Project Canterbury
Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology
William Laud, Works, Volume Two
Conference with Fisher the Jesuit
Sections 30-33
pp. 245-266
Transcribed by John D Lewis
AD 2002
Section: | XXX | XXXI | XXXII par i. ii. iii. iv. v. |
| XXXIII consid: I. II. III. para 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. | Notes |
[245] cont’d
[SECTION XXX.]
F. In fine, the B. wished, that a lawful* General Council were called, to end controversies. The persons present said, that1 the king was inclined thereunto, and that2 therefore we Catholics might do well to concur. [A.C. pp. 62, 63.]
* [I marvel in what sort the B. will describe such a General Council; and how it should be gathered; and what rules are in it to be observed, which are morally likely so to be observed, as to make an end of controversies, better than our Catholic General Councils.—A.C. marg. note to p. 62.]
§ 30. B. And what say you to my wish? You pretend great love to the truth: would you not have it found? Can you or any Christian be offended, that there should be a good end of controversies? Can you think of a better end than [246] by a General Council? And if you have a most gracious king inclined unto it, as you say it was offered, how can you acquit yourselves if you do not consent? Now here A.C. "marvels what kind of General Council I would have, and what rules I would have observed in it, which are morally like to be observed, and make an end of controversies, better than their Catholic General Councils." [A.C. p. 62.] Truly, I am not willing to leave A.C. unsatisfied in any thing; nor have I any meaning to trouble the Church with any new devisings of mine. Any General Council shall satisfy me—and, I presume, all good Christians—that is lawfully called, continued, and ended, according to the same course, and under the same condition3 which General Councils observed in the primitive Church; which, I am sure, were Councils General and Catholic, whatever yours be. But I doubt, that after all noise made about these requisite conditions, A.C. and his fellows will be found as much, if not more defective in performance of the conditions, than in the conditions themselves.—Well, the Jesuit goes on, for all this:
[SECTION XXXI.]
F. I asked the B. whether he thought a General Council might err? He said, It might. [A.C.p.63.]
§ 31. B. I presume, you do not expect I should enter into the proof of this controversy, Whether a General Council may err in determination, or not? Yourself brought no proof that it cannot; and till that be brought, my speech is good that it can; and yet I hope to be found no infringer of any power given by Christ to His Church. But it seems by that which follows, you did by this question, "Can a General Council err?" but seek to win ground for your other, which follows:
[SECTION XXXII.]
F. If a General Council may err, what nearer are we then," said I, "to unity, after a Council hath determined?" "Yes," said he, "although it may err, [247] yet we should be bound* to hold with4 it till another come to reverse it." [A.C. p. 63.]
* [The Chaplain saith, that the B. added a caution, which the Jesuit omitteth, saying: The determination of a General Council erring was to stand in force, and have external obedience at least yielded to it, till evidence of Scripture, or a demonstration to the contrary, made the error appear, and until thereupon another Council of equal authority did reverse it. I answer, That added caution, which either was not there added, or not remembered by the Jesuit, maketh the B.’s answer far worse than as the Jesuit did relate. For whereas the Jesuit relateth only thus, "although it may err," this caution maketh the case to be, "that it doth actually err." And whereas the Jesuit relateth, "that we," not knowing whether it do err or not, but only that it may err, "are bound to hold it until another come to reverse it;" this caution doth put the case no, as if the determination of a General Council actually erring, were, not ipso jure invalid, but, such as is to stand in force, and to have external obedience at least yielded unto it, till not only moral certainty, but, evidence of Scripture, or a demonstration to the contrary, make the error appear; and after the error appeareth, yet we must continue this yielding of obedience. And how long? "Until thereupon a council," and not every council, but "of equal authority, do reverse it," which perhaps will not be found in a whole age. Verily I cannot believe, that the B. upon better advisement will allow this caution, or give any thanks to his Chaplain for setting it down; but will commend the Jesuit for relating his speech more truly, and at least less disgracefully.—A.C. marg. note to p. 63.]
§ 32. B. I—Whether a General Council may err or not, is a question of great consequence in the Church of Christ. To say it cannot err, leaves the Church not only without remedy against an error once determined, but also without sense that it may need a remedy, and so without care to seek it; which is the misery of the Church of Rome at this day. To say it can err, seems to expose the members of the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in the faith; to make unquiet spirits; not only to disrespect former councils of the Church, but also to slight and contemn whatsoever it may now determine; into which error some opposers of the Church of Rome have fallen. And upon this is grounded your question, "Wherein are we nearer to unity, if a council may err?" But in relating my answer to this, you are not so candid; for my words did not sound as yours seem to do, "That we should hold with the council, err or not err, till another came to reverse it;" as if grounds of faith might vary at the racket, and be cast of each side as a cunning hand might lay them.
II.—You forget again—omit, at least—and with what mind you best know, the caution which I added. For I said, "The determination of a General Council erring was to stand in force, and to have external obedience at the least [248] yielded to it, till evidence of Scripture,5 or a demonstration to the contrary, made the error appear; and until thereupon another Council6 of equal authority did reverse it." And, indeed, I might have returned upon you again: If a General Council not confirmed by the pope may err, (which you affirm,) to what end then a General Council? And you may answer, Yes; for although a General Council may err, yet the pope, as head of the Church, cannot. An excellent means of unity, to have all in the Church as the pope will have it, whatever Scripture say, or the Church think! And then, I pray, to what end a General Council? Will his holiness be so holy, as to confirm a General Council if it determine, against him? And as for Bellarmine’s7 reasons [249] why a General Council should be useful, if not necessary, though the pope be infallible, they are so weak in part, and in part so unworthy, that I am sorry any necessity of a bad cause should force so learned a man to make use of them.
III.—Here A.C. tells me: "The caution mentioned as omitted, makes my answer worse than the Jesuit related it; and that in two things. First, in that the Jesuit relates it thus: ‘although it may err;’ but the caution makes it as if it did actually err. Secondly, in that the Jesuit relates ‘that we are bound to hold it till another come to reverse it;’ that is, we not knowing whether it do err or not, but only that it may err. But the caution puts the case so, as if the determination of a General Council actually erring were not ipso jure invalid, but must stand in force, and have external obedience yielded to it, till not only moral certainty, but evidence of Scripture, or a demonstration to the contrary, make the error appear; and when it appears, we must yield our obedience till a council of equal authority reverse it, which perhaps will not be found in an whole age. So either the Jesuit relates this speech [more] truly, or less disgracefully." [A.C. pp.63, 64.] And A.C. thinks that, upon better judgment, I will not allow this caution. Truly, I shall not thank the Jesuit for any his kindness here. And for the "caution," I must and do acknowledge it mine, even upon "advisement," and that whether it make my answer worse or better. And I think farther, that the Jesuit hath no great cause to thank A.C. for this Defence of his Relation.
IV.—First, then, the Jesuit, so says A.C. [p. 63.], doth in his Relation made it but a supposition, that a General Council may err; but the "caution" expresses it as actually erring. True; but yet I hope this expression makes no General Council actually err. And then it comes all to one, whether I suppose that such a Council may err, or that it do err; and it is fitter for clearing the difficulties into which the Church falls in such a case, to suppose—and more than a supposition it is not—a General Council actually8 erring, than as only under a [250] possibility of erring. For the Church hath much more to do to vindicate itself from such an error actually being, than from any the like error that might be.
V.—Secondly, A.C. thinks he hath got great advantage by the words of the "caution;" in that I say, "a General Council erring is to stand in force, and have external obedience," at least so far as it consists in silence, patience, and forbearance yielded to it, "till evidence of Scripture, or a demonstration to the contrary, make the error appear, and until thereupon another Council of equal authority did reverse it." Well! I say it again. But is there any one word of mine in the caution, that speaks of our "knowing" of this error? Surely not one; that is A.C.’s addition. Now, suppose a General Council actually erring in some point of Divine truth, I hope it will not follow that this error must be so gross as that forthwith it must needs be known to private men; and, doubtless, till they know it, obedience must be yielded; nay, when they know it, if the error be not manifestly against fundamental verity, (in which case a General Council cannot easily err,) I would have A.C. and all wise men consider, whether "external obedience" be not even then to be yielded; for if controversies arise in the Church, some end they must have, or they will tear all in sunder; and I am sure no wisdom can think that fit. Why, then, say a General Council err, and an erring decree be ipso jure, by the very law itself, invalid; I would have it wisely considered again, whether it be not fit to allow a General Council that honour and privilege which all other great courts have—namely, that there be a declaration of the invalidity of its decrees, as well as of the laws of other courts, before private men can take liberty to refuse obedience. For, till such a declaration, if the council stand not in force, A.C. sets up private spirits to control General Councils; [251] which is the thing he so often and so much cries out against in the Protestants. Therefore it may seem very fit and necessary for the peace of Christendom that a General Council thus erring should stand in force till "evidence of Scripture," or a "demonstration," make the error to appear, as "that another council of equal authority reverse it."9 For as for "moral certainty," that is not strong enough in points of faith, which alone are spoken of here. And if another council "of equal authority" cannot be gotten together in an age, that is such an inconvenience as the Church must bear when it happens. And far better is that inconvenience than this other, That any authority less than a General Council should rescind the decrees of it, unless it err "manifestly and intolerably;"10 or that the whole Church, upon peaceable and just complaint of this error, neglect or refuse to call a council and examine it; and there come in national or provincial councils to reform for themselves.11 But no way must lie open to private men to refuse obedience12 till the council be heard and weighed, as well as that which they say against it; yet with Bellarmine’s exception still, "so the error be not manifestly intolerable."13 Nor is it fit for private men, in such great cases as this, upon which the whole peace of Christendom depends, to argue thus: The error appears, Therefore the determination of the council is ipso jure invalid; but this is far the safer way—I say still, when the error is neither fundamental nor in itself manifest—to argue thus: The determination is by equal authority, and that secundum jus, "according to law," declared to be invalid, Therefore the error appears. And it is a more humble and [252] conscientious way for any private man to suffer a council to go before him, than for him to outrun the council; but weak and ignorant men’s outrunning both God and His Church, is as bold a fault now on all sides, as the daring of the times hath made it common. As for that which I have added concerning the possibility of a General Council’s erring, I shall go on with it, without asking any farther leave of A. C.
[SECTION XXXIII.]
§ 33. For, upon this occasion, I shall not hold it amiss a little more at large to consider the point of General Councils, How they may, or may not err; and a little to look into the Roman and Protestant opinion concerning them; Which is more agreeable to the power and rule which Christ hath left in His Church; and, Which is most preservative of peace established, or ablest to reduce perfect unity into the Church of Christ, when that poor ship hath her ribs dashed in sunder by the waves of contention. And this I will adventure to the world, but only in the nature of a consideration, and with submission to my mother, the Church of England, and the mother of us all, the Universal Catholic Church of Christ: as I do most humbly all whatsoever else is herein contained.
Consid, I. First, then, I consider, Whether all the power that an OEcumenical Council hath to determine, and all the assistance it hath not to err in that determination, it hath it not all from the catholic universal body of the Church,14 and clergy in the Church, whose representative15 it is? And it seems it hath. For the government of the Church being not monarchical,16 but as Christ is17 head, this principle is inviolable in nature: Every body collective that represents, [253] receives power and privileges from the body which is represented; else a representation might have force without the thing it represents, which cannot be. So there is no power in the council, no assistance to it, but what is in and to the Church. But then it may be questioned, Whether the representing body hath all the power, strength, and privilege which the represented hath?18 And suppose it hath all the legal power, yet it hath not all the natural, either of strength or wisdom, that the whole hath. Now, because the representative hath power from the whole—and the main body can meet no other way—therefore the acts, laws, and decrees of the representative, be it ecclesiastical or civil, are binding in their strength; but they are not so certain, and free from error, as is that wisdom which resides in the whole: for in assemblies merely civil, or ecclesiastical, all the able and sufficient men cannot be in the body that represents. And it is as possible so many able and sufficient men,19 for some particular business, may be left out, as that they which are in may miss or misapply that reason and ground upon which the determination is principally to rest. Here, for want of a clear view of this ground, the representative body errs; whereas the represented, by virtue of those members which saw and knew the ground, may hold the principle inviolated.
Consid. II. Secondly, I consider, That since it is thus in nature and in civil bodies, if it be not so in ecclesiastical too, some reason must be given why; "for that body also consists of [254] men;20 those men, neither, all equal in their perfections of knowledge and judgment, whether acquired by industry, or rooted in nature, or infused by God;—not all equal, nor any one of them perfect and absolute, or freed from passion and human infirmities. Nor doth their meeting together make them infallible in all things; though the act which is hammered out by many together, must in reason be perfecter than that which is but the child of one man’s sufficiency. If, then, a General Council have no ground of not erring from the men or the meeting, either it must not21 be at all, or it must be by some assistance and power upon them when they are so met together; and this, if it be less than the assistance of the Holy Ghost, it cannot make them secure against error.
Consid. III. 1.—Thirdly, I consider, That the assistance of the Holy Ghost is without error. That is no question; and as little there is, That a council hath it. But the doubt that troubles is, Whether all22 assistance of the Holy Ghost be afforded in such a high manner, as to cause all the definitions of a council in matters fundamental in the faith, and in remote deductions from it, to be alike infallible? Now the Romanists, to prove there is "infallible assistance,"23 produce some places of Scripture; but no one of them infers, much less enforces, in infallibility. The places which Stapleton there rests upon, are these: "I will send you the Spirit of Truth, Which will lead you into all truth." [John xvi. 13.] And, "This Spirit shall abide with you for ever." [John xiv. 16.] And, "Behold, I am with you to the end of the world." [Matt. xxviii. 20.] To these, others add, "The founding of the Church upon the rock, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail." [Matt. xvi. 18.] And Christ’s prayer for S. Peter, "that his faith fail not." [Luke xxii. 32.] And Christ’s promise, " that where two or three are gathered together in His name, He will be in the midst of them." [Matt.xviii. 20.] And that in the Acts, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." [Acts xv.28.]
2.—For the first, which is, "leading into all truth," and that "for ever;" "all,"24 is not always universally taken in Scripture. Nor is it here simply for "all truth:" for then a General Council could no more err in matter of fact than in matter of faith, in which yet yourselves grant it may err.25 But "into all truth,"26 is a limited "all:" "into all truth absolutely necessary to salvation;" and this, when they suffer themselves to be led by the Blessed Spirit, by the word of God; and all truth which Christ had before, at least fundamentally, delivered unto them: "He shall receive of Mine, and show it unto you." [John xvi. 14.] And again, "He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, which I have told you." [John xiv. 26.] And for this necessary truth, too, the Apostles received this promise, "not for themselves and a council, but for themselves and the whole Catholic Church,"27 of which a council, be it never so general, is a very little part. Yea and this very assistance is not so absolute, nor in that manner, to the whole Church, as it was to the Apostles; neither doth Christ in that place speak directly of a council, but of His Apostles’ preaching and doctrine.
3.—As for Christ’s "being with them unto the end of the world," the fathers are so various, that, in the sense of the ancient Church, we may understand Him present in majesty,28 [256] in power29 in aid and assistance30 against the difficulties they should find for preaching Christ; which is the native sense, as I take it: and this promise was made to support their weakness. As for His presence "in reaching by the Holy Ghost,"31 few mention it and no one of them which doth, speaks of any infallible assistance, farther than the succeeding Church keeps to the word of the Apostles, as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit. Besides, the fathers32 refer their speech to the Church Universal, not to any council or representative body. And Maldonate adds, "That this His presence by teaching is, or may [257] be, a collection from the place, but is not the intention of Christ."33
4.—For "the rock upon which the Church is founded," [Matth. xvi. 18.] which is the next place, we dare not lay any other foundation than Christ [I Cor. iii. 11; Eph. ii. 20.]: Christ laid His Apostles, no question, but upon Himself. With these S. Peter was laid, no man questions, and in prime place of order, (Would his claiming successors be content with that?) as appears, and divers fathers witness, by his particular designment, Tu es Petrus. But yet the "rock" even there spoken of is not S. Peter’s person, either only or properly, but the faith which he professed. And to this, besides the evidence which is in text and truth, the fathers come in34 with very full consent.35 [258] And this, "that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," is not spoken of the not erring of the Church principally, but of the not falling away of it from the foundation.36 Now, a Church may err, and dangerously too, and [259] yet not fall from the foundation, especially if that of Bellarmine be true, "that there are many things, even de fide, ‘of the faith,’ which yet are not necessary to salvation."37 Besides, even here again, the promise of this stable edification is to the whole Church, not to a council; at least no farther than a council builds as a Church is built—that is, upon Christ.
5.—The next place is "Christ’s prayer for S. Peter’s faith." [Luke xxii. 32.] The native sense of which place is, that Christ prayed, and obtained for S. Peter perseverance in the grace of God against the strong temptation which was to winnow him above the rest. But to conclude an infallibility hence in the pope, or in his chair, or in the Roman see, or in a General Council, though the pope be president, I find no one ancient father that dare adventure it. And Bellarmine38 himself, besides39 some popes in their own cause—and that in epistles counterfeit or falsely alleged—hath not a father to name for this sense of the place till he come down to Chrysologus, Theophylact, and S. Bernard; of which Chrysologus’ speech is but a flash of rhetoric, and the other two are men of yesterday, compared with antiquity, and lived when (it was God’s great grace and learned men’s wonder) the corruption of the time had not made them corrupter than they are. And Thomas40 is resolute, that what is meant here beyond [260] S. Peter’s person is referred to the whole Church. And the Gloss upon the Canon Law is more peremptory than he, even to the denial that it is meant of the pope.41 And if this place warrant not the pope’s faith, where is the infallibility of the council that in your doctrine depends upon it?
6.—The next place is Bellarmine’s choice one, and his first; and he says, "it is a proper place for proof of the infallibility of General Councils."42 This place is Christ’s promise: "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them;" [Matt.xviii.19, 20.] and he tells us, the strength of the argument is not taken from these words alone, but as they are continued with the former; and that the argument is drawn a minori ad majus, ‘from the less to the greater.’"43 Thus: "If two or three gathered together in My name do always obtain that which they ask at God’s [261] hands, to wit, wisdom and knowledge of those things which are necessary for them, how much more shall all the bishops gathered together" in a council "always obtain wisdom and knowledge to judge those things which belong to the direction of the whole Church?"44 I answer, first: It is most true that here is little strength in these words alone; for though the fathers make different interpretations of this place of Scripture, yet most of them agree in this, That this place is to be understood of consent in prayer:45 and this is manifest enough in the text itself. Secondly, I think there is as little strength in them by the argument drawn a minori ad majus; and that I prove two ways. First, because though that argument hold in natural and necessary things, yet I doubt it holds not either in voluntary or promised things, or things which depend upon their institution: for he that promises the less, doth not hereby promise the greater; and he which will do the less, will not always do the greater. Secondly, because this argument from the less to the greater can never follow but where and so far as the thing upon which the argument is founded agrees to the less; for if it do not always agree to the less, it cannot necessarily pass from thence to the greater. Now, that [262] upon which this argument is grounded here, is infallible hearing and granting the prayers of two or three met together in the name of Christ; but this infallibility is not always found in this less congregation where two or three are gathered together. For they often meet and pray, yet obtain not; because "there are divers other conditions necessarily required," as S. Chrysostom observes, "to make the prayers of a congregation heard," beside their gathering together in the name of Christ;46 and therefore it is not extended to a greater congregation or council, unless the same conditions be still observed: neither doth Christ’s promise, Ero in medio, "I will be in the midst of them," infer that they—the greater or the less, three or three hundred have all, even necessary things, infallibly granted unto them as oft as they ask, if they ask not as well as they ought as what they ought.47 And yet most true it is, that where more or fewer are gathered together in the name of Christ, there is He in the midst of them—but to assist and to grant whatsoever He shall find fit for them, not infallibly whatsoever they shall think fit to ask for themselves; and therefore S. Cyprian, though he use this very argument, a minori ad majus, "from the less to the greater," yet he presumes not to extend it as Bellarmine doth, to the obtaining of infallibility; but only useth it in the general way, in which [263] there neither is nor can be doubt of the truth of it. Thus: If two that are of one mind to Godward can do so much, what might be done if there were unanimity among all Christians?."48 Undoubtedly more, but not all whatsoever they should ask, unless all other requisites were present. Thirdly: In this their own great champions49 disagree from Bellarmine, or he from them. For Gregory de Valentia and Stapleton tell us, " That this place doth not belong properly to prove an infallible certainty of any sentence in which more agree in the name of Christ, but to the efficacy of consent for obtaining that which more shall pray for in the name of Christ, if at least that be for their souls’ health: For else you may prove out of this place, that not only the definition of a General Council, but even of a provincial—nay, of two or three bishops gathered together,—is valid, and that without the pope’s assent."
7.—The last place mentioned for the infallibility of General Councils is that, where the Apostles say of themselves and the council held by them, "It seems good to the Holy Ghost and to us." [Acts xv. 28.] And they might well say it; for they had infallibly the assistance of the Holy Ghost, and they kept close to His direction. But I do not find that any General Council since, though they did implore, as they ought, the assistance of that Blessed Spirit, did ever take upon them to say, in terminis, "in express terms," of their definitions, Visum est Spiritui Sancto et nobis, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us;"—acknowledging even thereby, as I conceive, a great deal of difference in the certainty of those things which a General Council at after determined in the Church, and those which were settled by the Apostles when they sat in council. But though I do not [264] find, that they used this speech punctually, and "in terms," yet the fathers, when they met in council, were confident, and spake it out, that they had assistance from the Holy Ghost; yet so, as that they neither took themselves, nor the councils they sat in, as infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost, as the Apostles were. And Valentia is very right: "That though the council say they are gathered together in the Holy Ghost, yet the fathers are neither arrogant in using the speech, nor yet infallible, for all that."50 And this is true, whether the pope approve or disapprove their definitions; though Valentia will not admit that: the pope must be, with him, infallible, whatever come of it. Now though this be but an example, and include no precept, yet both Stapleton51 and Bellarmine52 make this place a proper proof of the infallibility of General Councils; and Stapleton53 says the decrees of councils are "the very oracles of the Holy Ghost," which is little short of blasphemy; and Bellarmine [265] adds, that because "all other councils borrowed their form from this, therefore other lawful councils may affirm also that their decrees are the decrees of the Holy Ghost;"54 little considering therewhile, that it is one thing to borrow the form, and another thing to borrow the certainty and the infallibility, of a council. For suppose that after-councils did follow the form of that first council exactly in all circumstances, yet I hope no advised man will say there is the like infallibility in other councils, where no man sat that was inspired, as was in this, where all that sat as judges were inspired; or if any Jesuit will be so bold as to say it, he had need bring very good proof for it, and far better than any is brought yet. Now that all councils are not so infallible as was this of the Apostles, nor the causes handled in them as there they were, is manifest by one of their own, who tells us plainly, "That the Apostles in their council dealt very prudently; did not precipitate their judgment, but weighed all things; for in matters of faith, and which touch the conscience, it is not enough to say Volumus et mandamus, ‘We will and command.’ And thus the Apostles met together in simplicity and singleness, seeking nothing but God and the salvation of men. And what wonder if the Holy Ghost were present in such a council? Nos aliter; but ‘we meet otherwise,’ in great pomp; and seek ourselves, and promise ourselves, that we may do anything out of the plenitude of our power. And how can the Holy Ghost allow of such meetings ?"55 And if not "allow" or approve the meetings, [266] then certainly not concur to make every thing infallible that shall be concluded in them.
8.—And for all the places together, weigh them with indifferency, and either they speak of the Church, including the Apostles, as all of them do—and then, all grant the voice of the Church is God’s voice, divine and infallible;—or else they are general, unlimited, and appliable to private assemblies as well as General Councils, which none grant to be infallible but some mad enthusiasts;—or else they are limited, not simply into "all truth," but "all necessary to salvation;" in which I shall easily grant a General Council cannot err, suffering itself to be led by this Spirit of truth in the Scripture, and not taking upon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit. For, suppose these places, or any other, did promise assistance, even to infallibility, yet they granted it not to every General Council, but to the Catholic body of the Church itself; and if it be in the whole Church principally, then is it in a General Council but by consequent, as the council represents the whole. And that which belongs to a thing by consequent, doth not otherwise nor longer belong unto it than it consents and cleaves to that upon which it is a consequent. And therefore a General Council hath not this assistance, but as it keeps to the whole Church and spouse of Christ, whose it is to hear His word, and determine by it. And therefore if a General Council will go out of the Church’s way, it may easily go without the Church’s truth.
1 [that ... caret A.C.]
2 [that ... caret A.C.]
3 246d Ex iis conciliis quae omnium consensu generalia fuerunt, qualia sunt quatuor prima: ex consuetudine autem Ecclesiae colligimus quatuor conditiones [et] sufficere et requiri, [ad generale Concilium.]—Bellarmin. de Concil. lib. i. cap. xvii. § 2. [Op., tom. ii. col, 34. C.]
4 247 [with … caret A.C.]
5 248e Sect. xxxiii. Consid. 5. No. 1, 2. [vide infra, pp. 272, 273.] And the reason of this is, because to have a General Council deceived, is not impossible: but altogether impossible it is, that demonstrative reason or testimony divine should deceive.—Hooker. Eccl. Polit. Book ii. ch. vii. [Sect. 5. Works, vol. i. p. 407. His words are: "I grant that proof derived from the authority of man’s judgment is not able to work that assurance which doth grow by a stronger proof; and therefore although ten thousand General Councils would set down one and the same definitive sentence concerning any point of religion whatsoever, yet one demonstrative reason alleged, or one manifest testimony cited from the month of God Himself to the contrary, could not choose but overweigh them all; inasmuch as for them to have been deceived, it is not impossible; it is, that demonstrative reason or testimony divine should deceive."]
6 248f In which case, Maldonat[us] puts in the shrewdest argument; namely, That this way we should never have a certain end of controversies; for, to try whether any thing were decreed according to the word of God by one General Council, we should need another Council; and then another to try that; and so in infinitum. So our faith should never have where to settle and rest itself.—Maldonat. in S. Matth. xviii. 20. [His words are: Quod autem haeretici judicandum esse dicunt utrum in nomine Christi convenerint si nihil nisi ex verbo Dei constitierint, perverso faciunt judicio. Non enim, quia nihil nisi ex verbo Dei decernunt, in nomine Christi convenerunt, sed quia in nomine Christi convenerunt, nihil nisi ex verbo Dei possunt decernere. Prius enim in nomine Christi conveniunt, quam aliquid decernant. Et qui in Christi nomine non convenerunt, possunt aliquando ex verbo Dei omnia decernere. Itaque incertam nobis haeresim, et fallacem regulam tradunt, quae si vera esset, nunquam sciri posset, an aliquod concilium in nomine Christi convenisset. Nam ad examinandum, utrum aliquid non ex verbo Dei decrevisset, alio concilio opus esset; et ad examinandum, an illud alterum aliquid dixisset praeter verbum Dei, rursus opus altero: sic nusquam fides nostra gradum figeret.] But to this I answer, That the ancient Church took this way, as will afterward appear in S. Augustine. Next, here is no uncertainty at all; for no General Council lawfully called, and so proceeding, can be questioned in another, unless it so fall out, that evident Scripture or a demonstration appear against it. But either of these are so clear and manifest, that there need be no fear of proceeding in infinitum, and leaving the faith in uncertainty, in necessaries to salvation. And in curious speculations it is no matter, whether there be certainty or no, with or without a council.—[Vide infra, Sect xxxiii. Consid. 5. No. 1, 2. [pp. 272, 273.]
7 248g [Secunda ratio. Si solus pontifex potest infallibiliter definire dogmata fidei, ergo frustra fiunt concilia, vel certe non sunt necessaria. Respondeo; id non sequi. Nam etsi in pontifice sit infallibilitas, tamen non debet ipse contemnere media humana et ordinaria, &c.]—Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. iv. cap. 7. § 3. et seqq. [Op., tom. i. col. 816. B, C.]
8 249h [Haec est ecclesia symbolica, ecclesia Christi inquam catholica et apostolica mater credentium populorum, quae fidem habet indefectibilem, secundum promissum Christi ad Petrum qui tunc figuram gessit Ecclesiae, Ego rogavi, &c. Non est ergo specialis ecclesia, non Africana, ut Donatus dixit. Nec utique particularis illa Romana, sed universalis ecclesia, non quidem] in generals synodo [congregata], quam aliquoties errasse percepimus, [velut illa Ariminiensis ... sed est ecclesia Christi catholica per totum mundum dispersa.]—[Thom.] Waldensis, Doctrinal. Fidei, tom. i. lib. ii. artic. ii. cap. xix. § 1. [fol. xcix. col. 1, 2.]
9 251i It is not long since A.C. compared Councils to Parliaments; it was but p. 60. And I hope a parliament, and the acts of it, must stand in force, though something be mistaken in them, or found hurtful, till another parliament of equal authority reverse it and them. For I presume you will not have any inferior authority to abrogate Acts of Parliament.
10 251k Sect. xxxiii. Consid. 4. No. 1. [vide infra, p. 266.]
11 251(l) Sect. xxiv. No. 1. [ubi sup. p. 167.]
12 251m Sect. xxxviii. No. 15.
13 251n
[Alii dicunt concilium illud (sc. Judaeorum contra Christum) errasse, quia non processit secundum morem legitimi judicii: sed tumultuaria conspiratione, &c. ... Quia tamem non est inferiorum judicare, an superiores legitime procedant, necne, nisi manifestissime constet intolerabilem errorem commiti.—Bellarmin. de Concil. [auctoritate,] lib. ii. cap. viii. § 8. [Op., tom. ii. col. 64. B.]—Nisi manifeste constet, &c.—Jac. Almain in III. Sentent. D[istinct.] xxiv. Q[uaest.] unica, in fine. [ubi sup. p. 165. note i.]14 252o [Quod] si ecclesiae universitati non est data ulla auctoritas, ergo neque concilio generali, quatenus ecclesiam universalem repraesentat.—Bellarmin. de Concil. [auctoritat.] lib. ii. cap. 16. § 4 [Op. tom. ii. col. 94. C.]
15 252p Dubit. sext. Secunda propositio,] Concilium generate, [eam (scill. ecclesiam Romanam)] representans, [legitime congregatum, non potest errare in fide.]—Jac. Almain. in III. Sentent. D[istinct.] xxiv. Q[uaest.] unica. [fol. lxxii.]—[Secunda restrictio est, ut illud, Ecclesia non potest errare, intelligatur de sola ecclesia universali, non autem extendatur ad] episcopos, qui sunt Ecclesia repraesentative, ut nostri loquuntur: [quilibet enim episcopus gerit personam suae ecclesiae particularis, et proinde omnes episcopi gerunt personam totius ecclesiae.—Bellarmin. de Ecclesia Militante, lib. iii. cap. 14. § 3. [Op., tom. ii. col. 148. C, D.]
16 252q Sect. xxvi. No. 8. [ubi sup. p. 221.]
17 252 [the head … Edit. 1686.]
18 253r Omnis representatio virtute minor est re ipsa, vel veritate, eujus representatio est. Colligitur aperte ex S. Thom. [Aquin. Summ. Prim. Secund. Q[uaest.] ci. Art. 2. [Respons.] ad 2. [His words are: Conclusio: Cum tradenda hominibus non sunt divina mysteria nisi secundum eorum capacitatem, ne contemnant quod capere non possunt: recte caeremonialia veteris legis praecepta sub sensibilium figurarum velamine rudi illi populo tradita sunt .... AD PRIMUM ergo dicendum, quod divina non sunt revelanda hominibus nisi secundum eorum capacitatem, alioquin daretur in eis praecipitii materia, dum contemnerent quae capere non possent. Et ideo utilius fuit, ut sub quodam figurarum velamine divina mysteria rudi populo traderentur, ut sic saltem ea implicite cognoscerent, dum illis figuris deservirent ad honorem Dei. AD SECUNDUM dicendum, quod sicut poetica non capiuntur a ratione humana propter defectum veritatis, qui est in eis, ita etiam ratio humana perfecte capere non potest divina propter excedentem ipsorum veritatem: et ideo utrobique opus est repraesentatione per sensibiles figuras.]
19 253s [Quia] posset contingere quod congregati in Concilio Generali essent pauci et viles, tam in re, quam in hominum reputatione, respectu illorum, qui ad illud Concilium Generale minime convenissent, &c.—Ockam. Dial. par. 3. lib. iii. cap. 13. [apud Goldast. Monarch. S. Roman. Imper. tom. ii. p. 829.]
20 254t Ecclesia est unum corpus mysticum per similitudinem ad naturale.—Durand. in III. Sentent. Distinct. xiv. Quaest. i. No. 5.—[Haec ordinatio in coelo praefulget: in naturis ostenditur: in Christo operibus exemplatur: in divinis legibus praecipitur: in toto corpore Christi mystico observatur]—[Gabr.] Biel. in Exposit. Can. Missae, &c. lect. xxiii. [fol. xxxi. v. col. 2.]
21 254 [not ... caret (male) Edit. i686.]
22 254 [the assistance ... Editt.1673, and 1686.]
23 254u Omnem veritatem infallibiliter docendi., &c.—Stapleton. Relect. [Controv.] Praef. ad Lectorem. [Op., tom. i. p. 514.]
24 255x [Et quod de omni Israele dici videtur, in his tantum quos sibi gratiae electio reliquos fecit, ostenditur . . . . ut unum genus in duas species intelligeremus esse divisum, et omnem hominem, omnem plenitudinem, omnem Israëlem non semper ad universitatem, sed plerumque ad partem esse referendum.—S.] Prosp. [Aquitan. seu potius, ignoti auctoris] de vocat. [omn.] gentium, lib. i. cap. 10. [apud S. Prosper. Op., col. 862. B-D.]
25 255y Bellarmin. de Concil. [auctorit.] lib. ii cap. 8. § [5. Op., tom. ii. col. 64. A:] Where he saith, Respondeo, quidam [aiuntl quaestionem fuisse de facto, non de jure, [quam Concilium illud judicavit, videlicet, num Jesus necandus esset;] in ejusmodi [autem] judiciis concilia errare posse, non dubium est.
26 255z Dubium est, an quod dicit, Docebit omnia, S. Joh. xiv. 26. referendum sit, (ad illud [verbum,] Quaecunque dixero vobis,) quasi non aliud docturum Spiritum Sanctum dicat, quam quod Ipse antea docuisset, [quemadmodum et verbum suggeret eo utique refertur.] Non repugnabo, si quis ita velit interpretari, &c.—Maldonat. in S. Johan. xiv. [26.]
27 255a Bellarmin. de Conc. [auctorit.] lib. ii. cap. 9. § [3. Op., tom. ii. col. 80. A.] Assistit [enim concilio] Spiritus Sanctus non [tam] propter [ipsum] concilium, quam [propter] Ecclesiam universam.
28 255b [Loquebatur enim, (sc. Johan. cap. xii. 8. Me autem non semper habebitis,) de praesentia corporis Sui. Nam secundum majestatem Suam, secundum providentiam, secundum ineffabilem et invisibilem gratiam, impletur quod ab Eo dictum est, Ecce Ego vobiscum, &c.]—S. Augustin. in Johan. [Evang. cap. xii.] Tract. 1. [Op., tom. iii. par. 2. col. 634. A.]—[Christus in coelum ascendens, discessit quidem carne, sed praesens est majestate, secundum illud, quod ait; Ecce Ego vobiseum, &c.]—S. Isidor. [Hispalens.] Sentent. lib. i. cap. 14. [§ 17. Op., tom. vi. p. 151. ed. Lorenzanae.]
29 256c [Sed quid sibi vult, esse Eum in circuitu populi Sui, ex hoc nunc et usque in saeculum; quia non relinquet virgam peccatorum &c.? In virga potestatem intelligi convenit; insigne enim potestatis est.]—S. Hilar. [Pictav. Tractat.] in Ps. cxxiv. cap. 7. Op., col. 405. C.]—S. Justin. Martyr. Dialog. cum Tryphone [There is no passage in Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Trypho—nor does there appear to be one in any of his works—which comments on the text announcing our Lord’s perpetual presence in the Church.]—[Quod utique nunc eadem potentia Dominus indesinenter operatur, qui ait, Ecce Ego vobiscum, &c.]—S. Prosper. [Aquitan. seu potius, ignoti auctoris,] ad Demetriadem [virgin.] Epist. [cap. 13. apud S. Prosper. Op., col. 945. A.]
30 256d [Sciens ergo Dominus, &c.] S. Hilar. in Ps. cxxiv. [ubi sup. p. 181. note f.]—[Et ne. praedicantium ministeria humano tantum viderentur opere peragenda, inquit, Ecce Ego vobiscum, &c. Id est, cum sicut oves introieritis in medium luporum, nolite de vestra infirmitate trepidare, sed de Mea potestate confidite, qui vos usque ad consummationem saeculi in omni hoc opere non derelinquam; non hoc ut nihil patiamini, sed, quod multo majus est, praestiturus ut nulla saevientium crudelitate superemini. In Mea enim potestate praedicabitis, &C.]—S. Prosper. [Aquitan. seu potius, ignoti auctoris,] de vocat. [omn.] gentium, lib. ii. cap. 2. [apud S. Prosper. Op., col. 888. D.]—[Ut autem noverint corda fidelium habere se, unde ad supernam sapientiam spretis mundi cupiditatibus valeant elevari, spondet nobis Dominus praesentiam suam, dicens, Ecce ego Yobiseum, &c.]—S. Leon. [Magn.] de Resurrect. Domini, Serm. ii. cap. 3. [Serm. lxxii. (al. lxx.) Op., tom. i. col. 286. ed. Ballerini, ubi sup. p. 181. note f.]—Jesus igitur noster solem stare fecit, &c.]—S. Isidor. Hispalens.] in Josue, cap. xii. [ubi sup. p. 181. note f.]
31 256e [’Idou egô meth’ humôn, k.t.l. epempse de hêmin ex ouranou ton paraklêton, di’ hou kai en hô meth’ hêmôn esti kai en hêmin aulizetai, ouk othneion hêmin egcheôn, alla to tês ousias autou, kai tês tou patros idion pneuma]—S. Cyril. [Alexandr.] de [Sancta] Trinitat. dialog. vii. [Op., tom. v. p. 642. A. ed. Aubert. Venet. 1638.]—[Quod utique, &c.]—S. Prosper [Aquitan. seu potius, ignot. auctor.] ad Demetriad. [ubi sup. note c.]
32 256f [Sciens ergo Dominus . . . . ei qui in Eum credat adsistit.]—S. Hilar. in Ps. cxxiv. [ubi sup. p. 181. note f.]—[idou egô, k.t.l.]—S. Cyril. [Alexandr.] de [Sancta] Trinitate, lib. vii. [ubi sup. note e.]—[Sic eos allocutum Deum, quemadmodum Christus nos nondum natos, etiam longe post futuros, nec tantum nos, sed etiam eos omnes qui futuri sunt post nos. Omnibus enim dicebat, quos suos futuros videbat, Ecce Ego vobiscum, &c.]— S. Augustin. de Genesi ad literam, [lib.] vi. cap. 8. [Op., tom. iii. par. 1. col. 201. G.]—[Idem est super coelorum altitudines victor mortis ascendens, et usque ad consummationem saeculi universam ecclesiam non relinquens.]—S. Leon. [Magn.] de Nativitat. Dom. Serm. x. cap. 5. [Serm. xxx. (al. xxxi.) tom. i. col. 109. ed. Ballerini.]—[Jesus igitur noster solem &c.]—S. Isidor [Hispalens.] in Josue, cap xii. [ubi sip. p. 181. note f.] In all which places, vobiscum is either interpreted cum suis, or fidelibus, or universa ecclesia.
33 257g [Fateor Christum, quatenus Deus est, ubique esse, sed aliam hic praesentiam suam Apostolis pollicetur; fateor Christum misso Spiritu Sancto ecclesiam usque ad consummationem saeculi gubernaturum,] idque ex hoc loco colligi non nego, [quemadmodum illi, quos modo nominavimus, auctores (sc. S. Cyril. Alexandr., Salvian., et S. Leo,) recte collegerunt;] sed non quaerimus, quid [ex eo, quod Christus dixit,] colligatur, sed quid dicere voluerit.—Maldonat. in S. Matth. xxviii. [ 20.]
34 257 [in .... carent Editt. 1673, and 1686.]
35 257h S. Ignatius, Epist. ad Pililadelph. Qui suam firmavit Ecclesiam super petram, aedificatione spirituali. [hos kata to idion boulêma estêrizen autou bebaiôs tên ekklêsian epi tê petra, oikodomê pneumatikê, acheiropoiêtô, k. t. l.—S. Ignat. Epist. Interpolat. ad Philadelph. in Inscript. apud Patr. Apostol. tom. ii. p. 75. ed. Cotelerii, Amst. 1724.]—Super hanc igitur confessionis petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est.—S. Hilar. de Trinitat. lib. vi. [§ 36. Op., col. 903. B.]—Et paulo post, Haec fides, ecclesiae fundamentum est; [per hanc fidem infirmes adversus eam sunt portae inferorum.—Id. col. 904. A.]—Super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam Meam, super confessionem videlicet Christi, [quia dixerat: Tu es Christus, filius Dei viventis.]—[Pseudo-] S. Gregor. Nyssen. de Trin. adversus Judaeos, [seu potius, Testimonia de adventu Domini in carne, adversus Judaeos, cap. ult. Op., tom. ii. p. 162. B. ed. Paris. 1638.]—Ut hac ratione certam omnibus confessionem traderet, quam ab eo inspiratus Petrus tanquam basim, ac fundamentum jecit, super quod Dominus Ecclesiam suam extruxit. [alla tên asphalê homologian didaxai pantas boulomenos, hên empneustheis ho Petros par’ autou hôs krêtida kai bathron apetheto, eph’ hê tên heautou ekklêsian ho Kurios ôkodomêse]—Isidor. Pelusiot. [de interpret, SS.] Epistol. lib. i. Epist. ccxxxv. [ad Serenum, Op., p. 67. B. ed. Paris 1638.]—Petram opinor quasi denominative, aliud nihil quam inconcussam et firmissimam discipuli fidem appellans, in qua Ecclesia Christi ita fundata, et firmata esset, ut non laberetur, &c. [petran oimai parônumôs, heteron ouden, hê tên akataseiston kai edraiotatên tou mathêtou pistin apokalôn, eph’ hê kai adiaptôtôs erairstai te kai diapepêgen hê ekklêsia Christou, kai autais analôtos tais hadou mulais eisaei diamenousa.]—S. Cyril. Alexandr. de Trinitat. lib. iv. [Op., tom. v. p. 507. E.]—Petram appellat fidei pietatem, veritatis professionem, &c. Et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam Meam. [kalei de autên en tê skepê tês petrs, hina mê palin melaina ginêtai, petran de kalei tên eusebê pistin, tên alêthê homologian, kai gar tô Kuriô eirêkoti . . . Su ei Petros ephêse, Su ei ho Christos, k.t.l. hô apekrinato legôn . . . Su ei Petros k.t.l.]—B. Theodoret. [Episcop. Cyren. Interpret.] in Cantic. [Cantic. ii.14. lib. ii. Op., tom. i. col. 1028. D. ed. Sirmond. Paris. 1642.]—In vera fide persistite, et vitam vestram in petra Ecclesiae, hoc est, in confessione beati Petri apostolorum principis solidate.—S. Gregor. [Magn. Registr.] Epistol. lib. iii. Epist. xxxiii. [lib. iv. Indict. 12. Epist. xxxviii. ad Theodelindam Reginam, Op., tom. ii. col. 718. D.]—Super eum aedificavit Ecclesiam, quia enim confessus erat, &c. quod haec confessio fundamentum erit, &c. [ameibetai ton Petron ho Kurios, misthon autô didous megan, to ep’ autô oikodomêthênai tên ekklêsian, epei gar hômologêsen auton Huion Theou ho Petros, phêsin hoti, hautê hê homolgia hên hômologêsas, themelion mellein einai tôn pisteuontôn, hôste panta anthrôpon mellonta ktizein ton tês pisteôs oikon, tautên homologian hupotithenai themelion.]—Theophylact. [Comment.] in Matt. xvi. [p. 93. E. ed. Paris. 1635.]—Quid est, super hanc petram? &c. Super hanc fidem, super id quod dictum est, Tu es [Christus, filius Dei vivi.]— S. Augustin. in I. Epistol. Johann. cap. 5. Tractat. x. [Op., tom. iii. col. 894. B.]—Hanc confessionem Christus petram cum nominasset, Petrum nuncupat eum qui primum illam est confessus, donans illi hanc appellationem tanquam insigne, et monumentum hujus confessionis. Haec enim est revera pietatis petra, haec salutis basis, &c. [tautên tên homologian petran kalesas ho Christos, Petron anoumazei ton prôtôs tautên homologêsanta, gnôrisma tês homologias tên prosêgorian dôrumenos, hautê gar alêthôs tês eusebeias he petra, hautê tês sôtêrias hê krêpis, touto tês pisteôs to teichos, houtos ho tês alêtheias themelios, themelion gar allon oudeis dunatai k.t.l.]—S. Basil. Seleuciae, Orat. xxv. [in fin. Op., p. 142. B. ad calc. Op., S. Gregor. Thaumaturg. &c. ed. Paris. 1622.]—[hina genêtai pasi tois ex autôn metalambanousin eis aphesin hamartiôn kai eis zôên aiônion, eis hagiasmon psuchôn kai sômatôn, eis karpophorian ergôn agathôn, eis stêrigmon tês hagias sou katholikês kai apostolikês ekklêsias, hên ethemeliôsas] epi tên petran tês pisteôs, [hina pulai hadou mê katischusôsin autês, ruomenos autên apo pasês haireseôs kai skandalôn kai tôn ergazomenôn tên anomian, diaphulattôn autên mechri tês sunteleias tou aiônos.]—S. Jacobi Liturgia [Hierosolymitana, apud Assemanni Cod. Liturg. (lib. iv. par. 2.) tom. v. pp. 40, 41. Considerable doubt has been thrown upon the genuineness of the latter clauses of this prayer.]—And some which join the person of S. Peter, profess it is propter robur confessionis. [Ex. grat. kai gar Huion Theou Christon kata tên tou Patros autou apokalupsin epignonta auton hena tôn mathetôn autou Simôna preteron kaloumenon, epônomase Petron]—Justin. Martyr. Dialog. cum Tryphon. [Jud. Sect. c. Op., p. 195. D. ed. Benedict.]—[kai hina mathês hoti dikaioi eleôteichizontai, akoue ti phêsi tô Petrô, tô stulô, tê krêpidi, tô dia touto klêthenti Petrô, epeidê tê pistei pepetrômenos ên, Simôn, Simôn, k.t.l.—Pseudo-] S. Chrysostom Hom. ii. in Ps. 1. [§ 2. Op., tom. v. p. 584. C. ed. Benedict]—[Bene conscius sui non ad tempus adsumtum, sed jamdudum Deo cognitum, Petrus testificatur affectum. Quis est enim alius qui de se hoc facile profiteri possit? Et ideo quia solus profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur; major enim omnibus caritas.]—S. Ambros. Expos. Evang. sec. Lucam, lib. x. in cap. xxiv. [175, &c. Op., tom. i. col. 1542. D. ed. Benedict.]—And S. Gregory gives it for a rule, when petra is read in the singular number, (and so it is here,) Christus est, "Christ is signified." [Quem alium signat petra, nisi Eum, de quo per Paulum dicitur, Petra autem erat Christus?—S. Gregor. Moral. lib. iii. in cap. ii. B. Job. cap. 30. Op., tom. 1. col. 96. E.—Et, Quia petrae nomine Christus accipitur, &c.—Id. Moral. lib. xix. in cap. xxix. B. Job. cap. 15. Op., tom. i. col. 616. D.—Et, In sacro eloquio eum singulari numero petra nominatur, quis alius quam Christus accipitur?—Id. Moral. lib. xxxi. in cap. xxxix. B. Job. cap. 48. Op., tom. 1. col. 1040. D.]
36 258i [Et nos transeamus ad ea quae sequuntur: Tenui Eum, nec dimittam, &c.(Cant.iii. 4.) Ita est, ex tunc et deinceps] non deficit [genus Christianum, nec fides de terra, nec caritas de ecclesia.]—S. Bernard. Serm. lxxix. in Cant. [fol. 181. col. 4. L.]—And Bellarmine himself, going to prove Ecclesiam [visibilem] non posse deficere, begins with this very place of Scripture. [Primum, id ostenditur ex Scripturis, ubi aperte nominatur Ecclesia, Matt. xvi. (18.) Super hanc petram, &c. Bellarmin.] de ecclesia [militante,] lib. iii. cap. 13. [§ 2. Op., tom. ii. col. 145. D.]
37 259k Quinto, si esset [vera Calvini sententia, maxima pars dogmatum fidei in dubium revocari posset: nam] multa sunt de fide, quae non sunt absolute necessaria ad salutem.—[Bellarmin.] de ecclesia [militante,] lib. iii.. cap. 14. § 13. [Op., tom. ii. col. 150. A.]
38 259(l) [For the passages from the writings of the popes, vindicating the papal infallibility, vide supra, p. 20. note p. Bellarmine adds,] de Rom. Pont. lib. iv. cap. 3. [§ 13.Op., tom. i. col. 807. D.: praeter hos pontifices non desunt etiam alii auctores, qui eodem modo exponunt. Theophylactus in Lucae cap. xxii. 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, &c. (ubi sup. p. 210. note x.) Petrus Chrysologus in Epistola ad Eutychetem, quae habetur in primo tomo Conciliorum, ante concilitim Chalcedonense, Hortamur te, inquit, frater honorabilis, ut his, quae a beatissimo papa Romanae civitatis scripta sunt, obedienter attendas; quoniam B. Petrus, qui in propria sede vivit, et praesidet, praestat quaerentibus fidei veritatem. (Cf. Concil. tom. iv. col. 38. A.) . . . . Bernardus in Epist, cxc. ad Innocentium: (Op., fol. 227. col. 2. E.) Oportet, inquit, ad vestrum referri apostolatum pericula quaeque et scandala emergentia in regno Dei, ea praesertim quae de fide contingunt. Dignum namque arbitror, ibi potissimum resarciri damna fidei, ubi non possit fides sentire defectum. Haec quippe hujus praerogativa sedis. Cui enim alteri aliquando dictum est, Ego pro te, &c?]
39 259 [beside ... Editt. 1673, and1686.]
40 259m [S. Thom. Aquin. Summ.] Secund. Secund. Q[uaest.] ii. A[rtic.] 3. [seu potius, Ibid. Quaest. i. Artic. 10. Unde et Dominus, Luc. xxii. Petro dixit, quem summum pontificem constituit, Ego pro te rogavi, &c. Et hujus ratio est, quia una fides debet esse totius Ecclesiae; secundum illud, I Cor. i. (10.) Id ipsum dicatis omnes, &c.] Probat enim [S. Thom. Aquin.] ex his verbis, fidem Ecclesiae universalis non posse deficere.
41 260n [Quaero, de qua Ecclesia intelligas, quod hic dicitur, quod non possit errare? Si de ipso papa, qui ecclesia dicitur, &c. Sed] certum est, quod Papa errare potest.—Gloss. [in Decret. par. ii.] Caus. xxiv. Quaest. 1. cap. (ix.) A recta ergo.
42 260o Testimonia propria sunt tria: primum est Matt. xviii. (l9.) [ubi sunt duo, &c.]—Bellarmin. de concil. [auctoritat.] lib. ii. cap. 2. § 3. [Op., tom. ii. col. 53. C. The title of the chapter is: Concilia generalia a pontifice confirmata, errare non posse, ex Scripturis demontratur.]—[Ad tertium dicendum, quod] firmitas conciliorum illis [Christi] verbis proprie non innititur: [quia nec Christus ibi de conciliis episcoporum loquitur, sed de quavis fidelium unanimi congregatione; nec etsi Christus adsit in medio talium, tamen ad omnem affectum adest, aut ad hunc qui est judicare de fide.]—Stapleton. Relect. Controv. [Controv.] vi. [de medio judic. Eccles. in causa fideii Q[uaest.] iii. A[rtic.] 4. [Respons.] ad 3. [Op., tom. i. p. 821. D.]—Non [enim ad infallibilem certitudinem alicujus sententiae, in quam plures in nomine Christi consentiant,] locus hic [evangelii] proprie accommodari debet, [sed ad efficaciam consensionis plurium ad id impetrandum, quod unanimiter in Christi nomine petunt, si id quidem ad corum salutem expediat.—Gregor. de] Valentia, [Commentar. Theologic. in [Secund. Secund.] S. Thom. [Aquin.] tom. iii. Disp. i. [de fide,] Q[uaest.] 1. [de objecto fidei,] Punct. vii. § 45. [de Conciliis, col. 320. C. ed. Paris. 1609.]
43 260p [Calvinus non adeo magni facit hoc testimonium, propterea quod ex eo videatur probari posse, etiam concilium duorum hominum non posse errare. Sed is hoc testimonium non contemnet, qui observant, argumentum sumi non simpliciter ex his verbis, sed ex his verbis continuatis cum superioribus, et propterea] addita argumentatione a minori ad majus. [Dixerat enim antea Dominus de homine incorrigibili: Die ecclesiae, &c. At ne quis ecclesiam, sive congregationem praelatorum contemnendam putaret, adjunxit continuo: Amen dico vobis, quaecunque ligaveritis, &c.]—Bellarmin. de Concil. [auctoritat.] lib. ii. cap. 2. § 3. [Op., tom. ii. col. 54. A.]—Et, [Haec tamen Christi verba ad conciliorum firmitatem merito applicarunt Patres in Synodo VI. (Constant. III.) Act. xvii. (Gr. xviii.) et in Synodo Chalcedon. in Epist. ad Leonem, (cf. Concil. tom. vi. col. 1023. D. et, Concil. tom. iv. col. 834. D.) per argumentum a minore ad majus: quia si in duorum aut trium conventu Christus adest . . . . multo magis in concilio tot pastorum, &c.]—Stapleton. Relect. Controv. [Controv.] vi. Q[uaest.] iii. A[rtic.] 4. [ut sup. note o. Op., tom. i. p. 822. A.]
44 261q [Quorum verborum haec sententia est:] Si duo vel tres congregati in nomine Meo, obtinent semper quod petunt a Deo, [nimirum sapientiam, et lumen, quod sufficit eis ad cognoscenda ea, quae ipsis necessaria sunt, quanto magis episcopi omnes congregati in nomine Meo, semper obtinebunt, quod juste petunt, id est, sapientiam, et lumen ad indicanda ea, quae ad totam ecclesiam dirigendam pertinent.]—Bellarmin. ibid. § 4. [Op., tom. ii. col. 54. C.]
45 261r Ubi duo vel tres pari spiritu et voluntate collecti sunt, &c. [kai yap apeilêsas ekeina tê philoneikia, ta megala entautha tês sumphônias tithêsinepathla, eige kai ton patera peithousin hoi sumphônountes, huper hôn aitousi, kai ton Christon echousin eis to meson.]—S. Chrysostom. Hom. [lx. al.] lxi. in Matth. xviii. [20. Op., tom. vii. p. 608. D.]—[sunagei hêmas dia tôn toioutôn rêmatôn eis tên agapên, epei gar ekôlusen hêmas apo tou skandalizein allêlous, kai blaptein kai blaptesthai, nun legei kai peri tês pros allêlous sumphonias, sumphônointes de noontai, ouch hoi epi kakô sunerchomenoi, all’ hoi ep’ agathô, hora gar ti eipen, ean duo humôn, toutesti tôn pisteuontôn, tôn enaretôn . . . . hôste dia touto pollakis euchomenoi oi lambanomen, dioti oude sumphônian pros allêlous echomen,]—Theophyl. in [loc. (sc.] Matth. xviii. [20.) p. 106. D.]—[Ubicunque fuerint duo aut tres, &c. non homines ab ecclesia dividit qui instituit et fecit ecclesiam, sed exprobrans discordiam perfidis, et fidelibus pacem sua voce commendans, ostendit magis esse se cum duobus aut tribus unanimiter orantibus, quam cum dissidentibus plurimis, plusquam impetrari posse paucorum concordi pace quam discordiosa oratione multorum.]—S. Cyprian. lib. iv. Epist. 4. [de unitate ecclesiae, Op., p. 198. ed. Benedict.]—[Ipse enim quia pax atque charitas est, sedem atque habitationem in bonis atque pacificis voluntatibus collocabit.]—S. Hilar. in Matth. xviii. [20. apud Catenam Auream.]
46 262s Quomodo igitur a Patre cuncta non consequentur? Quia multae sunt causae non impetrandi, &c. [Pôs oun ou panta wpitugchanousin; hoti pollai hai aitiai tou apotugchanein, ê gar asumphora pollakis aitousi. kai ti thaumazeis ei heteroi tines, hopouge kai Paulos touto epathen, hênika êkousen, arkei soi hê charis mou.]—S. Chrysostom. Hom. [lx. al. lxi.] in Matth. xviii. [20. Op., tom. vii. p. 608. D.]—Et Bellarminus ipse, [his verbis: sc.] Si congregari in nomine Christi sit nota Ecclesiae, [certe] non erit congregari quomodocunque [in nomine Christi:] sic enim omnes haereses et schismata congregantur in nomine Christi. Sed [erit congregari ab illis, qui funguntur Christi auctoritate, quales sunt episcopi legitime ordinati, &c.—Bellarmin.] de notis ecclesiae, lib. iv. cap. 2. § [16. Op., tom. ii. col. 164. D.]
47 262t Nec etsi Christus adsit in medio tallum, tamen ad omnem affectum adest, aut ad hunc qui est judicare de fide.—Stapleton. Relect. Controv. [Controv.] vi. Q[uaest.] iii. A[rtic.] 4. [ubi sup. p. 260. note o.]—[Nos vero per inductionem ex contrario concludimus: si singuli, ergo et omnes simul errare possunt, quamvis in nomine Domini congregati et uno ore docentes. At dixit Deus se fore in medio eorum. Certe dixit, et est in medio ipsorum ut Deus: etiam in medio errantium, ne aberrent ad mortem:] sed nec illi semper ad Deum respiciunt, qui in medio ipsorum est: nec Deus sic adest iis qui respiciunt ad Ipsum, ut omnem veritatem doceat in instanti et omni tempore simul: [omnem veritatem docet, nos vero successive capimus.—Fr.] Junius in Bellarmin. [Controv. iv.] de Concil. [et Eccles.] lib. ii. in cap. 2. [Op., tom. ii. col. 1070. ed. Genevae, 1613.]
48 263u Si duo unanimes tantum possunt; quid, si unanimitas apud omnes esset?—S. Cypr. lib. iv. Epist. iv. [de unitate ecclesiae, ubi sup. p. 261. note r.]
49 263x Non ad infallibilem certitudinem alicujus sententiae, in quam plures in nomine Christi consentiant, locus hic Evangelii proprie accommodari debet, sed ad efficaciam consensionis plurium ad id impetrandum, quod unanimiter in Christi nomine petunt, si id quidem ad eorum salutem expediat. Secus enim non modo ex illo loco probabitur, &c.—Greg. de Valen. tom. ii. in Thom. Disput. i. Q[uaest.] i. Punct. vii. § 45. [ubi sup. p. 260. note o.] And although Stapleton approves this argument a minore ad majus, yet withal he says: Firmitas conciliorum illis Christi verbis proprie non innititur: quia nec Christus ibi de conciliis episcoporum loquitur, sed de quavis fidelium unanimi congregatione. Nec etsi, &c.—Stapleton. Relect. Controv. [Controv.] vi. Q[uaest.] iii. A[rt.] 4. [ubi sup. p. 260, note o.]
50 264y Quintum argumentum: [Concilii patres asserunt se in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregari: itemque statuunt sub anathemate, &c. At nisi infallibiliter per se definiunt, arroganter id quidem ab illis vel dici vel fieri videri posset.] Aut sunt igitur arrogantes, quod putandum non est, aut infallibiliter [profecto] definiunt. [Respondeo: In Spiritu Sancto legitime congregare concilium non aliud est, quam omnino placere Deo, ut ex praescripto pontificis convenient patres ad decernendum, eisque proinde Spiritum Sanctum assistere, ut per pontificem postea vel confirmantem vel emendantem eorum decreta, infallibiliter de veritate doceantur. Quod vero statuunt sub anathemate, faciunt quidem hoc illi, ut quantum est in se, astringant hac ratione magis obligationem eam, quam sperant per pontificis futuram confirmationem, robur habituram. Et vero Concilia olim nisi prius accepissent sedis apostolicae decretum, controversias fidei non definiebant, ut ostendit Turrecremata (Summ. de Eccl. cap. xxxiii.) Quod ipsum magno argumento est, verissimum id esse quod docemus, Concilii universalis decreta ante pontificis confirmationem non habere certitudinem infallibilem.—Gregor. de] Valentia [sic] respondet concedendo neutrum [Commentar. Theolog.] in [Secund. Secund.] S. Thom. [Aquin.] tom. iii. Disp. i. [de fide,] Q[uaest.] 1. [de objecto fidei,] Punct. vii. § 45. [col. 321. D.]
51 264z Ad tertium [dicendum, quod firmitas Conciliorum illis Christi verbis proprie non innititur . . . sed potius] exemplo primi concilii apostolici eorum firmitas nititur, [vel aliis Christi in Evangelio promissionibus apostolis suis proprie factis.]—Stapleton. Relect. Controv. [Controv.] vi. &c. Q[uaest.] iii. A[rtic.] 4. [Respons.] ad. 3. [Op., tom. i. pp. 821, 822. ubi sup. p. 260. note o.]
52 264a Et Bellarminus dicit locum hunc esse tertium e propriis. [His words are:] Tertius locus [est Act. xv. ubi primum concilium confidenter ait: Visum est Spiritui Sancto et nobis. Si autem illud concilium, ex quo formam acceperunt omnia alia concilia, asserit decreta sua esse decreta Spiritus Sancti, certe idem asserere possunt caetera legitima concilia, &c.—Bellarmin.] de Concil. [auctoritat.] lib. ii. cap. 2. § [7. Op., tom. ii. col. 55. A.]
53 264b [Sed contra est quod in prime concilio apostolico dicitur: Act. xv. Visum est Spiritui Sancto et nobis. Ergo] conciliorum decreta sunt Spiritus Sancti oracula.—Stapleton. ibid. Sentent. Orthodox. i. [ut sup. p. 820. B.]
54 265c Si illud concilium, ex quo formam acceperunt omnia alia concilia, asserit decreta sua esse decreta Spiritus Sancti, certe idem asserere possunt caetera legitima concilia, &c.—Bellarmin. ibid. [ut sup. note a.]
55 265d Vide quam prudenter agunt, non praecipitant sententiam, sed singula expendunt. In rebus enim fidei et quae conscientiam tangunt, non satis est dicere Volumus, mandamus. Vides igitur quomodo conveniunt Apostoli. Simpliciter conveniunt, nihil nisi Deum quaerunt, et aliorum salutem expetunt, [denique omnia prudenter perpendunt.] Quid igitur mirum si in hoc concilio fuerit Spiritus Sanctus? [Juxta promissum Domini, tibi duo vel tres congregati fuerint, &c.] Nos aliter convenimus, nempe, cum rnagna pompa, nosque ipsos quaerimus, atque nobis pollicemur nihil nobis non licere de plenitudine potestatis. Et quomodo Spiritus Sanctus ejusmodi conventus probare possit?—Ferus in Act. xv. 7. [p. 180. ed. Colon. 1567.—Joannis Feri Franciscani Opera omnia in Romano indice (Clem. VIII. an. 1595.) prohibita aunt, exceptis annotationibus et commentariis in Matth. et Joann. Evangelia, et in Joannis Epist. 1. Romae recognitis et impressis. Possevin. Apparat. Sacr. p. 875. (quoted by Thorold, T. C. Laud’s Labyrinth, p. 254.) In a Portuguese Index Expurg.: sc. Index auctorum damnatae memoriae, Ulyssipp. 1624. p. 782. the Commentary on the Acts is expurgated. In the Index of Madrid, 1640. Index Libb. prohib. et expurg. de concilio supremae Senat. S. General. Inquisit. Joannes Ferus, fraude sectariorum vitiatus (p. 706.) is expurgated in the Commentaries on S. Matthew’s and S. John’s Gospels,—S. John 1 Epist.—and S. Paul to the Romans: Caetera ejus opera, sectariis vitiata, prohib. donec recognoscantur, (p. 712.) The same in the Index of Madrid, 1667.]