Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book I
Chapter 21: The Adversaries’ Arguments Are Answered (on Presiding)
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).
The arguments of Calvin are taken from the practice of the Church. For he proposes five Councils in which the Roman Pontiff did not preside: namely Nicaea, over which Athanasius presided; the fifth general, over which Menas presided; the second of Ephesus, over which Dioscorus presided; the sixth of Carthage, over which Aurelius presided, even though the Legates of the Pontiff were present; and that of Aquileia, over which not Damasus but Ambrose presided. But to the first three answer has already been made.
To the fourth I say that only in a general Council must the Roman Pontiff necessarily preside; for in provincial or national ones, such as are all the Councils of Carthage, we do not deny that the presidency is due to the Archbishop or Primate of that place. Moreover the Legates of the Roman Pontiff were not sent to that Council to preside, but to treat certain things with that Council in the name of the Roman Church.
To the fifth I say that the argument is compounded of two lies of Calvin, which are the major and minor propositions; and from these what can be gathered but a lie? The first lie is that the Council of Aquileia was general. For, first, if it had been general, it would have been the second, and accordingly that of Constantinople, which followed after, would not have been the second, but the third. Next, scarcely 30 Bishops were present, who certainly do not suffice to make a general Synod. Finally, in the letter of this Council to the Emperor, the Fathers say that there was no need to gather a general Council, but that for that for which they were called those few Bishops were abundantly enough, especially since they were from various provinces of the West. And so the Council was provincial, but aided also by some Legates of certain other provinces. The second lie is that Ambrose presided; for the first named is Valerian, Bishop of Aquileia, the second Ambrose of Milan — which is an argument that the first place was given to Valerian. Nor is it against this that Ambrose in that Council disputes almost alone with the heretics; for the office of disputing is wont to be committed not to the President, but to the most learned Bishop.
Brentius draws his arguments from the Old Testament, in which it is established that the chief Judges, even in spiritual matters, were Princes or Kings, as is plain of Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah. There is added that God committed to Princes the keeping of the divine law, as is said Romans 13: If thou do evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain. Therefore it is the Princes' to judge of the law of God, how it is to be kept, and to punish transgressors. But this argument has already been solved by us in Book 3 on the word of God, and in Book 1 on the Pontiff. Yet because it did not irk the adversaries to repeat the same arguments often, neither will it irk us to repeat also the solutions often.
I answer, then, first, that Moses was not only a Prince but also the supreme Priest, as is plain from Psalm 98: Moses and Aaron among his priests. But Joshua, David, Solomon, and some others were not only Kings but also prophets, to whom God extraordinarily committed certain things which otherwise pertained to the Priests by office. In this way King Solomon removed Abiathar from the priesthood and set Sadoc in his place, 3 Kings 2; for he did this not as King, but as Prophet by divine inspiration; whence the cause is there subjoined: That the word of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he spoke concerning the house of Heli, in Silo. But because of these extraordinary things, that general law of Deuteronomy 17, by which all are commanded in doubtful matters concerning the law to have recourse to the Priests, is not to be blotted out; nor that of Malachi 2: The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth.
I say, secondly, that the other kings of the Synagogue who were good never mingled themselves in its priestly affairs; and if ever they did mingle, they were punished, as is plain of the excellent King Jehoshaphat, who, 2 Chronicles 19, openly distinguishes the offices and says: Amarias the priest and pontiff shall preside in all things that pertain to God; but Zabadias, who is the ruler in the house of Juda, shall be over those works which pertain to the King's office. But on the contrary King Ozias, 2 Chronicles 26, when he wished to usurp the office of a Priest, was straightway struck by God, made a leper, and remained so until death.
To the confirmation I say that Kings are the keepers of the divine Law, but not its interpreters; and accordingly it pertains to their office to command by their laws and edicts that that faith be held which the Priests teach is to be held, and to coerce with temporal penalties the heretics judged by the Church, as Augustine teaches in letters 48, 50, and 166. And the pious Emperors Constantine, Theodosius, Marcian, and others often did this, as is plain from the law Cunctos populos, in the Code, on the supreme Trinity and the Catholic faith, and from the whole title on heretics in the same Code.
The arguments of Hermann are taken from various examples of the ancients. The first is from the disputation of Athanasius with Arius, Probus the judge presiding — a layman and not yet a Christian, whom the Emperor Constantius had deputed — which indeed is extant imperfect in the works of Athanasius, but perfect in the works of Vigilius Bishop of Trent, who flourished about the year of the Lord 500. I answer that no such disputation was ever in fact held, but that Vigilius composed it by way of a Dialogue, that in that way he might write against the Arians, as he himself confesses, Book 5 against Eutyches, not far from the beginning; and besides, the thing itself cries out; for the disputation is had among four men, Sabellius, Arius, Photinus, and Athanasius then a Bishop, as is plain from the letter of the Emperor which at the beginning of the disputation is feigned to have been sent to Probus. But Sabellius died before any of the other three became known to the world, as is plain from Eusebius Book 7 of the history chapter 5. Arius too died in the time of Constantine, before Constantius began to reign, as is plain from Socrates Book 1 chapter 25; therefore he could not meet with Athanasius in the time of Constantius, as here is feigned. And what some say, that there were two Ariuses, and that Athanasius disputed with the later one, is refuted from Vigilius himself, who at the beginning of this disputation openly testifies that he speaks of that Arius who first devised the Arian heresy. But you will say: even if the Dialogue is feigned, yet it appears that it did not seem absurd to Vigilius if a lay judge presided over a disputation on religion. I answer that Vigilius so composed the Dialogue as to show that so great is the force of Catholic truth that it can conquer even under a non-Christian judge.
The second example is taken from Zonaras in the life of Constantine, where we read that at the request of Helena, who tried to draw her son Constantine from the faith of Christ to Judaism, Sylvester disputed with the Jews before certain senators, as judges, by the command of Constantine. I answer that this narration seems uncertain; for all the ancients praise Helena as a most Christian woman. And not only the Catholics, but even the Magdeburgians, Century 4 column 694, laugh at this narration as fabulous; and from the Chronicle of Eusebius it is gathered that in the year 325 the wood of the Lord's cross was found by Helena, and Marianus Scotus about the year 327 writes that that disputation happened by the work of Helena, then persecuting Christ — which in no way cohere.
The third example is taken from Optatus of Milevis and Augustine, who in many places write that the Donatists, in the cause of Caecilian, demanded the Emperor for judge; and that the Emperor gave them the Roman Bishop with certain other Bishops, but they appealed, and received from the Emperor other judges in Gaul, and, appealing again, the Emperor himself judged. Therefore the supreme Judge in the causes of Bishops is the Emperor. I answer: it is well that the heretics argue from the deeds of their greater heretics; for that they did ill in having recourse to the Emperor as Judge, and did worse in appealing again to him, Optatus, Augustine, and the Emperor himself are witnesses. Augustine, letter 48, says that hence he deservedly reproves the Donatists for having accused Caecilian before the Emperor, when they ought rather to have convicted him before the Bishops beyond the sea. And in the same place he adds that the Emperor acted more orderly, who, when the Donatists came to him, sent them back to the judgment of Miltiades, Bishop of Rome. Optatus, Book 1 against Parmenian, relates that the Emperor exclaimed thus: “O rabid audacity of fury! they have interposed an appeal, as is wont to be done in the causes of the Gentiles.” Likewise Augustine, letter 162: “In which matter,” he says, “you have heard how Constantine detests them. And would that, as he himself yielded to them, to judge of that cause after the Bishops — being about afterward to ask pardon of the holy Prelates — so they too would some day yield to the truth.” Where you see that Constantine took it ill to be appealed to, and judged after the Bishops, being compelled, that even so he might break the fury of the Donatists, when they saw themselves condemned by all; and moreover that Constantine understood that he could not judge by his own right, but only in the hope that the Bishops would afterward give him pardon, of whom he was about to ask it. But what the mind of Constantine was outside these articles of necessity is plain from Rufinus Book 10 of the history chapter 2, where he asserted that he ought to be judged by the Bishops, not to judge them.
The fourth example is taken from the Breviculus of the collations, near the beginning, where Augustine speaks thus: “When the Catholic Bishops and those of the party of Donatus, by command of the Emperor, had conferred by disputing among themselves, the proceedings being had before the Tribune and Notary Marcellinus the cognitor, etc.” And at the end of the Breviculus he asserts that Marcellinus, as judge, passed sentence for the Catholics against the Donatists. The fifth example is taken from Sozomen Book 4 chapter 5 and Epiphanius heresy 71, who write that Photinus asked and obtained from the Emperor judges, before whom he might plead his cause. I answer to the fourth example, from the doctrine of Augustine himself, that that collation with the Donatists was extraordinary, and undertaken from a certain necessity. For, as the same Augustine writes, Book 3 against Julian chapter 1, when the Pelagians wished by the work of the Emperor to compel the Catholics to a collation in the way in which before the Catholics had compelled the Donatists, Augustine answered that the Catholics had held that collation with the Donatists in an extraordinary manner and of necessity, because they infested all Africa, and could not otherwise be repressed or compelled to a Council except by the temporal powers, as was then done. I say moreover that that judgment was not such as that of which we treat. For Marcellinus did not so judge that his sentence bound the whole Church, but only that it repressed the audacity of the Donatists; for the sentence of Marcellinus was that the Donatists were so confuted by the Catholics that they had nothing they could answer — just as also, when Augustine disputed with Pascentius the Arian, Laurentius being arbiter, as is plain from Augustine's letters 174 and 178, the sentence of Laurentius did not make a matter of faith, but availed only for the confusion of Pascentius, who was pronounced conquered; and the same is to be said of the disputation of Photinus the heretic, and of like disputations. For never in the Church were they held for legitimate definitions, such as are the decrees of Councils.
The sixth example is taken from Socrates Book 5 chapter 10 and Sozomen Book 7 chapter 12, where we read that the Emperor Theodosius commanded that the several Princes of the various religions — that is, Catholics, Arians, Eunomians — should bring to him a written formula of their faith. Which being done, the Emperor earnestly prayed God to direct his mind in choosing the true faith, and then at last, all the confessions read, approved the Catholic alone, and commanded it to be kept. I answer that Theodosius did not undertake any new controversy to be defined, nor made himself in any way judge in a cause of faith. Which is plain, first, because that question was already defined in the Council of Nicaea, of which he was so strenuous a follower that he would not be baptized by the Bishop of Thessalonica unless he first understood that he was of the Nicene faith, as is in Socrates Book 5 chapter 6; therefore he could not doubt whether the Arian or the Catholic faith were truer. Secondly, because Ambrose in letter 32 says that it is not for Emperors to judge in a cause of faith; and this he proves by the testimony of Constantine, Valentinian the elder, and Theodosius. Likewise in the Council of Aquileia the same Ambrose says that the Emperor Theodosius left the judgment free to the priests. Theodosius, therefore, judged nothing in a cause of faith, but only read the confessions of the sectaries, that he might acquiesce in them and satisfy them, lest he should seem to condemn them unheard without reason. But what Socrates writes, that Theodosius asked of God by prayers that He would direct him in choosing the faith, I judge to be false. For since he prayed secretly, as the same Socrates affirms, who can know what he prayed? And besides it is certain that he did not so pray, because by so praying he would have sinned with the sin of infidelity, doubting of the faith which he had once received; and yet that in this deed he sinned nothing, but acted laudably, all confess. He prayed, therefore, not that he might be directed in choosing the faith, but that in that business he might do nothing imprudently, and perhaps he asked pardon of God because he seemed to occupy another's right; and at the same time he prayed that he might not be deceived by reading the confessions of so many heretics.
The seventh example is taken from Theodoret Book 5 chapter 23, where we read that when the Roman Pontiffs would not have Flavian to be Bishop of Antioch, yet the Emperor Theodosius judged otherwise, and commanded Flavian to be Bishop of Antioch. I answer that this history wonderfully shows the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and does not at all hurt the present cause. I say, then, that the Pontiff by right would not have Flavian to be Bishop, but the Emperor, in what he did, did it by power, not by justice. Which I prove, because, as Socrates relates Book 5 chapter 5, when there was a schism in the Church of Antioch, and Meletius and Paulinus sat at the same time, it pleased all at last that they should sit together; but when one should die, the other should be sole Bishop, no one succeeding the dead Bishop; and this they confirmed by an oath. But nonetheless, Meletius being dead, Flavian succeeded in his place, Paulinus being still alive — which it was known to all was against the oath and accordingly unlawful. What wonder, then, if this displeased the Roman Pontiff Damasus? Wherefore Saint Ambrose, in letter 78 to Theophilus of Alexandria, speaking of this matter, says thus: “Your Holiness writes that Flavian has resorted to the suffrages of the Imperial rescripts. In vain, then, was the labor of so many priests poured out; again must we return to the judgments of this world.” And below: “Truly we think the matter is to be referred to our holy brother, the Priest of the Roman Church.” Moreover Chrysostom too was ordained Presbyter at Antioch not by Flavian but by Evagrius, the successor of Paulinus, as is in Socrates Book 6 chapter 3 — which he would never have suffered if he had held Flavian for a true Bishop. Likewise Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, as Socrates relates Book 5 chapter 15, asked the Roman Pontiff through his Legate to forgive Flavian the sin he had committed. And that Chrysostom afterward employed like labor with the Pontiff is plain from Sozomen Book 8 chapter 3. From which it is most clear that Flavian sinned, and that his judge and superior was the Roman Pontiff. Likewise Jerome, in his letter to Damasus on the name of hypostasis, speaking of the same schism, asks of the Pontiff with which of those Bishops he ought to communicate, and asserts that he will communicate with him who is joined with the Roman Pontiff. Moreover three most excellent and holy Pontiffs, Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius, as Theodoret writes Book 5 chapter 23, most freely in that cause reproved the Emperor, and said that he indeed diligently enough suppressed the Tyrants who rise up against himself, but granted impunity to those who exercise tyranny against the law of God. Which reproof, so atrocious, Pontiffs so holy would certainly never have used, unless they had seen the Emperor gravely erring. And what of this, that the Emperor, moved by that reproof, as Theodoret relates in the same place, was not angry with the Roman Pontiffs, but commanded Flavian twice to sail to Rome, to clear himself before the Pontiff? Finally, as Theodoret relates in the same place, although the Emperor, by power (as we said), not by justice, wished Flavian to be Bishop, yet that cause was never ended, nor would the Bishops of the West and of Egypt communicate with Flavian, until, Evagrius being now dead, the Roman Pontiff forgave Flavian his offence, and promised that he would admit his Legates; and Flavian himself sent to Rome as Legates most illustrious Bishops, and Presbyters and Deacons of Antioch.
We have, then, what is required for a legitimate Council. Now, briefly, in the place of an appendix, we will annex what kind of Council the Protestants require in that book which they entitle: The causes why the Electors, Princes, and others devoted to the Augsburg Confession do not come to the Council.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX.
Solvuntur argumenta adversariorum.
Argumenta Calvini sumuntur a praxi Ec-
clesise. Proponit enim quinque Concilia , in
quibus Pontifex Romanus non praefuit. Vide¬
licet Nicaenum, cui praefuit Atbanasius ; Quin¬
tum generale , cui praefuit Menas ; Ephesi-
num secundum, cui praefuit Dioscorus; Car¬
thaginiense sextum , cui praefuit Aurelius,
etiam si adessent Legati Pontificis ; et Aqui-
leiense , cui non Damasus , sed Ambrosius
praesedit. Sed ad prima tria jam est respon¬
sum.
Ad Quartum dico, solum in generali Con¬
cilio debere necessario Romanum Pontifi¬
cem praesidere ; in provincialibus enim, vel
nationalibus , qualia sunt omnia Carthagi¬
niensia, non negamus deberi praesidentiam
Archiepiscopo, vel primati ejus loci. Porro
Legati Romani Pontificis non fuerunt’ ad il¬
lud Concilium missi, ut praesiderent, sed ut
quaedam tractarent cum eo Concilio nomine
Romanae Ec,clesiae.
Ad Quintum dico , argumentum conflari
ex duobus mendaciis Calvini, quae sunt ma¬
jor et minor, propositio ; ex quibus quid po¬
test colligi, nisi mendacium? Primum men¬
dacium est, quod Aquileiense Concilium fue¬
rit generale ; nam primo, si fuisset generale,
fuisset secundum, etproinde Constantinopo-
litanum, quod postea secutum est, non fuis¬
set secundum, sed tertium. Deinde vix inter¬
fuerunt Episcopi 30, qui certe non sufficiunt
ad generalem Synodum faciendam. Denique
in epistola hujus Concilii ad Imperatorem,
dicunt Patres , non fuisse opus congregare
Concilium generale, sed abunde satis fuisse
ad id , pro quo vocati erant , paucos illos
Episcopos, praesertim cum essent ex variis
provinciis Occidentis. Itaque Concilium fuit
provinciale , sed adjutum etiam aliquot Le¬
gatis quarumdam aliarum provinciarum.
Secundum mendacium est , quod Ambro¬
sius praesederit : nam primus nominatur Va¬
lerianus Episcopus Aquileiensis , secundus
Ambrosius Mediolanensis : quod est argu¬
mentum, Valeriano datum esse primum lo¬
cum. Neque his repugnat, quod Ambrosius
iu eo Concilio fere solus disputat cum hae¬
reticis ; munus enim disputandi non Praesi-
di , sed Episcopo doctissimo demandari so¬
let.
Brentius argumenta petit ex Testamento
veteri , in quo constat praecipuos Judices,
etiam in rebus spiritualibus, fuisse Princi¬
pes, sive Reges, ut patet de Mose , Josue,
Davide, Salomone, Ezechia, Josia. Accedit,
quod Deus commisit Principibus custodiam
legis divinae, ut dicitur Roman. XIII : Si ma¬
le egeris, time ; non enim sine causa gladium
portat { I). Ergo Principum est 'judicare de
lege Dei , quomodo sit servanda, et punire
transgressores. Sed hoc argumentum jam
est a nobis solutum in lib. III de verbo Dei,
et in lib. I de Pontifice. Quia tamen non pi¬
guit adversarios eadem argumenta saepius
repetere, nec nos pigebit solutiones quoque
saepius repetere.
Respondeo igitur primo, Mosem non so¬
lum Principem, sed etiam summum Sacer¬
dotem fuisse, ut patet ex Psalm. XCVIII :
Moses et Aaron in Sacerdotibus ejus (2). Josue
autem, Davidem, Salomonem, et aliquos
alios non solum Reges, sed etiam prophetas
fuisse, quibus Deus quaedam extraordinarie
committebat, quae ad Sacerdotes alioquin ex
officio spectabant : IIoc modo Salomon Rex
amovit Abiathar a sacerdotio, et constituit
Sadoc pro eo, III. Reg. II. id enim fecit, non
ut Rex, sed ut Propheta ex divina inspira¬
tione ; Unde subjungitur ibidem causa : Ut
impleretur sermo Domini , quem locutus est su¬
per domum Heli , in Silo (3). Sed non propter
ista extraordinaria, delenda est ex Deut. c.
XVII lex illa generalis, qua jubentur omnes
in dubiis circa legem recurrere ad Sacerdo¬
tes : neque illa Mala chiae II : Labia sacerdotis
custodient scientiam , et legem requirent ex ore
ejus (4).
Dico secundo, alios reges Synagogae, qui
boni fuerunt, nunquam se miscuisse in ne¬
gotiis sacerdotalibus ejus, et si quando se
miscuerunt, punitos fuisse, ut patet de Rege
Josaphat optimo, qui II. Paralipom. XIX
aperte distinguit officia, et dicit : Amarias
Sacerdos et Pontifex in omnibus, quee ad Deum
pertinent, praesidebit : Porro Zabadias. qui
est dux in domo Juda, super ea opera erit, quee
(1) Rom. XIII, 4. — (2) Psal. XCVIII, 6. — (3) IIL Reg. II, 27. — (4) Malach. II, 7.
»
ad Regis officium pertinent (1). E contrario
autem Ozias Rex, II. Paralip. XXVI, cum
Sacerdotis officium usurpare voluisset, mox
a Deo percussus, leprosus factus est, et per¬
mansit usque ad mortem.
Ad confirmationem dico, Reges esse cus¬
todes Legis divinse, sed non interpretes, et
proinde ad eorum officium pertinere, ut le¬
gibus et edictis suis jubeant eam fidem te¬
neri, quam Sacerdotes tenendam docent, et
haereticos ab Ecclesia judicatos coerceant
poenis temporalibus, ut Augustinus docet in
epist. 48, 50 et 166. Et pii Imperatores Con¬
stantinus, Theodosius, Martianus, aliique id
saepe fecerunt, ut patet ex 1. Cunctos popu¬
los, C. de summa Trinitate et fide Catholica,
et ex toto titulo de haereticis in eodem Co¬
dice.
Argumenta Hermanni sumuntur ex variis
exemplis veterum. Primum est ex disputa-
tatione Athanasii cum Ario, praesidente Pro¬
bo judice, homine laico, et nondum Chris¬
tiano, quem Imperator Constantius deputa¬
verat, quae quidem exstat imperfecta in ope¬
ribus Athanasii, sed perfecta in operibus
Vigilii Episcopi Tridentini, qui floruit circa
annum Domini 500.
Respondeo, nunquam fuisse talem dispu¬
tationem re ipsam habitam : sed Vigilium
eam composuisse per modum Dialogi : ut eo
modo scriberet contra Arianos, ut ipsemet
fatetur lib. V contra Eutychen, non procul
ab initio ; Et praeterea res ipsa clamat ; nam
disputatio habetur inter quatuor homines,
Sabellium, Arium, Photinum, et Athana-
sium tunc Episcopum, ut patet ex epistola
Imperatoris, quae initio disputationis fingitur
missa ad Probum : At Sabellius obiit ante¬
quam ullus ex aliis tribus orbi innotesceret,
ut patet ex.Eusebio lib. VII, histor. cap. 5.
Arius quoque obiit tempore Constantini,
antequam Constantius regnare inciperet, ut
patet ex Socrat. lib. I, cap. 25. ergo non
potuit cum Athanasio congredi, tempore
Constantii, ut hic fingitur. Quod vero quidam
dicunt, duos fuisse Arios, et cum posteriore
tamen disputasse Athanasium, refellitur ex
ipsomet Vigilio qui initio hujus disputationis
aperte testatur, se loqui de illo Ario, qui
Arianam haeresim primus excogitavit.
Sed Dices, etiamsi Dialogus sit fictus, ta¬
men apparet, non esse visum absurdum Vi¬
gilio, si judex laicus praeesset disputationi
de religione. Respondeo, Vigilium ita Dia¬
logum composuisse, ut ostenderet tantam
esse vim Catholicae veritatis, ut etiam sub
judice non Christiano vincere possit.
Secundum exemplum est desumptum ex
Zonara in vita Constantini, ubi legimus, ad
petitionem Helenae, quae conabatur pertra¬
here Constantinum filium a fide Christi ad
Judaismum, disputasse Sylvestrum cum Ju¬
daeis coram quibusdam senatoribus, tan-
quam judicibus, ex mandato Constantini.
Respondeo, videri incertam istam narra¬
tionem, omnes enim veteres Helenam lau¬
dant ut feminam Christianissimam. Et non
solum Catholici, sed etiam Magdeburgenses
Cent. IV, coi. 694. rident hanc narrationem,
ut fabulosam ; et ex Chronico Eusebii colli¬
gitur anno 325, lignum crucis Dominicse ab
Helena inventum, et Marianus Scotus sub
annum 327, scribit illam disputationem in¬
cidisse opera Helenae, tunc Christum perse¬
quentis, quee nullo modo cohaerent.
Tertium exemplum sumitur ex Optato Mi-
levitano, et Augustino, qui multis in locis
scribunt, Donatistas in causa Caeciliani ab
Imperatore judice postulasse ; Imperatorem
autem dedisse eis R omanum Episcopum cum
aliis quibusdam Episcopis, sed eos appel¬
lasse, et ab Imperatore accepisse alios judi¬
ces in Gallia, quos rursum appellantes Im¬
perator ipse judicavit. Ergo summus Judex
in causis Episcoporum est Imperator.
Respondeo, bene~habet quod haeretici ar¬
gumentantur ex gestis haereticorum majorum
suorum ; nam quod male fecerint recurren¬
do ad Imperatorem tanquam Judicem, et
quod pejus fecerint rursum ad eum appel¬
lando, Optatus, Augustinus et Imperator ip¬
se testes sunt. Augustinus epist. 48. dicit,
hinc merito reprehendit Donatistas, quod
apud Imperatorem accusaverint Caecilianum,
cum potius eum apud Episcopos Transma¬
rinos convincere debuissent. Et ibidem ad¬
dit, Imperatorem ordinatius egisse, qui Do¬
natistas, ad se venientes, remisit ad judicium
Milthiadis Romani Episcopi.
Optatus lib. I contra Parmen. refert, Im¬
peratorem sic exclamasse : « 0 rabida furo¬
ris audacia, sicut in causis Gentilium fieri
solet, appellationem interposuerunt. » Item
Augustinus in epistol. 162 : « Qua in re, in¬
quit, quemadmodum detestetur illos Cons¬
tantinus audivistis. Atque utinam, ut eis ipse
(1) II. Paralip. XIX, 11.
cessit, ut de illa causa post Episcopos judi¬
caret, a sanctis Antistitibus veniam postea
petiturus, sic et illi aliquando cederent ve¬
ritatis. » Ubi vides Constantinum eegre tu¬
lisse ad se appellari, et judicasse post Epis¬
copos coactum, ut vel sic frangeret furorem
Donatistarum, cum viderent se ab omnibus
condemnari : et praeterea intellexisse Cons¬
tantinum, se non posse jure suo judicare,
sed tantum ea spe, quod postea Episcopi
veniam illi darent, a quibus eam petiturus
erat. Quae autem fuerit mens Constantini
extra hos articulos necessitatis, patet ex
Ruffino lib. X, hist. cap. 2. ubi asseruit se
debere judicari ab Episcopis, non eos judi ¬
care.
Quartum exemplum est sumptum ex Bre¬
viculo collationum circa principium, ubi sic
Augustinus loquitur : « Cum Catholici Epis¬
copi et partis Donati, jussu Imperatoris dis¬
putando inter se gestis apud Tribunum et
Notarium Marcellinum cognitorem habitis,
contulissent etc. » Et in fine Breviculi asse¬
rit, Marcellinum, ut judicem, sententiam tu¬
lisse pro Catholicis contra Donatistas.
Quintum exemplum sumitur ex Sozomeno
lib. IV, cap. 5. et ex Epiphanio haeresi 17.
qui scribunt Photinum petiisse et impetrasse
ab Imperatore judices, coram quibus causam
suam ageret.
Respondeo ad quartum exemplum , ex
doctrina ipsius Augustini, collationem illam
cum Donatistis extraordinariam, et quadam
necessitate susceptam fuisse : Nam ut scribit
idem Augustinus lib. III contra Julianum,
cap. 1. cum Pelagiani vellent opera Impera¬
toris cogere Catholicos ad collationem eo
modo, quo antea Catholici coegerant Dona¬
tistas : Augustinus respondit, Catholicas eam
collationem modo extraordinario cum Dona¬
tistis necessario habuisse, eo quod illi totam
Africam infestarent, nec possent aliter re¬
primi, vel ad Concilium cogi, nisi per tem¬
porales potestates, ut tunc factum est.
Dico praeterea illud judicium non fuisse
tale, quale est de quo nos agimus. Non enim
ita judicavit Marcellinus, ut ejus sententia
totam Ecclesiam obligaverit, sed tantum ut
represserit audaciam Donatistarum ; senten¬
tia enim Marcellini fuit Donatistas ita a Ca¬
tholicis confutatos, ut non habuerint quod
respondere possent. Sicut etiam cum Au¬
gustinus disputavit cum Pascentio Ariano,
arbitro Laurentio, ut patet ex epist. Augus¬
tini 174 et 178. sententia Laurentii non fa¬
ciebat rem de fide, sed tantum valebat ad
confusionem Pascentii, qui victus pronun¬
tiabatur; et idem dicendum est de disputa¬
tione Photini hEeretici, et de similibus dis¬
putationibus. Nunquam enim in Ecclesia ha¬
bitae sunt pro legitimis definitionibus, qualia
sunt decreta Conciliorum.
Sextum exemplum sumptum est ex Socra¬
te lib. V, cap. 10. et Sozomeno lib. VII, c.
12. ubi legimus, Imperatorem Theodosium
jussisse, ut singuli Principes variarum reli¬
gionum, id est, Catholici, Ariani, Eunomiani
adferrent ad se scriptam formulam fidei suae.
Quod cum lactum esset, Imperatorem im¬
pense Deum orasse, ut animum suum diri¬
geret in vera fide eligenda, et tum demum
lectis omnibus confessionibus solam Catho¬
licam approbasse , et eam servari jus¬
sisse.
Respondeo, Theodosium non suscepisse
aliquam novam controversiam definiendam,
neque se judicem ullo modo fecisse in causa
fidei. Quod patet primo, quia illa quaestio
jam definita erat in Concilio Nicaeno, cujus
ipse adeo, strenuus sectator erat, ut noluerit
baptizari ab Episcopo Thessalonicensi, nisi
prius intelligeret eum esse fidei Nicae¬
nae ; ut est apud Socratem lib V, cap. 6.
non ergo dubitare potuit, an esset verior fi¬
des Ariana, an fides Catholica. Secundo, quia
Ambrosius in ep. 32. dicit, non esse Impe¬
ratorum in causa fidei judicare ; et hoc pro¬
bat testimonio Constantini, Valentiniani se¬
nioris, et Theodosii. Item in Concilio Aqui-
leiensi, idem Ambrosius dicit, Imperatorem
Theodosium liberum reliquisse judicium sa¬
cerdotibus. Theodosius igitur nihil judicavit
in causa fidei, sed tantum legit sectariorum
confessiones, ut eis acquiesceret, eisque sa¬
tisfaceret, ne videretur eos inauditos sine
ratione damnare.
Quod autem scribit Socrates, Theodosium
a Deo per orationes postulasse, ut se dirige¬
ret in eligenda fide, falsum esse arbitror
Nam cum oraverit secreto, ut idem Socrates
affirmat, quis potest scire, quid oraverit ? Et
preeterea certum est eum non sic orasse,
quia sic orando peccasset peccato infidelita¬
tis, dubitando de fide, quam semel accepe¬
rat ; Et tamen eum in hoc facto nihil pec¬
casse, sed laudabiliter egisse, omnes faten¬
tur. Oravit igitur, non ut dirigeretur in eo
negotio, ne aliquid imprudenter ageret, et
fortasse a Deo veniam petiit, quod alienun*
jus occupare videretur; et simul oravit, ne
deciperetur legendo confessiones tot hccreti-
corura.
Septimum exemplum sumitur ex Theodo-
reto lib. Y, cap. 23. ubi legimus, quod cum
Romani Pontifices nollent Flavianum esse
Episcopum Antiochenum, tamen Theodosius
Imperator aliter judicavit, et jussit Flavia¬
num Antiochi® esse Episcopum.
Respondeo, hanc historiam mirifice osten¬
dere Romani Pontificis primatum, et nihil
plane obesse praesenti causae. Dico igitur,
Pontificem jure noluisse, ut Flavianus esset
Episcopus, Imperatorem autem, quod fecit,
ex potentia, non ex justitia fecisse. Id quod
probo, quia ut Socrates refert lib. Y, cap. 5.
cum esset schisma in Ecclesia Antiochena,
et simul sederent Meletius, et Paulinus, pla¬
cuit tandem Dmnibus, ut simul sederent ;
sed cum alter moreretur, alter solus Episco¬
pus esset, nemine succedente Episcopo mor¬
tuo ; idque jurejurando confirmaverunt. At
nihilominus mortuo Meletio in ejus locum
Flavianus successit, vivente adhuc Paulino,
quod contra juramenturii, et proinde illici¬
tum fuisse, omnibus notum erat. Quid ergo
mirum, si id Romano Pontifici Damaso dis¬
plicebat?
Quocirca S. Ambrosius in epist. 78. ad
Theophilum Alexandrinum de hac re lo-
quens, sic ait : « Scribit Sanctitas tua, Fla¬
vianum ad Imperialium rescriptorum suffra¬
gia remeavisse. Frustra ergo tantorum sa¬
cerdotum fusus labor; iterum ad hujus se¬
cuti judicia revertendum. » Et infra: «Sane
referendum arbitramur ad sanctum fratrem
nostrum Romanae Sacerdotem Ecclesi®. »
Praeterea Chrysostomus quoque Antiochi®
non a Flaviano, sed ab Evagrio, Paulini
successore, Presbyter ordinatus est, ut est
apud Socratem lib. YI, cap. 3. quod ille
nunquam passus esset, si Flavianum pro
vero Episcopo habuisset. Item Theophilus
Alexandrinus Episcopus, ut refert Socrates
lib. Y, cap. 15. Romanum Pontificem per
Legatum suum rogavit, ut Flaviano pecca¬
tum, quod admiserat, dimitteret. Et similem
operam apud Pontificem postea navasse
Chrysostomuin, patet ex Sozomenolib. Y I II,
cap. 3. Ex quibus clarissimum est, Flavia¬
num peccasse, etjudicem ejus ac superiorem
fuisse Romanum Pontificem. Item Hierony¬
mus in epist. ad Damasum, de nomine hy¬
postasis, loquens de eodem schismate, petit
a Pontifice , cuinam eorum Episcoporum
communicare debeat ; et asserit se ei com¬
municaturum, qui cum Romano Pontifice
conjunctus sit.
Praeterea tres optimi et sanctissimi Ponti¬
fices, Damasus , Siricius, Anastasius, ut
scribit Theodoretus lib. Y, cap. 23, liberri¬
me in ea causa Imperatorem increparunt, ac
dixerunt, eum quidem satis diligenter op¬
primere Tyrannos, qui contra se insurgunt ;
at iis, qui contra Dei legem tyrannidem
exercent, impunitatem concedere. Quam ob¬
jurgationem, tam atrocem, nunquam certe
Pontifices tam sancti adhibuissent, nisi Im¬
peratorem graviter errare vidissent. Quid,
quod Imperator ea objurgatione permotus,
ut ibidem Theodoretus refert, non succen-
suit Romanis Pontificibus, sed Flavianum
bis Romam navigare jussit, ut coram Ponti¬
fice se purgaret ?
Denique, ut ibidem Theodoretus refert,
etiam si Imperator de potentia, ut diximus,
non de justitia, Flavianum Episcopum esse
volebat, tamen nunquam finita est causa
illa, neque Episcopi Occidentis, et ACgypti
Flaviano communicare voluerunt , donec
Evagrio jam mortuo Pontifex Romanus Fla¬
viano delictum condonavit ;®t Legatos ejus
se admissurum promisit, et ipse Episcopos
illustrissimos, et Presbyteros ac Diaconos
Antiochenos, Legatos Romam misit.
Habemus ergo quid requiratur ad legiti¬
mum Concilium. Nunc breviter appendicis
loco annectemus, quale Concilium requirant
Protesfcantes in eo libro , quem inscribunt :
Caus® cur Electores, Principes, aliique ad¬
dicti Confessioni Augustan® ad Concilium