Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book I
Chapter 0: Preface
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Conciliis (De Conciliorum Auctoritate), On Councils, Book I (of the controversy On Councils and the Church). 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).
Preface
About to defend, in these books and as far as my strength allows, the authority of the sacred Councils — which has always been great in the Church — against the manifold frauds and calumnies of the heretics, before I approach the matter itself I have thought a few things must be said about the utter and incredible cunning which the ministers of Satan have in our times employed to lower that authority. For since the sacrosanct authority of Councils has always, as was fitting, been eminent in the Catholic Church, and has often, in the greatest disturbances of affairs, shone like a certain saving brightness to scatter the darkness of errors, the enemy of the human race did not think he could any longer sow discords in the Church, and preserve and propagate schisms and heresies, unless he took away the Ecclesiastical judgments from the midst, and overthrew that chair from which Christ Himself, sounding and judging through men, composes all controversies and disputes of the faith.
And so he stirred up the Lutherans, men as ready to deceive as they are abandoned to lying; who indeed, since at first they believed it could in no way come to pass that the supreme Pontiff should be brought to proclaim a general Council, began themselves with great contention both to accuse the Pontiff gravely and to implore against that same Pontiff the help of a general Council. For they thought it would thus come about that they might be free both to spread abroad against the Pontiff whatever crimes and disgraces they wished, however false and incredible, and to make him guilty of the greatest crimes among all Christian nations — while they themselves would meanwhile be judged by all not to be enemies of the Church (as in fact they were), but men loving piety and having a zeal for the faith, seeing that they acknowledged the authority of a Council. Wherefore with so many and so atrocious calumnies and revilings, by voice and by writing, they loaded the vicar of Christ, that they plainly persuaded very many and great nations that he was not a Christian prelate, but a sworn enemy of Christ, and indeed the very and properly-so-called Antichrist.
I should certainly undertake an immense discourse if I wished to review those lies with which the heretics of this time, in almost all their books and sermons, most impudently besprinkled the Pontiff of the Apostolic See; I will touch one only, or another, for example's sake. Martin Luther, in his book on the Church near the end: “The Pope,” he says, “has buried the holy Scripture in mire and dust, and has almost wholly destroyed Christian doctrine.” There is extant a little book on the primacy of the Pope written in the name of the whole Smalcald Synod, the author being, as I think, Philip; in which book that famous Synod of the Lutherans, beginning from this lie: “The Pope,” it says, “arrogates to himself authority to make laws concerning worship, concerning the changing of the Sacraments, concerning doctrine, and wills his articles, his decrees, his laws to be esteemed equal to the divine laws.” And below: “The Pope arrogates to himself divine authority, because he takes to himself the right of changing the doctrine of Christ and the worship instituted by God, and wills his own doctrine and his own worship to be observed as divine.”
But what Sacrament, what worship instituted by God, what article of doctrine did the Pope change? And who was that Pontiff who made his own laws equal to the divine laws? Do we not see daily the Pontifical laws abrogated, either by those same who made them, or by their successors, if the time require it? But what divine law is read to have been ever abrogated by any Pontiff? But I do not wish to waste time on such trifles. This I affirm: that the books of the Lutherans are full of the like lies, and that among them these are celebrated in writing and speech by all, not even as doubtful matters, but as most certain oracles. Yet at first, as I was saying, lest they should seem altogether estranged from the Catholic Church, the more authority they took from the Pontiff, the more they attributed to a Council. There is extant Luther's own appeal to a general Council. There are extant the imperial diets — of Augsburg, Nuremberg, Speyer, Ratisbon, Worms, and some others — in which the Lutherans very often demanded a general Council.
But lest it be troublesome, if we waste time in reciting the acts of so many diets so various, I will bring forward to thee, Reader, the testimony of the Protestants themselves, which is contained at the beginning of that book which is entitled A Protestation against the Council of Trent: “We profess,” they say, “and protest that we adhere, and have always adhered, to the protestation and appeal of the Reverend Father Dr. Luther, from the most unjust and most violent judgment of the Pontiff and of all the judges of his faction, to a free, Christian, lawful Council gathered in the Holy Spirit; which process, protestation, and appeal was afterward unanimously and many times renewed by our Churches, and in several imperial assemblies too approved by all the estates.” These are their own words, by which, as you see, they affirm that Luther first, then their Churches, lastly also the Princes devoted to them, appealed often from the sentence of the Pontiff to the judgment of a Council.
But how long do you think they remained in that opinion of desiring a Council? As long as they hoped there would be none. For as soon as Pope Paul, the Third of that name, proclaimed a general Council at Trent, and the foundations of that Council began to be laid and its first beginnings to appear, immediately they, their opinion changed — or rather, what they had before dissembled being openly betrayed — began to disapprove the Council, to appeal from Councils, and to reprove not only the recent ones but all the ancient too; and they strove to overwhelm the Council of Trent itself, scarcely yet begun, with invectives, censures, protestations, and calumnies too, and lies, so that, if it could be, that Council might be dissolved by the craft of the heretics before it grew firm by the diligence of the Catholics.
That it is so as I say, all are my witnesses who have read the book on Councils written by that Luther at that very time; the little book of Philip Melanchthon on the causes why the Lutherans did not come to the Council; the book of the Protestation of the 54 Ministers; the book of Illyricus on the norm and practice of a Council; finally Martin Kemnitz's Examination of the Council of Trent, the Counsel of Charles Molinaeus on not admitting the same Council, the antidote of John Calvin against the poisons of the same Council. But it will be worth while to set forth something from those very authors whom we have named, that from their words and testimony you may know how much the Councils of the Church are esteemed by those who a little before had so greatly demanded them.
Martin Luther, then, when he had heard by report that a Council was proclaimed, straightway snatching up his pen made a book, and entitled it On Councils — to give thanks to God, I suppose, and to congratulate the Church, and to invite all to the Council. Nothing less; for the sum of the book is that there is no need of Councils, since even those ancient, most holy and most famous ones erred, and any parish priests and schoolmasters can do no less in the Church than the greatest and most numerous Councils. He begins from that Council, without controversy most ancient and most holy, which the Apostles celebrated at Jerusalem; and because in that Council the Apostles decreed that one must abstain from blood and from things strangled, he reduces us to these straits, that we must either abstain from these foods, or openly confess that it is free not to obey the supreme and first Council. Then he gravely sets forth what a calamity it would be not thenceforth to eat roebucks, hares, stags, rabbits, geese, thrushes, and the other little birds, and — what is more wretched — to abstain from sausages and other stuffings, and even from certain broths, which are seasoned not only with pepper but also with blood (as he says, who knew these things well), either dipped in it liquid, or stuffed with it thick and clotted.
And because so grave a loss seemed to Luther in no way to be undergone, he thence concluded that the Apostolic decree need not be obeyed. From which again he thus concluded: therefore it is free for us to leave all other Councils, and so we are free from all Councils. Excellently indeed! As if, because we are not bound by that law of the Council which had been given only for a time, we were therefore now bound by no other laws of Councils.
He proceeds then to the first Council of Nicaea, whose authority in the Catholic Church was always the highest; and speaking of the canons of that Council: “All these articles,” he says, “were hay, straw, wood, stubble.” And below: “Of those wooden articles some remnants have remained, like certain firebrands, namely the article on the feast of Easter.” This forsooth is the honor which Luther pays to the most ancient and most famous Council, that he calls its decrees wood, hay, stubble, firebrands. But it would be little if he only called those canons unnecessary and superfluous, and did not also contend that they are dangerous, impossible, contrary to and fighting with one another. For because the Council forbids that those who have mutilated themselves be admitted to holy Orders, and at the same time commands consecrated men to keep no woman at all in their house except a mother or sister: “Here,” says Luther, “I plainly do not understand the Holy Spirit in this Council, if those are not to be reckoned fit for the Ecclesiastical ministry who castrate themselves to avoid the fires of lust; and again those too are not fit who, to overcome the goads of the flesh, either keep or marry wives. To what will the matter at last come? Must a Bishop or a preacher endure that intolerable burning and heat of unlawful love, and free himself from these dangers neither by marriage nor by castration?” As if indeed, Luther, there were nothing between marriage and castration. In what way, then, did Paul, John, James, the other Apostles, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory — and why do I enumerate individual men? — in what way, I say, did so many thousands of Saints neither mutilate themselves, and yet lack wives to the end of their life? Namely, by prayers, fastings, assiduous labor, not by the cutting off of members, are the glorious combats won.
But let us hear how honorably Luther speaks of this same Council of Nicaea toward the end of this passage: “Is it then,” he says, “the Holy Spirit's whole business in Councils, to bind and burden His ministers with impossible, dangerous, unnecessary laws?” Since these things are so, you certainly see, Reader, how much Luther esteems the authority of Councils, when he does not fear to call the decrees of the Council of Nicaea — than which none is more praised by all the Fathers — wooden, unnecessary, dangerous, impossible, fighting among themselves, and at last, with a most impudent mouth, straw, hay, stubble, firebrands. Nay, he so extenuates all Councils that he compares with them the industry of parish priests and the authority of schoolmasters: “Do you think,” he says, “that the office of a parish priest or a schoolmaster is so slight or narrow that it cannot in some part be compared to Councils? I will say something more: greater light comes to Christian doctrine from a child's Catechism than from all the Councils.” And below: “And what need of words? Even if the decrees of all the Synods could be poured through a funnel into your body, yet you would not be a Christian, because they profit too little.” A fine conclusion indeed, and worthy of so grave a Theologian, who a little before seemed so seriously to appeal to the judgment of a general Council. I pass over what he says of the Second, Third, and Fourth Synods, since they are like the former, and I study brevity.
I come, then, to those lies which the adversaries, to extenuate the authority of the Council of Trent, blurt out without any shame — yet not all, nor even most, for that would be a work of infinity, but I will bring forward a few of many. “Those sycophants,” says Luther in his book on Councils, “who play the parasite to the Pope, are so demented that they most boldly defend this paradox: that Councils have power to make new articles of faith and to change the old.” But who are those sycophants? Why is no one named? Where, when, on whose testimony did they say or write that the articles of faith can be changed by Councils?
Matthias Illyricus, in his book on the norm and practice of the Council of Trent: “They cry out,” he says — namely the Fathers of the Council — “that the Church, that is, the Pontiff with his spiritual men, is above Scripture; and that the Pope can, out of the fullness of power, dispense against the Apostle and the whole Old Testament.” Thus he. But the Council is extant; let it be read diligently; nowhere will such portents be found.
Martin Kemnitz, in his Examination of the Council of Trent, is so rich in lies that in four little sentences he has comprised five lies: “The Fathers,” he says, namely of the Council, “say that the Pope has his will for reason in the things he wills; that he can change the form of the Sacraments delivered by the Apostles; that he can decree against the epistles of Paul; that he can dispense against the four first Councils, and against the words of the Gospel.” Who would believe that men so impudent could be found, who would lie so boldly about the Council of Trent, when both its acts are everywhere read, and very many of those still live who themselves in person were present at the Council?
But there remains yet another lie of the adversaries, altogether splendid and often repeated. For many causes the Lutherans persecute Cardinal Hosius, a man worthy of eternal memory, with implacable hatred, but chiefly for this, that as Legate of the Apostolic See he presided over the Council of Trent, and by his industry and wisdom conferred on that Council no little ornament and even profit. And so, that they might at once depress the authority both of the Legate and of the Synod, certain words which that Cardinal, in his book on the express word of God, had brought forward in the name of the heresiarch Schwenckfeld — and had brought forward for this purpose, to show what foul errors, like poisoned fruits from a corrupt root, had sprouted from the Lutheran heresy — those words, I say, as if they contained the Cardinal's own opinion, these good men disseminated everywhere with great execration. And first, in the book of the Protestation of the 54 Ministers, we read thus: “But now let us hear the words of this glorious governor of the present little council, in what manner and by what rule he with his fellows would judge and determine of the controversies of the Church and religion; for thus he bursts into words of blasphemy, saying: But we will await the sentence of God from heaven, and then we will bid both these men, fighting for their own and not the Scriptures' opinion, and the Scriptures themselves too, be gone. One need not be skilled in the Law or in Scripture, but taught by God. Vain is the labor spent on Scripture. For Scripture is a creature, and a certain needy element; nor does it befit a Christian to be too much addicted to a creature.” Which recited, the Protestants subjoin: “These things that nefarious Cardinal Legate of Antichrist, and Governor of the impious little council, blasphemes against the living God.”
And Illyricus, in his book on the norm and practice of the Council of Trent, after he had repeated those same words taken from the Cardinal's book, thus prayed for him: “May the Lord Jesus,” he says, “stop up with infernal fire those blasphemous mouths of Antichrist and of his slaves, and vindicate His glory from their tyranny.” What seems to thee, candid Reader — is it not an unheard-of crime, and an audacity plainly incredible, in a cause so atrocious and so plain, to lie so impudently? The book is in our hands, nor is there any obscurity in its words; and if the author's testimony is required, I myself once heard that most learned old man saying: “Would I think so? would I write such things? if those words were mine, I should truly deserve to be burned in the midst of the marketplace.” And yet it pleased not one or two, but thirty-four Ministers together, so to wrest the words of that excellent man into an alien sense, that what are Schwenckfeld's might be believed to be the Cardinal's own; who seem to me to have done just as if someone now should contend that those blasphemous words of the Jews about Christ — “Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-drinker; this man is not of God, who keeps not the Sabbath; he is guilty of death; away with him, away with him, crucify him,” and other things like these — are not the words of the Jews, but of Matthew or of John, because they are found in their Gospels. You have, then, how little the adversaries esteem Councils, and how they try by frauds and calumnies to lower their authority — who yet a few years before seemed to demand a general Council as the one remedy of the present dissensions.
But perhaps someone will say: they desired indeed, and desire even now, a general Council — not such as Trent was. So it is; they desire a general Council, but such as never was. For Philip Melanchthon explains the conditions of the Council in that little book which he entitled On the causes why the Lutherans did not come to the Council; but chiefly there are two. One, that all learned men, whether priests or laymen, should have the right of even a decisive vote — which is unheard of in the Church of Christ to this day; nor will they bring forward any example of such a Council, especially since they call those learned men who, when they speak or write, mix a few Greek or Hebrew words with their Latin. The other condition is that a safe-conduct be given by the Emperor, not only to the persons but also to the cause — that is, that neither may the persons be punished if they refuse to obey the Council, nor may the faith and confession of the Lutherans be condemned, even though the Lutheran Theologians could not defend it. Which condition both plainly fights with the former, and is in itself inept and ridiculous. For if neither the persons nor the opinions can be condemned, nothing at all will be decided in the Council.
To what purpose, then, did it belong to ask that the laity too should have a decisive vote, if nothing is to be decided in the Council? And to what purpose so many expenses, so many dangers, so many labors in gathering a Council? To what purpose are Bishops and Doctors from the whole world troubled to come to a Council? To what purpose are so many days consumed in proposing, discussing, defining questions of faith — if, after all is prepared, it is still lawful for each one to call the Council's decree into controversy? Nor does Philip Melanchthon alone teach this; before him Martin Luther taught it, and after him John Brentius, Martin Kemnitz, and all the Lutherans and Calvinists. “Grasp,” says Luther, article 115 of the five hundred articles, “this Gospel: that it is committed neither to the Pope, nor to Councils, nor to any of men, to conclude what the faith is. Therefore I must say: Pope, thou hast concluded with the Councils; now I have the judgment whether I can accept it or not.” And Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 9, § 8: “As often,” he says, “as the decree of any Council is brought forward, I would first have it diligently weighed at what time it was held, for what cause, with what design, what kind of men were present; then that very thing which is treated examined by the rule of Scripture — and that in such a way that the Council's definition have its weight, and be as a presumption, yet not hinder the examination I have spoken of.”
And so Calvin will have the sentence of a Council to be a presumption, not a judgment, and that of that sentence anyone, and especially private men, can and ought to judge. Which same, in other words, Kemnitz, Brentius, and all the rest teach. But what else is this than to be unwilling that any judgment be made? to be unwilling that controversies ever be ended? to be unwilling peace and concord, but that wars, schisms, dissensions, disputes should flourish perpetually? But it is well; unless they said something else, they would more easily lie hidden — they would certainly not be held for heretics. But now they so betray themselves that plainly those are now blind who do not see them to be heretics; for since heresy is named from choosing, there is no plainer mark, no surer sign of a heretical man, than when he does not acquiesce in the Ecclesiastical judgment, but is his own leader, his own judge, and chooses his own proper dogma to follow. Of faith, obedience is the companion, humility the mother; of heresy, the sister is contumacy, the mother pride.
Since these things are so, it will now be our part, that as much of work, industry, and labor as the enemies of the faith put into shaking the Ecclesiastical authority, so much we may put into asserting and vindicating it; and since that authority is chiefly seen in the supreme Pontiff and in the Councils of Bishops, and we have already discoursed of the Pontiff in five books, according to the slenderness of our talent, we will now discourse of Councils with as great clarity as we can, God being our leader and our guide.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
DE CONCILIIS Sacrorum Conciliorum auctoritatem, quae semper in Ecclesia magna fuit, adversus multiplices haereticorum fraudes et calumnias, his libris pro viribus defensurus, antequam ad rem ipsam aggrediar, pauca quaedam putavi esse dicenda de summa atque incredibili calliditate, quam ad hanc elevandam auctoritatem Satanae administri nostris temporibus adhibue¬ runt. Etenim quoniam sacrosancta Conciliorum auctoritas in Ecclesia Catholica, ut par erat, semper eminuit, et saepe in maximis rerum per¬ turbationibus ad dissipandas errorum tenebras, quasi fulgor quidam sa¬ lutaris illuxit, non existimavit hostis humani generis posse diutius se dis¬ cordias in Ecclesia serere, et schismata, atque haereses conservare et pro¬ pagare, nisi judicia Ecclesiastica de medio tolleret ; et cathedram illam everteret, ex qua Christus ipse per homines sonans, et judicans, omnes fidei controversias, litesque componit. Itaque Lutheranos excitavit homines, ut ad fallendum paratos, ita pro¬ jectos ad mentiendum; qui quidem, cum initio nullo modo fieri posse crederent, ut summus Pontifex ad indicendum generale Concilium addu¬ ceretur, coeperunt ipsi magna contentione simul et Pontificem graviter accusare, et adversus eumdem Pontificem Concilii generalis opem implo¬ rare. Ita enim fore arbitrabantur, ut et quaecumque vellent scelera atque flagitia, quamvis falsa et incredibilia, de Pontifice libere spargere, et eum apud omnes Christianas nationes reum maximorum criminum facere sibi liceret, et ipsi interim non E cclesiae hostes esse, ut re ipsa erant, sed viri amantes pietatis, fideique zelum habere, quippe qui Concilii auctorita- tatem agnoscerent, ab omnibus judicarentur. Quocirca tot, et tam atro¬ cibus calumniis, et maledictis, et voce, et litteris Christi vicarium onera¬ verunt, ut permultis, magnisque nationibus plane persuaserint, eum non Christianum praesulem, sed Christi juratum hostem, atque adeo ipsum vorum, et proprie dictum Antichristum esse. Orationem certe immensam susciperem, si ea mendacia percensere vel¬ lem, quibus luieretici hujus temporis in omnibus pene libris, et sermoni¬ bus suis Apostolicse sedis Pontificem impudentissime asperserunt, unum solum aut alterum exempli causa attingam. Martinus Lutherus in libro de Ecclesia prope extremum : « Papa, inquit, Scripturam sacram, in coeno, et pulvere sepeliit, et doctrinam Christianam pene integram dele¬ vit. » Exstat libellus de primatu Papae scriptus nomine totius Synodi Sm^Jchaldicae, auctore, ut arbitror, Philippo, quo in libro, praeclara illa Synodus Lutheranorum ab hoc mendacio exorditus : « Papa, inquit , ar¬ rogat sibi auctoritatem condendi leges de cultibus, de mutatione Sacra¬ mentorum, de doctrina, et vult suos articulos, sua decreta, suas leges existimari pares legibus divinis. » Et infra : « Arrogat sibi Papa divinam auctoritatem, quia sumit sibi jus mutandi doctrinam Christi, et cultus a Deo institutos, et suam doctrinam, et suos cultus vult observari tamquam divina. » At quod Sacramentum, quem cultum a Deo institutum, quem doctrinae articulum Papa mutavit ? Et quis ille Pontifex fuit, qui suas leges divinis legibus exaequavit ? An non videmus quotidie Pontificias leges, vel ab iis¬ dem, qui tulerunt , vel a successoribus, si tempus id postulet, abrogari? Quae vero divina lex ab ullo unquam Pontifice legitur abrogata? Sed nolo in ejusmodi nugis tempus amittere. Hoc affirmo, similibus mendaciis ple¬ nos esse libros Lutheranorum, eaque apud illos, non ut res saltem dubias, sed ut oracula certissima litteris, et sermone omnium celebrari. Qui ta¬ men initio, ut dicebam, ne omnino alieni ab Ecclesia Catholica esse vide¬ rentur, quanto plus auctoritatis detrahebant Pontifici, tanto amplius Con¬ cilio tribuebant. Exstat Lutheri ipsius ad generale Concilium provocatio. Exstant comitia imperialia, Augustana, Norimbergensia, Spirensia, Ratis- bonensia, Wormatiensa, aliaque nonnulla, in quibus Lutherani generale Concilium ssepius postularunt. At ne forte molestum sit, si tempus in tam variis tot comitiorum actis recitandis conteramus, proferam tibi, Lector, ipsorum protestantium tes¬ timonium, quod ad initium ejus libri, qui Protestatio adversus Concilium Tridentinum inscribitur, continetur : « Profitemur, inquiunt, ac protes¬ tamur nos adhaerere, ac semper adhsesisse protestationi , et appellationi R. Patris D. Lutheri ab injustissimo, violentissimoque judicio Pontificis, ac omnium ejus factionis judicum, ad liberum Christianum, legitimum, ac in Spiritu Sancto congregatum Concilium. Qui processus protestatio, et appellatio fuit postea unanimiter, ac multoties a nostris Ecclesiis re¬ novatus, et in aliquot etiam imperialibus conventibus ab omnibus stati- PILEFATIO bus comprobatus. » Haec ipsorum sunt verba, quibus, ut vides, affir¬ mant, Lutherum primo, deinde Ecclesias suas, postremo etiam Princi¬ pes, sibi addictos, a Pontificis sententia ad Concilii judicium saepius ap¬ pellasse. Sed quamdiu existimas, in sententia ista expetendi Concilii permanse¬ rint ? Quandiu nullum futurum esse Concilium speraverunt. Nam simul, ac Paulus Pontifex ejus nominis Tertius, Concilium generale ad Tridenti- num indixit, et ejusdem Concilii fundamenta jaci, et initia quaedam ap¬ parere coeperunt, continuo illi mutata sententia, vel potius, quam ante simulaverant, aperte prodita, Concilium improbare, a Conciliis appel¬ lare, nec solum recentia, sed etiam vetera omnia reprehendere? et ipsum Tridentinum, vixdum inchoatum, invectivis, censuris, protestationibus, ca¬ lumniis quoque, et mendaciis opprimere studuerunt, ut si fieri posset, prius Concilium illud haereticorum astutia solveretur, quam Catholicorum diligentia coalesceret. Ita vero esse, ut dico, testes mihi sunt omnes, qui legerunt librum de Conciliis a Luthero illo ipso tempore conscriptum, libellum Philippi Me- lanchthonis de causis, cur Lutherani ad Concilium non accesserint ; li¬ brum Protestationis 54 Ministrorum : librum Illyrici de norma, ac praxi Concilii : Denique Martini Kemnitii examen Tridentini Concilii, Consilium Caroli Molinaei super eodem non admittendo Concilio ; antidotum Joan- nis Calvini contra ejusdem venena Concilii. Sed operae pretium erit ex istis ipsis, quos nominavimus, auctoribus, aliquid proponere, ut ex eorum verbis et testimonio cognoscas, quanti fiant ab illis Ecclesiae Concilia, quae paulo ante tantopere flagitaverant. Igitur Martinus Lutherus, cum fama accepisset, indictum esse Conci¬ lium, continuo arrepto calamo, librum confecit, atque inscripsit, de Con. ciliis : credo, ut ageret Deo gratias, et Ecclesiae gratularetur, atque om¬ nes ad Concilium invitaret. Nihil minus ; summa enim libri est, nihil esse opus Conciliis, cum etiam vetera illa sanctissima et celeberrima er¬ raverint, et quilibet Parochi, et Ludimagistri non minus possint in Eccle¬ sia, quam quaevis maxima, et numerosissima Concilia. Orditur a Concilio illo sine controversia antiquissimo et sanctissimo, quod Apostoli Hiero¬ solymis celebraverunt; et quoniam in eo Concilio Apostoli decreverunt abstinendum esse a sanguine, et suffocato, ad has angustias nos redigit, ut vel ab his cibis nos abstineamus, vel aperte fateamur, liberum esse Concilio summo ac primo non obedire. Deinde, graviter exponit quanta calamitas esset, non vesci deinceps capreis, leporibus, cervis, cuniculis, anseribus, turdis, caeterisque aviculis, et quod miserius est, abstinere 1U2 lucanicis, aliisque farciminibus, et jusculis etiam quibusdam , quae non solum pipere condiuntur, sed etiaem sanguine (ut ipse loquitur, qui ista bene norat) vel liquido tinguntur, vel crasso, et coagulato infar¬ ciuntur. Quia vero tam gravis jactura nullo modo subeunda Luthero esse vide¬ batur, inde effecit, non esse Apostolico decreto obtemperandum. Ex quo rursum ita conclusit ; ergo liberum est nobis omnia alia Concilia relin¬ quere, et sic liberi sumus ab omnibus Conciliis. Praeclare omnino : quasi vero quia non tenemur ea Concilii lege, quae solum ad tempus data fue¬ rat, jam nullis aliis Conciliorum legibus teneamur. Pergit deinde ad Nicaenum I Concilium, cujus in Ecclesia Catholica semper summa auctoritas fuit, ac de canonibus ejus Concilii loquens : « Hi omnes, inquit, articuli, foenum, stramen, ligna, stipulae fuerunt. » Et infra : « De illis ligneis articulis reliquiae manserunt , quasi aliqui ti¬ tiones, nempe articulus de festo Paschatis. > Hic nimirum est honor, quem habet Lutherus antiquissimo et celeberrimo Concilio , ut ejus de¬ creta ligna, foenum, stipulas, titiones appellet. Sed parum esset, si tan¬ tum non necessarios, ac supervacaneos eos canones diceret, et non etiam periculosos, impossibiles, inter se contrarios, ac pugnantes esse conten¬ deret. Quia enim vetat Concilium, nequi se absciderunt , sacris Ordini¬ bus initientur , et simul imperat hominibus sacratis, ne ullam omnino domi suae foeminam habeant, praeter matrem aut sororem : « Hic pror¬ sus, inquit Lutherus, non intelligo sanctum Spiritum in hoc Concilio, si illi pro idoneis non sunt reputandi in ministerio Ecclesiastico, qui se- ipsos castrant ad vitanda libidinum incendia ; et rursus illi etiam non sunt idonei, qui ad evincendos carnis stimulos habent, aut ducunt uxo¬ res; quo res tandem cadet? An debebit Episcopus, aut Condonator illum intolerabilem ardorem, et aestum amoris illiciti sustinere, et neque con¬ jugio, neque castratione se ab his periculis liberare? » Quasi vero, Lu- there, nihil sit medium, inter conjugium et castrationem. Quo pacto igi¬ tur, Paulus, Joannes, Jacobus, Apostoli caeteri, Ambrosius, Hieronymus, Gregorius, et quid enumero singulos homines ? quo pacto, inquam, tot millia Sanctorum, neque se ipsi absciderunt, et tamen usque ad vitae finem uxoribus caruerunt ? nimirum precibus , jejuniis, labore assiduo, non membrorum abscissione gloriosa certamina superantur. Sed audiamus, quam honorifice de hoc eodem Nicaeno Concilio sub finem hujus loci loquatur Lutherus : « An vero, inquit, nihil aliud est negotii Spiritui Sancto in Conciliis, quam ut impossibilibus , periculosis, non necessariis legibus suos ministros obstringat, et oneret ? » Quae cum ita sint, vides certe, Lector, quanti faciat Lutherus Conciliorum auctori¬ tatem, cum decreta Nicaeni Concilii, quo nullum est magis a Patribus omnibus laudatum, lignea, non necessaria, periculosa, impossibilia, inter se pugnantia, ac demum stramen, foenum, stipulas, titiones ore impuden- tissimo appellare non vereatur. Quid, quod omnia Concilia ita extenuat, ut cum eis Parochorum industriam, et Ludimagistrorum auctoritatem comparet ? « Putasne, inquit, adeo esse tenue, aut augustum officium Pa¬ rochi, aut Ludimoderatoris, ut non possint aliqua ex parte conferri ad Concilia ? Dicam et quiddam amplius, majus lumen accedit doctrinae Christianae ex Catechismo puerili, quam ex omnibus Conciliis. » Et in_ fra : « Et quid opus est verbis, etiam si omnium Synodorum decreta pos¬ sent per infundibulum demitti in tuum corpus , tamen nondum esses Christianus, quia nimis parum conferunt. » Egregia sane conclusio, et digna tam gravi Theologo, qui paulo ante tam serio videbatur Concilii generalis judicium appellare. Omitto quod dicit de II, III et IY Synodo, cum similia sint prioribus, et ego brevitati studeam. Venio igitur ad ea mendacia, quae ad extenuandam Concilii Tridentini auctoritatem adversarii sine ulio pudore effutiunt, nec tamen omnia, nec etiam plurima, id enim infiniti operis esset, sed pauca de multis profe¬ ram : <r Illi Sycophantae, inquit Lutherus in libro de Conciliis, qui para¬ sitantur Papae, adeo sunt dementati, ut hoc paradoxum audacissime de¬ fendant. Concilia potestatem habere condendi novos articulos fidei, et mu¬ tandi veteres. » At qui sunt isti Sycophantae? Cur nemo nominatur? Ubi, quando, quo teste dixerunt, aut scripserunt, posse a Conciliis fidei arti¬ culos immutari? Matthias Illyricus in libro de norma, ac praxi Concilii Tridentini : « Clamant illi, inquit, Concilii scilicet Patres, Ecclesiam, id est, Pontifi¬ cem cum suis spiritualibus esse supra Scripturam ; et Papam posse ex ple¬ nitudine potestatis contra Apostolum, et totum vetus Testamentum dis¬ pensare. » Haec ille. Sed exstat Concilium, legatur diligenter, nusquam invenientur ejusmodi portenta. Martinus Kemnitius in examine Concilii Tridentini, ita dives menda¬ ciorum est, ut quatuor sententiolis, quinque mendacia comprehenderit : « Dicunt, inquit, Patres, videlicet Concilii, quod Papa habeat voluntatem pro ratione, in his, quae vult ; quod possit formam Sacramentorum ab Apostolis traditam immutare, quod contra epistolas Pauli possit statuere, quod dispensare possit contra quatuor prima Concilia, et contra verba Evangelii. » Quis crederet tam impudentes homines reperiri potuisse, quj de Tridentino Concilio tam audacter mentirentur, cum et ipsius acta PRyEFATIO passim legantur, ad adhuc vivant plerique eorum, qui ipsi per se Concilio interfuerunt ? Sed restat adhuc aliud splendidum omnino, et saepius repetitum adver¬ sariorum mendacium. Multis de causis Lutherani Hosium Cardinalem, virum aeterna memoria dignum, implacabili odio persequuntur, sed eo praecipue, quod Legatus Apostolicoe sedis Concilio Tridentino praesederit, atque eidem Concilio industria et sapientia sua non parum ornamenti, atque etiam emolumenti contulerit. Ut igitur simul, et Legati, et Synodi auctoritatem deprimerent, verba quaedam, quae is Cardinalis in libro de expresso verbo Dei , nomine Schwenckfeldii haeresiarchae protulerat, et ideo protulerat, ut indicaret, quam tetri errores ex Lutherana haeresi, quasi venneati fructus ex corrupta radice pulJulassent; illa, inquam, verba tamquam si Cardinalis ipsius sententiam continerent, boni isti viri ma¬ gna cum execratione ubique disseminaverunt ; ac primum in lib. Protes¬ tationis 54 Ministrorum, ita legimus : « Sed jam audiamus istius gloriosi gubernatoris praesentis conciliabuli verba, quomodo, et secundum quam regulam ille cum suis sodalibus velit de Ecclesiae, et religionis contro¬ versiis judicare, et statuere : sic enim in blasphemiae verba erumpit, in- quiens : Nos vero Dei de coelo sententiam exspectabimus, ac tum istos pro sua, non Scripturarum sententia dimicantes, tum ipsas etiam Scripturas facessere jubebimus. Non oportet Legis , aut Scripturae esse peritum, sed a Deo doctum. Vanus est labor, qui Scripturae impenditur. Scriptura enim creatura est, et egenum quoddam elementum ; nec convenit Christiano nimium creaturae addictum esse. » Quibus recitatis subjiciunt Protestan- tes : « Haec iste nefarius Antichristi Cardinalis Legatus, et impii concilia¬ buli Gubernator, contra viventem Deum blasphemat. » Illyricus vero in libro de norma et praxi Concilii Tridentini , postea- quam illa eadem verba ex libro Cardinalis deprompta repetivit, ita illi bene precatus est : « Dominus Jesus, inquit, obstruat igne infernali ista blasphema ora Antichristi, et ejus mancipiorum, et vindicet gloriam ab eorum tyrannide. » Quid tibi videtur, candide Lector, an non est scelus inauditum, et audacia plane incredibilis in causa tam atroci, et tam per¬ spicua, tam impudenter mentiri ? Est in manibus liber, nec ulla est in ver¬ bis ejus obscuritas, et si testimonium auctoris requiritur, ego ipse doc¬ tissimum illum senem aliquando dicentem audivi : « Ego ita sentirem ? ego talia scriberem? si mea illa verba essent, vere dignus essem, qui in medio foro cremarer. » Et placuit tamen non uni, aut duobus, sed tri¬ ginta quatuor simul Ministris verba illa optimi viri in alienum sensum ita detorquere, ut quae Swenckfeldii sunt, Cardinalis ipsius esse crederen- PRiEFATIO tur; qui mihi similiter fecisse videntur, ac si aliquis modo contenderet illa blasphema verba Judaeorum de Christo : « Ecce homo vorax, et po¬ tator vini, non est hic homo a Deo, qui Sabbatum non custodit, reus est mortis, tolle, tolle, crucifige eum; » atque alia his similia, non esse verba Judaeorum, sed Matthaei, aut Joannis, quod in eorum Evangeliisreperian- tur. Habes igitur, quam parvi aestiment Concilia adversarii, et quod frau¬ dibus, et calumniis eorum auctoritatem elevare conentur, qui tamen pau¬ cis ante annis generale Concilium, tamquam unicum remedium praesen¬ tium dissidiorum expetere videbantur. Sed dicet aliquis fortasse, optabant illi quidem, atque optant etiam nunc generale Concilium, non ejusmodi, quale Tridentinum fuit. Ita est, optant illi generale Concilium, sed quale numquam fuit. Explicat enim condi¬ tiones Concilii Philippus Melanchthon in eo libello, quem inscripsit, de causis cur Lutherani ad Concilium non accesserint; sed potissimum duae sunt. Altera, ut jus suffragii etiam decisivi habeant omnes homines docti, sive sacerdotes, sive laici sint; quod est in Ecclesia Christi in hunc diem inauditum. Nec talis Concilii ullum exemplum proferent, praesertim, cum doctos homines vocent, qui dum loquuntur, aut scribunt, aliquot verba Graeca, aut Hebraica, Latinis admiscent. Altera conditio est, ut detur ab Imperatore salvus conductus, non solum personis, sed etiam causae, hoc est, ut nec personae possint puniri, si nolint obtemperare Concilio^ nec fides, et confessio Lutheranorum possit damnari , etiamsi Theo¬ logi Lutherani eam defendere non potuerint ; quae conditio et cum su¬ periore apertissime pugnat, et est ipsa per se inepta et ridicula. Nam, si nec personae, nec sententiae damnari possunt, nihil omnino in Concilio decernetur. Quorsum igitur attinebat petere, ut etiam laici suffragium habeant de- cisivum, si nihil est in Concilium decidendum? Et quorsum tot sumptus, tot pericula, tot labores in Concilio congregando ? Quorsum ex toto orbe terrarum Episcopi, et Doctores vexantur, ut ad Concilium veniant? Quor¬ sum tot dies in quaestionibus fidei proponendis, discutiendis, definiendis consumuntur : si posteaquam sunt omnia parata, adhuc licet unicuique Concilii decretum in controversiam revocare? Neque Philippus Melanchthon solus docet, docuit ante eum Martinus Lutherus, docuere post eumJoan- nes Brentius, Martinus Kemnitius, Lutherani et Calvinistae omnes : <r Ca¬ pite, inquit, Lutherus art. 1 1 5 ex quingentis articulis, hoc Evangelium, quia neque Papa3, neque Conciliis, neque ulli hominum commissum est, ut concludat, quid sit fides. Ideo debeo dicere, Papa tu conclusisti cum Conciliis, nunc habeo ego judicium, an acceptare queam, necne. » Et PKJEFATIO Calvinus lib. IV Instit. cap. 9, §. 8 : « Quoties, inquit, Concilii alicujus decretum profertur, expendi primum diligenter velim, quo tempore ha¬ bitum sit, qua de causa habitum, et quo consilio; quales homines inter¬ fuerint; deinde illud ipsum, de quo agitur, ad Scriptura amussim exa¬ minari, idque in eum modum, ut Concilii definitio pondus suum ha¬ beat, sitque instar praejudicii ; neque tamen examen, quod dixi, impe¬ diat. » Itaque vult Calvinus, Concilii sententiam, praejudicium, non judicium esse, deque ea sententia posse, ac debere quoscumque, et maxime priva¬ tos homines judicare. Quod idem aliis verbis Kemnitius, Brentius, et cae- teri omnes docent. Quid vero est hoc aliud, quam nolle judicium ullum fieri ? Nolle controversias unquam finiri? Nolle pacem et concordiam, sed bella, schismata, dissensiones, lites vigere perpetuo? Sed bene habet; nisi aliud dicerent, facilius laterent : haeretici certe non haberentur. Nunc vero ita se produnt, ut plane nunc sint caeci, qui eos haereticos esse non vident; nam cum haeresis ab electione dicatur, nulla est nota clarior, nullum certius signum hominis haeretici, quam cum Ecclesiastico judicio non acquiescit ; sed ipse sibi est dux, ipse judex, ipse dogma proprium eligit, quod sequatur. Fidei, obedientia comes est, mater humilitas. Haere- seos soror, contumacia, mater superbia est. Quae cum ita sint, nostra jam partes erunt, ut quantum opera, indus¬ triae, laboris in Ecclesiastica auctoritate labefactanda hostes fidei ponunt, tantum nos in eadem asserenda, ac vindicanda ponamus; et quoniam ea in summo Pontifice, et Episcoporum Conciliis praecipue cernitur, et nos jam de Pontifice quinque libris, pro ingenii nostri tenuitate, disseruimus, nunc de Conciliis, quanta maxima poterimus claritate, Deo duce, atque auspice disseremus. CONTROVERSIARUM 'X