierunt] Cyprianus et tot collegae ipsius? Qui crederent haereticos et schismaticos baptismum non habere, sine baptismo [tamen] receptis, [cum peccata eorum tam immania tamque sacrilega super eos esse crederent,] eis tamen communicare, quam separari ab unitate maluerunt, [dicente Cypriano, Neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis aliquem si diversum senserit amoventes.]—S. Augustin. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, lib. ii. cap. 6. [Op., tom. ix. col. 100. B.]—[A talibus sacrilegis venientes, sine baptismo, ut dicitis, si] Cyprianum non contaminabant, [quomodo vos contaminare poterant non convicti, sed conficti traditores?]—Ibid. in fin. [col. 101. D.]
37 218o Recensuit cuncta sanctis Scripturis consona. [Kai peri tôn dunameôn autou, kai peri tês didaskalias, hôs para autoptôn tês zôês tou logou pareilêphôs ho Polukarpos, apêggelle panta sumphôna tais graphais.]—Euseb. [Eccl. Hist. lib. v. cap. 20. de Irenaeo, [apud Hist. Eccl. Scriptor. tom. i. p. 239. ed. Reading.]—Paracletus [autem multa habens edocere, quae in illum distulit Dominus, secundum praefinitionem, ipsum primo Christum contestabitur, qualem credimus, cum toto ordine Dei creatoris, et Ipsum glorificabit, et de Ipso commemorabit; et sic] de principali regula agnitus, [illa multa quae sunt disciplinarum revelabit, fidem dicente pro eis integritate praedicationis, licet novis, quia nunc revelantur; licet onerosis, quia nec nunc sustinentur.]—Tertullian. de Monogamia, cap. 2. [Op., p. 526. A. ed. Rigalt.] And this is true, though the author spoke it when he was lapsed.—[Nec necesse est ut singula deliramenta quae proferunt, brevior epistolae sermo subvertat, quum et tu] ipsas Scripturas apprime tenens, [non tam ad eorum mota sis quaestiones.]—S. Hieron. [Epist.] ad Marcellum contra Montanum, [xxvii. al. liv.] tom. ii. [Op., tom. iv. par. 2. col. 65. ed. Benedict.]—Hoc quia de scripturis non habet auctoritatem, eadem facilitate contemnitur, qua probatur.—S. Hieron. [Comment. lib. iv.] in Matth. cap. xxiii. 35. Op., tom. iv. par. l. col. 112.]—Manifestus est fidei lapsus, et liquidum superbiae vitium, vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet, vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est.—S. Basil. Serm. de Fide, tom. ii. p. 154. ed. Basileae, 1565. [phanera ekptôsis pisteôs, k. t. l.—S. Basil. de Fide, Op., tom. ii. p. 224. D. ubi sup. p. 61. note q.]—Contra insurgentes haereses saepe pugnavi agraphis, verum non alienis a pia secundum Scripturam sententia.—Ibid. p. 153. [ubi sup. p. 69. note k.]—And before S. Basil, Tertullian. Adore Scripturae plenitudinem, [quae mihi et factorem manifestat et facta. In evangelio vero amplius et ministrum atque arbitrum rectoris invenio sermonem. An autem de aliqua subjacenti materia facta sint omnia, nusquam adhuc legi. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina.] Si non est scripture, timeat, Vae illud, adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum.—Tertullian. advers. Hermog. cap. xxii. [Op., p. 241. D. ed. Rigalt.] And Paulinus plainly calls it Regulam directionis, [in these words: Enutritus a puero in sacris literis . . . informa nos ad regulam directionis, pasce nos spiritali cibo, id est, verbo Dei, qui est verus et vivens panis, &c.]—Epist. [ii. al.] xiii. [Op., S. Paulini Nolani Episcopi, p. 8. ed. Paris. 1685.]—De hac regula tria observanda sunt. 1. Regula est, sed a tempore quo scripta. 2. Regula est, sed per ecclesiam applicanda, non per privatum spiritum. 3. Regula est, et mensurat omnia quae continet: continet autem omnia necessaria ad salutem vel mediate vel immediate. Et hoc tertium habet [Gabr.] Biel. in III. [Sentent.] D[istinct.] xxv. Q[uaest.] unica, Conclus. 4. M. [Praeterea omnes usum rationis habentes tenentur credere quod omne revelatum a Deo est verum. Item quod Scriptura a Deo revelata sit vera; sed hoc credens explicite omnia credibilia credit implicite; cum omnia credenda sint revelata a Deo, et omnia continentur immediate vel mediate in Scriptura.]—And this is all we say. Hooker, Eccl. Polit. Book V. ch. xxii. [sect. i. Works, vol. ii. p. 114. "The voice and testimony of the Church acknowledging Scripture to be the law of the living God, is for the truth and certainty thereof, no mean evidence .... a further commodity this custom of public reading of the word of God hath, which is to furnish the very simplest and rudest soul with such infallible axioms and precepts of sacred truth, delivered even in the very letter of the Law of God, as may serve them for rules whereby to judge the better all other doctrines and instructions which they hear."]
38 219p [Deinde] regula Catholicae fidei certa notaque esse debet: nam si nota non sit, regula nobis non erit; si certa non sit, no regula quidem erit.—Belarmin. de Verbo Dei, lib. i. cap. 2. § 5. [Op., tom. i. col. 3. C.]—At sacris Scripturis, [quae propheticis et apostolicis literis continetur,] nihil est notius, nihil certius; [ut stultissimum esse necesse sit, qui illis fidem esse habendam neget.]—Bellarmin. Ibid. § 6.col. 3. D.] Therefore the Holy Scripture is the rule of Catholic faith, both in itself, and to us also; for in things simply necessary to Salvation it is abundantly known and manifest, as Sect. xvi. No. 5. [ubi sup. p. 74.]
39 220q Convenit [autem] inter nos et omnes omnino hereticos, verbum Dei esse regulam fidei; ex qua de dogmatibus iudicandum sit: [esse commune principium ab omnibus concessum, unde argumenta ducantur: denique esse gladium spiritualem, qui in hoc certamine recusari non possit.]—Bellarmin. in Praefat. in fin. [Op.,] tom. i. And although there perhaps he includes traditions, yet that was never proved yet. Neither indeed can he include traditions, for he speaks of that word of God, upon which all heretics consent: but concerning traditions, they all consent not, that they are a rule of f aith, therefore he speaks not of them.
40 220r For so he affirms, [A.C.] p. 58.
41 220s Quae [autem] subtilissime de hoc disputari possunt, ita ut non similitudinibus quae plerumque fallunt, sed rebus ipsis satis fiat, [ne in praesentia expectes.]—S. Augustin. [lib.] de quantitate animae, cap. xxxii. [Op., tom. i. col. 433. F.] Whereupon the logicians tell us rightly, that this is a fallacy, unless it be taken reduplicative, i.e. de similibus quae similia sunt. And hence Aristotle himself, 2. Top. Loc. xxxii. says: palin epi tôn homoiôn, ei homoiôs echei. (rursum in similibus, si similiter se habent.) [hoion, he epistêmê mia pleionôn, kai doxa; kai ei to opsin echein horan, kai to akoên echein akouein; homoiôs de kai epi tôn allôn, kai epi tôn ontôm kai tôn dokountôn;— Aristot. Topic. lib. ii. cap. 10. Op., tom. i. p. 294. ed. Bekker.]
42 220t When Gerson wrote his tract De Auferibilitate Papae, sure he thought the Church might continue in a very good being, without a monarchical head; therefore, in his judgment, the Church is not by any command or institution of Christ, monarchical. [Non in eo versatur iste tractatus ut papam ab ecclesia penitus auferri posse ostendat, ut quidam perperam existamarunt, sed in eo scilicet, hoc contingere posse, ut Ecclesia careat per aliquod tempus pontifice, necnon in nonnullis casibus ab ecclesia posse deponi.—Libell. de auferibilitate papae ab ecclesia, apud] Gerson. [Op., tom. ii. col. 209. ed. Dupin.] par. 1. p. 154. [ed. 1606.]—When S. Jerome wrote thus: Ubicunque fuerit episcopus, sive Romae, sive Eugubii; sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii; sive Alexandriae, sive Tanis, ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii.—S. Hieron. Epist. [ad Evangelum, al.] Evagrium, [cii. Op., tom. iv. par. 2. col. 803.] doubtless he thought not of the Roman bishop’s monarchy. For what bishop is of the same merit, or of the same degree in the priesthood, with the pope, as things are now carried at Rome? Affirmamus etiam, patribus et Graecis et Latinis, ignotas esse voces de Petro aut Papa monarcha et monarchia. Nam quod in superioribus observabamus, reperiri eas dictiones positas pro episcopo et episcopatu, nihil hoc ad rem facit.—lsaacus Casaubon. Exercitatione xv. ad Annales Ecclesiasticos Baronii, § xii. p. 378. [p. 272. ed. Francof. 1615.] et § xi. p. 360. [ibid. pp. 256-262.] diserte asserit et probat ecclesiae regimen aristocraticum fuisse.
43 222u [Nam secundum Scripturas ecclesia non est democratia, vel aristocratia, sed monarchia, sive regnum Christi, juxta illud Ps. ii. Ego autem constitutus sum Rex, &c.; et Lucae, cap. i. Regni Ejus non erit finis; et Joann. xviii. Regnum Meum non est, &c. . . . Denique Scriptura passim vocat Christum regem, &c.]—Bellarmin. de Concili[orum auctoritate,] lib. ii. cap. 16. § 1, 2, 3. [Op., tom. ii. col. 93. C.]
44 222x S. Gregor. [Magn. Registr.] Epistol. lib. ix. Epist. lviii. [lib. xi. Indict. 4. Epist. xxviii. Op., tom. ii. col. 1109. E.]—Et, lib. xii. Epist. xv. [lib. xi. Indict. 4. Epist. lxiv, lxv. Op., tom. ii. col. 1150. B. et seqq.]
45 222y S. Gregor. [Magn. Registr. Epistol.] lib. ix. Epist. lxi. [lib. xi. Indict. 4. Epist. lxvii. Op., tom. ii. col. 1166. D. This epistle the Benedictine editors, following the authority of Peter de Marca, Cardinal Bona, and others, inscribe Quirico, et caeteris episcopis in Hiberia—not Hibernia—Catholicis. It seems impossible that the epistle could have been addressed to any Irish bishops, not only because its subject is the reception of Nestorians into the Church, while the heresy of Nestorius does not appear to have extended beyond the Oriental Church; but because an allusion is made to the fact, that the legate of the bishops, to whom S. Gregory was addressing himself, had lost certain letters at Jerusalem.]
46 223z Nostra autem [sententia est, Ecclesiam unam tantum esse, non duas, et illam unam et veram esse caetum hominum ejusdem Christianae fidei professions, et eorundem sacramentorum communione colligatum, sub regimine legitimorum pastorum, ac praecipue unius Christi in terris Vicarii Romani Pontificis.]—Bellarmin. de Ecclesia Militante, lib. iii. cap 2. § 9. [Op., tom. ii. col. 108. D.]
47 223a Non enim respublica est in ecclesia: sed ecclesia in republica: id est, in imperio Romano.—S. Optat. [Milevit.] lib. iii. [cap. 3. Op., p. 52. ubi sup. p. 195. note x.]
48 224b Concil. Antioch. [an. 341.] Can. ix. p. 507. [Concil. tom. ii. col. 565. A. Tous kath’ hekastên eparchian episkopous eidenai chrê ton en tê mêtropolei proestôta episkopon, kai tên phrontida anadechesthai pasês tês eparchias; k. t. l.]
49 224c Conc. Nicaen. I. [an. 325.] Can. v. [Concil. tom. ii. col. 32. B. hina koinê pantôn tôn epikopôn tês eparchias epi to auto sunagomenôn, ta toiauta zêtêmata exetazoi; k.t.l.]—Et, Concil. Antioch. Can. xii. [ubi sup. col. 568. A. ei tis hupo tou idiou episkopou hatheiretheis . . . deon epi meizona epikopôn sunodon trpesthai . . . prosanapherein pleiosin epikopois; k.t.l.]
50 224d Concil. Nicaen. I. Can. iv. [ubi sup. col. 30. E. to de kuros tôn ginomenôn didosthai kath’ ekastên eparchian tô mêtropolitê]—Et, Concil. Antioch. Can. ix. [ubi sup. col. 565. C. peraiterô de mêden prattein epicheirein dicha tou tês mêtropoleôs epikopou; k.t.l.]
51 224e Concil. Antioch. Can. xiv. [ubi sup. col. 568. D. ei tis epikopos epi tisin egklêmasin krinoito, epeita sumbaiê peri autou diaphônein tous en tê eparchia episkopous, tôn men athôon ton krinomenon apophainontôn, tôn de enochon; huper apallagês pasês amphibêtêseôs, edoxe tê hagia sunodô ton tês mêtropoleôs episkopon apo tês plêsiochôrou eparchias metakaleisthai heterous tinas tous epikrinountas, kai tên amphisbêtêsin dialusontas, tou bebaiôsai sun tois tês eparchias to paristamenon.]
52 224f [Quis autem nesciat sanctam] Scripturam canonicam, [tam veteris quam novi Testamenti, certis suis terminis contineri, eamque omnibus posterioribus episcoporum literis ita] praeponi, [ut de illa omnino dubitari et disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit: episcoporum autem literas, &c.]—S. Augustin. de Baptismo contra Donatist. lib. ii. cap. 3. [Op., tom. ix. col. 98. A.]
53 224g Nam cum statutum sit ab] omnibus nobis, [et aequum sit pariter ac justum, ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi est crimen admissum,] et singulis pastoribus portio gregis [sit adscripta, quam regat unusquisque et gubernet, rationem sui actus Domino redditurus, &c.]—S. Cyprian. lib. i. Ep. 3. [Epist. lv. ad Cornelium, p. 86. ed. Benedict.]
54 224h [Quod non sit ecclesiasticum regimen praecipue penes episcopos.]—Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. i. cap. 8. [in tit. Op., tom. i. col. 526. D.]—Et, [Non esse in Concilio summam potestatem.]—Id. de Concili[orum auctoritate,] lib. ii cap. 16. [in tit. Op tom. ii. col. 93. C.]
55 225i [Quod non sit ecclesiasticum regimen penes principes saeculares.]—Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. i. cap. 7. [in tit. Op., tom. i. col. 522. D.]
56 225k [Et ideo] licet sit expediens, quod uni populo partiali fideli praesit unus episcopus, non expedit tamen quod toti populofideli praesit unus solus. Tum quia omnia negotia unius populi partialis potest sustinere unus solus; nullus autem unus potest sustinere omnia negotia etiam majora omnium Christianorum: tum quia minus malum est, ut populus partialis et parvus inficiatur ab uno episcopo, quam ut totus, vel fere totus, populus Christianus inficiatur ab uno capite, quod omnibus praesit.—Ockam. Dial. lib. ii. tract. i. par. 3. cap. 30. ad 8. [apud Goldast. S. Rom. Imper. Monarch. tom. ii. pp. 818, 819. ed. Francof. 1614. These dialogues are, according to Thorold, (T.C.,—Laud’s Labyrinth, p. 254.) in the Index Expurgatorius.] And besides this of Ockam, to that common argument, That monarchical government is the best, and therefore undoubtedly that which Christ instituted for his Church, it is sufficient to answer, That a monarchy is the best form of government in one city or country. Aristot. Ethic. [Nicom.] lib. viii. cap. 10. [toutôn de beltistê men hê basileia . . . parekbasis de basileias men turannis; amphô gar monarchia.—Op., tom. ix. p. 166. ed. Bekker.] But it follows not, that it is the best in respect of the whole world, where the parts are so remote, and the dispositions of men so various. And therefore Bellarmine himself confesses, Monarchiam aristocratiae et democratiae admixtam utiliorem esse in hac vita, quam simplex monarchia est.—[Bellarmin.] de Rom. Pout. lib. i. cap. 3. § 1. [in tit. Op., tom. i. col. 515. C. Bellarmine’swords are: Regimen temperatum ex omnibus tribus formis, propter naturae humanae corruptionem, utilius est, quam simplex monarchia, &c.]
57 [as … (male) Edit. 1686.]
Project Canterbury