Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book II
Chapter 7: The Arguments from the Alleged Errors of Councils Answered
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Conciliis (De Conciliorum Auctoritate), On Councils, Book II (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).
Finally, the adversaries enumerate the errors of Councils, and chiefly Hermann in Book III, chapters 15 and 16, of his Prolegomena, and the book of the Protestants entitled “The Reason Why the Electors,” and so on. But out of a very great number of alleged errors, only a third part needs any discussion. For the adversaries have observed three kinds of errors in Councils. Some are true and gross errors, but of unlawful Councils reproved by the Popes — such as Ariminum, Seleucia, the Second of Ephesus — which they enumerate in vain, since they do nothing against us. See what we said of the reproved Councils in Book I, chapters 7 and 8.
Others are errors not true but fabricated, of lawful and approved Councils; for everything they themselves do not approve, they call errors. In this way they say the Council of Chalcedon erred, in which nuns are forbidden to violate their vow of continence, and the Fifth Council of Carthage, in which it is decreed that altars are not to be erected without the relics of martyrs. But while they say these things, they assume what was to be proved.
Others, finally, are errors they observe in true and lawful Councils, which really do seem to have some appearance of error — that is, they seem to contain opinions of the sort that are judged erroneous by our consent and theirs alike; and these alone we must examine and dissolve.
1. In the first place Calvin brings forward the Council of the 400 prophets, who all erred, God Himself testifying that He had sent a lying spirit into their mouth, 3 Kings 22. But what kind of Council, I ask, was that? First, those were not prophets of the Lord; for when those 400 prophets had given their opinions, we read that King Jehoshaphat asked King Ahab whether there were not some prophet of the Lord through whom the Lord might be consulted, and that Ahab answered: “There is one man left, but I hate him.” Next, Councils ought to be of priests, not of prophets. Finally, that Council was convened by King Ahab, not by the high priest; therefore it is no wonder if it erred.
2. Secondly, Calvin and Brentius set forth the Council of the Jews, presided over by the high priest Caiaphas, in which those who confessed Jesus to be the Christ were excommunicated (John 9), and afterward Christ was judged guilty of death (John 11 and Mark 14).
I answer: some say the question was one of fact, not of right, which that Council judged — namely, whether Jesus ought to be put to death; and in judgments of that kind there is no doubt that Councils can err. But that question, even if it were of fact, nevertheless involved a most grave question of faith — namely, whether Jesus was the true Messiah and the Son of God, and therefore true God. Wherefore Caiaphas, with the whole Council, erred in the faith most perniciously, when he judged that Jesus had blasphemed in calling Himself the Son of God.
Others say the Pontiff and the Council erred as to the error of their own mind, but did not err in the sentence they pronounced. For truly Jesus was guilty of death, because He had taken upon Himself our sins to be purged in Himself, and truly it was expedient that He should die for the people. Wherefore in John 11 it is said that Caiaphas prophesied. But although the words of Caiaphas admit a good sense, not all of them do; for when he says of Christ, “He hath blasphemed; what further need have we of witnesses?” — certainly then he did not prophesy, but blasphemed.
Others say that Council erred because it did not proceed according to the manner of a lawful judgment, but condemned Christ by a tumultuous conspiracy, with false witnesses suborned. This was so well known to all that even Pilate knew He had been handed over to him out of envy by the priests, as we have in Matthew 27. And this answer indeed is probable. Yet because it is not for inferiors to judge whether superiors proceed lawfully or not, unless it is most manifestly clear that an intolerable error is being committed — and it is credible that God would not permit Councils over which the supreme Pontiff presides to proceed unlawfully — therefore we answer that the Pontiffs and Councils of the Jews could not err before Christ came, but in His presence could err; nay, it was even foretold that the Jews would err and deny Christ (Isaiah 6, Daniel 9, and elsewhere). For just as it is not necessary that the Pope’s vicar be unable to err, since the Pope himself governs the Church and defends it from error; so also it was not necessary that the Pontiffs of the Jews be unable to err, when Christ, the supreme Pontiff of the whole Church, was present and administered the Church by Himself.
3. Thirdly, Luther seems to reprehend the Council of the Apostles, of which Acts 15. For he says, in his Assertions, article 29, that James changed Peter’s sentence. Now it is agreed that Peter’s sentence — who had judged that the Gentiles ought not to be compelled to the legal observances — was good and true; for Paul defends it throughout the epistle to the Galatians. Therefore (they argue) the sentence of James, which the whole Synod followed, was bad and false, which forbade the Gentiles to eat blood and what is strangled — which is nothing else than to Judaize. Likewise Luther, in his book On Councils, part one, says much of this law of the Apostles, and although he does not dare to assert that it was bad, yet from it he tries to prove that a Council is of no profit, because that law cannot be defended unless we say that a Council does not bind.
I answer: there are not lacking ancient writers who deny that the Council of the Apostles commanded anything about abstinence from eating blood and strangled animals. For Irenaeus, in Book III chapter 12, twice citing this passage, always omits “strangled,” and by the word “blood” seems to understand homicide. Cyprian, in Book III to Quirinus near the end, openly says that the Apostles commanded only that one abstain from idolatry, fornication, and the shedding of blood. Chrysostom and Oecumenius on this passage understand by “strangled” homicide. Nevertheless, in all the Greek and Latin codices we find “blood” and “strangled,” and it is established from Tertullian in the Apology chapter 9, and from the Council of Gangra canon 2, that for many years this precept was observed in the Church, so that Christians did not eat blood nor strangled animals. And besides, there was no reason why the Apostles should forbid homicide; for they wished only to forbid certain things about which the Gentiles doubted whether they were sins, whereas homicide was always confessedly a sin among all.
We answer, therefore, that the Apostles first of all forbade fornication, because it did not seem a sin to the Gentiles, being punished by no laws; then they commanded abstinence from things immolated to idols, from blood, and from what is strangled, not as an observance of the old law, but as their own, that is, apostolic precepts — and this to the end that the Church might more easily coalesce out of Jews and Gentiles. For in those beginnings the Jews could not have borne the fellowship of the Gentiles if they had seen them feeding on the flesh of victims, or on blood, or on what is strangled, from which the Jews greatly shrank. But after the Church grew and that purpose of the law ceased, the law of itself also ceased. Of this Saint Augustine speaks thus, in Book XXII against Faustus, chapter 13: “If the Apostles then commanded that Christians abstain from the blood of animals and not eat strangled flesh, they seem to me to have chosen, for that time, an easy thing and in no way burdensome to those observing it, in which the Gentiles too, along with the Israelites, might observe something in common, on account of that corner-stone joining the two walls into one.” And below: “But when that time had passed in which those two walls, one from the Circumcision, the other from the Uncircumcision, though they agreed in the corner-stone, yet stood out more distinctly with certain properties of their own; and when the Church of the Gentiles became such that no carnal Israelite appears in it, what Christian now observes this, so as not to touch thrushes or smaller birds unless their blood has been shed, or not to eat a hare if killed by a blow of the hand on the neck without a bloody wound? And those few who perhaps still dread to touch such things are laughed at by the rest.” Thus he.
And so the Council did not err, nor did James change Peter’s sentence, but before the matter was defined he thought this positive and temporary precept should be added to Peter’s sentence, and afterward by common consent the matter was defined. See Jerome in his letter to Augustine, which is the 11th among Augustine’s letters, where he says that James and all the others acquiesced in Peter’s sentence.
4. Fourthly, they bring forward the Council of Neocaesarea, confirmed by Leo IV (distinction 20, canon De libellis) and received in the First Council of Nicaea, as is said in the Council of Florence, session 7. For in this Council, canon 7, an evident error is found, whereby second marriages are forbidden: “A priest,” says the Council, “ought not to be present at the banquet of a second marriage, especially since penance is prescribed for second marriages.” Who then will be the priest who, on account of a banquet, would consent to those marriages which Paul nonetheless grants (1 Cor. 7): “If her husband sleep, she is at liberty; let her marry whom she will, only in the Lord”?
I answer: the Council speaks of one who has two wives at once, as the Gloss rightly explains (cause 31, question 1, canon De his qui frequenter). Or, secondly, it can be said that not the second marriage is forbidden, but the solemnity of the second marriage, to which solemnity the name of “nuptials” properly belongs. For the celebration of nuptials was accustomed to be held only once in the Church, namely when virgins are joined, as Isidore testifies (Book II On the Offices, chapter 17), where he says that only in first marriages are a ring and a certain veil given, partly white and partly red, which was called flammeum; from which veil marriages were named “nuptials,” because the heads of new brides are veiled by it, as Ambrose testifies (Book I On Abraham, chapter 9). That canon therefore forbids a priest to be present at the celebration of a second marriage, and rather enjoins penance on those who, against the custom of the Church, employ such a celebration in a second marriage.
5. Fifthly, they bring forward the First Council of Nicaea, of which Luther, in his book On Councils part 1, says that he does not understand the Holy Spirit in that Council; for in one canon it says that those who have castrated themselves are not fit for the priesthood, in another it forbids priests to have wives, and at last he thus concludes (page 92): “Has the Holy Spirit indeed no other business in Councils than to bind and burden His ministers with impossible, dangerous, and unnecessary laws?” In the same place Luther reports an erroneous canon of the Council of Nicaea on rebaptizing the Paulianists, and a similar one of the Council of Iconium, from Book VII of Eusebius’s history, chapter 6. Likewise Luther there, and Brentius, and Hermann, assert that soldiering was condemned in the same Council, which nevertheless is clearly lawful from the approval of John the Baptist (Luke 3). Now canon 11 of the Council reads thus: “Those who were truly called by the grace of God, and at first showed their faith by laying aside the soldier’s belt, but afterward returned to their own vomit, so as to give money and canvass to return again to soldiering — let these be for ten years among the penitents, after they have been for three years among the hearers, that is, the catechumens.”
I answer: the Council of Nicaea was always of such authority among all the Fathers that it is astonishing it could enter Luther’s mind to write anything against this Council. But no doubt it was fitting that heretics be exposed in this way, while they vituperate what the whole Catholic Church has always approved. But to the point. It displeases Luther that a law of continence is enjoined on ecclesiastical men, and therefore he clamors that the Council erred. But to us it is Luther who errs, both in word and deed, not the Council; on which matter a proper disputation will be set up in its place.
As for his reprehending the canon on rebaptizing the Paulianists, he betrays his own ignorance. For the Paulianists, since they believed Christ a mere man and openly denied the Trinity, did not baptize in the name of the Trinity; and therefore they did not truly baptize. Moreover the Council of Iconium was a particular one, and disapproved by the supreme Pontiff, like the Council of Carthage celebrated under Cyprian — Councils of the kind we by no means defend.
Now as regards soldiering, the Synod of Nicaea does not forbid soldiering, except insofar as it was at times a sign of idolatry. For it must be known that of old the soldier’s belt was a thing of great honor and also of advantage, on account of the great privileges granted to soldiers; and therefore those ancient heathen Emperors, in time of persecution, were accustomed to take away the soldier’s belt and to cashier those who were found to be Christians and would not deny the faith. This is plain from Eusebius (Book VIII of the history, chapter 4), where he says that the beginning of Diocletian’s persecution began with the Christians, to whom soldiering was denied unless they sacrificed to idols. And in Book IX chapter 10 he says that Licinius also, at the beginning of his persecution, expelled Christians from the palace and from all military service. Likewise from Rufinus, who (Book X of the history, chapter 32), speaking of Julian, says that he ordered the soldier’s belt not to be given except to those who sacrificed; and in Book XI chapter 2 says that Valentinian received the empire from God because, for his faith, in the time of Julian, he had scorned the soldier’s belt.
Since therefore at that time certain Christian soldiers, from ardor of faith, cast off the belt, preferring to live without honor rather than without faith; and afterward, seduced by the Devil, again canvassed for the belt, ready to deny the faith; therefore the Council appointed so severe a penance against these. That this is so is plain: first, from Theodore Balsamon and Zonaras, who thus expounded it in their commentaries on these canons. Secondly, from Rufinus, who (Book X of the history, chapter 6), enumerating the canons of the Council of Nicaea, puts this one thus: “Those who for their confession had cast off soldiering,” and so on. Thirdly, from the canon itself; for the whole canon treats of the lapsed. And first, on those who had lapsed for fear of losing life or goods by denying the faith, the Council enjoins a penance of ten years; then on those who had canvassed for the soldiering which they had spurned for the faith, it enjoins a penance of thirteen years, because these had lapsed more gravely; for the former had simply denied, whereas these had denied after the grace of confession — in which a greater ingratitude toward God is found.
6. Sixthly, Hermann brings forward the Second Council of Arles, in whose second canon it is said thus: “It is not fitting that one bound in the tie of marriage be assumed to the priesthood, unless a conversion has been promised.” Here Hermann Hamelmann notes two errors. One, that it is not lawful for priests to use their wives, since this is against the Council of Gangra, in whose canon 4 those are excommunicated who refuse to be present at the sacrifice offered by a married priest — and the Council of Gangra is received by Leo IV (distinction 20, canon De libellis). Nay, it is even against the Council of Nicaea, in which the opinion of Paphnutius was approved, who had held that ecclesiastics ought not to be forbidden intercourse with their own wives, as is plain from Socrates (Book I chapter 8) — from which it follows that of necessity either the Council of Arles errs, or the Councils of Gangra and Nicaea. He notes the other error in the word “conversion,” for we are not converted except from evil; therefore he who orders a married man to be converted condemns marriage, which is a heresy condemned in the same Council of Gangra, canon 1.
I answer: those Councils do not conflict among themselves, nor did any of them err; for the Council of Gangra issued canons against those who thought that marriage and the eating of flesh were absolutely evil and from the Devil — which was the heresy of Manichaeus and afterward of Eustathius of Sebaste, against whom the Council of Gangra was celebrated. Since therefore these heretics so abhorred marriage that they could not endure even priests who had had wives, even if they no longer had them (at least as wives), therefore the Council thought this canon too should be added. Whence in the canon itself we have thus: “Whoever holds apart from a priest who has had a wife, so as to think he ought not to partake of the offering when that priest ministers, let him be anathema.” Here you see it treats of one who has had a wife, not one who has one.
As for that about the Council of Nicaea, we answered above that the history is not faithfully narrated by Socrates. And, to pass over other arguments now, this is sufficiently gathered from that very Council of Arles. For this Council was celebrated soon after the Council of Nicaea ended, and in it the Nicene canons were received, as is plain from the fact that nearly all of them are repeated in this Council. Since therefore we find even this one here, without doubt either this too was in the Council of Nicaea, or at least it is not contrary to it; for no Catholics ever opposed the Council of Nicaea.
To the last point I say that “conversion” is spoken of not only as from a bad state to a good, but also from a good to a better; wherefore Gregory (Book II, letter 100) calls the profession of monastic life a “conversion,” and there stands a title in the canon law “On the conversion of married persons.”
7. Seventhly, Hermann Hamelmann brings forward the Council of Sirmium, which seems to be received, because the heresy of Photinus was condemned in it, and yet in that Council the Arian heresy was openly confirmed. The same can be said of the Council of Sardica, which is received by Leo IV (distinction 20, canon De libellis). And yet Blessed Augustine (Book III against Cresconius, chapter 34) says: “Learn what you do not know: the Council of Sardica was of the Arians,” and so on.
I answer: these arguments proceed from ignorance of the histories. For many confessions were issued in the Council of Sirmium, besides the condemnation of Photinus, some Catholic, some heretical, as we taught above, and as is clear from Hilary in his book On the Synods. As for Sardica, it was soon divided into two parts; and one part, which was of the 300 Western bishops, with whom were also the legates of Pope Julius, was for the Catholic faith and for restoring Athanasius, as is plain from Hilary On the Synods and from Athanasius in his second Apology; and this part Leo IV confirmed. The other part was of the 70 Eastern bishops, who, meeting apart, condemned the Catholic faith and Athanasius. And of this Augustine speaks, who also does not seem to have read anything of the Council of Sardica except what the Easterns had sent to Africa, to unite the Donatists to themselves.
8. Eighthly, the same Hermann Hamelmann brings forward the Council of Laodicea, in whose first chapter it is decreed that communion be restored, according to indulgence, to those who are joined in second marriages. From which it seems that the Council had earlier taken away communion from those who had taken a second wife, and afterward restored it to them by condoning the sin — for that is what “according to indulgence” signifies.
I answer, first: perhaps the Council speaks of those who employ solemnity in a second marriage, as we said of the Council of Neocaesarea. Secondly I say the Council did not err, even if it speaks of a second marriage, but rather corrected an error; for it appears from this passage that some particular bishops, out of a zeal not according to knowledge, had denied communion to those in second marriages, whose error the Council corrects, ordering communion to be restored to them. For the reason it calls the marriages of such persons at the beginning of the canon an “indulgence” is taken from Paul (1 Cor. 7), who says that he does not command the use of marriage, but indulges it. As therefore Paul, when he says he indulges the use of marriage, does not mean he pardons a sin, but that he grants a lesser good, though he would wish a greater good to be held by them; so this Council says it indulges second marriages, that is, grants them as a lesser good, though it would wish widowhood rather to be chosen, which is a certain good more excellent than marriage.
9. Ninthly, Hermann Hamelmann brings forward the Second General Council, in whose canon 5 two errors are found, conflicting with the decrees of other Councils. One is that the ecclesiastical primacy belongs to the Roman Pontiff; the other, that after the Roman Pontiff the bishop of Constantinople ought to be immediately — which two were again renewed in the Council of Chalcedon, last session. The first error (they say) conflicts with the Council of Nicaea, in whose canon 7 primacy is attributed to the bishop of Jerusalem; and with the Third Council of Carthage, chapter 26, where it is decreed that no one ought to be called Prince of Priests or Supreme Priest. The second error conflicts with the Council of Nicaea, canon 6, where the second place is attributed to the bishop of Alexandria, the third to the bishop of Antioch — which canon Leo I frequently cites in letters 53, 54, and 55.
I answer: the first is not an error, nor does it conflict with any Council. What Hermann adduces from canon 7 of the Council of Nicaea avails nothing. For there some honor is attributed to the bishop of Jerusalem, but not a primacy over the whole Church. Nay, in that Council the see of Jerusalem is openly subjected not only to the Roman, Alexandrian, and Antiochene sees, but even to the Caesarean, which was the metropolitan see of Palestine, as is plain both from canons 6 and 7 of the Council itself, and from Leo in the passages noted, and from Saint Jerome in his letter to Pammachius on the errors of John of Jerusalem. What he adds from the Council of Carthage is still more irrelevant; for that Council was national, and did not make laws for the universal Church, but only for the bishops of Africa. And so it did not forbid, nor could it forbid, that the Roman Pontiff be called Prince of Priests or Supreme Priest, but only that any metropolitan of Africa be so called.
The second error cannot properly be called an error; for that decree about the honor of the sees, as it had been made by the Council of Nicaea, so could be changed by another like Council. Yet because it was changed without just cause by the Council of Constantinople, and afterward by that of Chalcedon, the Roman Pontiffs Damasus and Leo would not approve it, nor in the times of those Pontiffs was that decree carried into effect, as is plain from Leo’s letter 53 to Anatolius, where, speaking of the decree of the Council of Constantinople, he says: “In vain is the consent of certain bishops brought forward, to which the course of so many years has denied effect.” And in letter 55 to Pulcheria, speaking of the decree of the Council of Chalcedon: “The agreements of bishops repugnant to the rules of the canons established at Nicaea we send to nought, and by the authority of Blessed Peter the Apostle we utterly annul by a general definition.”
10. Tenthly, Hermann Hamelmann brings forward the Third Council of Carthage, canon 47, where certain apocryphal books are numbered in the canon of the Scriptures — such as Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees — against the authority of the Council of Laodicea, last chapter, where all those books are rejected from the canon.
I answer, first: the Council of Carthage is of greater authority than that of Laodicea, both because it is later, and also because it was national, of 44 bishops, and moreover confirmed by Leo IV (distinction 20, canon De libellis); whereas Laodicea was provincial, of 22 bishops, and not confirmed by the Pontiff. And so here might have place what Augustine says, that earlier Councils are amended by later ones. Yet I say, secondly, that neither Council erred. For the Council of Laodicea put in the canon those books of which the bishops of that Council were certain, but omitted the others — not indeed denying that they were canonical, but unwilling to define a doubtful matter; while the Council of Carthage, the matter being more fully discussed, defined what the earlier Council had left in doubt.
11. Eleventhly, they bring forward the First Council of Toledo, in whose canon 17 it is written that one who has a concubine may be admitted to communion, provided he is not married; and this Council was celebrated by order of Leo I, as is plain from chapter 21. I answer: in this passage a “concubine” means a wife taken without a dowry and external solemnity, as Gratian rightly noted (distinction 34, canon Omnibus); which conforms to the civil law, as is plain from Justinian’s Novel 18. In the same way in Genesis 25 Hagar and Keturah are called concubines of Abraham, who yet were truly wives, as is plain from Genesis 16 concerning Hagar and Genesis 25 concerning Keturah.
But you will object that Blessed Leo, who ordered this Council to be held and approved it, in letter 92 to Rusticus of Narbonne, chapter 4, speaking of a wife and a concubine, says that a concubine is not truly a wife, nor is union with her a Sacrament or Matrimony; and therefore that a woman who marries a man having a concubine does not sin as though she married a married man, because a man having a concubine cannot be called married. I answer: Leo takes the name “concubine” otherwise than the Fathers of that Council took it; for he calls a concubine one who is taken to the fellowship of the bed without a mutual consent to live together perpetually, whereas the Council calls a concubine one who is taken with that consent, but expressed privately, not by public instruments.
But, you will say, if Leo was the author of this Council, how did he absolutely deny that a concubine can be called a wife? I answer: Leo was not the author of the whole Council, but only of the last canon. For at the beginning of the Council it is said that this Council was gathered in the time of the Emperors Honorius and Arcadius, at which time Leo was not yet Pontiff; for he was created in the time of Theodosius the younger, thirty-three years after the death of Arcadius, as is plain from the Chronicle of Prosper. Then in the last chapter a certain explanation of the faith is set down, which is said to have been made by order of Pope Leo. These cannot cohere unless we say that the Council of Toledo was held before the times of Leo, but that afterward, in Leo’s time, that explanation of the faith was made and annexed to the same Council, because the same bishops who had earlier been in the Council subscribed to this explanation. And indeed a great indication of this may be that we see, before that explanation of the faith, the subscriptions of the bishops by which the Council is ended, and then other subscriptions of the same men after that explanation of the faith. And so Saint Leo confirmed only that last canon, made in his own time.
12. Twelfthly, Hermann Hamelmann brings forward the Council of Worms, in whose third canon an evident error is found: for hidden thieves are ordered to be detected by the reception of the sacred Eucharist. That this is an error Blessed Thomas teaches (part 3, question 80, article 6, reply 3). I answer: the Council was provincial, not confirmed, nay rather reproved as to that canon by the supreme Pontiffs, as Blessed Thomas shows in the same place.
13. Thirteenthly, others bring forward the canons of the Sixth Synod. For those canons seem to be received; for Hadrian I, in his letter to Tarasius (which is in the second session of the Seventh Synod), says these canons were divinely and lawfully proclaimed. Likewise Nicholas I in his letter to Michael, and Innocent III (chapter A multis, in the title on the age of those to be ordained), and the Seventh Synod (sessions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) make use of these canons. But in these canons great errors are found. For in canon 2 the Council under Cyprian on rebaptizing heretics is received — which Augustine proves throughout to have been erroneous, in his seven books On Baptism. Likewise in canon 72 the marriages of Catholics with heretics are judged void and to be dissolved, which is an express error; for although a Catholic sins in marrying a heretical wife, and vice versa, yet Matrimony is a Sacrament on account of the character of Baptism, which the heretic retains, and therefore such a marriage cannot be dissolved.
I answer: not only these two, but many other canons among these are erroneous; but these canons were not issued by any lawful and approved Council. For it is established from Tarasius in the Seventh Synod, session 4, that these canons were not issued by the Sixth Synod, which was in the time of Agatho and Constantine, but many years after, in the time of the Emperor Justinian II, at which Council the Roman Pontiff was not present, neither in person nor by legates, nor did he afterward confirm the Council, but openly reproved it, as Bede testifies (in his book On the Six Ages, under Justinian), and Paul the Deacon (in the life of the same Justinian), and Platina (in the life of Sergius).
To the words of Hadrian I answer that he only recites the opinion of Tarasius and does not refute it, because that canon 82, on pictures, was useful at that time for the question then being treated. To Nicholas I answer that his words are for us; for he says that he cites that canon of the Greeks in the way Paul cited the words of the heathen poets. To Innocent I say that he defines nothing there about these canons, but only cites one canon of them. That he cited it under the name of the Sixth Synod was done either because they are commonly so called, although they truly are not; or because Innocent took this canon from Gratian (distinction 32, canon Si quis); and Gratian often erred in this part, attributing works to those who are not their authors. To the Seventh Synod I say that these canons are always cited by private men in that Synod during the disputation, but nothing is defined by the whole Synod. For the definition of the Council is had only in session 7, and there no mention is made of these canons. See Francisco Torres in his book On the Sixth Synod, and what we discussed of these canons in volume I, Book II On the Pontiff, chapter 14.
14. Fourteenthly, Hermann Hamelmann (Book III of the Prolegomena, last chapter), Calvin (Institutes Book I, chapter 11, section 14 and following, and Book IV, chapter 9, section 9), and the Magdeburgians (Century VIII, chapter 9) bring forward the Seventh Synod, the Second of Nicaea, which they say conflicts with two Councils: one earlier, that is, the Council of Constantinople under Constantine Copronymus; the other later, the Council of Frankfurt under Charlemagne. So that whether one follows the rule of Blessed Augustine (Book II On Baptism, chapter 3), who would have earlier Councils amended by later ones, or that of Saint Isidore (in Gratian, distinction 50, canon Domino sancto), who teaches that older Councils are to be preferred to more recent ones, this Second of Nicaea must necessarily be rejected.
That the Second of Nicaea conflicts with the earlier Council of Constantinople is plain from the Second of Nicaea itself, session 6, where the Fathers acknowledge that in the time of the earlier Emperor it was defined in the Council of Constantinople that images are in no way to be venerated. That it conflicts with the later Council of Frankfurt, in which the legates of the Roman Pontiff also were present, the adversaries prove: first, from Ado, Aimoin, the Abbot of Ursperg, Platina, and other historians, who, when they speak of the times of Charles and Hadrian, say that in the Synod of Frankfurt the Seventh Synod of the Greeks was condemned; secondly, they prove it from the four books of Charlemagne, which recently appeared, that is, in the year 1549, for in those books Charlemagne fights with all his might against images and the Seventh Synod, and there we read that these very books were approved in the Synod of Frankfurt.
I answer: the Synod of Nicaea conflicts with no lawful Council. And first, as regards the Council of Constantinople under the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, it is established that it was neither general nor in any way lawful, since the Roman Pontiff was not present at it, neither in person nor by legates — as John, Zonaras, and Cedrenus relate in the life of Constantine Copronymus, and the same the Magdeburgians admit (Century VIII, chapter 9, column 551). And that ecumenical Councils cannot be celebrated without the Roman Pontiff is plain from the rule of the Council of Nicaea, which is in Socrates (Book II, chapter 13). What of this, that neither were the three other chief Patriarchs present — of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem — as is plain from the same Zonaras, Cedrenus, and the Magdeburgians? How then can that be called a general Council to which neither the West, nor the East, nor the South consented, but only a few bishops from the North? Finally, all the historians that exist, both Greek (as Zonaras, Psellus, Photius, Nicetas, Cedrenus) and Latin (as Regino, Sigebert, Ado, Paul the Deacon, the Abbot of Ursperg, and very many others), all either openly reprehend this Council or do not number it among the Councils of the Church.
Now to the Council of Frankfurt, on which the adversaries chiefly rely, I say three things. First, whatever that Council defined is not to be made much of; for without doubt the Second of Nicaea is to be preferred to it, which certainly was more universal, more ancient, and beyond controversy approved by the supreme Pontiff. For it is established from the Council itself that the legates of Pope Hadrian were present, and again that it was approved by Leo III, as is plain from Ivo (part 4, chapter 147).
I say, secondly, if what the Centuriators say is true (Century VIII, chapter 9, column 639), that Synod does us no harm; for they themselves say that Hadrian and his legates did not consent to the Synod of Frankfurt, but opposed it. But it is certain that a Synod which the Roman Pontiff opposes is of no authority, as is plain both from Gelasius (in the volume On the Bond of Anathema) and from experience. For no Synod was ever held lawful which the Roman Pontiff opposed. What of this, that the very Synod of Frankfurt teaches this itself? For, as is plain from the Caroline books, the Synod of Frankfurt decreed that the final judgment of controversies belongs to the Roman Pontiff, and by this chief argument it refuted the Seventh Synod, because it deemed it celebrated without the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Therefore the Synod of Frankfurt, by the testimony of the Magdeburgians, destroys itself.
Besides, the Magdeburgians say in the same place that the Synod of Nicaea was confirmed by Hadrian, while the Council of Frankfurt reproves a Synod held without the Pope’s authority; therefore, by the judgment of the Magdeburgians, it is not our Nicene Synod, but some other, that is reproved in the Council of Frankfurt. Finally, in the same place the Magdeburgians teach that in the Synod of Frankfurt it was not defined that images be removed from the churches, but that they indeed remain in the churches, but not be adored. Why then do they themselves remove images from the churches? Why do they break them? Why do they not keep the Frankfurt decree? By which also the lie of the English Apology is refuted, which teaches that in the Council of Frankfurt it was decreed that images be destroyed. On the contrary, the Synod of Frankfurt, by the testimony of the Caroline books, of Hincmar, and of the Magdeburgians themselves, said anathema to those who wish to destroy images. Besides, the matter itself shows the same: for if that Synod had decreed this, why was it not done? For who would resist, in the Western Church, a decree of all the bishops and of a most powerful King? But that it was not done is more certain than certain: for no historians report it. Nay, Jonas of Orleans reports it as a new and sacrilegious thing that Claudius of Turin wished to destroy images in his diocese.
Thirdly I say the matter is most uncertain, what was decreed about images in the Synod of Frankfurt; for the ancient authors do not agree with themselves. For, first, the very Frankfurt decree, which is cited in the preface of the Caroline books, testifies that in the Synod of Frankfurt was condemned the Synod which had assembled at Constantinople and had ordered images to be adored. Where, when it names Constantinople, it seems to speak of the Synod of heretics against images; but when it says that it was there decreed that images be adored, it seems to speak of the Synod of the Catholics. In like manner the Caroline books themselves say that in the Synod of Frankfurt was condemned the Synod which had been held at Constantinople in Bithynia without the authority of the Pope, for adoring images; where, when it names Constantinople and says that the Pope’s authority was absent from the Synod, it seems to speak of the Synod of the heretics; but when it says “in Bithynia” and that the Synod was celebrated for images, it seems to speak of our Nicene one. For Nicaea is the metropolis of Bithynia, whereas Constantinople is in Thrace.
Now Hincmar of Reims (chapter 20 of his book against Hincmar of Laon, who flourished at almost the same time) says that in the Synod of Frankfurt was condemned the Synod which had assembled at Nicaea without the Pope’s authority — where too he joins two contraries, as is plain. Aimoin (Book IV, chapter 85, On the Deeds of the Franks) and the Abbot of Ursperg (in his Chronicle for the year 793) write that in the Synod of Frankfurt was condemned the Seventh Synod of the Greeks, which had assembled at Constantinople under Constantine and Irene — where they too join contraries among themselves. But many more recent historians say that in the Synod of Frankfurt was condemned a Synod for removing images, which the Greeks called the Seventh General. So Platina (in the life of Hadrian), Blondus (Decade 2, Book I), Sabellicus (Book VIII of Ennead VIII), Paulus Aemilius (Book II On the Deeds of the Franks).
On account of this confusion Alan Cope (Dialogues 4 and 5) teaches that in the Synod of Frankfurt only the heretical Council of Constantinople was condemned, while the Nicene one was not only not condemned but even confirmed — which opinion I could wish were true, but nevertheless I suspect it is false. First, because those Caroline books, though falsely inscribed to Charles (as we shall say), yet were without doubt written in the time of Charles, as is plain from the refutation of those same books which Hadrian I issued; and they seem to have been written at the Council of Frankfurt and to contain the acts of the Synod of Frankfurt. For Hincmar, an author of that time, asserts this, and the books themselves bear it on their face. And that the Synod refuted in these books is truly the Second of Nicaea cannot be doubted, if one reads either the books themselves or Hadrian’s reply.
Secondly, because all the ancient authors agree in this, that in the Council of Frankfurt the Seventh Synod, which had decreed that images be adored, was reproved. So Hincmar, Aimoin, Regino, Ado, and others everywhere teach. But to say that all these lie, or that their books are corrupted, as Cope says, seems to me a little too harsh. Thirdly, because if these authors were speaking of a false Seventh Synod, that is, of the Synod of Constantinople against images, they would certainly have mentioned in their histories also the truly Seventh Synod of Nicaea. But they made mention of no Seventh Council except this one, which they say was reproved. Nor does it stand in the way that the Caroline books, as the Abbot of Ursperg and Aimoin say, reprove a Synod held at Constantinople; for the Abbot followed the Caroline books, as did Aimoin; and the author of those books, either by a slip of memory or from ignorance, put Constantinople for Nicaea. For otherwise, since he says the Synod was celebrated in the province of Bithynia, where Nicaea is, not Constantinople, he sufficiently indicates that he speaks of Nicaea; and likewise the Abbot and Aimoin, when they say the Synod was celebrated under Constantine and Irene, clearly show that they speak of the Nicene Synod, even if by error they name Constantinople.
Nor does it stand in the way that Hincmar and the Caroline books say that the Synod reproved in the Council of Frankfurt was convened without the authority of the Pope — which is false of the Nicene, and true of the Constantinopolitan. For Hincmar followed the Caroline books, as he himself indicates; and the author of those books feigned this lie, with many others, to impute it to the Synod of Frankfurt, as we shall soon say. Nor, lastly, does it stand in the way that Platina, Blondus, Sabellicus, and Paulus Aemilius say that a Synod for removing images was reproved. For, first, all these are more recent. Next, what they say does not conflict with the sayings of the ancient historians; for in the Synod of Frankfurt two Synods were reproved, namely the Constantinopolitan against images and the Nicene for images, as is plain from the Caroline books and from Hincmar; and perhaps this is the reason why some of the ancient historians name Nicaea, others Constantinople, when they say a Synod of the Greeks was reproved in the Council of Frankfurt.
It seems to me, therefore, that in the Synod of Frankfurt the Second Nicene Synod was truly reproved, but by error and materially, in just the way that of old the Synod of Ariminum condemned the homoousion. For the author of the Caroline books imposed upon the Synod and thrust two lies upon it. One lie was that in the Synod of Nicaea it had been defined that images be adored with the worship of latria. The other, that that decree was made by the Greeks without the consent of the Roman Pope. These two lies being taken for truth, the Synod of Frankfurt reproved — and deservedly — the Nicene Synod as profane and unlawful.
That those two things were persuaded to the Council is plain from the Caroline books themselves; for in the preface it is expressly had thus: “There was brought forward [namely, in the Synod of Frankfurt] the question of the new Synod of the Greeks, which they held at Constantinople concerning the adoring of images, in which it was written that whoever did not render to the images of the saints service or adoration as to the Deific Trinity should be judged anathema. Our most holy Fathers aforesaid, refusing in every way to render prayer and service to them, despised and, agreeing together, condemned it.” Thus there. In the very work too, Constantine bishop of Cyprus is introduced, in the Council of Nicaea, saying anathema to those who do not adore images with that worship with which the most holy Trinity is adored. Behold clearly the first lie.
The same author clearly teaches that the judgment of controversies of faith belongs to the supreme Pontiff, and therefore that that Synod for adoring images is of no worth, because it lacks the Pontiff’s authority.
Besides, those ancient authors who say that a false Synod was reproved, which had decreed that images are to be adored, without doubt by that word “adored” understand the worship of latria; for they too teach that images are to be venerated, and yet they execrate that Synod which orders images to be adored. Ado (in his Chronicle for the year 696) says that at Rome, on the day of the Exaltation of the Cross, the Cross was accustomed to be kissed and adored by the whole people, and also (in his Chronicle for the year 717) he calls venerable the image which the heretic Philippicus had overthrown and the Catholic Emperor Theodosius had restored. Regino (Book I of the Chronicle, toward the end) acknowledges the adoration of the Cross, and calls the casting-down of images by Leo the Iconoclast a crime. John Aventinus (Book IV of the Annals) says that when Charlemagne was designated Emperor, his image was venerated in the church by all the people, he himself being present. The Abbot of Ursperg (in his Chronicle) inveighs against Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Copronymus for the casting-down of images, and calls them impious and forerunners of Antichrist; and on the contrary praises Pope Gregory and says he was a holy man, who for the images of Christ and the saints excommunicated the Emperor.
That they are truly lies — that the Nicene Synod lacked the Pope’s authority, and that it decreed images to be adored with the worship of latria — is most certain; for in the Second Council of Nicaea itself, session 2, the letters of Pope Hadrian for images are recited, and in all the sessions the Roman legates always subscribe first. Then, as regards the worship, in session 1 Basil of Ancyra, who had before been a heretic, when he came to himself and made a Catholic confession, the whole Council hearing and approving, said that he indeed venerated images, but not with latria, since that is due to God alone. Similarly Constantine bishop of Constantia in Cyprus spoke in the Seventh Synod, session 3. Similarly the others speak in sessions 4 and 7.
Nor ought it to seem strange that the author of the Caroline books thrust such manifest lies upon the Synod of Frankfurt about the Nicene Synod held a little before; for if now the Magdeburgians and Calvin dare to write that we worship images with divine honors outright, as gods, when so many books of Catholics, and the very general Latin Council celebrated at Trent on the borders of Germany, expressly cry the contrary — what wonder if the same was feigned about a Greek Synod, which very few could read, and which had been celebrated in the East?
If you say, then at least the Council of Frankfurt, which was very numerous and lawful, could err — I answer: it could err, and it did err, not in a question of right, but of fact; and besides, it is no wonder if it could err, for the Roman legates did not consent, as the Magdeburgians say. And the Pope not only did not consent, but even refuted the Frankfurt decree, as is plain from the book of Hadrian on images to Charles, where all the lies of those Caroline books are refuted.
As for what they bring from the books of Charles, in which they place the chief support of their cause, I say that those books are neither Charles’s, nor of the kind to which any faith can be given. That they are not Charles’s is proved, first, because there stands the book of Pope Hadrian I to Charles, in which those books are accurately refuted — from which book of Hadrian it is clearly understood that those books were composed by some heretic and sent by Charles to the Pontiff, that he might answer them. And that this book is Hadrian’s, which stands in volume III of the Councils, can be understood both from other sources and from Ivo, who transferred much from this book under Hadrian’s name into the fourth part of his decree.
Secondly, it is established from the histories of the Greeks and Latins — as Zonaras and Cedrenus in the life of Leo the Isaurian, and Paul the Deacon in the life of the same — that the Roman Pontiffs Gregory III, Hadrian I, and Leo III revolted from the Greek Emperors, excommunicated them, forbade tribute to be paid them from Italy, betook themselves to the protection of the Franks, and at last transferred the empire to them, chiefly for this cause: that the Greek Emperors favored the heresy of the Iconoclasts, whereas the Kings of the Franks were constant in the ancient faith. How then is it likely that Charles the Emperor labored under the same heresy, and wrote for the error of the Greeks against the Roman Pontiff? But let us hear the words of Zonaras: “Therefore,” he says, “Pope Gregory, having forsaken the obedience of the Emperor on account of his perverse opinion, made peace with the Franks, having first often taken pains to recall Leo by letters from the hatred of God and to bring him back to the worship of the sacred images.” And below, in the life of Irene: “Hadrian, Pope of old Rome, being dead, Leo was substituted, a reverend and honorable man, who, when he had betaken himself to Charles King of the Franks, from that time the Franks gained possession of Rome, Charles being crowned by Leo and called Emperor of the Romans.” For Pope Gregory would have nothing to do with the impious governors of the Church of Constantinople, and made peace with the Franks.
Thirdly, Jonas of Orleans writes (Book I On the Worship of Images — and Jonas flourished in the time of Louis the Pious, son of Charles) that Claudius of Turin, the patron of that heresy, never dared to mutter throughout the whole time that Charles lived. And the same author in the same place calls Charles Augustus a most pious man of holy memory. If therefore the Iconoclasts, while Charles lived, did not dare to preach their heresy; if the defenders of images venerated Charles as pious and holy — with what impudence are books against images attributed to Charles?
Fourthly, Paulus Aemilius writes (Book II of the history of the Franks), and likewise Regino in his Chronicle, that in a certain Council held at Gentilly, King Pepin, the father of Charlemagne, refuted the error of the Greeks against sacred images, in the presence of the legates of the Greek Emperor; from the same Paulus it is also established that not long after, to the Council which Pope Stephen celebrated at Rome against the same error of the Greeks, Charlemagne sent twelve bishops from the chief of his kingdom. With what audacity, then, do the adversaries strive to transform a most Christian Prince into an Iconoclast? — especially since the Magdeburgians (Century VIII, chapter 9, column 570) agree with Paulus Aemilius in this part.
Fifthly, it is established from all the historians, and from Charles’s own letters and poems — nay, from the very deeds — that Charles and Hadrian were always most closely joined. There still stands Hadrian’s epitaph, described by the Emperor Charles no less elegantly than piously, in Onuphrius’s addition to Platina, of which this is the beginning:
Here the father of the Church, the glory of Rome, the renowned author,
Hadrian the blessed Pope, has his rest.
A man to whom life, God, piety, law, glory was Christ;
An apostolic shepherd, ready to every good.
And below:
After his father, Charles weeping wrote these verses:
Thou wast my sweet love; thee now I bewail, father.
Be thou mindful of me; my mind follows thee always.
With Christ mayest thou hold the blessed realms of heaven.
Is it credible, then, that Charles was of another religion and faith than Hadrian, and wrote so sharply against Hadrian himself, when he so greatly esteemed him and praised him after his death?
Finally, it is certain that Charles was a man skilled in Greek and Latin, prudent and ingenious, whereas those books seem to be of a barbarous, unskilled, frivolous, and almost foolish man. For he says that Constantinople, a most well-known city, is in Bithynia, when no one is ignorant that it is in Thrace — unless perhaps, because frequent earthquakes occur there, it changed its site. Then he asserts that a Council for the worship of images was celebrated at Constantinople, when yet there is no one who does not know it was celebrated at Nicaea, except one who reads nothing. And, what is graver, by calumny and lie those books attribute much to the Nicene Fathers which they never said, and sometimes what the adversaries had said; such is that the Eucharist is an image of the body of Christ, which not only do the Nicene Fathers not defend, as this author dreams, but even professedly refute. Whence Calvin took occasion for another lie. For since the Iconoclasts had said that one image only is to be adored, that is, the Eucharist, and this saying Pseudo-Charles had attributed to the Nicene Synod, it pleased Calvin so to change the whole matter and to say: “But that its solemn play might not lack its ‘applaud,’ a clause is added [namely, by the Council of Nicaea]: Let those rejoice and exult who, having the image of Christ, offer sacrifice to it.” Which is a most impudent lie. For the Council of Nicaea is so far from wishing sacrifice to be offered to images that in session 7 it expressly declared that not true latria, but only an honorary adoration, is given to images.
Let this be added, lastly: that this book, like another Melchizedek, is without father, without mother, without genealogy. For it suddenly came to light, and it is not known when, or where, or how, or by whom it was found; nor has it the name of author, or printer, or of the place where it was printed — all of which are arguments and indications of fraud. But grant it be a book of Charlemagne; what in the end will the adversaries gain? Nothing at all. For the author of this book expressly opposes almost all the dogmas of the Calvinists; for he openly teaches that the final judgment of controversies of faith belongs to the Roman Pontiff, and that he has his primacy not from Councils, but from God Himself. The same author would have exorcism used in Baptism, churches dedicated by a certain rite, prayer made for the dead, the saints invoked, relics venerated, the use of chrism, blessed water, and salt retained in the Church; and that in the Eucharist there is truly the body of Christ, and that it is to be adored, and offered as a true and proper sacrifice — all of which are, among the adversaries, avowed heresies.
If therefore they wish us to believe this author when he teaches that the Nicene Synod erred, let them believe the same author when he asserts so many things which we have now enumerated. And if it were even established that Charles himself wrote this book, and that it agrees in all things with the Calvinists, what more would they have than the testimony of one lay man and soldier? To wish to set which against a general Council of bishops is manifest folly. For, as Damascene rightly says (Oration 2 on images), Christ did not commit the Church to kings and emperors, but to bishops and pastors.
15. Fifteenthly, they bring forward two Councils contrary to each other, over which nevertheless Roman Pontiffs presided. For the Roman Council under Stephen VII annulled all the acts of Pope Formosus, his predecessor; then the Council of Ravenna under John IX annulled the acts of the Council under Stephen and approved the acts of Formosus. See Sigebert in his Chronicle for the year 903, Matthew Palmer in his Chronicle for the year 899, and Platina in the lives of these Pontiffs. I answer: the question was one of fact, that is, whether Formosus had been a true and lawful Pope; and because Stephen, ill-informed, judged that he had not been Pope, he annulled his acts. But because John afterward, the matter being better investigated, found the contrary, he corrected the error of the earlier Council, according to the rule of Augustine, who says that earlier Councils are sometimes amended by later ones — namely, in cases of this particular kind.
16. Sixteenthly, they bring forward the Roman Council under Nicholas II, in which it was defined that not only the Sacrament of the body of Christ, but also the very true body of Christ, is handled and broken by the hands of the priests and ground by the teeth of the faithful, as is plain from the canon Ego Berengarius (De consecratione, distinction 2). But here (they say) is a manifest error against the glorious resurrection of Christ, of which the Apostle says: “Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more.” For if the true body of Christ is broken and ground, surely it is corrupted and dies.
I answer: there was never any question whether Christ’s body, as it is in itself, was broken by hands and ground by teeth; for it is certain, and always has been, that Christ’s body, now existing incorruptible, cannot be broken and ground except in the sign or Sacrament, so that it is said to be broken and ground when its sign, that is, the species of bread, is broken and ground. But the question was whether the sign which is broken and ground is a bare sign, or truly contains the body of Christ; and because Berengarius had taught that it was a bare sign, therefore the Council, framing a form of abjuration of this error, meant him to say that not only the Sacrament, but also the true body of Christ is broken and ground. Of which words this is the sense: it is not a bare sign that is ground and broken, but also the true body of Christ — that is, but the sign having really joined to it the body of Christ; or, but also the true body of Christ existing present there is broken and ground, yet not in itself but in the sign. In which way also we understand it when Chrysostom (homily 83 on Matthew) says: “O how many now say, I would I could see His form, His garments, His sandals! You see Him, then; you touch Him; you eat Him.”
17. Seventeenthly, Hermann brings forward the Lateran Council under Innocent III, in which it was defined that it is to be held for an article of faith that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ; but in the Council of Ephesus anathema is said to all who bring forward another Creed.
I answer, first: the Lateran Council composed no Creed, but only defined one question of faith, as many Councils did after Ephesus. Secondly I say: the Council of Ephesus said anathema to those bringing forward another Creed, that is, one contrary to the Nicene, but not another, that is, a new and more explicit one. Thirdly I say: the Council of Ephesus forbade the composition of a new Creed to bishops and particular Councils, but not to the supreme Pontiff or a general Council; for no one has authority to command an equal or a greater.
18. Eighteenthly, they bring forward the Councils of Constance and Basel; for the former (session 13) excommunicated all communicating under both species, while the latter granted both species to the Bohemians. I answer: whatever be the authority of these Councils, I say they do not conflict among themselves; for Constance excommunicates those who communicate under both species without the license of the Church. For here are understood the precepts of superiors; and one who gives a precept does not deprive himself of the authority of dispensing. But the Council of Basel dispensed with the Bohemians and gave them license to communicate under both species.
Lastly, they bring forward the same Councils of Constance and Basel, which establish that a Council is above the Pope, the contrary of which is had in the Lateran Council, session 11. But of this matter we shall speak below at the end of this book.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII. Solvuntur argumenta ex Conciliorum erratis. Enumerant denique adversarii errores Conciliorum , et praecipue Hermannus lib. III, cap. 15. et 16. Prolegcmen., et lib. Pro- testantium , qui inscribitur : « Causa cur electores etc. » Sed e maximo numero erro- rtim, solum tertia pars eget aliqua discussio¬ ne. Trium enim generum errores in Conci¬ liis adversarii observarunt. Quosdam erro¬ res veros et crassos, sed Conciliorum illegi¬ timorum et a Pontificibus reprobatorum, ut Ariminensis, Seleuciensis, Ephesini II, quos frustra enumerant, cum nihil faciant contra nos. Vide quae diximus de Conciliis reproba¬ tis, lib, I, cap. 7 et 8. Alios deinde errores non veros, sed fictos Conciliorum legitimorum , et probatorum : Omnia enim quae ipsi non probant , vocant errores. Hoc. modo dicunt errasse Concilium Chalcedonense , in quo sanctimoniales pro¬ hibentur votum continentiae violare, et Con¬ cilium Gartliaginense V, in quo statuitur, ne altaria erigantur sine reliquiis Martyrum. Sed dum haec dicunt , assumunt quod pro¬ bandum erat. Alios denique errores observant in veris, legitimisque Conciliis , qui revera speciem aliquam erroris habere videntur, id est, ejus¬ modi sententias videntur continere, quae et nostro et illorum consensu judicantur erro¬ neae, atque hos dumtaxat examinare, et di¬ luere debemus. Primo loco Calvinus adducit Concilium 400 Prophetarum, qui omnes errarunt, ipso Deo protestante se misisse spiritum menda¬ cem in ore ipsorum , III Regum XXII. Sed quale, quaeso, Concilium illud fuit? Primum non erant illi Prophetae Domini ; nam cum 400 illi Prophetae sententias suas dixissent, legimus quaesivisse Regem Josaphat a Rege Achab, an non esset aliquis Propheta Domi¬ ni , per quem Dominus interrogari posset? . Achab autem respondisse : Remansit unus , sed ego odi illum. Deinde Concilia, non Pro¬ phetarum, sed sacerdotum esse debent. De¬ nique Concilium illud, ab Achab Rege non a summo Pontifice coactum fuit , proinde ni¬ hil mirum, si erravit. Proponunt secundo Calvinus et Brentius Concilium Judaeorum, praeside summo Pon¬ tifice Caipha , in quo excommunicati sunt, qui confitebantur Jesum esse Christum, Joan. IX et postea Christus reus mortis judicatus est Joan. XI et Mare. XIV. Respondeo, quidam aiunt, quaestionem fuisse de facto, non de jure, quam Concilium illud judicavit, videlicet, num Jesus necan¬ dus esset ; In ejusmodi autem judiciis Conci¬ lia errare posse, non dubium est. At quaestio illa etiam si de facto esset, tamen involvebat quaestionem de fide gravissimam , nimirum an Jesus esset verus Messias , et Dei Filius, atque adeo Deus verus. Quocirca erravit in fide perniciosissime Caiphas cum universo Concilio, cum judicavit Jesum blasphemas- se qui se Dei filium appellaverat. Alii dicunt , Pontificem , et Concilium er¬ rasse, quantum ad errorem propriae mentis, non tamen errasse in sententia , quam pro¬ tulit. Vere enim Jesus erat reus mortis, quia peccata nostra in seipso purganda suscepe¬ rat, et vere expediebat , eum mori pro po¬ pulo. Quare Joan. cap. XI dicit Caipham prophetasse. At licet verba Caiphse bonum sensum recipiant , non tamen omnia, cum enim ait de Christo : Blasphemavit , quid ad¬ huc egemus testibus ? Certe tunc non prophe¬ tavit, sed blasphemavit. Alii dicunt , Concilium illud errasse, quia non processit secundum morem legitimi ju¬ dicii : sed tumultuaria conspiratione, subor¬ natis falsis testibus , Christum damnavit. Id quod adeo notum erat omnibus, ut etiam Pi¬ latus sciret per invidiam eum fuisse traditum sibi a Pontificibus, ut habemus Mat. XXVII. Atque haic quidem responsio probabilis est. Quia tamen non est inferiorum judicare, an superiores legitime procedant, necne, ni¬ si manifestissime constet intolerabilem erro¬ rem committi ; et credibile est , Deum non permissurum, ut Concilia, quibus summus Pontifex praesidet, non legitime procedant : Ideo respondemus, Pontifices et Concilia Ju¬ daeorum non potuisse errare antequam Chri¬ stus veniret, sed eo praesente potuisse , imo fuisse praedictum erraturos Judaeos, et Chri¬ stum negaturos, Isai. VI, Daniel. IX, et ali¬ bi. Sicut enim non est necessarium , ut Vi¬ carius Papae non possit errare, cum ipse Pa¬ pa regat Ecclesiam , et ab errore defendat; Sic etiam non fuit necessarium , ut Pontifi¬ ces Judaeorum non possent errare , quando Christus , summus totius Ecclesiae Pontifex praesens aderat , et Ecclesiam per se admi¬ nistrabat. Tertio videtur Lutherus reprehendere Con¬ cilium Apostolorum , de quo Act. XV. Dicit enim in assert. art. 29. Jacobum mutasse Petri sententiam. Constat autem sententiam Petri , qui judicaverat , non debere Gentes cogi ad legalia, fuisse bonam et veram ; nam eam tuetur Paulus in tota epist. ad Galatas, ergo sententia Jacobi , quam Synodus tota secuta est, fuit mala, et falsa, quae nimirum jussit Gentes abstinere a sanguine, et suffo¬ cato, quod nihil aliud est , quam judaizare. Item Lutherus in lib. de Conciliis^parte pri¬ ma, multa dicit de hac lege Apostolorum, et quamvis non audet asserere fuisse malam, tamen inde probat, Concilium nihil prodes¬ se, quia non potest defendi ista lex, nisi di¬ camus Concilium non obligare. Respondeo , non desunt veteres , qui ne¬ gent Concilium Apostolorum, quidquam prae¬ cepisse de abstinentia ab esu sanguinis , et suffocatorum animalium. Irenseus enim lib. III, cap. 12. hunc locum bis adducens, semper omittit suffocatum, et nomine sanguinis videtur intelligere homi¬ cidium. Cyprianus lib. III ad Quirinum cir¬ ca finem aperte dicit, Apostolos tantum prae¬ cepisse, ut abstineret ab idololatria, fornica¬ tione, et sanguinis effusione. Chrysostomus et OEcumenius in hunc locum , intelligunt per suffocatum homicidium. Nihilominus ta¬ men omnibus codicibus Graecis , et Latinis invenimus sanguinem, et suffocatum, et con¬ stat ex Tertull. in Apologetico, cap. 9. et ex Concilio Gangrensi, can. 2. per multos an¬ nos servatum in Ecclesia hoc praeceptum, ita, ut non vescerentur Christiani sanguine, nec suffocatis animalibus. Et praeterea nul¬ la erat ratio , cur Apostoli prohiberent ho¬ micidium ; solum enim voluerunt prohibere quaedam, de quibus Gentiles dubitabant, an essent peccata , homicidium autem esse peccatum apud omnes semper in confesso fuit. Respondemus igitur, Apostolos in primis prohibuisse fornicationem, quia illa non vi¬ debatur peccatum Gentilibus, cum nullis le¬ gibus puniretur ; Deinde imperasse absti¬ nentiam ab immolatis simulacrorum, san¬ guine, et suffocato, non ut legis veteris ob¬ servantiam, sed ut sua, id est, Apostolica praecepta, idque in eum finem, ut facilius Ecclesia, ex Judaeis, et Gentibus coalesce¬ ret. Non enim potuissent in illis initiis Judaei ferre Gentilium societatem, si eos vidissent visci carnibus immolatitiis, aut sanguine, aut suffocato, a quibus illi valde abhorre¬ bant. Postea vero quam Ecclesia crevit, et finis ille legis cessavit, lex etiam per se ces¬ savit. De qua re sic loquitur S. Augustinus lib. XXII contra Faustum, cap. 13. : « Si hoc tunc Apostoli praeceperunt, ut ab ani¬ malium sanguine abstinerent Christiani, ne praefocatis carnibus vescerentur , elegisse mihi videntur pro tempore rem facilem, et nequaquam observantibus onerosam, in qua cum Israelitis etiam Gentes propter angula¬ rem illum lapidem, duos parietes in si; con¬ dentem, aliquid communiter observarent. » Et infra : «Transacto vero illo tempore, quo illi duo parietes, unus ex Circumcisione, al¬ ter ex Praeputio venientes, quamvis in an¬ gulari lapide concordarent, tamen suis qui¬ busdam proprietatibus distinctius emine¬ bant : et ubi Ecclesia Gentium talis effecta est, ut in ea nullus Israelita carnalis appa¬ reat, quis jam hoc Christianus observat, ut turdos, vel minutiores aviculas non attin¬ gat, nisi quarum sanguis effusus est, aut le¬ porem non edat, si manu in cervice percus¬ sus, nullo cruento vulnere occisus est? Et qui forte pauci adhuc tangere ista formi¬ dant, a caeteris irridentur. » Haec ille. Itaque, neque Concilium erravit neque Jacobus Petri sententiam mutavit, sed an¬ tequam res definiretur, putavit addendum sententiae Petri hoc praeceptum positivum, et temporale, et postea ex communi senten¬ tia res definita est. Vide Hieronymum in epistola ad Augustinum, quae est 11. inter epistolas Augustini, ubi dicit, Jacobum, et omnes alios Petri sententiae acquievisse. Quarto , proferunt Concilium Neocaesa- riense, confirmatum a Leone IV, dist. 20. can. de libellis, et receptum in Concilio Ni¬ caeno 1, ut dicitur in Concilio Florentino sess. VII. Nam in hoc Concilio can. 7. inve- i i i ‘ i nitur exploratus error, quo prohibentur se¬ cundae nuptiae : « Presbyterum, inquit Con¬ cilium, convivio secundarum nuptiarum in- teresse non debere, maxime cum praecipia¬ tur secundis nuptiis poenitentiam tribuere.» Quis erit ergo Presbyter, qui, propter con¬ vivium, illis consentiat nuptiis, quas tamen Paulus concedit I. Cor. VII : Si dormient vir ejus , liberata est, cui vult nubat , tantum in Do¬ mino ? (1) Respondeo, Concilium loqui de eo, qui duas simul uxores habet, ut exponit recte Glossa3I. quaest. 1. can. De his qui frequen¬ ter. Vel secundo dici potest, non prohiberi secundum Matrimonium, sed solemnitatem secundi Matrimonii, cui solemnitati proprie convenit nomen nuptiarum. Celebritfts enim nuptiarum tantum semel in Ecclesia fieri consuevit, nimirum quando Virgines con¬ junguntur, ut Isidorus testatur lib. II de of ficiis, cap. 17. ubi dicit, solum in primis nuptiis dari annulum, et velum quoddam, partim album, partim rubeum, quod flam¬ meum dicebatur; a quo velo nuptias dictas, quia nimirum eo velo obnubuntur capita novarum nuptarum, testatur Ambrosius lib. 1 de Abraham, cap. 9. Canon igitur ille pro¬ hibet, ne Presbyter celebritati secundi Ma¬ trimonii intersit, quin potius poenitentiam injungat iis, qui contra morem Ecclesiae in secundo matrimonio ejusmodi celebritatem adhibuerint. Quinto, proferunt Nicaenum Concilium primum, de quo Lutherus in libro de Con¬ ciliis part. 1. dicit, se non intelligere Spiri¬ tum sanctum in isto Concilio; nam in uno canone dicit, non esse idoneos ad Sacerdo¬ tium eos, qui se castraverunt ; in altero pro¬ hibet, ne Sacerdotes habeant uxores, et tan¬ dem ita concludit pag. 92. : « An vero nihil aliud est negotii Spiritui sancto in Conciliis, quam ut impossibilibus, periculosis, non ne¬ cessariis legibus suos ministros obstringat, et oneret? » Ibidem Lutherus refert cano- nem erroneum Nicaeni Concilii de rebapti¬ zandis Paulianis, et similem Concilii Iconii ex lib. VII histor, Eusebii cap. 6. Item Lu¬ therus ibidem , Brentius , et Hermannus, damnatam esse militiam asserunt in eodem Concilio, quam tamen constat ex approba¬ tione Joannis Baptistae Luc. III, esse licitam. Sic autem habet canon 11. Concilii : « Qui vere per Dei gratiam vocati primo quidem ostenderunt fidem suam, deposito militiae cingulo, post haec autem ad proprium vomi¬ tum reversi sunt, ut et pecunias darent, et ambirent redire rursum ad militiam ; isti decem annis sint inter poenitentes, postquam triennio fuerint inter audientes, id est, Ca¬ techumenos. » Respondeo , Concilium Nicaenum tantae semper apud omnes Patres fuisse auctorita¬ tis, ut mirum sit, Luthero in mentem venire potuisse, ut aliquid adversum hoc Concilium scriberet. Sed nimirum ita oportuit haereti¬ cos prodi, dum ea vituperant, quae omnis Catholica Ecclesia semper probavit. Sed ad rem. Displicet Luthero injunctam Ecclesias¬ ticis viris legem continentiae, ideoque Con¬ cilium errasse clamat. At nobis Lutherus errat, et verbo, et facto, non Concilium; de qua re propria instituetur suo loco dispu¬ tatio. Quod autem reprehendit canonem de re¬ baptizandis Paulianis , ignorantiam suam prodit. Pauliani enim, cum purum hominem Christum crederent, et Trinitatem aperte negarent, non baptizabant in nomine Trini¬ tatis ; proinde nec vere baptizabant. Porro Concilium Iconii particulare fuit, et impro¬ batum a summo Pontifice, sicut Concilium Carthaginiense sub Cypriano celebratum, qualia Concilia nos minime defendimus. Jam quod attinet ad militiam, Nicaena Sy¬ nodus non prohibet militiam, nisi quatenus aliquando signum est idololatriae. Sciendum enim est, olim cingulum militiae fuisse rem magni honoris, et etiam commodi, propter magna privilegia concessa militibus : et propterea antiquos illos Imperatores Ethni¬ cos, tempore persecutionis consuevisse au¬ ferre cingulum militiae, et exauthorare eos, qui Christiani inveniebantur, et fidem ne¬ gare nolebant. Quod patet ex Eusebio lib. VIII hist. cap. 4. ubi dicit, initium persecu¬ tionis Diocletiani coepisse a Christianis, qui¬ bus militia negabatur, nisi immolarent ido¬ lis. Et lib. IX, cap. 10. dicit, Licinium quo¬ que initio suae persecutionis, Christianos de Palatio, et de omni militia expulisse. Item ex Ruffino, qui lib. X hist. cap. 32. ubi de Juliano ait, militiae cingulum non dari, nisi immolantibus, jubet; et lib. XI, cap. 2. di¬ cit, Valentinianum a Deo recepisse impe¬ rium, quia pro ejus fide, tempore Juliani, militiae cingulum spreverat, (1) I. Cor. VII, 39. Quoniam ergo tunc quidam Christiani mi¬ lites ardore fidei cingulum abjiciebant, ma- lentes potius sine honore, quam sine fide vi¬ vere ; deinde autem seducti a Diabolo, ite¬ rum ambiebant cingulum, parati fidem ne¬ gare : ideo Concilium in hos tam severam poenitentiam constituit. Haec ita esse patet : Primo, ex Theodoro Balsamone, et Zonara, qui ita exposuerunt in commentariis horum canonum. Secundo, ex Ruffino, qui lib. X hist. cap. 6. enumerans canones Nicaeni Concilii, hunc ita ponit : « Qui propter con¬ fessionem militiam abjecerant etc. » Tertio ex ipso canone ; nam toto canone agitur de lapsis; et primum quidem de iis, qui ob me¬ tum vitae, aut opum amittendarum lapsi fue¬ rant, negando fidem injungit Concilium poe¬ nitentiam decem annorum ; deinde iis, qui militiam ambierant, quam pro fide contem¬ pserant, injungit tredecim annorum poeni¬ tentiam, quia nimirum isti gravius lapsi erant ; priores enim simpliciter negaverant, isti autem post gratiam confessionis nega¬ verant, in quo major ingratitudo erga Deum invenitur. Sexto, profert Hermannus Concilium Are- latense II, in cujus secundo canone sic dici¬ tur : « Assumi aliquem ad sacerdotium, in vinculo conjugii constitutum, nisi fuerit pro¬ missa conversio, non oportet. » Hic duos errores notat Hermannus Hamelmannus. Unum, quod non liceat Sacerdotibus uti suis uxoribus, cum id sit contra Concilium Gan- grense, in cujus can. 4. excommunicantur ii, qui nolunt interesse sacrificio, quod of¬ fertur a Presbytero conjugato. Est autem Gangrense Concilium receptum a Leone IV, dist. 20. canon. De libellis. Imo etiam con¬ tra Concilium Nicaenum, in quo approbata est sententia Paphnutii, qui censuerat, non debere prohiberi Ecclesiasticos a consuetu¬ dine cum propriis uxoribus, ut patet ex So¬ crate lib. I, eap. 8. ex quo sequitur, neces¬ sario errare Concilium Arelatense, vel Con¬ cilium Gangrense, et Nicaenum. Alterum er¬ rorem notat in illa voce Conversio , non enim convertimur nisi a malo; qui ergo jubet con¬ jugatum converti, conjugium damnat, quae est baeresis damnata in eodem Gangrensi Concilio can. 1. Respondeo, illa Concilia non pugnare in¬ ter se, nec ullum eorum errasse ; nam Con¬ cilium Gangrense edidit canones contra eos, qui putabant, nuptias, et esum carnium ab¬ solute esse mala, et a Diabolo ; quae fuit bae¬ resis Manichaei, et postea Eustathii Sebas- teni, contra quem Gangrense Concilium ce¬ lebratum est. Quia ergo haeretici isti ita horrebant nuptias, ut etiam Presbyteros qui uxores habuerant, etiamsi jam eos non ha¬ berent (saltem quasi uxores) ferre non pos¬ sent ; ideo Concilium etiam istum canonem addendum putavit. Unde in ipso canone sic habemus : « Quicumque discernit, a Pres¬ bytero, qui uxorem habuit, quod non opor¬ tet, eo ministrante, de oblatione percipere, anathema sit. » Ubi vides agi de eo, qui habuit uxorem, non qui habet. Ad illud de Concilio Nicaeno supra respon¬ dimus, non fideliter narratam esse histo¬ riam a Socrate. Ac, ut alia nunc argumenta praetermittamus, id satis colligitur ex isto Concilio Arelatensi. Hoc enim Concilium ce¬ lebratum est mox finito Nicaeno Concilio, et in eo recepti sunt canones Nicaeni, ut patet ex eo, quod fere omnes in hoc Concilio re¬ petuntur. Cum ergo etiam istum hic inve¬ niamus, sine dubio, vel hic etiam fuit in Concilio Nicaeno, vel saltem non est ei con¬ trarius ; nulli enim unquam Catholici repu¬ gnaverunt Nicaeno Concilio. Ad ultimum dico, conversionem non so¬ lum dici a statu malo ad bonum, sed etiam a bono ad meliorem, quare Gregorius lib. II, epist. 100. vocat conversionem, professio¬ nem Monachatus, et exstat titulus in Jure canonico de conversione conjugatorum. Septimo, profert Hermannus Hamelman¬ nus Sirmiense Concilium, quod videtur re¬ ceptum, quia damnata est in eo haeresis Photini, et tamen aperte in eo Concilio con¬ firmata est haeresis Ariana. Idem dici potest de Sardicensi, quod receptum est a Leone IV, dist. 20. can. De libellis. Et tamen B. Augustinus lib. III contra Creseonium, cap. 34. dicit : « Disce, inquit, quod nescis, Sar- dicense Concilium Arianorum fuit etc. » Respondeo : haec argumenta procedere ex ignorantia historiarum ; multae siquidem confessiones editae sunt in Concilio Sirmien- si, praeter Photini damnationem, aliae Catho¬ licae, aliae haereticae, ut nos supra docuimus, et perspicuum est ex Hilario in lib. de Sy¬ nodis. Sardicense autem mox in duas par¬ tes divisum fuit, et quidem una pars, quae erat Occidentalium 300 Episcoporum, cum quibus etiam erant Legati Julii Papae, pro fide Catholica et Atbanasio restituendo fuit; ut patet ex Hilario lib. de Synodis, et ex Atbanasio in Apologia secunda, atque hanc partem confirmavit Leo IV. Altera pars fuit Orientalium 70 Episcoporum, qui seorsim convenientes fidem Catholicam, et Athana- sium damnaverunt. Et de hac loquitur Au¬ gustinus, qui etiam non videtur legisse aliud ex Concilio Sardicensi, quam id, quod Orien¬ tales miserant ad Africam, ut unirent sibi Donatistas. Octavo, profert idem Herm annus Hamel- mannus Concilium Laodicaenum, in cujus primo capite statuitur, ut secundum indul¬ gentiam reddatur communio iis, qui secun¬ dis nuptiis juncti sunt : Ex quo videtur, Concilium antea abstulisse communionem iis, qui secundo uxorem duxerant, et postea illam eis reddere condonando peccatum ; id enim significat : secundum indulgentiam. Respondeo primo, fortasse loquitur Con¬ cilium de iis, qui in secundo Matrimonio ad¬ hibent solemnitatem,ut diximus de Concilio Neocaesariensi. Secundo dico, Concilium non errasse, etiamsi loquatur de secundo Matri¬ monio, sed errorem potius correxisse; ap¬ paret enim ex hoc loco, aliquos Episcopos particulares, ex zelo, non secundum scien¬ tiam, negasse communionem bigamis, quo¬ rum errorem Concilium corrigit, et jubet bigamis communionem restitui; nam etiam ideo initio canonis vocat nuptias bigamorum indulgentiam , sumptum est ex Paulo I. Cor. VII, qui ait : Usum conjugii se non impera¬ re, sed indulgere. Ut ergo Paulus cum ait, se indulgere usum conjugii, non vult dicere, se ignoscere peccatum, sed se concedere minus bonum, quamvis optaret majus bo¬ num ab illis teneri ; ita Concilium hoc dicit, se indulgere secundas nuptias, id est, con¬ cedere, ut minus bonum, quamvis cuperet magis eligi viduitatem, quae estbonum quod¬ dam excellentius conjugio. Nono, profert Hermannus Hamelmannus Concilium secundum generale, in cujus can. 5. duo inveniuntur errores, pugnantes cum aliorum Conciliorum decretis. Unus est, quod primatus Ecclesiasticus sit Romani Pontificis : Alter, quod post Romanum Pon¬ tificem debeat esse immediate Episcopus Constantinopolitanus; quae duo iterum reno¬ vata sunt in Concilio Cbalcedonensi act. ult. Primus error pugnat cum Concilio Nicaeno, in cujus can. 7. tribuitur primatus Episcopo Hierosolymitano ; et cum Concilio III Car¬ thaginiensi, cap. 26. ubi decernitur, nemi¬ nem debere vocari Principem Sacerdotum, aut summum Sacerdotem. Secundus error pugnat cum Concilio Nicaeno can. 6. ubi tri¬ buitur secundus locus Alexandrino, tertius Antiocheno Episcopo, quem canonem fre¬ quenter citat Leo I in epist. 53, 54 et 55. Respondeo , primum non esse errorem, nec pugnare cum ullo Concilio. Quod autem Hermannus adducit ex can. 7 Concilii Ni¬ caeni, nihil valet. Ibi enim tribuitur Hiero¬ solymitano Episcopo aliquis honor, non ta¬ men primatus in omnem Ecclesiam. Imo aperte subjicitur in eo Concilio sedes Hiero¬ solymitana non solum sedi Romanae, Ale- xandrinaB, Antiochenae, sed etiam Caesa¬ riensi, quae Palaestinae Metropolitana sedes erat, ut patet tum ex can. 6 et 7. ipsius Con¬ cilii, tum ex Leone locis notatis, et ex S. Hieronymo in epist. ad Pammachium de er¬ roribus Joannis Hierosolymitani. Quod vero addit ex Concilio Carthaginiensi, adhuc ma¬ gis est impertinens ; nam Concilium illud nationale fuit, nec ferebat leges universae Ecclesiae, sed tantum Episcopis Africae. Ita¬ que non prohibuit, nec potuit prohibere, ne Romanus Pontifex diceretur Princeps Sacer¬ dotum, vel summus Sacerdos, sed tantum ne ita appellaretur ullus Metropolitanus Africae. Secundus error non proprie potest dici error, decretum enim illud de honore se¬ dium, sicut a Concilio Nicaeno factum fue¬ rat, ita poterat ab alio simili Concilio mu¬ tari. Tamen quia sine justa ratione mutaba¬ tur a Concilio Constantinopolitano, et postea a Chalcedonensi Pontifices Romani Dama- sus et Leo illud probare noluerunt, neque eorum Pontificum temporibus decretum il¬ lud exeeutioni mandatum est, ut patet ex Leone epist. 53. ad Anatolium, ubi loquens de decreto Concilii Constantinopolitani : « Frustra, inquit, quorumdam Episcoporum profertur consensus, cui tot annorum series negavit effectum. » Et in epist. 55. ad Pul- cheriam, loquens de decreto Concilii Chal- cedonensis : « Consensiones, inquit, Episco¬ porum, Canonum apud Nicaeam conditorum, regulis repugnantes, in irritum mittimus, et per auctoritatem B. Petri Apostoli generali prorsus definitione cassamus. » Decimo, profert Hermannus Hamelman¬ nus Concilium Carthaginiense III, can. 47. ubi numerantur in canone Scripturarum ali¬ quot libri Apocryphi, utTobias, Judith, Ba- ruch, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, et Maelia- baei, contra auctoritatem Concilii Laodicaeni cap. ultimo, ubi isti omnes libri rejiciuntur a canone. Respondeo in primis. Concilium Cartha¬ giniense esse majoris auctoritatis, quam Lao¬ dicaenum; tum quia posterius, tum etiam quia nationale fuit, Episcoporum 44, et prae¬ terea confirmatum a Leone IV, dist.20. can. De libellis : Laodicaenum autem fuit provin¬ ciale Episcoporum 22, et non confirmatum a Pontifice. Itaque hic posset habere locum, quod ait Augustinus, Concilia priora emen¬ dari a posterioribus. Dico tamen secundo, neutrum Concilium errasse. Nam Concilium Laodicaenum posuit in canone eos libros, de quibus Episcopi ejus Concilii certi erant, alios autem omisit, non quidem negans, eos esse canonicos, sed nolens rem dubiam de¬ finire ; Concilium autem Carthaginiense re magis discussa definivit id, quod prius Con¬ cilium reliquerat sub dubio. Undecimo, profert Concilium Toletanum I, in cujus can. 17. scribitur, posse admitti ad communionem eum, qui concubinam ha¬ bet, modo non sit uxoratus, et est hoc Con¬ cilium jussu Leonis I celebratum, ut patet ex cap. 21. Respondeo, hoc loco concubi¬ nam vocari uxorem ductam sine dote, et ex¬ terna solemnitate, ut recte a Gratiano nota¬ tum est dist. 34. canon. Omnibus; quod est conforme Juri civili, ut patet ex Novella 18 Justiniani. Quomodo Genesis XXV Agar et Cethura dicuntur concubinae Abrahae. quae tamen verse uxores erant, ut patet ex Gen. XVI de Agar, et Gen. XXV de Cethura. At objicies, quia beatus Leo, qui hoc Con¬ cilium fieri jussit, et probavit in epist. 92. ad Rusticum Narbonensem, cap. 4. loquens de uxore et concubina, dicit : Concubinam non esse vere uxorem, neque conjunctionem cum ea esse Sacramentum, vel Matrimo¬ nium; et propterea eam mulierem, quoe nu¬ bit viro habenti concubinam, non peccare quasi nubat homini conjugato, quia vir ha¬ bens concubinam, non potest vocari conju¬ gatus. Respondeo, Leonem aliter accipere nomen concubinae, quam Patres ejus Conci¬ lii acceperint; ipse enim vocat concubinam eam, quae assumitur ad consortium thori, sine mutuo consensu perpetuo vivendi. Con¬ cilium autem vocat concubinam eam, quae ducitur cum eo consensu, sed privatim ex¬ presso, non per publica instrumenta. At, inquies, si Leo fuit auctor hujus Con¬ cilii, quomodo absolute negavit, concubi¬ nam dici posse uxorem? Respondeo, Leo¬ nem non fuisse auctorem totius Concilii, sed tantum ultimi canonis. Initio enim Concilii, dicitur, Concilium hoc congregatum tem¬ pore Honorii et Arcadii Imperatorum, quo tempore nondum erat Pontifex Leo ; ipse enim creatus est tempore Theodosii junio¬ ris, triginta tribus armis post mortem Arca¬ dii, ut patet ex Chronico Prosperi. Deinde in ultimo capite ponitur quaedam explicatio fidei, quae dicitur facta jussu Leonis Papse. Quae non possunt cohaerere, nisi dicamus, Concilium Toletanum habitum fuisse ante tempora Leonis; sed postea, tempore Leo¬ nis, factam fuisse illam explicationem fidei, et annexam eidem Concilio, quia iidemEpis- copi huic explicationi subscripserunt, qui antea in Concilio fuerant. Et certe magna conjectura hujus rei esse potest, quod videa¬ mus , ante illam explicationem fidei poni Episcoporum subscriptiones, quibus finitur Concilium; et deinde alias eorumdem subs¬ criptiones post illam explicationem fidei. Itaque S. Leo non confirmavit, nisi ultimum illum canonem suo tempore factum. Duodecimo, profert Hermannus Hamel- mannus Concilium Wormatiense, in cujus canone tertio invenitur exploratus error : Jubentur enim fures occulti explorari per sacrae Eucharistiae perceptionem. Quem esse errorem docet beatus Thomas part. 3. qu. LXXX. art. 6. ad 3. Respondeo, Concilium fuisse provinciale, non confirmatum, imo potius reprobatum, quoad illum canonem, a summis Pontificibus, ut ibidem B. Thomas ostendit. Decimotertio , proferunt alii canones VI Synodi. Illi enim canones videntur recepti; nam Adrianus I in epistola ad Tharasium, quae est in secund. act. VII Synodi, dicit, hos canones divine et legaliter esse praedi¬ catos. Item Nicolaus I epist. ad Michaelem, et Innocentius III cap. A multis, extra de aetate ordinandorum, et VII Synodus act. 2, 3, 4, 5 et 6. his canonibus utuntur. At inve¬ niuntur in his canonibus magni errores. Nam can. 2. recipitur Concilium sub Cy¬ priano de rebaptizandis haereticis : quod er¬ roneum fuisse probat Augustinus passim in libris septem de Baptismo. Item can. 72. ju¬ dicantur irrita, et solvenda conjugia Catho¬ licorum cum haereticis , qui est expressus error : Etsi enim peccat Catholicus ducens haereticam uxorem, et contra; tamen Matri¬ monium est Sacramentum propter charac¬ terem Baptismi , quem haereticus retinet, et ideo tale conjugium solvi non potest. Respondeo, non solum hos duos, sed etiam multos alios canones esse erroneos in istis canonibus, sed non sunt editi isti canones ab ullo legitimo et probato Concilio. Constat enim ex Tharasio in YII Synodo act. 4. hos canones non esse editos a VI Synodo, quae fuit tempore Agathonis, et Constantini, sed post multos annos tempore Justiniani II Im¬ peratoris, cui Concilio non adfuit Romanus Pontifex, nec per se, nec per Legatos, ne¬ que postea Concilium confirmavit, sed aperte reprobavit, ut testatur Beda in lib. de sex aetatibus in Justiniano, et Paulus Diaconus in vita ejusdem Justiniani, et Platina in vita Sergii. Ad verba Adriani respondeo, illum solum recitare sententiam Tharasii, nec refellere, quia ille can. 82. de picturis, utilis erat eo tempore ad quaestionem de qua agebattir. Ad Nicolaum respondeo, verba ejus esse pro nobis ; dicit enim, se citare illum canonem Graecorum, quomodo Paulus citavit verba Ethnicorum Poetarum. Ad Innocentium di¬ co, eum nihil ibi definire de his canonibus, sed tantum citare unum canonem ex istis, Quod autem citaverit nomine VI Synodi, factum est, vel quia sic vocantur communi¬ ter, licet vere non sint ; vel quia Innocen¬ tius ex Gratiano dist. 32. can. Si quis, hunc canonem accepit ; Gratianus autem saepe in hac parte erravit, tribuens opera iis, quo¬ rum non sunt. Ad VII Synodum dico, sem- per citari hos canones a privatis hominibus in ea Synodo inter disputandum, non tamen aliquid definiri a tota Synodo. Nam defini¬ tio Concilii habetur act. 7. tantum; ibi au¬ tem nulla fit mentio horum canonum. Vide Franciscum Turrianum in libro de VI Sy¬ nodo, et ea quae nos disseruimus de his ca¬ nonibus tom. I, lib. II de Pontif. cap. 14. Proferunt decimoquarto Hermannus Ha- melmannus lib. III prolegom. cap. ult. Cal¬ vinus lib. I instit. cap. 11, §. 14 et sequent, et lib. IV, cap. 9, §. 9. necnon Magdebur- genses Cent. VIII, cap. 9. Synodum VJI, Ni¬ caenam II, quam dicunt pugnare cum duo¬ bus Conciliis : uno priore, id est, Constanti- nopolitano , sub Constantino Copronymo ; altero posteriore, Francofordiensi, sub Ca- rolo Magno ; ita ut sive sit sequenda regula beati Augustini lib. II de Baptismo, cap. 3. quivult priora Concilia a posterioribus emen¬ dari, sive sancti Isidori apud Gratianum distinet. 50. canone, Domino sancto, qui do¬ cet, antiquiora Concilia recentioribus ante¬ ponenda; necessarium sit hocNicaenum esse rejiciendum. Quod pugnet Nicaenum secundum cum antiquiore Constantinopolitano, patet ex ipso Nicaeno II, act. 6. ubi fatentur Patres tem¬ pore superioris Imperatoris definitum fuisse in Concilio Constantinopolitano, imagines non esse ullo modo colendas ; quod vero pugnet cum Concilio Francofordiensi poste¬ riori, in quo etiam legati Romani Pontificis fuerunt, probant adversarii. Primo ex Ado¬ ne, Aimonio, Abbate Urspergensi, Platina, aliisque historicis, qui ubi loquuntur de tem¬ poribus Caroli et Adriani, dicunt, in Synodo Francofordiensi damnatam VII Synodum Graecorum, secundo, probant ex libris qua- tuor Caroli Magni; qui nuper prodierunt, id est, anno 1549, iis enim libris Carolus Mag¬ nus totis ^viribus contra imagines et VII Sy¬ nodum pugnat, et ibidem legimus, hos ipsos libros in Francofordiensi Synodo approba¬ tos. R.espondeo, Nicaenam Synodum cum nul¬ lo legitimo Concilio pugnare. Ac primum, quod attinet ad Constantinopolitanum sub Imperatore Constantino Copronymo, con¬ stat illud non fuisse generale, nec legitimum ullo modo, cum in eo non interfuerit Roma¬ nus Pontifex, nec per se, nec per Legatos : ut Joannes, Zonaras, et Cedrenus referunt in vita Constantini Copronymi, et idem fa¬ tentur Magdeburgenses Cent. VIII, cap. 9, colum. 551. Sine Pontifice autem Romano non posse oecumeniea Concilia celebrari, patet ex regula Nicaeni Concilii, quae est apud Socratem lib. II, cap. 13. Quid, quod nec adfuerunt tres alii praecipui Patriarchae, Alexandrinus, Antiochenus, Hierosolymita¬ nus, ut ex eisdem Zonara, Cedreno, et Mag- deburgensibus patet. Quomodo ergo gene¬ rale Concilium dici potest, cui neque Occi¬ dens, neque Oriens, neque Meridies consen¬ sit; sed pauci dunfcaxat Episcopi ex Aqui¬ lone? Denique, quotquot exstant historici, tum Graeci, ut Zonaras, Psellus, Photius, Ni- cetas, Cedrenus; tum Latini, ut Rhegino , Sigebertus, Ado, Paulus Diaconus, Ursper- gensis, aliique permulti ; omnes Concilium hoc vel aperte reprehendunt, vel inter Con¬ cilia Ecclesiae non numerant. praecipue nituntur adversarii, dico tria. Pri¬ mo, quidquid illud Concilium definierit, non esse magni faciendum ; nam sine dubio illi •LIBER II. ' anteponendum est Concilium Nicaenum II, quod certum est fuisse universalius , anti¬ quius, et sine controversia a summo Ponti¬ fice approbatum. Nam constat ex ipso Con¬ cilio, adfuisse legatos Papae Adriani, et rur¬ sum approbatum a Leone III, patet ex Ivone IV. part. cap. 147. Dico secundo, si verum est quod dicunt Centuriatores Cent. VIII, cap. 9, coi. 639. nihil nobis eam Synodum obesse; nam ipsi dicunt, Synodo Francofordiensi non consen¬ sisse, sed repugnasse Adrianum et Legatos ejus. At certum est, Synodum, cui repugnat Romanus Pontifex, nullius esse auctoritatis, ut patet, tum ex Gelasio, in tomo de vinculo anathem. tum experientia. Nulla enim Sy¬ nodus unquam habita est legitima, cui Ro¬ manus Pontifex repugnaverit. Quid, quod ipsa Synodus Francofordiensis hoc ipsum docet, nam ut ex Carolinis libris patet, Sy¬ nodus Francofordiensis decrevit, judicium ultimum controversiarum ad Romanum Pon¬ tificem pertinere, et hoc praecipuo argu¬ mento refellit Synodum septimam, quia exis¬ timavit sine auctoritate Romani Pontificis celebratam ; Ergo Synodus Francofordien¬ sis testimonio Magdeburgensium seipsum destruit. Praeterea ibidem Magdeburgenses dicunt, Synodum Nicaenam ab Adriano confirma¬ tam, Concilium autem Francofordiense re¬ probat Synodum factam sine Papae auctori¬ tate; ergo judicio Magdeburgensium, non est Nicaena nostra, sed aliqua alia, quae re¬ probatur in Concil. Francofordiensi. Deni¬ que ibidem docent Magdeburgenses, in Sy¬ nodo Francofordiensi non esse definitum, ut imagines tollantur e templis, sed ut in tem¬ plis quidem maneant, at non adorentur. Cur ergo ipsi e templis imagines tollunt? cur frangunt, cur non servant Francofordiense decretum? Ex quo etiam refellitur menda¬ cium Apologiae Anglorum, quae docet, in Concilio Francofordiensi decretum, ut ima¬ gines delerentur. At e contrario Synodus Francofordiensis, testimonio librorum Caro- linorum, Hincmari, et ipsorum Magdebur¬ gensium, anathema dixit iis, qui imagines delere volunt. Praeterea, res ipsa idem os¬ tendit : nam si ea Synodus id statuisset, cur non esset factum? Quis enim resisteret in Occidentali Ecclesia decreto Episcoporum omnium, et Regis potentissimi? Non esse autem factum, certo certius est : nulli enim historici id referunt. Imo Jonas Aurelianen- sis, tanquam rem novam, et sacrilegam re¬ fert, quod Claudius Taurinensis in sua dioe¬ cesi imagines delere voluerit. Tertio dico, rem esse incertissimam, quid statutum sit de imaginibus in Synodo Fran¬ cofordiensi : nam antiqui auctores non sibi constant. Nam in primis ipsum decretum Francofordiense, quod citatur praefatione li¬ brorum Carolinorum, testatur in Synodo Francofordiensi damnatam Synodum, quae Constantinopoli convenerat , et imagines adorari jusserat. Ubi cum nominat Constan- tinopolim, videtur loqui de Synodo haereti¬ corum contra imagines. At cum dicit, ibi decretum, ut imagines adorentur, videtur loqui de Synodo Catholicorum. Pari ratione libri ipsi Carolini dicunt, in Synodo Francofordiensi damnatam Syno¬ dum, quae facta fuerat Constantinopoli in Bithynia sine auctoritate Papae, pro imagi¬ nibus adorandis, ubi cum nominat Constan- tinopolim, et dicit, a Synodo abfuisse Papae auctoritatem, videtur loqui de Synodo hae¬ reticorum; cum autem dicit in Bithynia, et pro imaginibus Synodum celebratam, vide¬ tur loqui de nostra Nicaena. Nam Nicaea est Metropolis Bithyniae, Constantinopolis au¬ tem in Thracia est. Jam vero Hincmarus Remensis cap. 20. libri co.itra Hincmarum Laudunensem, qui ipso fere tempore floruerat, dicit, in Synodo Francofordiensi damnatam Synodum, quae Nicaeae convenerat, sine Papae auctoritate, ubi etiam duo contraria conjungit, ut patet. Aimonius lib. .IV, cap. 85. de gestis Fran¬ corum, et Abbas Urspergensis in Chronico anni 793, scribunt, in Synodo Francofor¬ diensi damnatam septimam Synodum Grae¬ corum, quae convenerat Constantinopoli sub Constantino et Irene. Ubi etiam ipsi contra¬ ria jungunt inter se. Multi autem historici recentiores dicunt, in Synodo Francofor¬ diensi damnatam Synodum de tollendis ima¬ ginibus, quam Graeci septimam generalem dicebant. Ita Platina in vita Adriani, Blon- dus decadis 2. lib. I. Sabellicus lib. VIII En¬ neadis VIII, Paulus .Umilius lib. II de gestis Francorum. Propter hanc confusionem Alanus Copus Dialogo 4. et 5. docet, in Synodo Francofor¬ diensi solum damnatam Synodum Constan- tinopolitanam haereticam, Nicaenam autem non solum non damnatam, sed etiam confir¬ matam, quam sententiam optarem esse ve¬ ram, sed tamen suspicor esse falsam. Primo, quia libri illi Carolini licet falso inscribantur Carolo, ut dicemus, tamen sine dubio scripti sunt tempore Caroli, ut patet ex refutatione eorumdem librorum, quam edidit Adrianus I, et scripti videntur in Con¬ cilio Francofordiensi, et acta continere Sy¬ nodi Francofordiensis. Id enim asserit Hinc- marus ejus temporis auctor, et ipsi libri boc prm se ferunt. Quod autem Synodus, quae in his libris refutatur, sit vere Nicaena II, du¬ bitari non potest, si legantur vel ipsi libri, vel Adriani responsio. Secundo , quia auctores antiqui omnes conveniunt in hoc, quod in Concilio Franco¬ fordiensi sit reprobata Synodus VII, quae de¬ creverat, imagines adorandas. Ita Hincma- rus, Aimonius, Rhegino, Ado, et alii passim docent. Dicere autem hos omnes mentiri, vel libros eorum esse corruptos, ut Copus dicit, videtur mihi paulo durius. Tertio, quia si isti auctores loquerentur de falsa YII Synodo, id est, de Synodo Con- stantinopolitana contra imagines, certe me¬ minissent etiam in suis historiis Synodi Ni¬ caenae vere VII. At non meminerunt ullius Concilii VII, nisi istius, quod reprobatum dicunt. Neque obstat, quod libri Carolini, ut Abbas Urspergensis et Aimonius dicunt, re¬ probant Synodum Constantinopoli habi¬ tam ; Nam Abbas secutus est libros Caro- linos, ut etiam Aimonius : auctor autem eo¬ rum librorum vel lapsu memoriae, vel ex imperitia posuit Constantinopoli pro Nicae¬ na. Nam alioqui cum dicat, Synodum cele¬ bratam in provincia Bithyniae, ubi Nicaea est, non Constantinopolis,„satis indicat, se de Nicaea loqui, et similiter Abbas, et Aimonius cum dicant, Synodum celebratam sub Cons¬ tantino et Irene, clare demonstrant se loqui de Nicaena Synodo, etiamsi per errorem no¬ minent Constantinopolim. Neque etiam obstat, quod Hincmarus et libri Carolini dicant, Synodum reprobatam in Concilio Francofordiensi, fuisse coactam sine auctoritate Papae, quod est falsum de Nicaena, et verum de Constantinopolitana. Nam Hincmarus secutus est libros Carolinos, ut ipse indicat ; auctor autem eorum libro¬ rum hoc mendacium finxit, cum aliis multis, ut imponeret Synodo Francofordiensi, ut mox dicemus. Neque obstat ultimo, quod Platina, Bion- dus, Sabellicus, et Paulus iEmilius dicant, reprobatam Synodum de tollendis imagini¬ bus. Nam in primis isti omnes recentiores sunt. Deinde, quod ipsi dicunt, non pugnat cum antiquorum historicorum dictis ; Nam in Synodo Francofordiensi duae Synodi re¬ probatae fuerunt, nimirum Constantinopoli¬ tana contra imagines, et Nicaena pro imagi¬ nibus, ut patet ex libris Carolinis et ex Hinc- maro, et fortasse haec est causa, cur anti¬ quorum historicorum aliqui nominent Ni¬ caeam, aliqui Constantinopolim, cum dicunt, Synodum Graecorum reprobatam inConcilio Francofordiensi. . Videtur igitur mihi, in Synodo Francofor¬ diensi vere reprobatam Nicaenam II Syno¬ dum, sed per errorem, et materialiter, eo modo prorsus, quo olim Synodus Ariminen¬ sis damnavit homoousion. Nam auctor libro¬ rum Carolinorum imposuit Synodo, duoque mendacia illi obtrucit. Unum mendacium fuit, in Synodo Nicaena, definitum fuisse, ut imagines adorarentur cultu latriae. Alterum, decretum illud factum a Graecis sine consen¬ su Papae Romani. His duobus mendaciis pro veritate habitis, Synodus Francofordiensis reprobavit, et merito, Nicaenam Synodum, tanquam profanam et illegitimam. Quod illa duo fuerint persuasa Concilio, patet ex ipsis libris Carolinis ; nam in prae¬ fatione diserte habetur hoc modo : « Allata est in medium, (scilicet in Synodo Franco¬ fordiensi) quaestio de nova Graecorum Syno¬ do, quam de adorandis imaginibus Gonstan- tinopofi fecerunt, in qua scriptum habeba¬ tur, ut qui imaginibus Sanctorum, ita ut Deificae Trinitati, servitium, aut adorationem non impenderet, anathema judicaretur. Qui supra, sanctissimi Patres nostri omnimodis orationem, et servitutem eis impendere re¬ nuentes, contempserunt, atque consentien¬ tes, condemnarunt. » Haec ibi. In ipso etiam opere introducitur Constantinus Episcopus Cypri, in Concilio Nicaeno anathema dicens iis, qui non adorant imagines eo cultu, quo adoratur sanctissima Trinitas. En clare pri¬ mum mendacium. Idem auctor clare docet, ad summum Pontificem pertinere judicium controversia¬ rum fidei, et ideo Synodum illam pro ado¬ randis imaginibus nihil valere, quod Ponti¬ ficis auctoritate careat. Praeterea auctores illi antiqui, qui dicunt, reprobatam esse falsam Synodum, quae de¬ creverat, imagines esse adorandas, sine du¬ bio per illud Adorandas, intelligunt cultu latriae ; nam ipsi quoque docent, imagines esse venerandas, et tamen execrantur illam Synodum, quae jubet imagines adorari. Ado in Chronico anni 696, dicit, Romae in die exaltationis Crucis, a toto populo Crucem osculari, et adorari solitam, et etiam in Chronico anni 717, vocat imaginem vene¬ randam, quam everterat Philippicus haereti¬ cus, et restituerat Theodosius Catholicus Imperator. Rhegino lib. I Chronici, sub fi¬ nem, agnoscit Crucis adorationem ; et de- turbationem imaginum per Leonem Icono- machum factam, scelus appellat. Joannes Aventinus lib. IV Annalium, dicit, Carolo Magno Imperatore designato, imaginem ejus in templo ab omni populo veneratam, ipso praesente. Abbas Urspergensis in Chronico, invehitur in Leonem Isaurum, et Constanti¬ num Copronymum, propter imaginum de¬ jectionem, eosque vocat impios, et Anti christi praecursores ; et e contrario Gregorium Pa¬ pam laudat, et sanctum virum fuisse dicit, qui propter imagines Christi et Sanptorum Im¬ peratorem excommunicavit. Quod autem vere mendacia sint, quod Sy¬ nodus Nicaena caruerit Papa? auctoritate, et quod decreverit imagines adorandas cultu latriae, certissimum est ; nam in ipso Conci¬ lio Nicaeno II, act. 2. recitantur epistolae Papae Adriani pro imaginibus, et in omnibus actionibus semper primi subscribunt Legati Romani ; deinde quod ad cultum attinet, in I. act. Basilius Ancyranus, qui antea fuerat haereticus, cum resipisceret, et confessionem Catholicam ederet, toto Concilio audiente et probante, dixit se imagines quidem colere, non tamen latria, cum ea soli debeatur Deo. Similiter Constantinus Episcopus Constantiae Cypri in VII Synodo act. 3. locutus est. Si¬ militer loquuntur etiam caeteri act. 4. et 7. Neque mirum videri debet, quod auctor librorum Carolinorum tam manifesta men¬ dacia obtruserit Synodo Francofordiensi de Nicaena Synodo paulo ante habita ; nam si nunc Magdeburgenses et Calvinus scribere audent, nos colere imagines divinis honori¬ bus plane, ut Deos, cum tot libri Catholico¬ rum, et ipsum generale Concilium Latinum, et in Germaniae finibus Tridenti celebratum, diserte clament contrarium ; quid mirum, si idem confictum sit de Synodo Graeca, quam paucissimi legere poterant, et quae in Oriente celebrata fuerat ? Si dicas, ergo saltem Concilium Franco- fordiense, quod frequentissimum fuit et legi¬ timum, errare potuit. Respondeo, potuit er¬ rare, et erravit non in juris, sed in facti quaestione, et praeterea non mirum si errare potuit; nam non consenserunt Legati Ro¬ mani, ut Magdeburgenses dicunt. Papa au¬ tem non solum non consensit, sed etiam re¬ futavit Francofordiense decretum, ut patet ex libro Adriani de imaginibus ad Carolum, ubi refutantur omnia mendacia illorum libro¬ rum Carolinorum. Quod autem ex libris Caroli a df erunt, in quibus praecipuum firmamentum causae suae constituunt: Dico, eos libros, neque esse Caroli, neque ejusmodi, quibus ulla fides haberi possit. Quod Caroli non sint, probatur primo, quia exstat liber Adriani Papae I ad Caro¬ lum, in quo libri isti accurate refelluntur, ex quo Adriani libro perspicue intelligitur, libros istos ab aliquo haeretico compositos, et a Carolo ad Pontificem missos, ut eis res¬ ponderet. Esse autem Adriani hunc librum, qui exstat in III tom. Conciliorum, 'tum aliunde, tum etiam ex Ivone intelligi potest, qui multa ex hoc libro nomine Adriani in quartam partem sui decreti transtulit. Secundo, constat ex historiis Graecorum et Latinorum, ut Zonarae, et Cedreni in vita Leonis Isauri, necnon Pauli Diaconi in vita ejusdem, Romanos Pontifices Gregorium III, Adrianum I, et Leonem III, defecisse a Grae¬ cis Imperatoribus , eos excommunicasse, vectigalia eis tribui ex Italia prohibuisse, se¬ que in tutelam Francorum contulisse, atque in eos tandem imperium transtulisse, ea de causa praecipue, quod Graeci Imperatores haeresi Iconomachorum patrocinarentur ; cum e contrario Francorum Reges in fide antiqua constantes essent. Quomodo ergo verisimile est, Carolum Imperatorum eadem haeresi laborasse, et pro errore Graecorum contra Romanum Pontificem scripsisse ? Sed verba Zonarae audiamus : « Igitur, inquit, Papa Gregorius deserta Imperatoris obe- dientia ob perversam illius opinionem, pa¬ cem cum Francis fecit, cum prius saepe de¬ disset operam, ut Leonem per litteras ab odio Dei revocaret, atque ad cultum sacra¬ rum imaginum reduceret. » Et infra in vita Irenes : « Adriano»veteris Romae Papa mor¬ tuo, Leo suffectus est, vir reverendus et ho¬ norabilis, qui cum se ad Carolum Franco¬ rum Regem contulisset, ab eo tempore Ro-1 ma Franci potiti sunt, Carolo a Leone coro¬ nato, et Romanorum Imperatore appellato. » Nam Papa Gregorius nihil sibi rei esse voluit cum impiis Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae gubernatoribus et pacem cum Francis fe¬ cit. Tertio, scribit Jonas Aurelianensis lib. I de Cultu imaginum (floruit autem Jonas tem¬ pore Ludovici Pii Caroli filii) Claudium Tnu- rinensem ejus haeresis patronum toto tem¬ pore, quo vixit Carolus, nunquam fuisse ausum mutire. Idemque ibidem, virum piis- simum, ac sancta? memoriae Carolum Augu¬ stum appellat. Si ergo Iconomachi, vivente Carolo, non audebant hseresim suam praedi¬ care ; si defensores imaginum Carolum ut pium ac sanctum venerabantur, quanta im¬ pudentia est, libros contra imagines Carolo attribuere ? Quarto, scribit Paulus ^Emiliuslib. II hist. Francorum, necnon Rhegino in Chronico, in Concilio quodam Gentiliaci coacto, Pipi- num Regem, Caroli Magni patrem, Graeco¬ rum errorem contra sacras imagines Impe¬ ratoris Graeci Legatis praesentibus, confu¬ tasse ; ex eodem quoque Paulo constat, non diu postea ad Concilium, quod Romae Ste- phanus Papa celebravit contra eumdem Graecorum errorem, misisse Carolum Mag¬ num Episcopos duodecim , ex praecipuis regni. Qua ergo audacia adversarii Christia- nissimum Principem in Iconoclastam trans¬ formare nituntur ? praesertim cum Paulo dEmilio in hac parte assentiantur Magdebur- genses Cent. VIII, cap. 9. coi. 570. Quinto, constat ex historicis omnibus, et ex ipsius Caroli epistolis, et carminibus ; imo ex ipsis rebus gestis, Carolinum etAdrianum semper conjunctissimos fuisse. Exstat adhuc Adriani epitaphium ab Imperatore Carolo non minus eleganter, quam pie descriptum, apud Onophrium in additione ad Platinam, cujus hoc est initium. Hic pater Ecclesise, Roma? decus, inclytus auctor Adrianus requiem Papa beatus habet. Vir, cui vita, Deus, pietas, lex, gloria Christus ; Pastor Apostolicus promptus ad omne bonum. Et infra : Post patrem Carolus lachrymans haec carmina scripsit, Tu mihi dulcis amor, te modo plango pater. Tu memor esto mei, sequitur te mens mea semper. Cum Christo teneas regna beata poli. Num credibile est igitur, Carolum alterius religionis ac fidei fuisse, quam Adrianum? et in ipsum Adrianum tam acriter scripsisse, cum tantopere coluerit, et post obitum eum laudarit ? Denique certum est, Carolum hominem Grsece et Latine peritum, prudentem et in¬ geniosum fuisse, libri autem isti hominis bar¬ bari, imperiti, levis, ac pene stulti esse vi¬ dentur. Nam Constantinopolim urbem notis¬ simam in Bithynia esse dicit, cum nemo nesciat esse in Thracia, nisi forte quia fre¬ quentes ibi terrremotus fiunt, solum muta¬ verit. Deinde, Concilium pro cultu imaginum Constantinopoli celebratum asserit, cum ta¬ men NicsEEe celebratum nemo sit qui nesciat, nisi qui nihil legit. Et quod gravius est, per calumniam et mendacium multa tribuunt isti libri Nicaenis Patribus, quae nunquam dixe¬ runt, et interdum qua? adversarii dixerant : quale est illud, quod Eucharistia sit imago corporis Christi, quod non solum Patres Ni¬ caeni non defendunt, ut iste auctor somniat, sed etiam ex professo refellunt. Unde acce¬ pit Calvinus alterius mendacii occasionem. Quia enim Iconomachi dixerant, unam solum imaginem adorandam, id est, Eucharistiam, atque hoc dictum Pseudo-Carolus Nicaenae Synodo tribuerat ; Calvino placuit, ita rem totam immutare, ac dicere : « Caeterum ne suo solemni, plaudite, fabula careat, additur clausula (nimirum a Concilio Nicaeno) Gau¬ deant et exultent, qui Christi habentes ima¬ ginem, sacrificium illi offerunt. » Quod est mendacium impudentissimum. Concilium enim Nicaenum tantum abest, ut voluerit imaginibus sacrificium offerri, ut diserte in act. 7. declaraverit, non veram latriam, sed honorariam tantum adorationem imaginibus deferri. Accedat postremo, quod liber iste tanquam alter Melchisedech, est sine patre, sine ma¬ tre, sine genealogia. Prodiit enim repente in lucem nec scitur quando, aut ubi, aut quomodo, aut a quo repertus, nec habet no¬ men auctoris, nec impressoris, nec loci, ubi impressus est. Quse sunt omnia argumenta atque indicia fraudum. Sed esto, sit liber Garoli Magni, quid tandem adversarii obti¬ nebunt? prorsus nihil. Auctor enim hujus libri diserte oppugnat omnia fere dogmata Calvinistarum ; aperte enim docet, ad Ro¬ manum Pontificem pertinere ultimum judi¬ cium de controversiis fiaei, et eum non a Conciliis, sed a Deo ipso primatum habere. Idem vult exorcismum adhiberi in Baptis¬ mo, templa dedicari certo ritu, orandum esse pro defunctis, Sanctos invocandos, re¬ liquias venerandas, Chrismatis, aquae, salis¬ que benedicti usum in Ecclesia retinendum ; in Eucharistia vere esse corpus Christi, id- que adorandum, et tanquam verum ad pro¬ prium sacrificium offerendum , quae sunt omnes exploratae haereses apud adversarios. Si ergo volunt nos credere huic auctori, cum docet Nicaenam Synodum errasse, cre¬ dant eidem ipsi, cum asserit tam multa, quae jam enumeravimus. Quod si etiam constaret, Carolum ipsum hunc librum scripsisse, et in omnibus cum Calvinistis convenire, quid ha¬ berent aliud, quam testimonium unius ho¬ minis laici , et militis ? quod opponere velle Concilio generali Episcoporum, stultitia est manifesta. Nam ut recte ait Damascenus orat. 2. de imaginibus, Christus non commi¬ sit Ecclesiam Regibus et Imperatoribus, sed Episcopis et Pastoribus. Decimoquinto, proferunt Concilia duo in¬ ter se contraria, quibus tamen praefuerunt Romani Pontifices. Nam Concilium Roma¬ num sub Stephano VII, irritavit omnia acta Formosi Papae praedecessoris sui : deinde Concilium Ravennense sub Joanne IX, irri¬ tavit acta Concilii sub Stephano, et appro¬ bavit acta Formosi. Vide Sigebertum in Chro¬ nico anni 903, Matth. Palmerium in Chroni¬ co anni 899, etPlatinamin vitis horum Pon¬ tificum. Respondeo, quaestionem fuisse de facto, id est, an Formosus fuisset verus et legitimus Papa ; et quia Stephanus male in¬ formatus, censuit eum non fuisse Papam, acta ejus irritavit. Quia vero Joannes postea re melius investigata, invenit contrarium, correxit errorem Concilii prioris, juxta regu¬ lam Augustini, qui dicit, Concilia priora ali¬ quando emendari a posterioribus, nimirum in hujusmodi casibus particularibus. Decimosexto, proferunt Concilium Roma¬ num sub Nicolao II, in quo definitum est, non solum Sacramentum corporis Christi, sed, et ipsum verum Christi corpus tractari et frangi manibus Sacerdotum, et fidelium dentibus atteri, ut patet ex can. Ego Beren- garius, de consec. dist. 2. At hic est error manifestus contra resurrectionem glorio¬ sam Christi, de qua dicit Apostolus : Chris¬ tus resurgens a mortuis, jam non moritur (1). Si enim corpus Christi verum frangitur, et teritur, certe corrumpitur et moritur. Respondeo, nunquam fuisse quaestionem, an Cbristi corpus vere, ut est in se, frange¬ retur manibus, et dentibus tereretur ; certum enim est et semper fuit, Christi corpus in¬ corruptibile nunc existens, non posse frangi et teri, nisi in signo sive Sacramento , ita ut dicatur frangi ac teri, cum signum ejus id est species panis frangitur, et teritur. At quaestio fuit, an signum, quod frangitur, et teritur, sit nudum signum, an vero contineat Christi corpus revera, et quia Berengarius docuerat esse nudum signum, ideo Conci¬ lium constituens formam abjurationis hujus erroris, voluit eum dicere, non solum Sacra¬ mentum, sed etiam verum Christi Corpus frangi, et teri; quorum verborum hic est sensus : non teritur, et frangitur nudum si¬ gnum, sed etiam verum Christi corpus, id est, sed signum habens realiter conjunctum Christi corpus : sive, sed etiam verum Chris¬ ti corpus aibi praesens existens, frangitur, et teritur, non tamen in se, sed in signo. Quo¬ modo etiam intelligimus, cum Chrysosto- mus homilia83 in Matthaeum, ait : « 0 quot, inquit, dicunt, vellem ejus formam, ejus cal¬ ceamenta videre. Ipsum igitur vides, ipsum tangis, ipsum comedis. » Decimoseptimo, profert Hermannus Con¬ cilium Lateranense sub Innocentio III, in quo definitum est, habendum esse pro arti¬ culo fidei, panem et vinum in Sacramento transubstantiari in corpus et sanguinem Christi; At in Concilio Ephesino dicitur ana¬ thema omnibus proferentibus aliud Symbo¬ lum. Respondeo primo, Lateranense Concilium non composuisse ullum Symbolum, sed tan¬ tum definivisse unam quaestionem de fide, sicut fecerunt multa Concilia post Ephesi- mum. Secundo dico, Concilium Ephesinum dixisse anathema proferentibus aliud Sym¬ bolum, id est, contrarium Nicaeno, non au¬ tem aliud, id est, novum, et explicatius. Tertio dico Concilium Ephesinumprohibuis- se novi Symboli compositionem Episcopis, et Concilii particularibus , non autem sum¬ mo Pontifici, aut Concilio generali ; nemo enim in parem, vel majorem, habet praeci¬ piendi auctoritatem. Decimooctavo, proferunt Concilium Cons- tantiense et Basileense, nam illud sess. XIII. excommunicavit omnes communicantes sub utraque specie, istud autem concessit utram¬ que speciem Bohemis. Respondeo, quidquid % (1) Rom. VI, 9. sit de horum Conciliorum auctoritate, dico ea non pugnare inter se; nam Constantiense excommuniant eos qui communicant sub utraque specie sine licentia Ecclesias. Hic enim intelliguntur praecepta majorum ; non enim qui praecepit, privat se auctoritate dis¬ pensandi. Concilium autem Basileense dis- pansavit cum Bohemis, eisque licentiam de¬ dit communicandi sub utraque specie. Ultimo, proferunt eadem Concilia Cons¬ tantiense et Basileense, quae statuunt Con¬ cilium esse supra Papam, cujus contrarium habetur in Concilio Lateranensi sess.XI. sed de bac re infra dicemus in fine hujus libri.