Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book I
Chapter 13: The Adversaries’ Arguments Are Answered
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).
It remains to answer the arguments, from which the truth will be still more confirmed. The arguments of Calvin and the Magdeburgians are taken from the proclamations of the first general Councils, which were proclaimed by the Emperors, not by the Pontiffs. Of the first of Nicaea, Rufinus says, Book 10 of the history chapter 1: “Then Constantine convokes an Episcopal Council at the city of Nicaea.” That the first of Constantinople was proclaimed by Theodosius the elder, Theodoret testifies, Book 5 of the history chapter 9. That the first of Ephesus came together at the nod of Theodosius the younger, Evagrius testifies, Book 1 chapter 2 of the history. That Chalcedon was commanded by the Emperor Marcian, blessed Leo testifies, letter 43 and some others. That the Council of Sardica too was proclaimed by the Emperor Constantius, Theodoret testifies, Book 2 chapter 4.
This argument is confirmed by Nilus, by the testimony of Saint Leo I. For he, in letter 42 to Theodosius Augustus, supplicates the Emperor to command a provincial Council to be convoked within Italy. The same argument the Magdeburgians confirm by the testimony of Pope Liberius, who in Theodoret, Book 2 chapter 16, granted that it is in the Emperor's power to convoke Councils. And Charles Molinaeus confirms it again, in his counsel on not receiving the decrees of the Council of Trent, § 6, by the testimony of Saint Jerome, Book 2 of the Apology against Rufinus, where, speaking of a certain Synod, Jerome says: “Tell me, what Emperor commanded this Synod to be convoked?” Let us add a fourth confirmation, from this, that Christian Emperors began to be, and general Councils to be gathered, at the same time; for if they can be celebrated without Emperors, why in the first three hundred years were none celebrated?
To these I answer, first, that these arguments can deservedly be despised by us; for our adversaries will not have efficacious arguments drawn from the traditions or custom of the Church, but only from the divine letters; but all these arguments are drawn from mere tradition and Ecclesiastical practice, without any testimony of Scripture. Secondly I say that we can oppose custom to custom; for if the Emperors proclaimed four or five Councils, the Pontiffs proclaimed more than twelve, as the adversaries too confess. Thirdly I say that there is no Catholic general Council proclaimed by the Emperor alone, that is, without the consent and authority of the Roman Pontiff; which I briefly show of those five one by one.
And first, of the first of Nicaea, we read in the sixth Synod, act 18, that Constantine and Sylvester gathered the great Synod at Nicaea. Damasus too, in the Pontifical, writes that the Council was held at Nicaea with the consent of Sylvester. And Rufinus, Book 10 of the history chapter 1, says that Constantine proclaimed the Council by the opinion of the priests. From which we not only have what we will, but also gather in passing that it is false which Pighius says, Book 6 chapter 1 on the Ecclesiastical hierarchy, that the convocation of general Councils was the invention of the great Constantine; for he did not himself devise this of himself, but followed the opinion of the priests.
Of the first of Constantinople, Theodoret relates that Theodosius did not so much proclaim it as send to the Bishops the letters of Pope Damasus, by which the Council was proclaimed. For thus write the Bishops gathered in that Council to Pope Damasus, in Theodoret, Book 5 of the history chapter 9: “By the command of the letters last year sent by your reverence to the most holy Emperor Theodosius, we prepared ourselves for the journey only as far as Constantinople.” Although, therefore, Theodosius had proclaimed the Council, yet he proclaimed it by the command of the Apostolic letters. Wherefore in the sixth Synod, act 18, the Fathers say that Theodosius and Damasus withstood Macedonius through the second Synod, just as a little before they had said that Constantine and Sylvester gathered the first Synod to withstand Arius.
Of the first of Ephesus, Prosper in the Chronicle indicates that the Synod of Ephesus was held by the industry of Cyril and the authority of Celestine. It is established also from Evagrius, Book 1 chapter 4, and from the letter of Celestine to Cyril, which is had among the works of Cyril, and from Photius in his book on the seven Synods, that Cyril went to the Council as legate of the Apostolic See — which is a certain argument that that Synod was not gathered without the consent of the Pontiff.
Of Chalcedon it is plain from the letter of the Emperor Marcian to Pope Leo, which is had before the Council of Chalcedon; in which the Emperor, about to proclaim the Council, asks the Pontiff either to come himself and hold the Council, or, if he will not come, to signify by letters what he wishes to be done; and at the end he concludes that he will write to all the Bishops that they come together to a certain place: “And the things which,” he says, “profit the religion of Christians and the Catholic faith, as thy holiness has defined according to the Ecclesiastical rules, let them declare by their own disposition.” There is extant also, among the letters pertaining to the Council of Chalcedon, a certain letter of the Bishops of the second Moesia to the Emperor Leo, where they say thus: “In the city of Chalcedon many holy Bishops came together by the command of Leo the Roman Pontiff, who truly is the head of the Bishops.” Finally Gelasius, in his letter to the Bishops of Dardania, says that the Apostolic See alone decreed by its authority that the Synod of Chalcedon should be held. Where the slip of the Magdeburgians is to be noted, who, Century 5 chapter 7 column 786, not understanding what that word alone excluded, thought the Emperor was excluded, and therefore vociferate that Gelasius lied impudently. But Gelasius by alone does not exclude the Emperor, but the other Episcopal sees. For not the Alexandrian, nor the Antiochene, nor the Jerusalemite, nor even the Constantinopolitan see, but the Roman see alone willed that Synod to be held, and in fact brought it about — though not without the aid of the pious Emperor Marcian.
Of the Council of Sardica, that it was proclaimed by Pope Julius can be understood from Socrates, Book 2 chapter 16, where he says that the Eastern Bishops laid the blame of their absence from the Council of Sardica upon Julius, Bishop of Rome, because too narrow a time had been prescribed. From which it appears that the Council was proclaimed not by the Emperor alone, but also by Pope Julius, and by him chiefly.
We have, then, that those first Councils were proclaimed by the Emperors, but by the opinion and consent of the Pontiffs. But why the Pontiff did not then proclaim them alone, as was afterward done, the reason was not that a Council gathered without the authority of the Emperor would not be ratified among Christians, as the adversaries dream — since Athanasius openly says, in his letter to those leading the solitary life: “When ever did a judgment of the Church have its authority from the Emperor?” — but because of many other most just causes. Of which the first was that then that ancient Imperial law still flourished which forbade all colleges and frequent assemblies of men without the Emperor's authority, because the Emperors feared lest some sedition should arise. See the first law, in the Digest, on unlawful colleges, and the law Conventicula, in the Code, on Bishops and Clerics. The second, because even if that law had not been, since the Emperors at that time ruled the world in great peace, a Council could not be held except in some Imperial city; and no reason allows that in some place an assembly out of the whole world be held without the leave of the lord of that place — just as even now, if a Council were held not in the Pontiff's lands but in France, Spain, or Germany, without doubt the consent would be asked of him whose that city or province is. The third, because at that time general Councils were held at public expense, especially as regards the transporting of the Bishops to the place of the Council; for they were carried on the horses or vehicles of the cities, without cost to the Churches, as is established from Book 3 on the life of Constantine, where Eusebius also adds that through the whole time of the Council all the Bishops lived at the Emperor's expense. The same is plain from Theodoret, Book 2 chapter 16, where, when Liberius asked a general Council, someone answered that the public revenue did not suffice for the transport of the Bishops. Likewise from the letter of Constantine IV to the Roman Pontiff, which is had at the beginning of the sixth Synod, the same is plain. The fourth reason is that at that time the Pontiff, although in spiritual things he was the head of all, even of the Emperors, yet in temporal things subjected himself to the Emperors, and therefore could do nothing against the Emperor's will; and since he had only to ask of the Emperor aid to convoke a Synod, or that he permit a Synod to be convoked, yet because he in fact acknowledged him as his temporal lord, he supplicated that he would command a Synod to be convoked. But after those times all these causes were changed; for neither does that law now flourish, nor do the Emperors rule the whole world, nor are Councils held at public expense, nor are there Gentiles who can hinder; and the Pontiff, who is the head in spiritual things, is not subject in temporal things, since he too in his own provinces is a supreme temporal Prince, as are Kings and other Princes — which was done by divine providence, that the Pontiff might freely execute his office.
To the first confirmation from Nilus, whose book Illyricus translated into the Latin tongue, I answer that there are two frauds in that testimony of Saint Leo which they bring forward: one of Nilus, the other of Illyricus. For Saint Leo, in letters 24 and 25 to Theodosius, in express words asks a general Council: “Command a general Synod to be celebrated within Italy.” But Nilus, reporting this sentence in Greek, for general put [idikēn], that is, proper or special, when he ought to have said [oikoumenikēn]. And because that word of Nilus, [idikēn], could have been expounded in a good sense, so as to signify a special Synod, that is, one gathered for a special cause, Illyricus, to remove all ambiguity, rendered that [idikēn] of Nilus provincial, that we might necessarily be forced to understand that Saint Leo asked of the Emperor not a general but a particular Synod. But this fraud is refuted, both from the words of Leo already cited, and also from the letter of Valentinian to the same Theodosius, which is had among the preambles to the Council of Chalcedon, where Valentinian, speaking of the same Council, says that Saint Leo wished the Bishops from the whole world to come together within Italy. Finally, that very letter of Leo to Theodosius, in which the Council within Italy is asked, was written in the name of a provincial Synod already convoked at Rome; for so runs the inscription: “Leo the Bishop, and the holy Synod which has come together in the city of Rome, to Theodosius ever Augustus.” If, then, Leo had already convoked a provincial Synod within Italy, why would that be asked of the Emperor? But why he asked a general Synod of the Emperor has already been said.
To the second confirmation I say that the Magdeburgians lie when they say that Liberius granted the Emperor the power of convoking a Synod — that is, acknowledged that power to be proper to the Emperor, as they understand it. For in that whole Dialogue of Liberius with the Emperor, no mention is made of this question, whose it is to convoke a Synod; but Liberius only asks of the Emperor — most powerful, and an Arian, and accordingly hostile to him — that a Synod be held, because he knew it could not be held against the Emperor's will.
To the third confirmation I say that Jerome says that because in fact then, for the causes mentioned, the Emperors convoked Synods, though not without the consent of the Pontiffs.
To the fourth confirmation I say that before Constantine no general Councils were held, not because authority was lacking, but because opportunity was lacking; for it was not lawful for the Christians to come together from many provinces into one place, because of the assiduous persecutions, as Isidore noted, Book 6 of the Etymologies chapter 16.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII. . s Solvuntur argumenta adversariorum. Superest argumenta solvere , ex quibus etiam magis confirmabitur veritas. Argu¬ menta Calvini, et Magdeburgensium sumun¬ tur ex indictionibus primorum generalium Conciliorum, quae ab Imperatoribus, non a Pontificibus indicta fuere. De Nicaeno I ait Ruffinus lib. X hist. cap. 1. : « Tum Cons¬ tantinus apud urbem Nicaenam Episcopale Concilium convocat.» Constantinopolitanum I testatur Theodoretus lib. V histor. cap. 9. a Theodosio Seniore indictum fuisse. Ephe- sinum I testatur Evagrius lib. I, cap. 2. hist. nutu Theodosii junioris convenisse. Chalce- donense, testatur B. Leo epist. 43. et aliis nonnullis, a Martiano Imperatore impera¬ tum. Sardicense quoque ab Imperatore Constantio indictum, testatur Theodoretus lib. II, cap. 4. Confirmatur hoc argumentum a Nilo tes¬ timonio S. Leonis I. Is enim in epist. 42. ad Theodosium Augustum supplicat Imperatori, ut jubeat intraltaliam provinciale convocari Concilium. Confirmant idem argumentum Magdeburgenses testimonio Liberii Papae, qui apud T^ieodoretum lib. II, cap. 16. con¬ cessit, in Imperatoris potestate esse convo¬ care Concilia. Confirmat rursum Carolus Molinseus in consilio de non recipiendis de¬ cretis Concilii Tridentini, §. 6. testimonio S. Hieronymi lib. II Apologiae contra Ruffi- num, ubi loquens de Synodo quadam, sic Hieronymus ait : «Dic, quis Imperator hanc Synodum jusserit convocari? » Addamus quartam confirmationem, ex eo, quod simul coeperunt esse Imperatores Christiani, et cogi generalia Concilia ; si enim absque Im¬ peratoribus celebrari possunt, cur primis trecentis annis nulla celebrata fuerunt? Ad haec respondeo primo, ista argumenta posse a nobis merito contemni, nam adver¬ sarii nostri nolunt argumenta peti efficacia ex traditionibus, aut consuetudine Ecclesiae sed solum ex divinis litteris; ista autem ar¬ gumenta omnia petita sunt ex mera tradi¬ tione, et praxi Ecclesiastica sine ullo Scrip¬ turae testimonio. Secundo dico, posse nos op¬ ponere consuetudinem consuetudini ; si enim quatuor aut quinque Concilia Impera¬ tores indixerunt, plura quam duodecim in¬ dixerunt Pontifices, ut adversarii etiam fa¬ tentur. Tertio dico, nullum esse Concilium generale Catholicum a solo Imperatore in¬ dictum, id est, sine consensu, et auctoritate Romani Pontificis ; id quod breviter de illis quinque singillatim ostendo. Ac primum de Nicaeno I legimus in sexta Synodo, act. 18. Constantinum, et Sylves- trum magnam Synodum apud Nicaeam con¬ gregasse. Damasus quoque in Pontificali scribit, cum Sylvestri consensu habitum esse in Nicaea Concilium. Et Ruffinus lib^Xhist. cap. 1. dicit Constantinum ex sententia sa¬ cerdotum Concilium indixisse. Ex quibus non solum habemus quod volumus, sed etiam obiter colligimus falsum esse, quod ait Pi- ghius lib. YI, cap. 1. de Ecclesiastica hie- rarchia, Conciliorum generalium convoca¬ tionem esse inventum magni Constantini; non enim lioc ipse per se excogitavit, sed sacerdotum sententiam secutus est. De Constantinopolitano I Theodoretus re¬ fert, Theodosium non tam illud indixisse, quam litteras Pontificis Damasi, quibus Con¬ cilium indicebatur, ad Episcopos misisse. Sio enim scribuntEpiscopi congregati in illo Concilio ad Damasum Pontificem apudTheo- doretum lib. Y hist. cap, 9. : «Mandato, inquiunt, litterarum superiore anno a vestra reverentia ad sanctissimum Imperatorem Theodosium missarum , ad iter duntaxat Constantinopolim usque faciendum nos prae¬ paravimus. » Licet ergo Theodosius indixerat Conci¬ lium, tamen indixit ex mandato Apostolica- rum litterarum. Quare in YI Synodo act.18. Patres dicunt, Theodosium et Damasum obstitisse Macedonio per secundam Syno¬ dum, sicut paulo ante dixerat, Constantinum et Sylvestrum coegisse primam Synodum ut obsisterent Ario. De Ephesino I, Prosper in Chronico indi¬ cat Synodum Ephesinam factam esse Cyrilli industria, et Coelestini auctoritate. Constat etiam ex Evagrio lib. I, cap. 4. et ex epis¬ tola Coelestini ad Cyrillum, quee habetur in¬ ter opera Cyrilli, et e.%, Pliotio in lib. de sep¬ tem Synodis, Cyrillum profectum esse ad Concilium tanquam legatum Apostolicse se¬ dis, quod est argumentum certum eam Sy¬ nodum non sine consensu Pontificis coactam esse. De Chalcedonensi patet ex epist. Martiani Imperatoris ad Leonem Papam, quae habe¬ tur ante Concilium Chalcedon ense : in qua Imperator indicturus Concilium, rogat Pon- tificeqi, ut ipse veniat, et Concilium faciat, vel si nolit venire, per litteras significet, quid agi velit : et in fine concludit, se scrip¬ turum ad omnes Episcopos, ut ad certum locum conveniant; « Et quee Christianorum, inquit, religioni, atque Catholicae fidei pro¬ sint, sicut sanctitas tua secundum Ecclesias¬ ticas regulas definivit, sua dispositione de¬ clarent. i) Exstat etiam inter epistolas ad Chalcedonense Concilium pertinentes, quae¬ dam epist: Episcoporum secundae Mesiae ad Leonem Imperatorem, ubi sic aiunt : « In Chalcedonensium civitate multi sancti Epis¬ copi convenerunt per jussionem Leonis Ro¬ mani Pontificis, qui vere caput est Episco¬ porum. » Denique Gelasius in epistola ad Episcopos Dardaniae, dicit, solam Apostolicam sedem, ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret, sua auc¬ toritate decrevisse. Ubi Magdeburgensium lapsus notandus est, qui Centur. V, cap. 7, coi. 786. non intelligentes quid illud (soja) excluderet , putaverunt excludi Imperato¬ rem, et ideo vociferantur Gelasium esse im¬ pudenter mentitum. Sed Gelasius per (sola) non excludit Imperatorem, sed alias sedes Episcopales. Non enim sedes Alexandrina, vel Antiochena, vel Hierosolymitana, aut etiam Constantinopolitana, sed sola Romana sedes eam Synodum fieri voluit, et re ipsa effecit, quamquam non sine ope pii Impera¬ toris Martiani. De Sardicensi Concilio, quod a Julio Papa indictum fuerit, potest intelligi ex Socrate lib. II, cap. 16. ubi dicit, Orientales Episco¬ pos culpam absentiae suae a Sardicensi Con¬ cilio in Julium Episcopum Romanum con¬ tulisse, eo quod nimis angustum tempus praescriptum esset. Ex quo apparet, non ab Imperatore solo, sed etiam a Julio Ponti¬ fice, et ab eo potissimum Concilium indic¬ tum. Habemus ergo prima illa Concilia ab Im¬ peratoribus indicta fuisse, sed ex Pontificum sententia, et consensu. Cur autem tunc non solus Pontifex indixerit, ut postea factum est, ratio non erat, quia sine auctoritate Im¬ peratoris Concilium coactum, non esset fu¬ turum ratum apud Christianos, ut somniant adversarii, cum aperte dicat Athanasius in epistola ad solitariam vitam agentes : « Quando unquam judicium Ecclesiae ab Im¬ peratore auctoritatem habuit?;) Sed propter multas alias justissimas causas ; quarum pri¬ ma erat, quia tunc adhuc vigebat lex illa Imperialis antiqua, quae prohibebat omnia collegia, et frequentes hominum conventus sine Imperatoris auctoritate, eo quod metue¬ rent Imperatores, ne seditio aliqua fieret. Vide 1. 1, ff. de collegiis illicitis, etl. con¬ venticula, C. de Episcopis, et Clericis. Secunda, quia etiamsi lex illa non fuisset, cum Imperatores eo tempore in magna pace orbis terrae imperarent, non poterat fleri Concilium nisi in aliqua urbe Imperiali, nul¬ la autem ratio sinit, ut in aliquo Joco ex toto orbe conventus fiat sine licentia Domini il¬ lius loci, sicut etiam modo, si Concilium non fieret in terris Pontificis, sed in Gallia, LIBEH I. Hispania, vel Germania, sine dubio petere¬ tur consensus ejus, cujus est illa civitas, vel provincia. Tertia, quia eo tempore Concilia genera¬ lia fiebant sumptibus publicis, prasertim quoad transvectiones Episcoporum ad locum Concilii ; vehebantur enim equis, aut vehi¬ culis civitatum, sine dispendio Ecclesiarum, u? constat ex lib. III de vita Constantini. Ubi etiam Eusebius addit, toto tempore Con¬ cilii Imperatoris sumptibus omnes Episcopos vixisse. Idem etiam patet exTbeodoreto lib. II, cap. 16. ubi cum Liberius peteret gene¬ rale Concilium, respondit quidam, non suf¬ ficere censum publicum subvectioni Episco¬ porum. Item ex epist. Constantini 1Y ad Pontificem Romanum, quse habetur initio sextae Synodi, idem patet. Quarta ratio est, quia eo tempore Ponti¬ fex etsi in spiritualibus esset caput omnium etiam Imperatorum , tamen in temporalibus subjiciebat se Imperatoribus, et ideo non po¬ terat invito Imperatore aliquid agere ; et cum tantum debuisset petere ab Imperatore auxilium ad convocandum Synodum, vel ut permitteret Synodum convocari, tamen quia Dominum suum temporalem eum de lacto agnoscebat, supplicabat, ut juberet convo¬ cari Synodum. At post illa tempora istse om¬ nes causse mutatae sunt, nam nec illa lex nunc viget, nec Imperatores in toto orbe do¬ minantur, nec sumptibus publicis fiunt Con¬ cilia, nec sunt Gentiles, qui impedire pos¬ sint, et Pontifex, qui est caput in spirituali¬ bus, non est subjectus in temporalibus, cum etiam ipse in suis provinciis sit Princeps su¬ premus temporalis, sicut sunt Reges etPrin- cipes alii, id quod divina providentia factum est, ut Pontifex libere munus suum exequi possit. Ad primam confirmationem ex Nilo, cujos librum in Latinam linguam Illyricus vertit, respondeo, duas fraudes in eo testimonio S. Leonis, quod ipsi proferunt, inesse ; unam Nili, alteram Illyrici. Nam S. Leo in epist. •24. et 25. ad Theodosium disertis verbis pe¬ tit generale Concilium: «.Generalem, inquit, Synodum jubeatis intra Italiam celebrari. » Nilus autem hanc sententiam Graece refe¬ rens, pro generalem posuit «hx/iv, id est, pro¬ priam seu specialem, cum dicere debuisset oi/. ougevixyjv. Et quia verbum illud Nili iStxvjv potuisset in bonum sensum exponi, ut signi¬ ficaret Synodum specialem, id est, speciali de causa congregatam, Illyricus ad tollen¬ dam omnem ambiguitatem, illud Nili to txvjv vertit provincialem , ut necessario cogeremur intelligere Synodum non generalem, sed particularem a S. Leone postulatam ab Im¬ peratore. At refellitur ista fraus, tum ex verbis Leo¬ nis jam citatis, tum etiam ex epistola Valen¬ tiniani ad eumdem Theodosium, qua; habe¬ tur inter preeambulas ad Concilium Chalce- donense, ubi Valentinianus de eodem Con¬ cilio loquens dicit, S. Leonem voluisse intra Italiam ex toto orie Episcopos convenire. Denique illa ipsa epistola Leonis ad Theodo¬ sium, qua Concilium intra Italiam postula¬ tur, nomine Synodi provincialis Romae jam convocatae scripta est ; sic enim habet ins¬ criptio : « Leo Episcopus, et Sancta Syno¬ dus, quae in urbe Roma convenit Theodosio semper Augusto. » Si ergo Leo Synodum provincialem jam intra Italiam convocave¬ rat, cur id ab Imperatore postularetur ? Cur autem generalem Synodum ab Imperatore peteret, jam dictum est. Ad alteram confirmationem dico, mentiri Magdeburgenses, cum dicunt, Liberium con¬ cessisse Imperatori potestatem convocandi Synodum, id est, agnovisse illam potestatem propriam esse Imperatoris, ut ipsi intelli- gunt. Nam in toto illo Dialogo Liberii cum Imperatore, nulla mentio fit hujus quaestio¬ nis : cujus sit convocare Synodum; sed tan¬ tum Liberius petit ab Imperatore potentissi¬ me, et Ariano, ac proinde sibi infesto, ut fieret Synodus, quia sciebat invito Impera¬ tore fieri non posse. Ad tertiam confirmationem dico, Hiero¬ nymum illud dicere, quia revera tunc ob causas dictas Imperatores Synodos convo¬ cabant , licet non sine consensu Pontifi¬ cum. Ad quartam confirmationem dico, ante Constantinum non esse facta ulla generalia Concilia, non quia deesset auctoritas, sed quia deerat opportunitas ; nec enim Christia¬ nis licebat ex multis provinciis in unum lo¬ cum convenire propter assiduas persecutio¬ nes, ut adnotavit Isidorus lib. VI Etymolog. cap* 16.