Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book I
Chapter 10: That General Councils Are Useful and in a Certain Way Necessary, but Not Absolutely
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).
From these causes, for which we said Councils are gathered, it will be easy to judge whether Councils are only useful, or even plainly necessary, for the preservation of the Church. And of general Councils I thus determine: that the convocations of such Councils are most useful, and in a certain manner necessary, yet not absolutely and simply necessary. Which I easily persuade myself, first from this, that for the first 300 years the Church lacked general Councils, and yet did not perish. For as in those 300 years the Church remained unharmed without general Councils, so also it could without doubt have continued through another 300, and again another 600, and another thousand; for there were not lacking even in that time many heresies, many schisms, many vices and abuses, all of which nevertheless could not overwhelm the Catholic Church, though destitute of the guard of general Councils.
Finally, there is added this too, that none of the enumerated causes proves a general Council to be absolutely necessary. For, first, the amendment of vices and abuses (to begin from the last cause) can be done conveniently enough, both by the laws of the supreme Pontiff and by the decrees of provincial Councils, although it is done more smoothly, as we said, by general Councils.
But that cause concerning the election of the supreme Pontiff cannot — if we speak morally, not metaphysically — ever come into use. For who would believe it will ever come to pass that the Cardinals either will not, or cannot, create a Pontiff? And if even that happened, there could scarcely be a doubt to whom the election pertained. For since the Roman bishopric has been raised to the supreme Pontificate of the Church, it is without doubt theirs to elect the supreme Pontiff whose it is to elect the Roman Bishop; and whose it is to elect the Roman Bishop could not, the Pontiffs' constitutions being removed, be more doubtful than to whom it pertains to elect the Bishops of other cities. But of this matter it must be said elsewhere. This is certain, that for such a cause no general Council has hitherto been convoked. The same can be said of the fourth cause. For because of suspicions concerning the doctrine and life of Pontiffs, never did any but provincial or national councils come together. Nor indeed does there seem to be need of a greater Council; for while he is truly Pontiff, he cannot be judged by any Council, unless perhaps he himself grant the Council power to examine his cause and to pass a discretive, but not a coercive, sentence. And this power the Pope can grant as well to a particular Council as to a universal one.
Now the third cause, for a twofold reason, does not necessarily require a general Council. First, because it is not absolutely necessary that a common enemy, such as is the Turk, be resisted. For if the Church could be preserved under the most savage persecutions of Nero, Domitian, Decius, Diocletian, why could it not also under the persecution of the Turks? Next, who does not see that even without a general Council war can be declared on a common enemy, as has often been done? Finally, that neither the first nor the second cause necessarily demands the convocation of a general Council, past times testify. For if to extinguish seven heresies seven general Councils were celebrated, more than a hundred heresies were extinguished by the Apostolic See alone, with the cooperation of particular Councils; and if one schism was taken away by the general Council of Constance, more than twenty-five schisms were taken away without a general Council.
But Saint Augustine, Book 4 against the two Epistles of the Pelagians, chapter 12, affirms that there were some few heresies, to overcome which a plenary Council of the West and the East was necessary. Saint Leo too, in letter 43 to Marcian, praises Marcian the Augustus, that he too judged necessary the general Synod which he had asked for. Saint Isidore, in the preface to the Councils, writes that before the times of Constantine the Christian Church was divided into various heresies, because on account of the persecutions of the Emperors it was not lawful for the Bishops to celebrate Councils — where without doubt he speaks of general Councils, for it is established that before the times of Constantine many particular Councils were celebrated. Wherefore Isidore seems to mean that general Councils are simply necessary to root out heresies. Likewise Saint Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage, as Victor testifies, Book 2 on the Vandal persecution, when he was urged by King Huneric to confer of the faith with the Arian Bishops, answered that the cause of the faith is common to the whole Catholic Church, and accordingly that Bishops must be convoked from all parts of the Church, and especially that the whole matter must be signified to the Roman Church, which is the head of all the Churches. By which answer Eugenius signified that for explaining questions of faith a general Council is altogether necessary. Finally, that ancient question, whether those baptized by heretics were to be rebaptized, could never be ended until the sentence of a general Council came, although many definitions of particular Councils and of the Apostolic See had preceded. A general Synod, therefore, seems necessary. Of which matter thus speaks Saint Augustine, Book 1 on Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 7: “The obscurity of this question, in the earlier times of the Church before the schism of Donatus, so compelled great men and Fathers endowed with great charity, Bishops, to dispute and waver among themselves (peace being safe), that for a long time the diverse decrees of Councils in their several regions were changed, until by a plenary Council of the whole world what was held most wholesome was, all doubts being removed, confirmed.” And chapter 18: “This of Baptism let us piously believe, which the universal Church, removed from the sacrilege of schism, keeps. In which, however, if one thought one thing and another another about this question (peace being safe), until by a universal Council something one, refined and sincere, had pleased, the charity of unity would excuse the error of human weakness.” And Book 2, chapter 4: “Nor would we dare to assert any such thing, unless strengthened by the most concordant authority of the universal Church, to which he too without doubt would yield, if already at that time the truth of this question, refined and declared, were solidified by a plenary Council.” Thus Augustine.
But to the first testimony of Augustine it is not difficult to answer; for Augustine does not teach that general Councils were at any time simply necessary, but only necessary in a certain manner — that is, that peace might be restored to the Churches more smoothly and more maturely. For Augustine, in the place where he wrote that to repress a certain heresy, namely the Arian, a general Council was necessary, in the same place wrote that the Pelagian heresy and very many others could be repressed without a general Council. But if you ask why the cause of the Arians needed a general Council more than that of the Pelagians, Augustine will not answer that the question introduced into the Church by the Arians was more obscure than that introduced by the Pelagians — for that does not seem to be true, since there are far more and clearer testimonies in the Scriptures for the divinity of Christ against the Arians than for original sin against the Pelagians — but because the heresy of the Pelagians, God so willing and disposing, was in a short time condemned by the universal Church, since with the utmost peace and consent the Apostolic See at Rome, the Councils of the Easterners in Palestine, and of the Westerners in Africa decreed the same thing. But the Arian heresy from its very beginning began to have many Bishops as patrons, who did not seem likely to be quieted easily, unless they were overwhelmed by the supreme authority of the whole Church. And so for extinguishing the Pelagian heresy a general Council was not necessary, but it was necessary for extinguishing the Arian heresy; because the former was conveniently and easily repressed by the Apostolic See, with the cooperation of provincial Councils of various places; but the latter, although it could at last have been repressed by the same Apostolic See and provincial Councils, yet not so conveniently and easily.
The same can be answered to the testimony of Saint Leo. For Saint Leo judged the general Council of Chalcedon necessary, that by its authority might be destroyed what the general Council, the second of Ephesus, had wrongly done. But that this was not an absolute necessity, but only a certain one, is plain from the annulling of the Council of Ariminum. For the Council of Ariminum was a general and most frequented one, and far more famous than the second of Ephesus, and yet it was annulled by Pope Damasus without the aid of any general Council. Of which matter see the letter of Damasus to the Bishops of Illyricum, and letter 52 of Basil to Athanasius.
In the same way we are compelled to expound the testimony of Isidore; for what he says, that before the reign of Constantine the Church was divided into various heresies because the faculty of gathering Councils, and of thereby teaching the peoples, was not given to the Bishops — if it be understood absolutely, is most plainly false. For both before the times of Constantine very many heresies were utterly taken away and extinguished by Councils of Bishops, and after the times of Constantine there were not lacking new heresies which vexed the Church for a very long time. Certainly the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies could never be utterly eradicated, and yet they arose after the times of Constantine, and in rooting them out general Councils often labored. This alone, then, Isidore wished to signify: that in the time of Constantine general Councils began to be celebrated, and that this was most useful for repressing heresies.
Now what Saint Eugenius meant, Victor of Utica explains in the same place. For he writes that Eugenius made mention of a general Council and of the Churches beyond the sea, when he was called to confer of the faith with the Arians — not because there were not in Africa most learned men who could safely be matched with the Arian Bishops, but because he thought that the doctors from beyond the sea, if they came into Africa, would plead the cause of the faith more freely, since they were not subject to the King of the Vandals, to whom the African Bishops were subject. Nor yet did Eugenius lie when he said that the cause of the faith is common, and that he could not undertake that cause without the Bishops from beyond the sea; for although it was absolutely lawful for him to confer with the Arians of the faith, as often elsewhere in the same region Catholics had conferred with the Donatists, yet it was not expedient at that time, and accordingly not lawful without manifest danger. And so truly Eugenius could not, without his colleagues from beyond the sea, undertake that province — not because authority was lacking, but because opportunity was lacking; nor was it iniquity, but prudence, to elude the demand of that Tyrant by the ambiguity of his answer.
There remains that last objection, of the Baptism of heretics, which is solved in two ways. First, perhaps it is not true, what Augustine thought, that that question could not be ended before the sentence of a general Council. For the first general Council was that of Nicaea, celebrated in the time of Constantine. But Saint Jerome writes, in his Dialogue against the Luciferians, that those very Bishops who with Cyprian had decreed that heretics were to be rebaptized afterward put forth a contrary decree; from which it is gathered that those Bishops at last acquiesced in the sentence of Stephen the Roman Pontiff — who all, nevertheless, died before the times of the Council of Nicaea. The same Jerome too, in his book on Ecclesiastical writers, writes that Dionysius of Alexandria yielded to the opinion of Cyprian on rebaptism; which Eusebius also indicates, Book 7 of the history, chapter 4; and yet it is established that the same Dionysius a little after changed his opinion, and did not dare to rebaptize a certain man whom it was certainly established had been baptized by heretics, as the same Eusebius relates, Book 7 of the history, chapter 8. What of this, that Augustine himself too, in letter 48 to Vincentius, suspects that Cyprian retracted his opinion? And so it is probable that even before the Council of Nicaea, by the authority of the Apostolic See, that question was ended among all Catholics. But even if the question had not been ended until the determination of the plenary Council, as Augustine says, yet it would not thence follow that it could not be ended; for although authority to end that controversy was not lacking to the Apostolic See with the cooperation of provincial Councils, yet those holy Pontiffs chose rather to defer to another more opportune time the absolute determination of that question than to separate so many great men from the Church. But because the opportunity of time did not offer itself before the Council of Nicaea was celebrated, therefore Augustine so often repeats that in a plenary Council of the whole world that question was at last ended.
But, you will say, Pope Stephen, having gathered a certain particular Council, commanded that men not be rebaptized, and judged that those who rebaptized were to be excommunicated, as Dionysius of Alexandria writes, Eusebius witnessing, Book 7 of the history, chapter 4, and Augustine in his book on the one Baptism, chapter 14. Therefore the Pope wished to end the question with his particular Council, and could not; and accordingly general Councils seem altogether necessary.
I answer, as I already answered before in Book 4 on the Pontiff, chapter 7, that Stephen indeed commanded that those be not rebaptized who had been baptized by heretics, and judged also that the rebaptizers were to be excommunicated, yet did not in fact excommunicate them — which is manifestly gathered from many ancient authors. For first Cyprian himself, in his letter to Pompey, does not say that Stephen excommunicated, but that he judged those were to be excommunicated who did the contrary: “He thinks,” he says, “that the priests of God who guard the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church are to be shunned.” And in his letter to Jubaianus he says that he keeps peace with his colleagues who think the contrary; which certainly he would not say, if either he had been excommunicated by them, or he had excommunicated them: “We,” he says, “as far as in us lies, do not contend, on account of heretics, with our colleagues and fellow-Bishops, with whom we hold divine concord and the Lord's peace.”
Jerome, in his Dialogue against the Luciferians, speaks thus of Cyprian: “He remained in the communion of those who had gone against his opinion.” Augustine, Book 1 on Baptism, chapter 7, says that great men, and Fathers and Bishops of the Church — that is, Stephen and Cyprian — dissented, peace and charity being safe. Pacian, letter 2 to Sympronian: “Cyprian,” he says, “suffered in the concord of all, in the common peace, in the flock of the confessors.” Vincent of Lerins in his little book: “O wonderful reversal of things,” he says, “the authors of the same opinion are judged Catholics, but the followers heretics; the masters are absolved, the disciples condemned; the writers of the books will be sons of the kingdom, but hell will receive the assertors. For who would doubt that that most blessed light of all the Saints and Bishops and Martyrs, Cyprian, with the rest of his colleagues, will reign for ever with Christ? or who, on the contrary, is so sacrilegious as to deny that the Donatists and the other pests, who boast that they rebaptize by the authority of that Council, will burn everlastingly with the Devil?”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. Concilia generalia utilia esse , et suo quodam modo necessaria , non tamen absolute , et sim¬ pliciter. Ex his causis, ob quae Concilia congrega¬ ri diximus, facile erit judicare, sintne modo utilia, an etiam plane necessaria Concilia ad Ecclesiae conservationem. Et quidem de ge¬ neralibus Conciliis ita statuo, ejusmodi Con¬ ciliorum convocationes utilissimas et suo quodam modo necessarias, non tamen abso¬ lute, et simpliciter necessarias esse. Id quod mihi facile persuadeo, Primum ex eo, quod primis 300 annis caruit Ecclesia Conciliis ge¬ neralibus nec tamen periit. Quemadmodum enim annis illis 300, Ecclesia sine Conciliis generalinus incolumis mansit, sic etiam po¬ tuisset sine dubio aliis 300 , et rursum aliis 600, atque aliis mille permanere ; nam non defuerunt illo etiam tempore multas hsere- ses , multa schismata , multa vitia, atque abusus, quas tamen omnia Ecclesiam Catho¬ licam, tametsi Conciliorum generalium prae¬ sidio destitutam, opprimere non potue¬ runt . Denique accedit etiam illud , quod nulla ex enumeratis causis generale Concilium ab¬ solute necessarium esse convincit. Nam pri¬ mum emendatio vitiorum et abusuum , (ut a postrema causa incipiamus) fieri potest sa¬ tis commode, tum per leges summi Pontifi¬ cis, tum per Conciliorum provincialium de¬ creta, licet suavius id fiat , ut diximus, per Concilia generalia. Illa autem causa de electione summi Pon¬ tificis fieri non potest, si moraliter, non Me- taphysice loquimur, ut unquam usu veniat. Quis enim credat futurum aliquando, ut Car¬ dinales, aut nonvelint, aut non possint crea¬ re Pontificem ? Quod si etiam id accideret, vix dubium esse posset , ad quos pertineret electio. Nam cum Romanus Episcopatus evec¬ tus sit ad summum Ecclesiae Pontificatum, eorum sine dubio est , summum Pontificem eligere, quorum est Romanum Episcopum eli¬ gere. Quorum autem sit Romanum Episcopum eligere , non magis dubium esse posset re¬ motis Pontificum constitutionibus , quam ad quos pertineat aliarum civitatum Epis¬ copos eligere. Sed de hac re alibi dicendum erit. Illud constat , propter ejusmodi causam nullum hactenus Concilium generale convo¬ catum esse. Quod idem de quarta causa di¬ ci potest. Nam propter suspiciones de doc¬ trina, et vita Pontificum, nunquam convene¬ runt, nisi provincialia, aut nationalia conci¬ lia. Nec sane videtur majori Concilio opus esse; nam dum est vere Pontifex, non potest ab ullo Concilio judicari , nisi forte tribuat ipse Concilio potestatem examinandi causam suam, etsententiam discretivam, non tamen coactivam ferendi. Hanc autem potestatem seque potest Papa tribuere Concilio particu¬ lari, atque universali . Jam vero tertia causa duplici nomine non exigit necessario generale Concilium; pri¬ mum, quia non est absolute necessarium, ut communi hosti, qualis est Turea, resistatur. Si enim Ecclesia conservari potuit sub im¬ manissimis persecutionibus Neronis, Domi¬ tiani, Decii, Diocletiani, cur non posset etiam sub persecutione Turearum? Deinde quis non videt etiam sine generali Concilio posse bellum indici communi hosti , quemadmo¬ dum saepe factum est? Denique nec primam, aut secundam cau¬ sam necessario postulare Concilii generalis convocationem , testantur praeterita tempo¬ ra. Nam si ad extinguendas septem haereses celebrata sunt septem Concilia generalia, plusquam centum haereses extinctae sunt a sola Apostolica sede, cooperaniibus Conciliis particularibus et si unum schisma sublatum e»t per generale Concilium Constantiense, Schismata supra quinque etviginti sine Con¬ cilio generali sublata sunt. At S. Augustinus lib. IV. contra duas Epis¬ tolas Pelagianorum, cap. 12. affirmat, pau¬ cas quasdam haereses fuisse, ad quas supe¬ randas necessarium fuerit Concilium plena- narium Occidentis, et Orientis. Sanctus quo¬ que Leo in epist. 43. ad Martianum, laudat Martianum Augustum, quod Synodum gene¬ ralem a se postulatam etiam ipse necessa¬ riam judicaverit. S. Isidorus in praefatione Conciliorum scribit, ante Constantini tempora, Christia¬ nam Ecclesiam in varias haereses divisam fuisse, quod propter Imperatorum persecu¬ tiones non liceret Episcopis Concilia celebra¬ re : ubi sine dubio de generalibus Conciliis loquitur. Constat enim ante tempora Cons¬ tantini, multa Concilia particularia celebra¬ ta fuisse. Quare velle videtur Isidorus, Con¬ cilia generalia simpliciter esse necessaria ad haereses extirpandas. Item S. Eugenius Episcopus Carthaginien¬ sis, ut Victor testis est, lib. secundo de per¬ secutione Wandalica, cum urgeretur a Re¬ ge Hunerico , ut de fide cum Arianis Epis¬ copis conferret, respondit, causam fidei communem esse toti Catholicae Ecclesiae, proinde convocandos esse Episcopos ex om¬ nibus Ecclesiae partibus, ac praecipue signi¬ ficandam rem totam esse Ecclesiae Romanae, quae caput est omnium Ecclesiarum. Qua responsione significavit Eugenius, ad expli¬ candas quaestiones fidei Concilium generale omnino necessarium esse. Denique , antiqua illa quaestio , essentne rebaptizandi ab haereticis baptizati? num- quam finiri potuit , donec accessit sententia Concilii generalis, etiamsi multae praecessis¬ sent Conciliorum particularium , et sedis Apostolicae definitiones. Videtur igitur ad necessaria Synodus generalis. De qua re sic loquitur S. Augustinus lib. I de Baptis, con¬ tra Donatistas, cap. 7 : «Quaestionis, inquit, hujus obscuritas prioribus Ecclesiae tempori¬ bus ante schisma Donati magnos viros , et magna charitate praeditos Patres, Episcopos ita inter se compulit, salva pace, disceptare, et fluctuare, ut diu Conciliorum in suis qui¬ busque regionibus diversa statuta mutave¬ rint , donec plenario totius orbis Concilio, quod saluberrime sentiebatur, etiam remo¬ tis dubitationibus firmaretur. » Et cap. 18 : «Hoc, inquit, de Baptismo pie credamus quod universa Ecclesia a sacrilegio schisma- - tis remota custodit. In qua tamen , si aliud alii, et aliud alii , adhuc de ista quaestione, salva pace, sentirent, donec universali Con¬ cilio unum aliquid eliquatum sincerumque placuisset, humanae infirmitatis errorem ex¬ cusaret charitas unitatis. » Et lib. II, ca. 4 : « Necnos, inquit, tale aliquid auderemus as¬ serere, nisi universae Ecclesiae concordissima auctoritate firmati , cui et ipse sine dubio cederet, si jam illo tempore quaestionis hu¬ jus veritas eliquata, et declarata per plena¬ rium Concilium solidaretur. » Haec Augusti¬ nus. Sed ad primum testimonium Augustini, non est difficile respondere ; nec enim docet Augustinus, Concilia generalia ullo unquam tempore fuisse simpliciter necessaria , sed solum necessaria quodam modo, hoc est, ut suavius, et maturius pax Ecclesiis reddere¬ tur. Si quidem Augustinus quo in loco scrip¬ sit, ad haeresim quamdam, hoc est, Aria- nam comprimendam , necessarium fuisse Concilium generale, in eodem scripsit, hae¬ resim Pelagianam , aliasque plurimas sine Concilio generali comprimi potuisse. Si au¬ tem quaeras , quare magis eguerit generali Concilio causa Arianorum, quam Pelagiano- rem, non respondebit Augustinus, quia ob¬ scurior fuerit quaestio ab Arianis in Eccle¬ siam introducta, quam a Pelagianis ; id enim non videtur esse verum , cum multo plura et clariora sint in Scripturis testimonia pro divinitate Christi adversus Arianos , quam pro peccato originali adversus Pelagianos : sed quia Pelagianorum liaeresis, Deo sic vo¬ lente ac disponente , brevi damnata fuit ab universa Ecclesia, cum summa pace et con¬ sensione id ipsum decreverint Apostolica se¬ des Romae, Concilia Orientalium in Palaesti¬ na, et Occidentalium in Africa. Haeresis au¬ tem Ariana multos Episcopos patronos ab ipso suo exordio habere coepit , qui non vi¬ debantur facile quieturi , nisi summa totius Ecclesiae Auctoritate obruerentur. Itaque ad haeresim Pelagianam extinguendam non fuit necessarium generale Concilium , necessa¬ rium autem fuit ad extinguendam haeresim Arianam ; quoniam illa commode , et facile ab Apostolica sede , cooperantibus Conciliis provincialibus variorum locorum, compres¬ sa est; haec autem etsi tandem ab eadem Apostolica Sede , et provincialibus Conciliis comprimi potuisset , non tamen aeque com¬ mode ac facile. Idem ad testimonium S. Leonis responderi potest. Judicavit enim S. Leo , necessarium Concilium generale Chalcedonense , ut ejus auctoritate destrui posset id, quod perperam egerat Concilium generale Ephesinum se- * eundum. At hanc non fuisse absolutam ne¬ cessitatem, sed aliqualem duntaxat, perspi- cum est ex Concilii Ariminensis irritatione. Fuit enim Ariminense Concilium generale, et frequentissimum, ac longe celebrius Ephe- sino secundo , et tamen a Pontifice Damaso sine ullius generalis Concilii praesidio irrita¬ tum luit. De qua re vide epistolam Damasi ad Episnbpos Illyrici, et epist. 52. Basilii ad Athanasium. Eodem modo exponere cogimur testimo¬ nium Isidori; nam quod ipse ait, ante Con¬ stantini imperium Ecclesiam divisam fuisse in varias haereses, quia non dabatur Episco¬ pis facultas congregandorum Conciliorum, et eo modo plebium docendarum : si abso¬ lute intelligatur, apertissime falsum est. Nam et ante tempora Constantini plurimae hsere- ses sunt aConciliisEpiscoporumpenitus sub¬ latae, et extinctae, et post tempora Constan¬ tini, non defuerunt haereses novae, quae Ec¬ clesiam longissimo tempore vexaverunt. Certe Nestorianae , et Eutychianae haereses numquam penitus eradicari potuerunt , et tamen post Constantini tempora exortae sunt, et in iis extirpandis Concilia generalia sae¬ pius laborarunt. Id igitur solum Isidorus sig¬ nificare voluit , tempore Constantini Conci¬ lia generalia celebrari coepisse , atque eam rem ad comprimendas haereses utilissimam exstitisse. Jam vero quid S. Eugenius sibi voluerit, explicat ibidem Yictor Uticensis. Scribit enim Eugenium mentionem fecisse Concilii generalis , et transmarinarum Ecclesiarum, cum vocaretur ad conferendum de fide cum Arianis ; non quod non essent in Africa viri doctissimi , qui tuto possent committi cum Episcopis Arianis , sed quod existimabat transmarinos doctores, si in Africam venis¬ sent, liberius acturos causam fidei, cum non essent subjecti Regi Wandalorum, cui Afri¬ cani Episcopi subjecti erant. Nec tamen mentitus est Eugenius, cum ait, causam fidei esse communem, et se non posse sine trans¬ marinis Episcopis causam illam suscipere; nam etsi absolute licebat ei conferre cum Arianis de fide , ut saepe alias in eadem re¬ gione contulerant Catholici cum Donatistis, tamen non expediebat eo tempore, et proin¬ de nec licebat sine manifesto periculo. Ita¬ que vere non poterat Eugenius sine trans¬ marinis collegis provinciam illam suscipere, non quia deerat auctoritas, sed quia deerat opportunitas ; nec iniquitas , sed prudentia fuit, Tyranni illius petitionem sententiae am¬ biguitate eludere. Restat Ultima illa objectio , de Baptismo haereticorum , quse solvitur duobus modis. Primum enim fortasse non est verum, quod Augustinus putabat, quaestionem illam non potuisse finiri ante Concilii generalis senten¬ tiam. Nam Concilium generale primum fuit Nicaenum tempore Constantini celebratum. Scribit autem S. Hieronymus inDialogo con¬ tra Luciferianos , illos ipsos Episcopos, qui cum Cypriano decreverant haereticos esse rebaptizandos , postea contrarium protulis¬ se decretum. Ex quo colligitur, eos Episco¬ pos tandem sententiae Stephani Romani Pon¬ tificis acquievisse, qui tamen omnes mortui sunt anta tempora Nicaeni Concilii. Idem quoque Hieronymus in libro de scrip¬ toribus Ecclesiasticis , scribit Dionysium Alexandrinum in sententiam Cypriani de re- baptizatione concessisse ; quod etiam indicat Eusebius lib. YII hist. cap. 4. et tamen con¬ stat eumdem Dionysium paulo post mutasse sententiam , nec fuisse ausum rebaptizare quemdam hominem, quem certo constabat ab haereticis baptizatum, ut idem refert Eu¬ sebius lib. VII hist. cap. 8. Quid, quod ipse etiam Augustinus in epistola 48. ad Vincen¬ tium suspicatur Cyprianum retractasse sen¬ tentiam suam? Itaque probabile est , etiam ante Nicamum Concilium , auctoritate sedis Apostolicse , quaestionem illam apud omnes Catholicos fuisse finitam. Sed etiamsi quaes¬ tio finita non fuisset usque ad Concilii ple¬ narii determinationem, ut Augustinus dicit, non tamen inde colligere oporteret, non po¬ tuisse finiri ; nam licet Apostolicae sedi coo- perantibus provincialibus Conciliis contro¬ versiam illam finiendi auctoritas non dees- set , maluerunt tamen sancti illi Pontifices differe in tempus aliud magis opportunum absolutam determinationem ejus quaestionis, quam tot magnos viros ab Ecclesia separa¬ re. Quia vero temporis opportunitas non an¬ te se obtulit, quam cum Nicaenum Concilium celebraretur ; idcirco Augustinus toties repe¬ tit, in Concilio plenario orbis terrae, quaes¬ tionem illam tandem esse finitam. At, inquies, Stephanus Papa, congregato Concilio quodam particulari , jussit non re¬ baptizari, et excommunicandos censuit eos, qui rebaptizarent , ut scribit Dionysius Ale¬ xandrinus , Eusebio teste lib. VII hist. cap, 4. et Augustinus lib. de unico Baptismo, c. 14. Igitur quaestionem Papa cum particulari suo Concilio finire voluit, nec potuit. Proin¬ de necessaria videntur omnino Concilia ge¬ neralia. Respondeo, ut lib. IV de Pontifice, cap .7. jam ante respondi, Stephanum quidem jus- sisse , ne ii rebaptizarentur , qui essent ab haereticis baptizati, ac censuisse etiam rebap- tizatores esse excommunicandos, non tamen re ipsa illos excommunicasse, id quod mani¬ feste colligitur ex multis antiquis auctoribus. Nam ipse in primis Cyprianus in epistola ad Pompeium non ait, Stephanum excommuni¬ casse , sed excommunicandos putasse , qui contra facerent : « Sacerdotes, inquit, Dei veritatem , Christi , et Ecclesiae unitatem tuentes abstinendos putat. » Et in epistola ad Jubajanum dicjt , se cum collegis suis con¬ trarium sentientibus pacem habere : quod certe non diceret, si aut ab illis ipse excom- municatus fuisset, aut ipse eos excommuni- casset : «Nos, inquit, quantum in nobis est, propter haereticos, cum collegis, et Coepis- copis nostris non contendimus, cum quibus divinam concordiam , et dominicam pacem tenemus. » Hieronymus in Dialogo contra Luciferia- nos de Cypriano sic loquitur : « In commu¬ nione eorum permansit , qui sententia; suae contraierant. » Augustinus lib. I de Baptis¬ mo, cap. 7. dicit magnos viros, et Ecclesia; Patres atque Episcopos, hoc est, Stephanum, et Cyprianum, salva pace, et charitate dis¬ sensisse. Pacianus epist. 2 ad Sympronia- num : «Cyprianus, inquit, in concordia om¬ nium , in pace communi , in confessorum grege passus est. » Vincentius Lirinensis in suo libello : «0 rerum, inquit, mira conver¬ sio, auctores ejusdem opinionis , Catholici ; consectatores vero,h£eretici judicantur. Ab¬ solvuntur magistri , condemnantur discipu¬ li, conscriptores librorum filii regni erunt; assertores vero gehenna suscipiet. Nam quis illud Sanctorum omnium, et Episcoporum, et Martyrum lumen beatissimum Cyprianum, cum caeteris collegis suis in aeternum dubi¬ tet regnaturum esse cum Christo ? aut quis contra tam sacrilegus, qui Donatistas et ca;- teras pestes , quae illius auctoritate Concilii rebaptizare se jactitant, in sempiternum ne¬ get arsuros esse cum Diabolo. »