Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book I
Chapter 15: Who Are to Be Convoked to a Council
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).
We have hitherto discoursed of the final and efficient cause of Councils; now we must discourse of those things of which Councils chiefly consist, since they can be called as it were the matter. And at the outset two things are to be noted. One is that the whole Church is contained under four kinds of men: for some are clerics, some laymen; and again of the clerics some are prelates, some not prelates; likewise of the laymen some are princes, some private persons. This distinction, although in part it is not received by the heretics of this time, yet in part is received even by them; for they too confess that there are certain fixed men dedicated to the ministry of the Word, to whom by office it belongs to teach and feed the people, whom they call ministers; and again among them some greater, whom they call superintendents, some lesser, whom they call only ministers.
The other is that men can be present at Councils for many causes: for some are present as judges, who are said to have a decisive vote; some to examine difficulties by disputing, who are said to have a consultative vote; some to minister, such as notaries, guards, and others; some to defend the Council and to give diligence that within and without all be peaceable. The question, then, is which of those four kinds of men are to be called to a Council, and for what cause.
Our adversaries say two things. First, that of every kind of men those ought to be present who are learned, and that all ought to be judges and to have a decisive vote, whatever be of the other offices. So expressly writes Luther, in his book on Councils, part 2, page 264, where he will have about 300 men learned in sacred Scripture gathered from all places. The same write the Protestants in that book which they entitled The cause why the Electors and the rest devoted to the Augsburg Confession do not come to the Council of Trent. For after they had said that the first cause was that the Council had been proclaimed by the Pontiff, they set a second cause, because in it none had a vote but Cardinals, Bishops, Abbots, and Generals of orders, whereas all learned men, even laymen, ought to have had a decisive vote. The very same teaches Charles Molinaeus in his counsel on not receiving the Council of Trent, § 28. The same the Magdeburgians, Century 1, Book 2, chapter 9, column 548, where they explain the history of the Council of the Apostles, of which Acts 15, and say that in that Council, after the opinions were spoken, votes were cast by the whole Church, and by the judgment of all it was defined that a man is justified by faith alone without works.
Secondly they say that a Council of the Church consists of none but the truly pious and elect; which Brentius openly teaches in the Confession of Wittenberg, in the chapter on Councils, where, after he had said that Councils ought to yield to the Scriptures, he gives the reason, because of the Scriptures we are certain which they are, and that they are of infallible truth; but of Councils not so, because not any assembly of men is the true Church, since not of all is the faith, nor are all elect. The same too are the Confessionists and Calvinists bound to say, who, as we will see below, will have only the elect and holy to pertain to the Church; and certainly a Council of the Church consists of none but men of the Church.
But the opinion of the Catholics is that the greater Prelates alone, and all of them — that is, the Bishops — have ordinarily in general and provincial Councils the right of a decisive vote; but by privilege and custom, also the Cardinals, Abbots, and Generals of orders, though they be not Bishops; but of the Presbyters and other lesser Clerics only some learned men are called, who may help in disputing or in other ministries; and that Princes are called, both to defend the Council, and to be witnesses and privy to the decrees of the Council, and afterward to punish transgressors and the contumacious with corporal penalties; and finally, that of the private Laity only some are called who seem useful or necessary for some ministry of the Council. That this is the opinion of the Catholics is plain, both from the persons who were present at the Council of Trent, and from John of Torquemada, Book 3 chapters 12 and 15, and other Catholic Authors.
Now let us come to the proof of our opinion and the refutation of the contrary. And first, that latter opinion needs no refutation, both because it is to be refuted in the question on the definition of the Church, and also because it is so false that it destroys itself; for in saying that a Council consists of the elect and holy, it affirms that there is some Council, and that there is no Council. For it supposes that there is a Council, while it explains of what men it consists; nay, Brentius so presupposes that there is one, that he says the authority of Councils is great; and yet, when he says that it consists of the elect, he is forced to say that there is no Council. For to make a Council is for men to be joined among themselves and to come together into one; but the elect in this world cannot be joined among themselves, since no one knows who are the elect. And if some of the adversaries do not require election in the true members of the Church, yet they require inward faith and piety, and accordingly they can never show any Council which can certainly be called a Christian Council, since no one sees the inward faith and piety in others.
But the former opinion is now to be refuted. And first, by a reason drawn from holy Scripture. To define in Councils the things which are to be believed or done is the proper office of pastors; for that is properly to feed; for it is to teach, and to teach in such a way that others are bound to believe. And that to teach is to feed is plain, Jeremiah 3: I will give you pastors according to my own heart, and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine. Likewise Ephesians 4: And others pastors and doctors. Where Jerome on this place, and Augustine letter 59 to Paulinus, note that the name of pastor is joined with the name of doctor, because it is proper to pastors to teach. But laymen are not pastors, nor any Ecclesiastics whatever, but the Bishops alone; for so we read, Acts 20: Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops to rule the Church of God. And John last chapter, it is said to Peter: Feed my sheep.
But if anyone should contend that all Christians are Bishops, and that what was said to Peter was said to all Christians, he will have to demonstrate who those are who in the Church are called sheep. For if all are Pastors, where are the sheep? But if some are Pastors, that is, Bishops, and some sheep, that is, Laymen, and only the Pastors ought to come together in Councils to define what are good pastures and what harmful, certainly it follows that Councils belong not to the Laity but to the Priests. Add that Philip in the Common Places, chapter on the number of Sacraments, and Calvin Book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 § 20, set the ordination of Pastors, who are dedicated to feeding, that is, teaching the people, among the Sacraments of the Church. And Calvin openly says that this Sacrament is not common to the whole Church, but only to certain persons who are initiated by it. And so by their own confession, Laymen not ordained are not pastors, but sheep only; therefore it does not befit them to teach, especially with that authority which is used in Councils.
It is proved, secondly, by the testimonies of the ancients. The first Councils celebrated in the Church were in the time of Pope Victor, on the question of Easter; of which Eusebius speaks thus, Book 5 of the history chapter 23: “For which cause,” he says, “assemblies of Bishops and Councils are convoked through each several province.” Thus he — who says that Councils were gathered not of any learned men, but of Bishops. The same teach Cyprian at the beginning of his letter to Jubaianus, Hilary in his book on Synods, Ambrose letter 32, Jerome Book 2 of the Apology against Rufinus, Augustine letter 119, Leo letter 16 and following, Rufinus Book 10 of the history chapter 1, Athanasius in his letter to those leading the solitary life, and other Fathers, who everywhere assert that Councils belong to the Bishops. Moreover Theodosius the younger, in his letter to the Synod of Ephesus, which is extant in the first volume of that Council chapter 32: “It is unlawful,” he says, “for one who is not in the order of the most holy Bishops to mingle in Ecclesiastical discussions.” Pulcheria too the Empress, in her letter to the Prefect of Bithynia, which is had before the Council of Chalcedon, commanded that Clerics, Monks, and Laymen should even by force be repelled from the Council, except those few whom the Bishops had brought with them. In the Council of Chalcedon, act 1, when it was sent to Martin the Archimandrite to subscribe, he answered that it was not his, but the Bishops' only, to subscribe. And in the same Council, when for Dioscorus Monks and Laymen had entered, the Fathers often cried out: “Send out the superfluous ones; it is a Council of Bishops.”
Thirdly, it is proved from the Councils hitherto celebrated; for that the decrees of all Councils were made by the Bishops alone is plain from the subscriptions, for everywhere the Bishops alone are found to have subscribed, except a few general ones to which the Emperor too subscribed, but in a different form than the Bishops. For the Bishops subscribed by defining, as judges; the Emperors by consenting; and to some very few, as Florence, the Lateran, and Trent, Abbots and Generals of Orders subscribed. The rest, though they were most excellent and most learned, were never admitted except to consult — except the Council of Basel, where Presbyters were admitted to a decisive vote, but wrongly and against the custom of all antiquity; nor was that Council legitimate, as we said above.
Fourthly, it is proved by reasons. For, first, Ecclesiastical and public affairs are to be treated by Ecclesiastical and public persons, as is known; but such are the Bishops alone. Next, if all learned men ought to be admitted, either there would never be general Councils, because scarcely could all the learned of the whole Church be convoked; or, if at last they were gathered, it would be impossible to govern such a Council, because of the excessive multitude. Moreover then without doubt there would be more inferiors in the Council than superiors; and accordingly the greater opinion would truly overcome the better, and in the Church the superiors would be ruled by the inferiors, not the contrary — which is most absurd. Likewise, if it were so, then one Prince, in whose region the Council is held, could easily define whatever he wished; for he could most easily gather all the Presbyters and learned men of his province, and introduce into the Council what other Princes, who were far off, could not. Finally, there is no Commonwealth which, natural reason teaching, does not have some order in its assemblies, so that not any of the common people, but only the Princes and heads of the rest, have place and vote.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XV. Quinam sint ad Concilium convocandi. Disseruimus hactenus de causa finali, et efficiente Conciliorum ; nunc de his, ex qui¬ bus Concilia praecipue constant, quia quasi materia dici possunt, disserendum est. Sunt autem initio annotanda duo. Unum est, Ec¬ clesiam universam quatuor contineri homi¬ num generibus :sunt enim aliqui clerici, ali¬ qui laici, et rursum ex clericis, alii praelati, alii non praelati, item ex laicis alii principes, alii privati. Haec distinctio, tametsi ex parte ab haereticis hujus temporis non recipiatur, tamen ex parte etiaih recipitur; nam illi etiam fatentur esse quosdam certos homines dedicatos ministerio Yerbi, quibus ex officio convenit docere, et pascere populum, quos ipsi ministros vocant, et rursum inter eos alios esse majores, quos vocant superinten¬ dentes, alios minores, quos tantum minis¬ tros appellant. Alterum est, in Conciliis multis de causis aliquos interesse posse : alii enim intersunt, ut judices, qui dicuntur habere suffragium decisivum, alii ut disputando examinent dif¬ ficultates , qui dicuntur habere suffragium consultivum : alii ut ministrent, quales sunt notarii, custodes, et alii, ut defendant Con¬ cilium, et dent operam, ut intus et extra omnia sint pacata. Quaestio igitur est, qui sint ex illis quatuor hominum generibus vo¬ candi ad Concilium, et qua de causa. Adversarii nostri duo dicunt. Primum, ex omni genere hominum debere interesse eos, qui eruditi sunt, et omnes debere esse judi¬ ces, atque habere suffragium decisivum, quidquid sit de aliis muneribus. Ita diserte scribit Lutberus in lib. de Conciliis par. II, pag. 264. ubi vult ex omnibus locis debere congregari ad 300 homines doctos in sacra Scriptura. Idem scribunt Protestantes in eo libro, quem inscripserunt : Causa cur Elee- tores, et caeteri Confessioni Augustanae ad¬ dicti, ad Concilium Tridentinum non acce¬ dant. Postquam enim dixerant, primam causam esse, quia Concilium fuerat indictum a Pontifice, ponunt secundam causam, quia in eo non habuerant suffragium nisi Cardi¬ nales, Episcopi, Abbates, et Generales ordi¬ num, cum debuissent omnes viri docti etiam laici suffragium habere decisivum. Idem prorsus docet Carolus Molina3us in suo con¬ silio de Concil. Trident. non recipiendo, §. 28. Idem Magdeburgenses Cent. I, lib. II, cap. 9, coi. 548. ubi explicant historiam Concilii Apostolorum, de quo Act. XV, et dicunt in eo Concilio, postquam dictae sunt sententiee, a tota Ecclesia collata fuisse suf¬ fragia, et omnium judicio definitum, homi¬ nem justificari sola fide sine operibus. Secundo dicunt, Concilium Ecclesiae non constare nisi ex vere piis et electis, id quod apert edocet Brentius in Confessione Wit- tembergensi, capite de Conciliis, ubi post¬ quam dixerat Concilia debere cedere Scriptu¬ lis, reddit rationem, quia de Scripturis certi sumus, quamam sint, et quod sint infallibilis • veritatis; at de Conciliis non item, quia non quilibet coetus hominum est vera Ecclesia, cum non omnium sit fides, neque omnes sint electi. Idem etiam tenentur dicere Con- fessionistse et Calvinistse, qui, ut infra vide¬ bimus, solos electos et sanctos ad Ecclesiam pertinere volunt, et certe Concilium Eccle¬ siae nonnisi ex hominibus Ecclesiae cons¬ tat. At Catholicorum sententia est, solos Prae¬ latos majores eosque omnes, id est, Episco¬ pos in Conciliis generalibus et provincialibus habere jus suffragii decisivi ordinarie, ex privilegio autem et consuetudine, etiam Car¬ dinales, Abbates, et Generales ordinum, li¬ cet Episcopi non sint ; ex Presbyteris autem et aliis Clericis minoribus tantum vocari ali¬ quos viros doctos, qui juvent in disputando, vel aliis ministeriis; Principes autem vocari, tum ut Concilium defendant, tum ut testes et conscii decretorum Concilii, postea trans¬ gressores et contumaces poenis corporalibus puniant. Denique, ex privatis Laicis tantum vocari aliquos, qui videantur utiles, vel ne¬ cessarii ad aliquod ministerium Concilii. Hanc sententiam esse Catholicorum, patet, tum ex personis, quae interfuerunt Concilio Tridentino, tum ex Joanne de Turrecremata lib. III, cap. 12 et 15. et aliis catholicis Auc¬ toribus. Nunc ad probationem accedamus senten¬ tiae nostrae et refutationem contrariae. Ac primum sententia illa posterior non eget re¬ futatione, tum quod refutanda sit in quaes¬ tione de Ecclesiae definitione, tum etiam, quod tam falsa sit , ut seipsam destruat ; nam quod dicit, Concilium constare ex elec¬ tis et sanctis, affirmat aliquod esse Conci¬ lium, et nullum esse Concilium ; nam ponit esse Concilium, dum explicat, ex quibus ho¬ minibus constet; imo Brentius adeo prae- supponit esse, ut dicat, magnam esse aucto¬ ritatem Conciliorum; et tamen cum dicit ex electis constare, cogitur dicere, nullum esse Concilium. Concilium enim facere, est ho¬ mines inter se conjungi et coire in unum, electi autem in hoc mundo non possunt in¬ ter se conjungi, cum nemo sciat, quinam sint electi. Quod si qui adversariorum non requirunt in veris Ecclesiae membris electio¬ nem, requirunt tamen internam fidem ac pietatem, ac proinde non poterunt unquam ostendere ullum Concilium, quod certo dici possit Christianum Concilium, cum internam fidem ac pietatem in aliis nemo videat. Prior autem sententia refellenda nunc est, ac primo, ratione desumpta ex Scriptura sancta. Definire in Conciliis ea, quae sunt credenda, vel agenda, proprium est munus pastorum ; id enim proprie est pascere ; est enim docere, et docere ita, ut teneantur alii credere. Porro docere, esse pascere, patet Hierem. III : Dabo vobis pastores secundum cor meum , et pascent vos scientia , et doctrina. Item ad Ephes . IY : A lios autem pastores et doctores (1). Ubi notat Hieronymus in hunc locum, et Augustinus epist. 59. ad Pauli- num, conjunctum esse nomen pastoris cum nomine doctoris, quia proprium est pasto¬ rum docere. At non sunt pastores laici, nec Ecclesiastici quicumque, sed soli Episcopi ; sic enim legimus Actor. XX : Attendite vobis et universo gregi, in quo vos Spiritus sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ecclesiam Dei. Et Joannis ultimo Petro dicitur : Pasce oves meas (2). Si quis autem contendat, omnes Christia¬ nos esse Episcopos, et quod dictum est Pe¬ tro, omnibus Christianis esse dictum; is de¬ monstrare debebit, quinam sint illi, qui in Ecclesia dicuntur oves. Si enim omnes sint (1) Jerem. III, 15; Eph. IV, 11. — (2) Act. XX, 20; Joan. XXI, 17. Pastores, ubi oves? Quod si quidam sunt Pastores, id est, Episcopi, et quidam oves, id est, Laici, et soli Pastores in Conciliis convenire debent, ut definiant, quae sint bona pascua, quae vero noxia ; certe sequi¬ tur, non Laicorum. sed Sacerdotum esse Concilia. Adde, quod Philippus in Locis, cap. de numero Sacramentorum, et Calvi¬ nus lib. IV lnstitut. cap. 14, §. 20. ponunt ordinationem Pastorum, qui dedicantur ad pascendum, id est, docendum populum , in¬ ter Sacramenta Ecclesiae. Et aperte dicit Calvinus, hoc Sacramentum non esse com¬ mune toti Ecclesiae, sed tantum quibusdam, qui per illud initiantur. Proinde ex eorum confessione, Laici non ordinati non sunt pas¬ tores, sed oves tantum; ergo non convenit eis docere, praesertim ea auctoritate, ut fit in Conciliis. Probatur secundo, testimoniis veterum. Prima Concilia in Ecclesia celebrata fuerunt tempore Victoris Papae, super quaestione Paschatis; de iis sic loquitur Eusebius 1. V hist, cap. 23 : « Ob quam causam , inquit, conventus Episcoporum, et Concilia per sin¬ gulas quasque provincias convocantur. » Haec ille. Qui non quorumvis eruditorum, sed Episcoporum dicit congregata esse Con¬ cilia. Quod idem docent Cyprianus in initio epistolae ad Jubajan. Hilarius lib. de Syno¬ dis, Ambrosius epist. 32. Hieronymus lib. II Apologiae contra Ruffinum , Augustinus ep . 119. Leo epist. 16 et sequ. Ruffmus lib. X hist. cap. 1. Athanasius in epist. ad solita¬ riam vitam agentes, aliique Patres, qui pas- sim asserunt, Concilia Episcoporum esse. Praeterea Theodosius junior in epist. ad Ephesinam Synodum, quae exstat ini. tomo ejus Concilii c. 32 : « Illicitum est, inquit, eum, qui non sit in ordine sanctissimorum Episcoporum, Ecclesiasticis immisceri trac¬ tatibus. » Puleheria quoque Imperatrix in epist. ad Strategum Bithyniae, quae habetur ante Concilium Ghalcedonense, jussit, ut Cle¬ rici, Monachi, et Laici, etiam vi repelleren¬ tur a Concilio, exceptis paucis illis, quos Episcopi secum duxerant. In Concilio Chal- cedonensi, act. 1. cum ad Martinum Archi- mandritam mitteretur, ut subscriberet , res¬ pondit, non esse suum, sed Episcoporum tantum subscribere. Et in eodem Concilio cum pro Dioscoro Monachi et Laici ingressi essent , saepius Patres clamarunt : « Mitte foras superfluos , Concilium Episcoporum est. » Tertio probatur ex Conciliis hactenus ce¬ lebratis : nam omnium Conciliorum decreta ab Episcopis solis facta esse, patet ex sub¬ scriptionibus, ubique enim inveniuntur soli Episcopi subscripsisse, exceptis paucis gene¬ ralibus, quibus Imperator etiam subscripsit, sed alia forma, quam Episcopi. Episcopi enim definiendo ut Judices, Imperatores consentiendo subscripserunt; et quibusdam etiam paucissimis, ut Florentino, Latera¬ nensi, et Tridentino , quibus subscripserunt Abbates , et Generales Ordinum. Caeteri, quamvis optimi et doctissimi essent , num- quam sunt admissi, nisi ad consultandum, excepto Concilio Basileensi , ubi Presbyteii admissi sunt ad suffragium decisivum, sed perperam et contra morem omnis antiquita¬ tis. Nec illud Concilium fuit legitimum, ut supra diximus. Quarto probatur rationibus ; nam in pri¬ mis negotia Ecclesiastica et publica, a per¬ sonis Ecclesiasticis et publicis tractanda sunt, ut notum est ; tales autem soli sunt Episcopi. Deinde, si omnes homines docti admitti deberent, vel numquam essent Con¬ cilia generalia, quia vix possent omnes docti totius Ecclesiae convocari; vel si tandem congregarentur, esset impossibile regere tale Concilium, propter nimiam multitudi¬ nem. Praeterea tunc sine dubio plures essent in Concilio inferiores , quam superiores ; et proinde tunc vere vinceret major sententia meliorem, et in Ecclesia regerentur superio¬ res ab inferioribus, non e contrario, quod absurdissimum est. Item si ita esset, tunc facile posset unus Princeps, in cujus regione fit Concilium, definire quidquid vellet ; pos¬ set enim facillime colligere omnes Presbyte¬ ros et dectos homines suae provinciae, et in Concilium introducere id , quod non possent alii Principes, qui longe abessent. Denique, nulla est Respublica , quae ratione naturali docente, non habeat aliquem ordinem in co¬ mitiis, ita ut non quicumque de plebe, sed tantum Principes et capita caeterorum, lo¬ cum et suffragium habeant.