Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Antichrist · On the Roman Pontiff, Book III
Chapter 19: The Trifles of the Smalcald Synod Are Refuted
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Antichristo, On Antichrist (On the Roman Pontiff, Book III). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
There is extant a little book on the power and primacy of the Pope, or the kingdom of Antichrist, published in the name of the Smalcald Synod, which indeed seems to me to be Melanchthon's; but whoever's it be, it has nothing but words and empty boasting. “It is established,” says the Author of the book, “that the Roman Pontiffs with their members defend impious doctrine and impious worships, and the marks of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his members.” Thus far the proposition; now let us hear the proofs: “For Paul to the Thessalonians, describing Antichrist, calls him the adversary of Christ, lifting himself up above all that is called God or is worshipped, sitting in the temple as God. He speaks therefore of one reigning in the Church, not of Heathen Kings, and calls him the adversary of Christ, because he will devise a doctrine at war with the Gospel, and will arrogate to himself divine authority.”
Although all these things, even if they were true, would little hurt us, yet I ask, on what foundation does this interpretation rest? Paul openly says that Antichrist will lift himself above every God, and will sit in the temple, not as a King, not as a Bishop, but plainly as God; and this same in express words affirm Chrysostom, Ambrose, and the other ancient Interpreters of this place. By what right, then, do you, without witness and without reason, affirm that Antichrist is he who sits in the temple, not as God, but as a Bishop — and is so far from lifting himself above every God that he not only adores God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but even before all the people prostrates himself before the Sacrament of the Eucharist, before the sepulchres of the Apostles and Martyrs, before the cross, and the images of Christ and the Saints, which you yourselves, though impiously, are wont to call strange gods and idols? But let us see how you accommodate this very thing to the Pope.
“First it is established that the Pope reigns in the Church, and under the pretext of Ecclesiastical authority and ministry has constituted this kingdom for himself. For he pretexts these words: To thee will I give the keys.”
That the Pope reigns in the Church you say indeed, but do not prove; but we can with no trouble demonstrate the contrary. For he who reigns acknowledges no superior in his kingdom; but the Pope professes himself the Vicar and servant of Christ the King; and although in the whole house of God, and in the whole kingdom of Christ, he uses a most ample power, yet that power does not exceed the condition of a Steward and servant. For Moses too (as Paul says, Hebrews 3) was faithful in the whole house of God, but as a servant; but Christ, as a son in His own. But go on.
“Next, the doctrine of the Pope in many ways fights with the Gospel, and arrogates to itself divine authority in three ways. First, because he takes to himself the right of changing the doctrine of Christ, and the worships instituted by God, and wills his own doctrine and his own worships to be observed as divine.”
This likewise you say, and do not prove; nor does it seem to us only false, but a most impudent lie. For you are not ignorant that in the Catholic Church it is taught by the mouth of all that the doctrine and worships of Christ cannot be changed by any man, nor even by any Angel; nor was it ever a question between us and you whether what Christ taught, or commanded, ought to be believed or done. But whether you or we better interpret the doctrine and precepts of Christ? In which question you are wont to bring forward almost nothing else than your own interpretation; but we, the consent of the Fathers, and either the decrees or the customs of the Catholic Church. For we do not (as you falsely boast) oppose the consent of the Fathers and the customs of the Church to the word of God, but to your interpretation and judgment. But let us hear the second proof.
“Secondly, that he takes to himself the power not only of binding and loosing in this life, but also takes to himself a right over souls after this life.”
And this is said, but not proved. For the supreme Pontiff does not take to himself a right over the souls of the dead, since he does not absolve them from sins or penalties by authority, but only, by way of suffrage, communicates to them the prayers and good works of the living Faithful. But that the prayers and alms of the living, and especially the sacrifice of the Mass, profit the dead, all the Ancients teach; of which matter, since we have elsewhere disputed at length, it will suffice in this place to have noted one testimony of Augustine. In sermon 34 on the Words of the Apostle, then, Augustine speaks thus: “But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the saving sacrifice, and by the alms which are given out for their spirits, it is not to be doubted that the dead are helped.” But go on.
“The third, because the Pope will not be judged by the Church, or by another, and takes away his authority from the judgment of Councils and of the whole Church. But this is to make himself God, to be unwilling to be judged by the Church or by anyone.”
Here too two things are said which are not proved. For, first, by what Scriptures, by what Councils, by what reason do you prove that the Pope ought to be judged by Councils or by the Church? For we read (to pass over other things, which were sufficiently disputed in the former book) that it was said to Peter by Christ, John 21: Feed my sheep; nor do we believe it can be doubted that the sheep are to be ruled and judged by the shepherd, not the shepherd by the sheep. We read also, Luke 12, said to the same Peter: Who, thinkest thou, is the faithful and wise steward, whom the Lord hath set over his family? In which place we see a certain steward set over the whole family of Christ — certainly that he may rule it, not be ruled by it.
And lest perhaps someone object: what if that steward be wicked, by whom then will he be judged, if he presides over all, is subject to none? Therefore the Lord immediately subjoined: But if that servant shall say in his heart, My Lord is long in coming, and shall begin to strike the menservants and maidservants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the Lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not, and shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. Do you hear who is the judge of that wicked steward whom the Lord set over His family? For Christ does not say, let him be judged by a Council, but, the Lord will come in the day that he hopeth not, and what follows. And so the Lord reserves to Himself the judgment of that servant whom He Himself set over His whole family; and accordingly the Pope does not take away his authority from the judgment of Councils and of the whole Church when he does not suffer himself to be judged by it; for that cannot be taken away which was never given. Nor did Councils rightly assembled ever assume this to themselves, that outside the case of heresy they should pass sentence on the supreme Pontiff. But of this matter enough in its place.
The other thing which you say, and do not prove, is that this is to make oneself God, to be unwilling to be judged by the Church or by anyone. For when you say “by anyone,” without doubt you understand by any man; for you are not ignorant that the Pontiff believes and professes that he is to be judged by Christ. But how does he make himself God, who believes that he is to be judged by God? Next, the Kings of the earth certainly acknowledge no judge on earth, as far as pertains to political affairs; and by your opinion, who despoil Bishops of coactive power, they have no true judge even in Ecclesiastical matters. Will there then be as many Gods as there are Kings? I do not think you so mad as to say this. It remains, then, that it is not true that whoever is unwilling to be judged by any man straightway makes himself God.
Last, you add: “These so horrible errors, and this impiety, he defends with the utmost cruelty, and kills those who dissent.”
But how impudently you lie you can know even from this one thing, that I myself who write these things openly assert — and that in the very city of Rome (and the Pontiff not being ignorant of it) — that it is not lawful for the Pontiff to change the doctrine or worships of Christ, nor to institute new worships which are held for divine, or which in any way fight with the Gospel; and yet by him I am not only not killed, but do not suffer any molestation. Forsooth the Pontiff well knows that I speak the truth, but you lie. As also a little after, when you add: “The doctrine of penance is utterly corrupted by the Pope and by his members; for he teaches that sins are remitted on account of the worthiness of our works. Likewise, they nowhere teach that sins are remitted freely on account of Christ.” Which indeed are not our dogmas, but your lies. For we do not teach this, but altogether the contrary, as the Council of Trent, session 6, chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8, openly testifies. But of these enough. I pass to Calvin.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX. Refutantur nugae Synodi Smalchaldicce Lutheranorum, Exstat libellus de potestate et primatu Pa¬ pae, seu regno Antichristi , nomine Synodi Smalchaldicae editus, qui quidem Melanch- thonis mihi esse videtur, sed cujuscumque sit, nihil nisi verba , et inanem jactationem habet: « Constat, inquit Auctor libri, Roma¬ nos Pontifices cum suis membris defendere impiam doctrinam, et impios cultus, ac pla¬ ne notae Antichristi competunt in regnum Papae, et sua membra. » Hactenus proposi¬ tio, nunc probationes audiamus : « Paulus enim ad Thessalonicenses describens Anti- cliristum , vocat eum adversarium Christi, extollentem se super omne quod dicitur, aut coliter Deus , sedentem in templo tanquam Deum. Loquitur igitur de aliquo regnante in Ecclesia, non de Regibus Ethnicis , et hunc vocat adversarium Christi , quia doctrinam pugnantem cum Evangelio excogitaturus sit , et is arrogabit sibi auctoritatem divi¬ nam. » ® Quamquam haec omnia , etsi vera essent, parum nobis officerent : peto tamen quo fundamento nititur haec interpretatio? Pau¬ lus aperte dicit , Antichristum seipsum ele¬ vaturum supra omnem Deum , et in templo sessurum, non ut Regem, non ut Episcopum, sed plane ut Deum, et hoc idem disertis ver¬ bis affirmant Chrysostomus, Ambrosius , et ese teri hujus loci veteres Interpretes. Quo jure igitur vos sine teste, et sine ratione af¬ firmatis, Antichristum esse eum qui sedet in templo, non ut Deus , sed ut Episcopus , et adeo non se effert super omnem Deum , ut non solum Deum Patrem, et Filium, et Spi¬ ritum sanctum adoret, sed etiam coram om¬ ni populo sese prosternat ante Sacramentum Eucharistise , ante sepulchra Apostolorum, et Martyrum, ante crucem, et imagines Chri¬ sti, et Sanctorum, quee vos ipsi, licet impie, Deos alienos, et idola appellare soletis? Sed videamus hoc ipsum quemadmodum accom¬ modetis ad Papam. « Primum autem constat, Papam regnare in Ecclesia , et praetextu Ecclesiasticae auc- toritatis et ministerii sibi hoc regnum cons¬ tituisse. Praetexit enim haec verba : Tibi da¬ bo claves. » Regnare Papam in Ecclesia , vos quidem dicitis, sed non probatis : nos vero contra¬ rium nullo negotio demonstrare possumus. Nam qui regnat , superiorem in regno suo non agnoscit : Papa vero Christi Regis Vica¬ rium se et famulum profitetur : et quamvis in tota domo Dei, atque in universo Christi regno amplissima potestate utatur; ea ta¬ men potestas non excedit GEconomi, ac ser¬ vi conditionem. Nam et Moses (ut Paulus ait Hebr. III.) Fidelis fuit intota domo Dei, sed tanquam famulus ; Christus autem tanquam filius in sua. Sed pergite. « Deinde, doctrina Papae multipliciter pu¬ gnat cum Evangelio, et arrogat sibi auctori¬ tatem divinam tripliciter. Primum, quia su¬ mit sibi jus mutandi doctrinam Christi , et cultus a Deo institutos, et suam doctrinam, et suos cultus observari vult tanquam divi¬ na. » Hoc item dicitis , et non probatis, neque solum id nobis falsum, sed mendacium etiam impudentissimum esse videtur. Nec enim ig¬ noratis , in Ecclesia Catholica omnium ore doceri, Christi doctrinam et cultus non pos¬ se ab ullo homine, sed nec ab ullo etiam An¬ gelo mutari , nec unquam, inter nos et vos qusestro fuit, an debeat credi, aut fieri quod Christus docuit, aut jussit. Sed vos ne, an nos melius Christi doctrinam , et praecepta interpretemur? In qua quidem quaestione vos nihil fere aliud affere soletis, quam ves¬ tram ipsorum interpretationem : nos vero Patrum consensum , et Catholicae Ecclesiae, vel decreta, vel consuetudines. Nec enim (ut vos falso jactatis) Patrum consensus atque Ecclesiae consuetudines verbo Dei oppo¬ nimus , sed interpretationi et judicio ves¬ tro. Sed,audiamus secundam probationem. « Secundo , quod sumit sibi potestatem non solum ligandi , et solvendi in hac vita, sed etiam sumit sibi jus de animabus post hanc vitam. » Et hoc dicitur , sed non probatur. Nec enim summus Pontifex jus sibi in animas defunctorum sumit, cum non ex auctoritate illas a peccatis vel pomis absolvat , sed so¬ lum per modum suffragii preces, atque opera bona Fidelium vivorum cum illis communi¬ cet. Prodesse autem defunctis vivorum pre¬ ces et eleemosynas , ac prsecipue Missae sa¬ crificium, omnes Veteres docent : de qua re cum nos alibi fuse disputaverimus, hoc loco unum Augustini testimonium annotasse suf¬ ficiet. Igitur ser. 34. de Verb. Apost. ita lo¬ quitur Augustinus : « Orationibus vero sanc¬ tae Ecclesiae et sacrificio salutari, et eleemo¬ synis, quae pro eorum spiritibus erogantur, non est dubitandum mortuos adjuvari. » Sed pergite. « Tertia, quia Papa non vult ab Ecclesia, aut ab alio judicari, et aufert suam auctori¬ tatem judicio Conciliorum et totius Ecclesiae. Hoc autem est se Deum facere, nolle ab Ec¬ clesia aut ab ullo judicari. » Hic quoque duo dicuntur quae non pro¬ bantur. Nam in primis , quibus Scripturis, quibus Conciliis, qua ratione probatis, debe¬ re Papam a Conciliis, vel Ecclesia judicari? Nos enim legimus (ut alia praetermittam, quae libro superiore satis disputata sunt) Pe¬ tro dictum a Christo Joan. XXI : Pasce oves meas (d) , nec dubitari posse credimus, oves a pastore regendas, et judicandas esse, non pastorem ab ovibus. Illud etiam legimus Lu¬ cae XII, eidem Petro dictum : Quis putas .est fidelis dispensator , et prudens , quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam (2) ? Quo loco videmus oeconomum quemdam toti familiae Christi praepositum, certe ut eam regat, non ut regatur ab ea. Ac ne forte objiceret aliquis : quid si oeco¬ nomus ille fuerit malus, a quo tandem judi¬ cabitur, si omnibus praeest, nulli subjicitur? Propterea subjecit Dominus continuo : Quod si dixerit servus ille in corde suo , moram facit Dominus meus venire , et coeperit percutere ser¬ vos et ancillas , et edere , et bibere , et inebriari , veniet Dominus servi illius in die qua non spe¬ rat, et hora qua nescit , et dividet eum, partem¬ que ejus cum infidelibus ponet (3). Auditisne quis judex sit mali illius oeconomi , quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam ? Non enim ait Christus, a Concilio judicetur: sed veniet Dominus in die qua non sperat , et quae sequuntur. Itaque sibi Dominus servat servi illius judicium, quem super universam familiam suam ipse constituit ; proinde non aufert Papa auctoritatem suam judicio Con¬ ciliorum, et totius Ecclesiae cum ab eo se ju¬ dicari non patitur : non enim auferri potest quod nunquam est datum. Sed neque Con¬ cilia rite congregata id sibi unquam assump- (1) Joan. XXI, 17. — (2) Luc. XII, 42. — (3) Id. XII, 45 et eeq. serunt, ut extra casum hseresis in Pontifi¬ cem summum sententiam dicerent. Sed de hac re satis multa suo loco. Alterum quo’d dicitis, et non probatis, il¬ lud est, hoc esse Deum se facere , nolle ab Ecclesia, aut ab ullo judicari. Nam cum ab ullo dicitis, sine dubio ab ullo homine intel- ligitis : nec enim ignoratis , Pontificem a Christo judicandum se esse, et credere et profiteri. Quo pacto autem se facit Deum, qui judicandum se esse a Deo credit? Deinde Reges terne certe judicem in ter¬ ris, quod ad res politias attinet, nullum ag¬ noscunt : et sententia vestra, qui Episcopos coactiva potestate spoliatis, nec in Ecclesias¬ ticis rebus verum aliquem judicem habent. Num igitur tot erunt Dii , quot sunt Reges? Non existimo ita vos insanire, ut hoc dicatis. Restat igitur, ut verum non sit , qui a nullo homine judicari velit , eum continuo Deum se facere. Postremo additis , « hos tam horribiles errores , et hanc impietatem defendit sum¬ ma saevitia, et interficit dissentientes. » Hic vero quam impudenter mentiamini vel ex hoc uno cognoscere potestis, quod ego ipse qui haec scribo palam assero, idque in ipsa Urbe Roma (et Pontifice nori igno¬ rante) non licere Pontifici mutare Christi doc¬ trinam, aut cultus, neque cultus novos in¬ stituere, qui habeantur pro divinis , aut qui cum Evangelio ulla ratione pugnent; et ta¬ men ab ipso non modo non interficior , sed nec aliquid molestiae patior. Nimirum probe novit Pontifex , me vera dicere , vos vero mentiri. Quemadmodum etiam paulo post cum additis : «Doctrina de poenitentia pror¬ sus depravata est a Papa, et a suis membris; docet enim remitti peccata propter dignita¬ tem nostrorum operum. Item, nusquam do¬ cent, quod gratis propter Christum remittan¬ tur peccata. » Quae sane non sunt nostra dog¬ mata, sed vestra mendacia. Nec enim id nos docemus, sed contrarium omnino, ut Conci¬ lium Tridentinum sess. VI, cap. 5, 6, 7 et 8. aperte testatur. Sed de his satis. Transeo ad Calvinum. '