Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book II
Chapter 11: Whether the Authority of a Council Is Greater Than That of Scripture
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).
We have spoken of the authority of Councils considered absolutely; now we must speak of the same by comparison with the other principles of faith, that is, with the written word of God (for of traditions the reasoning is the same) and with the Pontiff. And indeed the heretics of this time everywhere clamor that we subject Scripture to Councils. Calvin (Institutes, Book IV, chapter 9, section 14) says: “To subject the oracles of God to the censure of men in such a way that they are ratified because they have pleased men, is a blasphemy unworthy to be mentioned.” Similar things are found everywhere in others. But this is not our blasphemy, but their imposture. For Catholics do not subject sacred Scripture to Councils, but set it before them; nor is there any controversy in this. And if Catholics sometimes say that Scripture depends on the Church, or on a Council, they do not mean as to its authority and in itself, but as to its explanation and in respect of us.
It must be observed, therefore, that there is a manifold difference between sacred Scripture and the decrees of Councils, from which it is understood that Scripture is preferred to Councils. The first is that Scripture is the word of God immediately revealed, and written in a manner with God dictating, according to that word (2 Peter 1): “The holy men of God spoke, the Holy Spirit inspiring them.” And (2 Timothy 3): “All Scripture divinely inspired.” This, however, is not to be so understood as if the sacred writers always had new revelations and wrote things they had before been ignorant of; for it is established that the Evangelists Matthew and John wrote the things they heard, as Luke himself confesses at the beginning of his Gospel: “As they delivered them to us, who from the beginning themselves saw.”
The sacred writers are therefore said to have had an immediate revelation and to have written the words of God Himself, because either certain new things, before unknown, were revealed to them by God, according to that Psalm 50: “The uncertain and hidden things of Thy wisdom Thou hast made manifest to me”; or God immediately inspired and moved the writers to write the things they had seen or heard, and directed them lest they should in any way err. For as a prince’s letter, which is dictated by the prince, is truly called his, even though he who wrote it knew beforehand what he was to write; so that is called, and is, the immediate word of God, which was written by the Evangelists, God inspiring and directing, although they wrote the things they had seen or heard. But Councils neither have nor write immediate revelations or words of God, but only declare what is the written or handed-down word of God, and how it ought to be understood, and moreover from it by reasoning deduce conclusions. And so Councils, when they define which are the canonical and divine books, do not make them to be of infallible truth, but only declare that they are such.
So also the Council of Trent (session 13, chapter 1), when it defines that those words “This is my body” are to be understood properly, not figuratively, does not issue but declares the word of God. And when the Council of Nicaea defined Christ to be homoousion with the Father, it deduced a conclusion from the Scriptures, in which it is expressly contained that there is one God, that the Father is God, and that the Son is God; from which it necessarily follows that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and divinity. And likewise the Sixth Council, when it defined that in Christ there are two wills, the divine and the human, deduced a conclusion from Scripture, in which it is had that Christ is perfect God and perfect man.
The second difference arises from this first, and is that the sacred writers did not have to labor much in producing their books; for it was enough if they labored in writing or dictating, if they issued prophecies; or at most in recalling to memory what they had seen or heard, and in thinking of the words in which to write them, if they wrote histories, or letters, or something similar. But the Fathers in Councils must seek out the matter itself, that is, investigate the conclusions by disputing, reading, thinking. Whence in Acts 15 we read that in the first Council a great inquiry was made. The same Rufinus testifies of the Council of Nicaea (Book X, chapter 5, of the Ecclesiastical History); wherefore in Acts 15 the Fathers of the Council say: “It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,” that is, the Holy Spirit helping our industry and diligence. But the sacred writers ascribe to God alone the things they write, and therefore the prophets so often repeated that word: “Thus saith the Lord.”
The third is that in Scripture there can be no error, whether it treat of faith or of morals, and whether something general and common to the whole Church be affirmed, or something particular, as pertaining to one man only. For it is as certain and of faith that without the grace of the Holy Spirit no one is saved, as that Peter, Paul, Stephen, and certain others truly had the Holy Spirit and are saved; for the same most true Scripture testifies both. But Councils can err in particular judgments.
The fourth is that in Scripture not only the sentences but also all and each of the words pertain to faith. For we believe that no word in Scripture is set down in vain or not rightly. But in Councils the greatest part of the acts does not pertain to faith. For the disputations which are premised are not of faith, nor the reasons that are added, nor the things brought forward for explaining and illustrating, but only the bare decrees themselves — and not all of these, but only those which are proposed as of faith. For sometimes Councils define something not as certain but as probable, as the Council of Vienne, which decreed that it be held as more probable that grace and virtues are infused into infants in Baptism, as is had in the unique Clementine On the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith. But when a decree is proposed as of faith, it is easily recognized from the words of the Council; for they are always wont to say that they are explaining the Catholic faith, or that those who hold the contrary are to be held heretics, or — what is most common — they say anathema and exclude from the Church those who hold the contrary. But when they say none of these, it is not certain that the matter is of faith.
Finally, in the very decrees of faith, not the words but only the sense pertains to faith. For it is not heretical to say that in the canons of Councils some word is superfluous or not rightly set down, unless perhaps a decree has been framed about the word itself, as when in the Council of Nicaea they decreed that the word homoousion be received, and in that of Ephesus the word Theotokos.
The fifth is that Scripture does not need the approval of the Pontiff to be authentic, but only that its authority be made known. But Councils, even lawful and general ones, are not ratified unless they be confirmed by the Pontiff, as we showed in the preceding question.
But some object: Gratian (distinction 19, canon In canonicis) affirms that the decretal letters of the Pontiffs ought to be numbered among the canonical Scriptures; and (distinction 20, canon Decretales) he says that the canons of Councils are of the same authority as the decretal letters; therefore the canons of Councils too are numbered among the canonical Scriptures. Therefore the Scriptures are not preferred to Councils. Besides, Saint Gregory (Book I, letter 24) says that he venerates the first four Councils as the four books of the Gospels.
I answer Gratian in two ways. First, that he was deceived by a corrupt codex of Blessed Augustine which he had; for he attributes that canon to Augustine (Book II On Christian Doctrine, chapter 8). But the true and corrected codices of Blessed Augustine do not have it as Gratian reports, but far otherwise. For Augustine does not say that those letters are canonical Scripture which the Apostolic See is wont to give or receive, as Gratian reads, but that the judgment concerning the sacred Scriptures pertains to the churches, and chiefly to those which merited to receive apostolic sees or letters — such as Rome, in which Peter sat and to which Paul wrote; Ephesus, in which John sat and to which the same Paul wrote; and certain others.
I say secondly that Gratian, even granting this error, did not mean to say that the decrees of Pontiffs are properly sacred and canonical Scriptures, as are the Gospels or the Psalms, but that they are sacred Scriptures as distinguished from profane ones, and canonical as distinguished from the sacred writings of the Fathers, which are not rules and have no authority of binding. For although the canons of Pontiffs and Councils are distinguished from and set after the divine Scripture, yet in their own manner they are, and can be called, sacred and canonical writings — in the way the Seventh Synod (session 3) calls the decrees of Councils divinely inspired constitutions. Nay, Innocent (chapter Cum Marthae, in the title on the celebration of Masses) calls sacred Scripture that opinion of Augustine: “He does injury to a martyr who prays for a martyr” (sermon 17 on the words of the Apostle). But that Gratian held the decrees of Councils not to be equated with the divine Scriptures properly so called is plain from cause 36, question 2, canon Placuit, where he sets Jerome’s opinion, because it was fortified by the testimony of divine Scripture, before the decree of a Council.
To Gregory I answer that that word “as” sounds a likeness, not an equality, like that of Matthew 5: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Or if it sound equality, it must be said that Councils are not compared by Gregory with the Gospels in all things, but only in the very certitude of the things which are said in the Scriptures and defined in the Councils. For since both are of infallible truth, they can be called equally certain. But now, since Councils are not of greater authority than the Scriptures, it remains for us to explain whether at least the authority of an ecumenical Council is greater than that of the supreme Pontiff.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII. An sit major auctoritas Concilii , quam Scripturae. Diximus de auctoritate Conciliorum abso¬ lute considerata; nunc de eadem dicendum est per comparationem ad alia fidei princi¬ pia, id est, ad verbum Dei scriptum, (nam de traditionibus eadem est ratio) et ad Pon¬ tificem. Et quidem ha3retici hujus temporis passim clamant, nos subjicere Scripturam Conciliis. Calvinus lib. IV instit. c. 9, §. 14 : « Subjicere in eum modum, inquit, Dei ora¬ cula hominum censurae , ut ideo rata sint, quia placuerint hominibus , blasphemia est indigna, quae commemoretur. » Similia apud alios passim inveniuntur. Caeterum haec non nostra blasphemia , sed ipsorum impostura est. Catholici enim Scripturam sacram non subjiciunt, sed anteponunt Conciliis; neque in hoc ulla controversia est. Quod si inter¬ dum Catholici aliqui dicunt , scripturam pendere ab Ecclesia, sive a Concilio , non intelligunt quoad auctoritatem, et secun¬ dum se, sed quoad explicationem , et quoad nos. Observandum est igitur , multiplex esse discrimen inter Scripturam sacram, et Con¬ ciliorum decreta; ex quibus intelligitur, Scripturam prseponi Conciliis. Primum est, quod Scriptura est verbum Dei immediate revelatum, et scriptum quodammodo Deo dictante, juxta illud II. Petri I : Spiritu sanc¬ to inspirante locuti sunt sancti Dei homines. Et II. Timoth. III : Omnis Scriptura divinitus in¬ spirata (1). Quod tamen non sic intelligen- dum est, quasi semper scriptores sacri no¬ vas revelationes habuerint, et scripserint ea quae antea ignorabant : constat enim Evan- gelistas Matthaeum et Joannem scripsisse ea, quae audierunt, ut Lucas ipse fatetur initio Evangelii : Sicut tradiderunt , inquit , nobis, qui ab initio ipsi viderunt (2). Dicuntur igitur Scriptores sacri habuisse immediatam revelationem, et scripsisse ip¬ sius Dei verba, quia vel nova quaedam et an¬ tea incognita eis revelabantur a Deo, juxta illud Psalm. L : Incerta et occulta sapientiae tuae manifestasti mihi (3) ; vel Deus immediate inspirabat, et movebat scriptores ad scriben¬ da ea, quae viderant, vel audierant, et eos dirigebat, ne aliquo modo errarent. Ut enim dicitur vere epistola principis, quae a prin¬ cipe dictatur, etiamsi is , qui eam scripsit, antea sciebat, quae scripturus erat; ita dici¬ tur, et est immediatum Dei verbum, quod scriptum est ab Evangelistis, Deo inspirante, et dirigente, licet scripserint ea, quae vide¬ rant, vel audierant. At Concilia non habent, neque scribunt immediatas revelationes, aut verba Dei, sed tantum declarant , quodnam sit verbum Dei scriptum vel traditum, et quomodo intelligi debeat, et praeterea ex eo per ratiocinationem deducunt conclusiones. Itaque Concilia cum definiunt, qui sint li¬ bri canonici et divini , non faciunt eos esse infallibilis veritatis, sed declarant solum esse tales. Sic etiam Concilium Tridentinum sess. XIII, cap. 1. cum definit verba illa : Hoc est corpus meum , intelligi proprie, non figurate, non edit, sed declarat verbum Dei. Et cum Nicaenum Concilium definivit Christum esse homousion Patri , deduxit conclusionem ex Scripturis , in quibus diserte continetur unum esse Deum, et Patrem esse Deum, ac Filium esse Deum ; ex quibus sequitur ne¬ cessario Patrem, et Filium ejusdem esse sub¬ stantiae, et divinitatis. Et similiter Concilium sextum, cum definivit, in Christo duas esse voluntates , divinam et humanam , deduxit (1) II. Petr. I, 21 ; II. Tim. III, 16. — (2) Luc. I, 2. — (3) Psal. L, 8. conclusionem ex Scriptura , in qua habetur Christum esse perfectum Deum, et perfectum hominem. Alterum discrimen ex hoc primo oritur, et est , quia scriptores sacri non debuerunt multum laborare in suis libris edendis ; sa¬ tis enim erat , si laborarent scribendo , vel dictando, si edebant vaticinia ; vel ad sum¬ mum revocando ad memoriam , quee vide¬ rant, vel audierant, et cogitarent verba, qui¬ bus ea scriberent, si scribebant historias, vel epistolas, vel aliquid simile. At Patres in Conciliis debent rem ipsam quaerere , id est, conclusiones investigare, disputando, legen¬ do, cogitando. Unde Actor. XV legimus iu primo Concilio magnam conquisitionem fuisse factam. Idem testatur de Nicaeno Concilio Ruffmus lib. X, cap. 5. hist. Ecclesiasticae, quocirca Actor. XY dicunt Patres Concilii : Visum est Spiritu sancto et nobis , id est. Spi¬ ritu sancto nostram industriam et diligen¬ tiam adjuvante. At scriptores sacri soli Deo tribuunt ea, quae scribunt, ac propterea tam saepe repetebant Prophetae illud : Dicit Do¬ minus. Tertium est, quod in Scriptura nullus pot¬ est esse error, sive agatur de fide , sive de moribus, et sive affirmetur aliquid generale, et toti Ecclesiae commune , sive aliquid par¬ ticulare, ut ad unum tantum hominem per¬ tinens : tam enim est certum et de fide, sine gratia Spiritus sancti neminem salvari, quam Petrum, Paulum, Stephanum , et quosdam alios vere Spiritum sanctum habuisse et sal¬ vos esse ; utrumque enim eadem Scriptura verissima testatur : at Concilia in judiciis particularibus errare possunt. Quartum est, quod in Scriptura non so¬ lum sententiae, sed etiam verba omnia, et singula ad fidem pertinent. Credimus enim nullum esse verbum in Scriptura frustra, aut non recte positum. At in Conciliis ma¬ xima pars actorum ad fidem non pertinet. Non enim sunt de fide disputationes quae praemittuntur, neque rationes quae adduntur, neque ea qifae ad explicandum et illustran¬ dum adferuntur, sed tantum ipsa nuda decre- ta,et ea non omnia, sed tantum quae proponun¬ tur tanquam de fide. Interdum' enim Conci¬ lia aliquid definiunt, non ut certum , sed ut probabile, ut Concilium Viennense, quod decrevit, tenendum ut probabilius, infanti¬ bus in Baptismo infundi gratiam et virtutes, ut habetur Clement. unie, de sunnn. Trinit. et Fide Catholica. Quando autem decretum proponitur, tanquam de Fide, facile cognos¬ citur ex verbis Concilii ; semperenim dicere solent, se explicare fidem Catholicam : vel haereticos habendos, qui contrarium sen¬ tiunt; vel quod est communissimum, dicunt anathema , et ab Ecclesia excludunt eos, qui contrarium sentiunt. Quando autem ni¬ hil horum dicunt, non est certum rem esse de fide. Denique, in ipsis decretis de fide, non ver¬ ba, sed sensus tantum ad fidem pertinet. Non enim est haereticum dicere, in canoni- nibus Conciliorum aliquod verbum esse su¬ pervacaneum, aut non recte positum, nisi forte de ipso verbo sit decretum formatum, ut cum in Concilio Nicaeno decreverunt reci¬ piendam vocem ogoouTtov ; et in Ephesino vo¬ cem 02OTOXOV, Quintum est, quod Scriptura non eget ap¬ probatione Pontificis ut sit authentica, sed tantum ut innotescat ejus auctoritas. At Con¬ cilia etiam legitima, et generalia non sunt rata nisi a Pontifice confirmentur, ut osten¬ dimus quaestione superiori. Sed objiciunt quidam, Gratianus d. 19. can. In canonicis, affirmat epistolas Pontifi¬ cium decretales numerari debere inter Scrip¬ turas canonicas ; et d. 20. can. Decretales, dicit Conciliorum canones ejusdem esse auc¬ toritatis cum epistolis decretalibus ; ergo etiam canones Conciliorum numerantur in¬ ter canonicas Scripturas. Non ergo Scriptu¬ rae praeponuntur Conciliis. Praeterea S. Gre- gorius lib. I, epist. 24. dicit se venerari qua- tuor prima Concilia, ut quatuor libros Evan- geliorum. Respondeo ad Gratianum dupliciter. Pri¬ mo, eum esse deceptum ex depravato codi¬ ce, quem ipse habuit B. Augustini ; tribuit enim illum canonem Augustino lib. IUdoctr. . Christ. cap. 8. Codices autem veri, et emen¬ dati B. Augustini, non habent , ut Gratianus refert, sed longe aliter. Non enim Augusti¬ nus dicit epistolas eas esse Scripturam ca¬ nonicam, quas Apostolica sedes dare, vel accipere solet, ut Gratianus legit, sed judi¬ cium de Scripturis sanctis pertinere ad Ec¬ clesias, atque ad eas potissimum, quae Apos- tolicas sedes, vel epistolas accipere merue¬ runt; quales sunt Roma, in qua sedit Petrus, et ad quam scripsit Paulus ; Ephesus, in qua sedit Joannes, et ad quam scripsit idem Pau¬ lus, et alise quaedam. Dico secundo, Gratianum , etiam hoc er¬ rore posito, non voluisse dicere, decreta Pontificum esse proprie Scripturas sacras, et canonicas, ut sunt Evangelia, vel Psalmi, sed esse Scripturas sacras , ut distinguantur a profanis, et canonicas, ut distinguantur a scriptis sacris Patrum , quse non sunt re¬ gulae, nec habent auctoritatem obligandi. Licet enim canones Pontificum et Concilio¬ rum distinguantur, et postponantur Scriptu¬ rae divinae, tamen suo modo sunt, et dici possunt scripta sacra et canonica, quomodo septima Synodus, act. 3. vocat decreta Con¬ ciliorum divinitus inspiratas constitutiones. Imo Innocentius, cap. Cum Marthae, extra de celebratione Missarum, vocat Scripturam sacram sententiam illam Augustini : « Inju¬ riam facit Martyri, qui orat pro Martyre, » serm. 17. de verbis Apostoli. Quod autem Gratianus senserit Conciliorum decreta non esse aequanda divinis Scripturis proprie dic¬ tis, patet ex 36. causa, q. 2. can. Placuit, ubi Hieronymi sententiam, quia munita erat tes¬ timonio divinae Scripturae, anteponit Conci¬ lii decreto. Ad Gregorium respondeo, illud sicut , so- uare similitudinem, non aequalitatem , ut il¬ lud Matth. Y : Estote perfecti sicut Pater ves¬ ter coelestis perfectus est (1). Yel si aequalita¬ tem sonet, dicendum erit, non comparari a Gregorio Concilia cum Evangeliis in omni¬ bus, sed tantum in ipsa certitudine eorum, quae in Scripturis dicuntur , et in Conciliis definiuntur. Cum enim utraque sint infalli¬ bilis veritatis, aeque certa dici possunt. Sed jam quandoquidem Concilia non sunt majo¬ ris auctoritatis, quam Scripturae , restat ut illud explicemus, utrum saltem majoris sit, Concilii oecumenici, quam summi Pontificis auctoritas.