Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Militant · The Church Spread Throughout the Whole World
Chapter 10: On Hidden Infidels
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Ecclesia Militante, On the Church Militant (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).
There remain lastly the hidden ones, that is, those who have neither internal faith nor any Christian virtue, and yet exteriorly, on account of some temporal advantage, profess the Catholic faith, and are mingled with the true faithful by the communion of the Sacraments; whom indeed that they in no way belong to the true Church, not only the Confessionists and Calvinists teach, but also some of the Catholics, one of whom is John of Torquemada, Book 4 on the Church, part 2, chapter 20. Although this author perhaps wished to say nothing else than that faith is required, that anyone may be said to be united by an internal union to the body of Christ, which is the Church; which indeed is most true.
We, however, follow the manner of speaking of the greater number, who teach that those who are joined to the rest of the faithful by external profession alone are true exterior parts, and even members, though withered and dead, of the body of the Church. See Thomas of Walden, volume 1, Book 2, chapter 9, number 10, and chapter 11, number 5; John Driedo, Book 4 on the ecclesiastical Scriptures and dogmas, chapter 2, part 2; Peter of Soto, in the Catholic Confession which he opposed to the Wittenberg Confession, chapter on the Church, and chapter on Councils, and in the Apology for the same Confession, part 1, chapter 11; Cardinal Hosius, Book 3 against the Prolegomena of Brentius; and Melchior Cano, Book 4 on the Theological Loci, last chapter, on the twelfth argument.
And first this opinion can be demonstrated from those words of John: And now there are become many Antichrists. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us, 1 John 2. For in this place John speaks of heretics, whom he calls Antichrists, and says that they, before they went out, were not of us, that is, were not Catholics in mind and will, but heretics and Antichrists, and yet went out from us, because, although they were not of us in mind and will, yet they were of us by external profession. But after they betrayed themselves and broke out into open schism, they now ceased to be of us in every way.
And although Saint Augustine sometimes expounds those words, they were not of us, of predestination, yet in his commentary on this place he expounds them of hidden heretics. For thus he says, treatise 3 on the epistle of John: “All heretics, all schismatics went out from us, that is, go out from the Church; but they would not go out if they were of us. Before they went out, therefore, they were not of us, if before they went out they were not of us. Many are within, have not gone out, and yet are Antichrists.” And below: “And those who are within are certainly in the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, while His Body is still being cured; and perfect health will not be except in the resurrection of the dead. So they are in the Body of Christ as evil humors; when they are vomited out, then the body is relieved; so also the evil, when they go out, then the Church is relieved. And it says, when the body vomits and casts them out, these humors went out from me, but they were not of me. What is 'they were not of me'? they were not cut from my flesh, but they pressed upon my breast while they were within.” In the same way he expounds it, Book 3 on Baptism, chapter 19, and treatise 61 on John, the words of which places we shall bring forward below.
Secondly this same is demonstrated from the testimonies of those Fathers who by common consent teach that those who are outside the Church have no authority or jurisdiction in the Church. See Cyprian, Book 1, letter 6, and Book 2, letter 1; Optatus, Book 1 against Parmenian; Ambrose, Book 1 on Penance, chapter 2; Jerome, in the Dialogue against the Luciferians; Augustine, in the Enchiridion, chapter 63; and Pope Celestine in his letter to the Clergy of Constantinople, and in another to John of Antioch, which is had in volume 1 of the Council of Ephesus, chapters 18 and 19, and are cited also by Nicholas I in his letter to Michael.
And truly reason itself manifestly teaches this same. For in what way can it be thought, or even feigned, that he should have jurisdiction, and accordingly be head of the Church, who is not a member of the Church? For what was ever a head which was not a member? But it is certain, whatever one or another may have thought, that a hidden heretic, if he were a Bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor the dignity or name of head in the Church, until either he publicly separate himself from the Church, or, convicted of heresy, be separated against his will. For therefore Celestine and Nicholas, in the cited places, say that a heretical Bishop, from the time he began to preach heresies, could loose or bind no one, because forsooth before he began publicly to preach, even if he had already conceived the error in his heart, he could still loose and bind. Which likewise is confirmed from the canon Audivimus, Cause 24, question 1, where we read thus: “But if from his heart he shall have devised a new heresy, from the time he began to preach such things, he could condemn no one.” Add that if hidden heretics could have no jurisdiction, all acts which depend on jurisdiction would be rendered uncertain, which would not a little disturb the whole Church. Now therefore, if he who is not in the Church cannot have authority in the Church, and a hidden heretic can, and sometimes in fact does, have authority in the Church, certainly a hidden heretic can be in the Church.
Thirdly the same is proved from Origen, Augustine, and Gregory. Origen, homily 21 on Joshua: “Even here in Jerusalem, that is, in the Church, are certain Jebusites, who are perverse both in faith and in acts.” Nor is there doubt that he speaks of the hidden, for he straightway adds: “For we do not say of those who are manifestly and evidently criminal, that they should not be expelled from the Church.”
Augustine, Book 3 on Baptism, chapter 19: “The enemies of this fraternal charity, whether they be openly without, or seem to be within, are Pseudo-Christians and Antichrists; for, occasions being found, they go out. But even if occasions be lacking, while they seem within, they are separated from that invisible bond of charity.” Thus Augustine, who, when he says of hidden heretics that they seem to be in the Church, does not signify that they are not really, but that they are not in the way in which they seem to be. For they seem to be united by internal and external conjunction to the other members, and yet are not united except by external conjunction. For if they were really in no way within, but only seemed to be, by like reason they would not truly go out when they openly betray themselves, but would seem to go out. But Augustine says, "occasions being found, they go out," and adds that they are separated indeed, even before they go out, but from the invisible bond of charity, not from the external communion of the Church. In which way must be understood also what the same Augustine says, Book 4, chapter 16, where he says that hidden heretics are to be judged separated, though they themselves do not go out: for he speaks of internal separation, not of external. Nor is this proper in Augustine to hidden heretics, but to all sinners, whom Augustine affirms not to be in the body of Christ, as is clear from the passages cited in the preceding chapter. Augustine continues in the noted place: “Whence John said, they went out from us, but they were not of us; he did not say that by going out they were made strangers, but that, because they were strangers, he declared them to have gone out.” And the Apostle Paul says of certain who had erred concerning the faith that they were in one great house, I believe because they had not yet gone out.
Likewise Book 4, chapter 10: “Or if only those are to be called cockle who endure to the end in malignant error, then without are many grains, and within are much cockle.” The sense of which words seems to be this, that we understand that outside the Church are many manifest heretics who at last will be converted to the true faith; and within the very Church are many hidden heretics who will never be converted. The same he has, Book 1 of the City of God, chapter 35: “Let it remember indeed that among its very enemies lie hidden future citizens, just as of their number even the city of God has connected with itself, by the communion of the Sacraments, some who will not be with it eternally.” Where this is to be observed, that of the enemies who are outside the Church Augustine said that they are future citizens, because now they are not citizens, but will be in their time. But of the enemies who lie hidden within the Church he did not say that they are future enemies, but present; for they are already in the very Church, though they belong to the number of the enemies.
Again, treatise 61 on John, treating that of John 13, where we read that Christ was troubled at the going-out of Judas: “This the Lord vouchsafed to signify to us by His trouble, namely that false brethren and that cockle of the Lord's field must so be tolerated among the wheat until the time of harvest, that when an urgent cause compels some of them to be separated even before the harvest, this cannot be done without disturbance of the Church. This disturbance of His saints, to come through schismatics and heretics, the Lord, as it were foretelling, prefigured in Himself, when, the evil man about to go out thence and to leave by a most open separation the mixture of the wheat in which he had long been tolerated, He was troubled, not in the flesh, but in the spirit.” And below he declares how Judas was one of the Lord's disciples, and yet already bore the type of heretics: “One in number, not in merit; one in appearance, not in virtue; by corporal mixture, not by spiritual bond; by the joining of the flesh, not a companion by the unity of heart.” And below: “Both are true, both of us and not of us: according to one thing of us, according to the communion of the Sacraments of us; according to the property of his own crimes, not of us.” Likewise, book on the acts with Emeritus, chapter 1: “Certain men, still placed in heart in the party of Donatus, exhibit to us a corporal presence, in the flesh within, in the spirit without.”
Finally, in the book on catechizing the uninstructed, chapter 17, he distinguishes three kinds of Christians: hidden heretics, evil Catholics, good Catholics: “There are those who wish to be Christians for this, either that they may gain men from whom they expect temporal advantages, or because they do not wish to offend those whom they fear. But these are reprobate, though for a time the Church carries them, as the floor bears the chaff until the time of winnowing. If they do not correct themselves, and begin to be Christians for the sake of the eternal rest to come, in the end they will be separated. Nor let them flatter themselves that they can be on the floor with the wheat of God: for they will not be with it in the barn, but will be destined to the fire owed them. There are also others of better hope indeed, but yet of no less danger, who already fear God and do not mock the Christian name, nor enter the Church of God with a feigned heart, but in this life await felicity.” Where you manifestly see, from the comparison of these two kinds of men, that the first is of those who do not fear God, but mock the Christian name, and enter the Church with a feigned heart, and yet are and remain in it, and make up the number, until by open departure they are separated.
Gregory, Book 13 of the Morals, chapter 4, explaining those words, Job 16, My wrinkles bear witness against me: “What is designated by wrinkles but duplicity? The wrinkles of the holy Church, therefore, are all who live in it doubly, because they proclaim the faith with their voices and deny it with their works. These forsooth in time of peace, because they see the same faith to be an honor with the powers of this world, lie that they are faithful. But when the storm of sudden adversity troubles the holy Church, they immediately show what they contrive in their perfidious mind.” And below: “But because now within the bosom of faith it holds many reprobate also, when the time of persecution has blazed up, it suffers as enemies those very ones whom before it seemed to nourish with the words of preaching. Let it say, therefore, my wrinkles bear witness against me, that is, those very ones chide me by persecuting, who now, placed in my body, do not amend in themselves the malice of their duplicity.” And below: “Even in its time of peace the holy Church suffers false speech, while there are in it many who distrust the promise of eternity, and yet lie that they are faithful; but when the time of malice has broken out, he who now, fearing, detracts secretly, comes before the face to contradict, because he openly resists the words of true faith.”
Fourthly it is proved by reason, and first the likeness of the human body can persuade what we seek. For the Church is like the human body, as the Apostle teaches, Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12; but in the human body we see many and various kinds of parts, so that some live and feel, some live and do not feel, some neither live nor feel, as is known. Therefore in the Church too nothing hinders that there be some who have faith and charity; some faith alone; some not even faith itself, but only external conjunction.
Then, if those who lack internal faith are not, nor could be, in the Church, there will be no further question between us and the heretics about the visibility of the Church; and accordingly (which I certainly make much of) so many disputations of most learned men, which have hitherto come forth, will be superfluous. For all who have hitherto written object this to the Lutherans and Calvinists, that they make the Church invisible. But that there would be no further question I thus prove.
The Lutherans and Calvinists set up certain visible and external signs of the Church, namely the preaching of the word of God and the administration of the Sacraments, and constantly teach that wherever these signs are seen, there is also the true Church of Christ. Yet because they will have the just and pious alone belong to the true Church, and no one can certainly know who are truly just and pious among so many who exteriorly bear the appearance of justice and piety, since it is certain that everywhere are many hypocrites and false brethren: therefore our writers rightly conclude that they make the Church invisible. Further, to the Lutherans and Calvinists justice consists in faith alone, and it is the same with them for the Church to be an assembly of the just and pious, and to be an assembly of those who truly believe. Who then does not see that we plainly agree with them, if we exclude from the Church all those who have not true faith in their heart?
Besides, it is necessary that it be established to us with infallible certainty which assembly of men is the true Church of Christ; for since the Scriptures, traditions, and plainly all dogmas depend on the testimony of the Church, unless we are most certain which is the true Church, all things will be altogether uncertain. But it cannot be established to us with infallible certainty which is the true Church, if internal faith is required in every member or part of the Church. For who certainly knows in whom that faith is? Not therefore is faith, or anything else invisible and hidden, required, that anyone may in some way belong to the Church.
Some answer this argument in two ways. First, that the assembly of the faithful can be known with sufficient certainty, so that it may even be said to be seen, if the effect of faith be seen, such as is the protestation and confession of faith; for we say that we truly and properly see a man, when yet we do not see the soul except in its effects. Secondly they add that it is not necessary that it be established to us distinctly who are those men who make up the Church, but that it is enough if we assign a certain assembly of men, within which we certainly know, or believe, all those to be who belong to the Church. Since, if the whole Roman people were shown to someone in the forum or theater, where yet there were also some foreigners mingled, he would truly be said to have seen the Roman people, even though he could not discern the Romans from the foreigners.
But neither solution seems to satisfy. And the former indeed is easily refuted: for that knowledge from effects is not certain, but conjectural. Nor does the example of a man convince; for first, the effects of life in a man are natural and necessary; but the effects of faith are free and voluntary, and accordingly much less certain. Then we do not even so see a man himself that it be established to us with infallible certainty that he whom we see is a man; since it can happen that when we believe we see a man, we see an Angel or a demon in human form. Certainly Abraham, Lot, Tobias, and others in the Old Testament not rarely believed those to be men who were Angels. But we wish to have infallible certainty about the Church, such as we have, not about the man himself, but about the figure and external colors and lineaments of the human body, in the seeing of which we cannot be deceived.
But the latter solution does not satisfy for many reasons. First, because it can happen that the number of hypocrites sometime grows so great that there are more hidden heretics than true and perfect Catholics; and then no one could truly say, this assembly is the Church of Christ, since in that assembly which he shows the greater part does not belong to the Church, nor does he himself know who are those few who make up the Church. And although it is to be hoped that the greater part of those who profess the faith are sincere, yet this is not certain.
Secondly, because since the whole Church never assembles in one place, so that we can certainly say, in this assembly is the Church, but it is scattered through various places, and of no part are we certain whether that whole part be not without true faith, wherever we go we shall always be doubtful whether we communicate with the true Church of Christ. Nor does it stand in the way that we have written elsewhere that the particular Roman Church cannot be destitute of true faith; for the particular Roman Church itself does not all assemble together anywhere, but is gathered scatteredly in the various basilicas which are in the city of Rome, nor do we know with infallible certainty that in that assembly to which we perhaps come, all are not without true faith in their heart.
Thirdly, because it could also happen that a whole general Council were outside the Church; for what great thing would it be if among so many thousands professing the faith of Christ, three hundred or four hundred men who assemble to the Council lacked true faith? Thus forsooth things otherwise most well known, and which ought to be most certain, would be called into doubt. Certainly Brentius, as we noted in the disputation on Councils, by this reason lowers the authority of Councils, because we are not certain whether any of those Fathers had true faith in his heart, and accordingly was in the Church of God; for a false Church is not the pillar and ground of truth, but the true.
Fourthly, because if we do not distinctly know who are those who constitute the Church, we shall not so much know which is the Church, as where it is, or rather where the Church lies hidden; which indeed is not enough to save the visibility of the Church, of which it must be disputed in the following chapter. But now let us see what some object.
They object first that the foundation and as it were the form of the Church is faith, since we read, 1 Corinthians 3: As a wise architect, I have laid the foundation. And: Other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Ephesians 2: Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. Ephesians 4: One God, one Faith, one Baptism.
I answer that the form of the Church is not internal faith (unless we wish to have an invisible Church), but external, that is, the confession of faith. Which most openly Saint Augustine teaches, Book 19 against Faustus, chapter 11; and experience testifies the same, for those are admitted to the Church who profess the faith. But in the alleged places faith is not called the form or foundation of the Church, but the foundation of the justice or doctrine which is in the Church. Add that the Scriptures, as they place faith in the Church, so also place charity and all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and yet no Catholic teaches that those who lack charity and the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not of the Church.
They object secondly the definition of the Lateran Council, which is had in the chapter Firmiter, on the supreme Trinity and the Catholic faith: there is one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one is saved; to which is like the definition of Pope Nicholas, which is had on consecration, distinction 1, canon Ecclesia: the Church is the collection of Catholics; but those are not faithful and Catholics who have not faith in their heart, even if they profess it with the mouth.
I answer that these are not definitions of the Church. For the Lateran Council wished only to assert that the Church is one, not to describe accurately what the Church is. But it called it the Church of the faithful, because by this name the baptized Christians are distinguished, both from those who are manifestly infidels, and also from the catechumens. For properly among the ancients the catechumens were not called faithful, as we showed above. And so it is the same as if the Council had said, the Church of Christians is one, not many. Add secondly that the name "faithful" can also be taken for one who publicly professes the faith, as we shall presently say of the name "Catholic." Add thirdly that it could also most truly be said that the Church of the faithful, that is, of those who have true faith in the heart, is one; for the Church chiefly and by intention gathers only the faithful; but when some feigned are mingled, who do not truly believe, that happens beside the intention of the Church. For if it could know them, it would never admit them, or, admitted by chance, would straightway exclude them.
Further, in those words of Pope Nicholas, “the Church is the collection of Catholics,” we are necessarily compelled to say that those are called Catholics who profess the Catholic faith, whatever be of internal faith. For Nicholas commands that Churches, that is, as he himself explains, collections of Catholics, be not made without the nod of the Apostolic See. But it is plain that collections of Catholics cannot be made otherwise than by calling together into one place those who are held and called Catholics, that is, those who publicly profess themselves to be Catholics.
They object thirdly the testimonies of the Fathers who say that heretics are not truly Christians, such as are Tertullian, book on modesty; Cyprian, Book 4, letter 2; Athanasius, sermon 2 against the Arians; and Augustine, book on the grace of Christ, chapter 11. But the Church of Christ can be of none but Christians; not therefore do those belong to the Church who have not true faith. I answer that those Fathers speak of manifest heretics, who have the faith of Christ neither in heart nor in mouth. For "Christian" is a name of profession, and those are called Christians who publicly worship and follow the law and faith of Christ.
They object fourthly that before the coming of Christ not only the Synagogue of the Jews belonged to the Church of God, but besides all the Gentiles who, dispersed through the world, sincerely worshipped one God. From which it seems to follow that faith is the bond of the Church, and accordingly that he who has not faith does not belong to the Church. I answer that in all ages all those, and those alone, constituted the Church of God who were bound together by the confession and protestation, whether it were made by sacrifices or in another way, of one faith in one God the creator of heaven and earth.
They object lastly: The chief cause why hidden heretics are included among the members of the Church seems to be that it may be established to us with infallible certainty which assembly of men is the Church; but this certainty cannot be had, even if hidden heretics be said to belong to the Church; which is confirmed by these arguments.
First, those who are not baptized are not members of the Church; but no one certainly knows who are truly baptized, both because the character of Baptism is invisible, and also because when the exterior Baptism is exhibited, few are present who see it, and accordingly the rest must be content with human faith.
Secondly, the Church cannot be without Bishops and Presbyters, as Jerome teaches against the Luciferians. But who certainly knows who are true Bishops and Presbyters, since this depends on the intention of the ordainer and on the invisible character?
Thirdly, the excommunicated are not of the Church, as we taught above; but many are hidden excommunicates, namely those excommunicated by the law itself by the very fact, and not promulgated before the people; whence we are compelled to doubt, when we see someone, whether he be of the Church or not.
Fourthly, it often happens, or certainly can happen, that manifest heretics somewhere feign themselves Catholics; likewise Jews, Turks, Pagans mingle themselves with the faithful, and yet either they will not be of the Church, or we say that the Church is an assembly of heretics and Pagan hypocrites.
I answer to the first that, for anyone to be of the body of the Church, not the character is required, but external Baptism; nor is external Baptism required that anyone be reckoned and be of the Church, but only that he be admitted. For if anyone asks to be admitted to the Church, that will not be done without Baptism. Yet if anyone says he is baptized, and the contrary is not established, he will be admitted to the other Sacraments, and by this will be of the body of the Church. And a sign of this is that if afterward it becomes known that he was not baptized, then, if this was done by his own fault, he will be expelled from the congregation, nor be received, unless after penance he be baptized. But if not by his fault, he will not be repelled, but what was lacking will be perfected in him, nor will he be judged not to have been in the Church, but will be judged to have entered otherwise than through the ordinary gate. Whence Innocent III, chapter Apostolicam, on the unbaptized Presbyter, judged that an unbaptized Presbyter was truly in the Church, and commanded the sacrifice to be offered for his soul, as for other faithful. And Dionysius of Alexandria, as we have it Book 7, chapter 8 of the ecclesiastical History, judged that a certain man was truly in the Church whom it was established was not truly baptized, but had only received the other Sacraments, as one baptized.
This seems to have been the opinion of John Driedo, Book 4 on the ecclesiastical Scriptures and dogmas, chapter 2, part 2, where he speaks thus: “All who are held as visibly ascribed to the Church by the Sacrament of faith, according to a certain peace conversing corporally with the Christian people, are said to be in the Church, until either by the judgment of the Church they be separated, or of their own accord go out, contemning and persecuting the Church itself.” Who writes openly enough that in the Church are not only all the baptized, but also all those who are held as baptized. Yet it could also be answered, and better, that those who are not baptized, and yet are held as baptized, are of the Church according to exterior appearance only, that is, putatively, not truly. Nor does it thence follow that the Church becomes invisible: for although some could not prove that they are baptized, yet very many can prove it; and Baptism is by its nature visible.
To the second I say that in Bishops two things can be considered. First, that they hold the place of Christ, and that therefore we owe them obedience, and that they cannot deceive us in those things which are necessary for salvation. Secondly, that they have the power of Order and of Jurisdiction. If they be considered in the first way, we are certain with infallible certainty that those whom we see are our true Bishops and Pastors. For to this is required neither faith, nor the character of order, nor legitimate election, but only that they be held as such by the Church. For since they are Bishops for the Church, not against it, God assists those who are held as such, that they err not in teaching the Church. And so they are true Bishops and Pastors, not absolutely, but as to those three things which we said. Which is the same as if we said that they are not indeed in themselves true Bishops, yet, as long as they are held as such by the Church, obedience is owed them, since even an erroneous conscience obliges; likewise that they hold the place of Christ in fact, not in right, since they really rule the people of Christ in His name; finally that the Church cannot be deceived by them, since the Church cannot err, and yet is bound to follow those whom it holds for true Pastors. Which last must be taken in a sound sense; namely if Bishops of this kind all agree in doctrine, or be supreme Pontiffs. For there is no doubt that particular Bishops, if they dissent from others, can err. If they be considered in the second way, we have no certainty but moral that these are true Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certainty that some at least are true, otherwise God would have deserted the Church. But for this, that we may hold the Church certain and conspicuous as to its heads and members, the first consideration suffices.
To the third I say that hidden excommunicates are of the Church in number, not in merit; in fact, not in right.
To the fourth I say, first, that it is difficult that men of this kind be not straightway detected, but yet even if for a long time they delude the Church, no inconvenience can thence arise. For the Church does not number them among its own except by reason of external profession (for men do not judge of internal things); but that external profession is most holy, though it be ill used by them. And so they are of the body of the Church, while they are joined to the faithful by that bond of profession and obedience which binds the whole Church and reduces it into one body. Nor does it thence follow that the Church is therefore an assembly of heretics and Pagan hypocrites; for although some few such are in the Church, yet we are certain with the certainty of divine faith that in the same Church there are many truly faithful, pious, and elect, just as in the human body too are found both nails and hairs, which do not live, and yet no one thence gathers that the human body is nothing but nails and hairs. And these things are said according to the opinion of Driedo. For according to the other opinion, which we said a little before to be truer, it must be answered that Jews, Turks, Pagans, and also manifest heretics who feign themselves to be Christians and Catholics, are not of the Church except according to exterior appearance and putatively, not truly. Nor will it thence follow that the Church becomes invisible: for if perhaps it be necessary to know whether men of this kind are members of the Catholic Church or not, they can be compelled to show their admission to the Church, that is, to prove that they are baptized or reconciled, which things are visible and exposed to the external senses. But other is the case of faith and the other internal virtues, which those who require in all the members of the Church make the Church plainly invisible and known to God alone, as Peter of Soto rightly objected to the Brentians.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. De infidelibus occultis. Restant postremo occulti, id est, ii, qui nec fidem internam, nec ullam Christianam virtutem habent, et tamen exterius propter temporale aliquod commodum fidem Catho¬ licam profitentur, et communione Sacramen¬ torum veris fidelibus permiscentur; quos quidem nullo modo ad veram Ecclesiam per¬ tinere non solum Confcssionistse et Calvinis- tse docent, sed etiam aliqui ex Catholicis, quorum unus est Joannes de Turrecremata, lib. IV de Ecclesia, par. 2. c. 20. Quam¬ quam hic autor nihil fortasse aliud dicere voluit, nisi requiri fidem, ut quis unitus dici possit interna unione corpori Christi, quod est Ecclesia, quod quidem verissimum est. Nos tamen modum loquendi plurium se¬ quimur, qui docent, eos, qui sola externa professione conjuncti sunt fidelibus caiteris, esse veras partes exteriores , atque adeo etiam membra, licet arida et mortua, cor¬ poris Ecclesiae. Vide Thomam Waldensem tom. I, lib. II, cap. 9. num 10. et cap. 11. num. 5. Joan. Driedonem lib. IV de Eccle¬ siasticis Scripturis et dogmatibus, cap. 2. par, 2. Petrum a Soto in Confessione Catho¬ lica, quam opposuit Confessioni Wittember- gensi cap. de Ecclesia, et cap. de Conciliis, et in Apologia pro eadem Confessione, par. 1, cap. 11. Hosium Cardinalem lib. III cont. Prolegomena Brentii, et Melchiorem Canum lib. IV de locis Theologicis, cap. ult.ad ar¬ gumentum 12. Ac primum haec sententia demonstrari po¬ test ex illis verbis Joannis : Et nunc Anti- christi multi facti sunt, ex nobis exierunt, sed non erant ex nobis; nam si fuissent ex nobis, mansissent utique nobiscum , I. Joan. II (1). Hoc enim loco Joannes de haereticis loqui¬ tur, quos Antichristos vocat, et dicit eos, antequam exirent, non fuisse ex nobis, id est, non fuisse Catholicos animo ac volun¬ tate, sed haereticos atque Antichristos, et ta¬ men ex nobis exivisse, quia etsi non erant ex nobis, animo ac voluntate, erant tamen ex nobis externa professione. Sed postea- quam se prodiderunt, et in apertum schisma proruperunt, jam desierunt omnibus modis esse ex nobis. Et quamquam S. Augustinus aliquando illa verba : Non erant ex nobis, exponit de praedestinatione, tamen in commentario hu¬ jus loci exponit de haereticis occultis. Sic enim ait Tract. 3. in epist. Joan. : « Omnes haeretici, omnes schismatici ex nobis exie¬ runt, id est, ex Ecclesia exeunt, sed non exi¬ rent, si ex nobis essent. Antequam exirent ergo, non erant ex nobis, si antequam exi¬ rent, non erant ex nobis. Multi intus sunt, non exierunt, et tamen Antichristi sunt.» Et infra : « Et qui intus sunt, certe sunt in Cor¬ pore Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quando ad¬ huc curatur Corpus ipsius; et sanitas per¬ fecta non erit nisi in resurrectione mortuo¬ rum. Sic sunt in Corpore Christi, quomodo humores mali ; quando evomuntur, tunc re¬ levatur corpus; sic et mali quando exeunt, tunc Ecclesia relevatur. Et dicit, quando eos evomit, atque projicit corpus, ex me exie¬ runt humores isti, sed non erant ex me. Quid est non erant exme? non de carne mea praecisi sunt , sed pectus mihi premebant cum inessent.» Eodem modo exponit lib. III de Baptismo, cap. 19. et Tract. 61. in Joan- nem, quorum locorum verba infra adfere-v mus. Secundo demonstratur hoc idem ex testi¬ moniis eorum Patrum, qui communi con¬ sensu docent, eos, qui sunt extra Ecclesiam, nullam habere auctoritatem, aut jurisdictio¬ nem in Ecclesiam. Vide Cyprianum lib. I, epist. 6. et lib. II, epist, 1. Optatum lib. I cont. Parmenianum.- Ambrosium lib. I de Poenitentia, cap. 2. Hieronymum in Dialogo contra Luciferianos. Augustinum in Enchi- rid. cap. 63. et Coelesti num Papam in epist. ad Clerum Constantinopolitanum, et in al¬ tera ad Joan. Antiochenum, quae habetur in I tom. Concilii Ephesini, cap. 18 et 19. et citantur etiam a Nicolao I, in epistola ad Mi- chael. Et sane ipsa ratio manifeste hoc idem do¬ cet. Quo pacto enim cogitari, aut fingi etiam potest, ut is habeat jurisdictionem, et pro¬ inde sit caput Ecclesiae, qui non est mem¬ brum Ecclesia?.? Quod enim unquam fuit ca¬ put, quod non fuerit membrum? Certum est autem, quidquid unus, aut alter senserit, (1) I. Joan. II, 18 et 19. CAPUT X. 339 occultum haereticum, 'si Episcopus, aut etiam summus Pontifex esset, non amittere juris¬ dictionem, nec dignitatem, aut nomen capi¬ tis in Ecclesia, donec aut ipse se ab Eccle¬ sia publice separaret, aut convictus haere- seos invitus separetur. Nam propterea Coe- lestinus et Nicolaus locis citatis dicunt, Epis¬ copum haereticum, ex quo haereses praedi¬ care coepit, neminem potuisse solvere, vel ligare, quia nimirum antequam publice prae¬ dicare inciperet, etiamsi corde jam conce¬ pisset errorem, adhuc poterat solvere et li¬ gare. Quod item confirmatur ex can. Audi¬ vimus; 24. quaest. 1. ubi sic legimus : « Sin autem ex corde suo novam haeresim confin¬ xerit, ex quo talia praedicare coepit, nemi¬ nem damnare potuit. » Adde, quod si oc¬ culti haeretici nullam habere possent juris¬ dictionem, redderentur incerti omnes actus, qui ex jurisdictione dependent, quod non parum Ecclesiam universam perturbaret. Jam ergo si is, qui non est in Ecclesia, non potest habere auctoritatem in Ecclesiam, et haereticus occultus habere potest , et ali¬ quando re ipsa habet auctoritatem in Eccle¬ siam, certe haereticus occultus esse potest in Ecclesia. Tertio idem probatur ex Origene, Augus¬ tino, et Gregorio. Origenes homil. 21. in Jo- Sue : « Etiam hic. inquit, in Hierusalem, id est, in Ecclesia sunt quidam Jebusaei, qui et fide, et actibus perversi sunt. » Nec dubium est, quin loquatur de occultis, nam statim adjungit : « Neque enim dicimus de iis, qui manifeste, et evidenter criminosi sunt, ut non de Ecclesia expellantur. » Augustinus lib. III de Baptismo, cap. 19.: tt Hujus, inquit, fraternae charitatis inimici, sive aperte foris sint, sive intus esse videan¬ tur, Pseudochristiani sunt, et Antichristi; inventis enim occasionibus foras exeunt. Sed etiamsi occasiones desint, cum intus viden¬ tur, ab illa invisibili charitatis compage se¬ parati sunt. i> Haec Augustinus, qui cum de occultis haereticis dicit, eos videri esse in Ecclesia, non significat, eos non esse revera, sed non esse eo modo, quo esse videntur. Videntur enim esse uniti interna et externa Conjunctione membris caeteris, et tamen non sunt uniti, nisi conjunctione externa. Nam si revera nullo modo essent intus, sed tan¬ tum esse viderentur, pari ratione, non vere evirent, quando aperte se produnt sed exire viderentur. Augustinus autem dicit, inventis occasionibus foras exeunt, et addit, eos esse separatos quidem, etiam antequam exeant, sed ab invisibili charitatis compage, non ab externa Ecclesiae communione. Quemadmo¬ dum intelligi debet etiam, quod idem Au¬ gustinus dicit, lib. IV, cap. 16. ubi dicit, haereticos occultos separatos esse judican¬ dos, licet ipsi non exeant : loquitur enim de separatione interna, non de externa. Neque proprium est hoc apud Augustinum, haere¬ ticis occultis, sed omnibus peccatoribus, quos Augustinus affirmat non esse in cor¬ pore Christi, ut patet ex locis citatis capite superiore. Pergit loco notato Augustin. «Un¬ de, inquit, Joannes dixit, ex nobis exierunt, sed non erant ex nobis, non ait, quod ex¬ eundo alieni facti sunt, sed quod alieni erant, propter hoc eos exiisse declaravit. » Dicit et Apostolus Paulus de quibusdam, qui circa fidem aberraverant, in una magna domo eos fuisse, credo quod nondum exierant. Item lib. IV, cap. 10 : «Aut si zizania, inquit, sola dicenda sunt, quae usque in fi¬ nem in maligno errore perdurant, et foris multa frumenta sunt, et intus multa zizania. » Quorum verborum hic videtur esse sensus, ut intelligamus, extra Ecclesiam esse mul¬ tos manifestos heereticos, qui tandem con¬ vertentur ad veram fidem ; et intus in ipsa Ecclesia esse multos occultos haereticos, qui nunquam convertentur. Idem habet lib. I de civit. Dei, cap. 35 : « Meminerit sane, in¬ quit, in ipsis inimicis suis latere cives futu¬ ros, sicut ex illorum numero etiam Dei civi¬ tas habet secum connexos communione Sa¬ cramentorum. » Ubi illud est observandum, de inimicis, qui sunt extra Ecclesiam, Au¬ gustinum dixisse, eos cives futuros, quia modo non sunt cives, sed erunt tempore suo. At de inimicis, qui latent intra Ecclesiam, non dixisse inimicos futuros, sed praesentes ; jam enim sunt in ipsa Ecclesia, cum tamen pertineant ad numerum inimicorum. Rursum Tract. 61. in Joan. tractans illud Joan. XIII, ubi legimus Christum exeunte Juda turbatum fuisse : « Hoc nobis, inquit, Dominus significare sua turbatione dignatus est, quod scilicet falsos fratres, et Dominici agri illa zizania, ita necesse est usque ad messis tempus inter frumenta tolerari, ut quando ex eis aliqua separari etiam ante messem urgens causa compellit , fieri hoc sine Ecclesiae perturbatione non possit. Hanc perturbationem sanctorum suorum , per schismaticos, et haereticos futuram, quodam¬ modo praenuntians Dominus praefiguravit in 340 LIBER II. seipso, cum exituro inde homine malo, et commixtionem frumenti, in qua diu fuerat toleratus, separatione apertissima relicturo, turbatus est, non carne, sed spiritu. » Et infra declarat, quomodo Judas unus esset ex discipulis Domini, et tamen jam typum ge¬ reret haereticorum : « Unus, inquit, numero, non merito ; unus specie, non virtute ; com¬ mixtione corporali, non vinculo spirituali ; carnis adjunctione, non cordis socius uni¬ tate. » Et infra : « Utrum que verum est, et ex nobis, et non ex nobis, secundum aliud ex nobis, secundum communionem Sacra¬ mentorum ex nobis, secundum suorum pro¬ prietatem criminum non ex nobis. » Item lib. de gestis cum Emerito, cap. I : « Qui¬ dam, inquit, adhuc corde positi in parte Donati praesentiam nobis exhibent corpora¬ lem, carne intus, spiritu foris. » Denique in lib. de catechizandis rudibus cap. 17. distinguit tria genera Christiano¬ rum, haereticos occultos, malos Catholicos, bonos Catholicos : « Sunt, inquit, qui prop- terea volunt esse Christiani, ut aut prome¬ reantur homines, a quibus temporalia com¬ moda exspectant, aut quia offendere nolunt, quos timent. Sed isti reprobi sunt, etsi ad tempus eos portet Ecclesia, sicut area usque ad tempus ventilationis paleam sustinet. Si non se correxerint, et propter futuram sem¬ piternam requiem Christiani esse coeperint, in fine separabuntur. Nec sibi blandiantur, quod in area esse possunt cum frumento Dei : quia in horreo cum illo non erunt, sed igni debito destinabuntur. Sunt etiam alii meliori quidem spe, sed tamen non minore periculo, qui jam Deum timent, et non irri¬ dent Christianum nomen, nec simulato corde intrant Ecclesiam Dei, sed in ista vita ex¬ spectant felicitatem. » Ubi manifeste vides, ex collatione horum duorum generum ho¬ minum, primum illud esse eorum, qui Deum non timent, sed irrident Christianum nomen, et ficto corde intrant Ecclesiam, et tamen in ea sunt, et manent, ac numerum faciunt, donec aperta discessione non separantur. Gregorius lib. 13. moral. cap. 4. expli¬ cans illa verba, Job XYI : Rugce mece testimo¬ nium dicunt contra me : « Quid, inquit, per rugas nisi duplicitas designatur ? Rugae ita¬ que sunt sanctae Ecclesiae omnes, qui in ea dupliciter vivunt, quia fidem vocibus cla¬ mant, operibus denegant. Hi nimirum pacis tempore , quia hujus Mundi potestatibus eamdem fidem honori esse conspiciunt, fide¬ les se esse mentiuntur. Sed cum sanctam Ecclesiam subitae adversitatis procella tur¬ baverit, illico ostendunt quod in perfida mente moliuntur. » Et infra : « Sed quia nunc intra sinum fidei multos etiam repro¬ bos tenet, cum tempus persecutionis exarse¬ rit, ipsos hostes patitur, quos praedicationis ■Verbis alere ante videbatur. Dicat ergo, ru¬ gae meae testimonium dicunt contra me, id est, ipsi me insequendo increpant, qui nunc in meo eorpore positi duplicitatis suae in se malitiam non emendant. » Et infra : « Etiam pacis suae tempore sancta Ecclesia falsilo¬ quium patitur, dum sunt in ea multi, qui de aeternitatis promissione diffidunt, et tamen se fideles esse mentiuntur, sed cum malitiae tempus eruperit, is qui nunc metuens dero¬ gat ad contradicendum, ante faciem venit, quia verbis verae fidei apertis vocibus obsis¬ tit. » Quarto probatur ratione, ac primum simi¬ litudo corporis humani id quod quierimus suadere potest. Est enim Ecclesia similis corpori humano, ut Apostolus docet, Rom. XII et I. Cor. XII ; in corpore autem humano multa ac varia esse videmus partium gene¬ ra, ita ut quaedam vivant et sentiant, quae¬ dam vivant, non sentiant, quaedam nec vi¬ vant, nec sentiant, ut notum est. Igitur in Ecclesia quoque nihil impedit, quo minus sint aliqui, qui habeant fidem et charitatem ; quidam solam fidem ; quidam ne ipsam qui¬ dem fidem, sed externam dumtaxat conjunc¬ tionem. Deinde si ii, qui fide interna carent, non sunt, nec esse possent in Ecclesia, nulla erit inter nos et haereticos amplius quaestio de Ecclesiae visibilitate, proinde (quod ego certe magni facio) supervacaneae erunt tot erudi¬ tissimorum hominum disputationes , quae hactenus prodierunt. Omnes enim qui hac¬ tenus scripserunt, id objiciunt Lutheranis, et Galvinistis, quod Ecclesiam invisibilem fa¬ ciant. Nullam autem futuram amplius quaes¬ tionem, ita probo. Lutherani et Calvinistae signa visibilia quaedam et externa Ecclesiae statuunt, nimi¬ rum praedicationem verbi Dei, et Sacramen¬ torum administrationem, et constanter do¬ cent, ubicumque haec signa conspiciuntur, ibi esse etiam veram Christi Ecclesiam. Quia tamen solos justos et pios ad Ecclesiam ve¬ ram pertinere volunt, et nemo potest certo scire, qui sunt vere justi et pii inter tam multos qui justitiam et pietatem exterius CAPUT X. 341 prse se ferunt, cum certum sit multos ubique esse hypocritas, et falsos fratres : Idcirco nostri recte concludunt, eos facere Eccle¬ siam invisibilem. Porro Lutheranis et Calvi- nistis justitia in sola fide consistit, idemque est apud eos, Ecclesiam esse coetum justo¬ rum et piorum, et esse coetum vere creden¬ tium. Quis non igitur videt, nos cum illis plane convenire, si omnes illos ab Ecclesia excludamus, qui veram fidem in corde non habent ? Ad hsec, necesse est, ut nobis certitudine infallibili constet, qui coetus hominum sit vera Christi Ecclesia ; nam cum Scripturae traditiones, et omnia plane dogmata ex tes¬ timonio Ecclesiae pendeant, nisi certissimi simus, quae sit vera Ecclesia, incerta erunt prorsus omnia. At non potest certitudine in¬ fallibili nobis constare, quae sit vera Eccle¬ sia, si fides interna requiritur in quolibet membro, seu parte Ecclesiae. Quis enim certo novit, in quibus sit ista fides ? Non igitur fi¬ des, aut aliquid aliud invisibile, et occultum requiritur, ut quis aliquo modo pertineat ad Ecclesiam. Respondent quidam ad hoc argumentum dupliciter. Primo, satis certo posse cognos¬ ci coetum hominum fidelium, ita ut etiam videri dicatur, si effectus fidei conspiciatur, qualis est protestatio et confessio fidei ; nam etiam hominem vere et proprie videre dici¬ mus, cum tamen animum non videamus uisi in suis effectibus. Secundo addunt, non esse necessarium, ut constet , nobis distincte qui sint illi homines, qui Ecclesiam faciunt, sed satis esse si assignemus quemdam coetum hominum, intra quem certo sciamus, vel credamus esse omnes illos, qui ad Ecclesiam pertinent. Siquidem si cui ostenderetur po¬ pulus Romanus universus in foro, aut in theatro, ubi tamen essent etiam aliqui ex¬ terni admixti, vere diceretur illum vidisse populum Romanum, tametsi discernere non potuisset Romanos ab externis. Sed neutra solutio videtur satisfacere. Ac prior quidem facile refellitur : nam cognitio illa ex effectibus non est certa, sed conjec¬ turalis. Neque exemplum hominis convin¬ cit, nam in primis effectus vitae in homine naturales sunt, et necessarii ; effectus autem fidei liberi sunt, ac voluntarii, proinde mul¬ to minus certi. Deinde nec ipsum hominem ita videmus, ut certitudine infallibili nobis constet, eum quem videmus esse hominem ; siquidem fieri potest, ut cum nos hominem videre credimus, Angelum, aut daemonem videamus in forma humana. Certe Abraham, Loth, Tobias, et alii in testamento veteri non raro homines esse crediderunt, qui Angeli erant? Nos autem infallibilem certitudinem de Ecclesia habere volumus qualem habe¬ mus, non de ipso homine, sed de figura, et externis coloribus ac lineamentis corporis humanis, in quorum visione decipi non pos¬ sumus. Posterior vero solutio multis de causis non satisfacit. Primo, quia potest fieri, ut adeo crescat aliquando numerus hypocritarum, ut plures sint haeretici occulti, quam veri ac perfecti Catholici ; tum autem non posset quisquam vere dicere, hic coetus est Eccle¬ sia Christi; quandoquidem in eo coetu, quem ostendit, major pars ad Ecclesiam -non per¬ tinet, nec ipse scit, qui sint illi pauci qui Ec¬ clesiam faciunt. Et quamvis sperandum sit, majorem partem eorum, qui profitentur fi¬ dem, esse sinceros, id tamen non est cer¬ tum. Secundo, quia cum nunquam tota Ecclesia in unum locum conveniat, ita ut possimus certo dicere, in hoc coetu est Ecclesia, sed sparsa sit per varia loca, et de nulla parte certi simus, an non sit tota illa pars sine ve¬ ra fide, quocumque iverimus, semper eri¬ mus dubii, an communicemus cum vera Christi Ecclesia. Neque his repugnat, quod alibi scripsimus, Romanam Ecclesiam parti¬ cularem non posse destitui vera fide ; nam nec ipsa Romana Ecclesia particularis tota simul alicubi convenit, sed sparsim congre¬ gatur in variis basilicis, qua3 sunt in Roma¬ na civitate, nec certo scimus certitudine in¬ fallibili in eo coetu, ad quem nos forte acce¬ dimus, non esse omnes sine vera fide in corde. Tertio, quia posset etiam fieri, ut totum generale Concilium esset extra Ecclesiam ; quid enim magnum esset, si inter tot millia profitentium Christi fidem, trecenti, vel qua¬ dringenti homines, qui ad Concilium conve¬ niunt, fide vera carerent ? Ita nimirum res alioqui notissimee, et quas certissimas esse oportet , in dubium revocabuntur. Certe Brentius, ut in disputatione de Conciliis an¬ notavimus, ea ratione Conciliorum auctori¬ tatem elevat, quia non sumus certi, an ullus eorum Patrum fidem veram in corde habue¬ rit, et proinde in Ecclesia Dei fuerit, non enim est columna et firmamentum veritatis falsa Ecclesia, sed vera. 342 LIBER III. Quarto, quia si non scimus distincte, qui sint, qui Ecclesiam constituunt, non tam sciemus, quae sit Ecclesia, quam ubi sit, seu potius ubi lateat Ecclesia, quod quidem non satis est ad Ecclesiae visibilitatem salvan¬ dam, de qua in sequenti capite disputan¬ dum erit. Sed jam quid aliqui objiciant, vi¬ deamus. Objiciunt primo, fundamentum et quasi formam Ecclesiae esse fidem, cum legamus I. Cor. III : Quasi bonus architectus fundamen¬ tum posui. Et : Fundamentum aliud nemo po¬ test ponere , prceter id, quod positum est, quod est Christus Jesus. Ad Ephes. II : Superaedifi¬ cati supra fundamentum Apostolorum et Pro¬ phetarum, ipso summo angulari lapide Christo Jesu. Ephes. IY : Unus Deus , una Fides, unum Baptisma (i). Respondeo : formam Ecclesiae non esse fidem internam (nisi Ecclesiam invisibilem habere velimus) sed externam, id est, fidei confessionem. Id quod apertissime docet S. Augustinus lib. XIX contra Faustum, cap. II. et experientia idem testatur; illi enim admittuntur ad Ecclesiam, qui profitentur fidem. In locis autem allegatis fides non di- cifur forma, vel fundamentum Ecclesiae, sed fundamentum justitiae, vel doctrinae, quae est in Ecclesia. Adde, quod Scripturae, sicut in Ecclesia ponunt fidem, ita etiam ponunt charitatem, et omnia dona Spiritus sancti, et tamen nemo Catholicorum docet, non esse de Ecclesia eos qui charitate et donis Spiri¬ tus sancti carent. Objiciunt secundo, definitionem Concilii Lateranensis, quae habetur cap. Firmiter, de summa Trinit. et fide Catholica : una est fide¬ lium universalis Ecclesia, extra quam nemo salvatur : cui similis est definitio Nicolai Pa¬ pae, quae habetur de consecrat, d. I. can. Ec¬ clesia : Ecclesia est Catholicorum collectio, non sunt autem fideles et Catholici, qui fidem in corde non habent, etsi eam ore profiteantur. Respondeo, non esse has Ecclesiae defini¬ tiones. Nam Concilium Lateranense solum asserere voluit, Ecclesiam esse unam, non autem quid sit Ecclesia, accurate describe¬ re. Appellavit autem Ecclesiam fidelium, quia' hoc nomine distinguuntur Christiani baptizati, tum ab iis, qui manifeste infideles sunt , tum etiam a catechumenis. Proprie enim apud veteres catechumeni non dice¬ bantur fideles, ut supra ostendimus. Itaque idem est, ac si Concilium dixisset, Christia¬ norum Ecclesia una est, non multae. Adde secundo, posse etiam nomen fidelis accipi pro eo, qui fidem publice profitetur, quem¬ admodum mox dicemus de nomine, Catho¬ licus. Adde tertio, verissime etiam dici po¬ tuisse, Ecclesiam fidelium, id est eorum, qui veram fidem habent in corde, unam esse ; Ecclesia enim praecipue, et ex intentione fi¬ deles tantum colligit ; cum autem admis¬ centur aliqui ficti, et qui vere non credunt, id accidit praeter intentionem Ecclesiae. Si enim eos nosse posset, nunquam admitteret, aut casu admissos continuo excluderet. Porro in verbis illis Nicolai Papae : « Ec¬ clesia est Catholicorum collectio, » necessa¬ rio cogimur dicere, vocari Catholicos eos, qui fidem Catholicam profitentur, quidquid sit de fide interna. Jubet enim Nicolaus, ut non fiant Ecclesiae, id est, ut ipse exponit, Catholicorum collectiones, sine nutu sedis Apostolicae. Planum autem est, non aliter fieri posse Catholicorum collectiones, quam convocando in unum locum eos, qui haben¬ tur, et dicuntur Catholici, id est eos, qui publice Catholicos se esse profitentur. Objiciunt tertio, testimonia Patrum, qui dicunt haereticos non esse vere Christianos, quales sunt Tertullianus lib. de pudicitia. Cyprian. lib. IY, epist. 2. Athanasius serm. 2. contra Arianos, et Augustinus lib. de gra¬ tia Christi c. 11. at Ecclesia Christi nonnisi Christianorum esse potest ; non igitur ad Ecclesiam pertinent, qui veram fidem non habent. Respondeo : eos Patres loqui de manifestis haereticis, qui nec in corde, nec in ore Christi fidem habent. Christianus enim nomen est professionis, et illi dicuntur Christiani, qui Christi legem ac fidem publi¬ ce colunt ac sequuntur. Objiciunt quarto, ante Christi adventum non solum Synagogam Judaeorum ad Eccle¬ siam Dei pertinuisse, sed omnes praeterea Gentiles, qui per orbem terrae dispersi, unum Deum sincere colebant. Ex quo videtur se¬ qui, ut fides sit Ecclesiae vinculum, et proinde qui fidem non habet, ad Ecclesiam non per¬ tineat. Respondeo : omnibus saeculis eos omnes et solos Ecclesiam Dei constituisse, qui simul colligati erant confessione et pro¬ testatione, sive ea per sacrificia, sive alio modo fierent, unius fidei in unum Deum creatorem coeli et terrae. (1) I. Cor. III, 10 et 11; Eph. JI, 20; IV, 5. CAPUT X. 343 Objiciunt ultimo. Potissima causa, cur in Ecclesiae membris includuntur haeretici oc¬ culti, illa esse videtur, ut constet nobis infaillibili certitudine, quinam coetus homi¬ num sit Ecclesia : at haec certitudo haberi nequit, etiamsi haeretici occulti ad Eccle¬ siam pertinere dicantur : quod his argu¬ mentis confirmatur. Primo, non sunt Ecclesiae membra qui non sunt baptizati : at nemo scit certo, qui sint vere baptizati, tum quia character Bap¬ tismi est invisibilis, tum etiam quia cum ex¬ terior Baptismus exhibetur, pauci adsunt, qui videant, ac proinde caeteri fide humana contenti esse debent. Secundo, Ecclesia non potest esse sine Episcopis et Presbyteris, ut Hieronymus do¬ cet contra Luciferianos. At quis novit certo, qui sint veri Episcopi et Presbyteri, cum id pendeat ab intentione ordinantis, et a cha¬ ractere invisibili. Tertio, excommunicat! non sunt de Eccle¬ sia, ut nos supra docuimus : at multi sunt excommunicati occulti, nimirum excommu- nicati a jure ipso facto, et non promulgati coram populo, ex quo cogimur dubitare, cum aliquem videmus, sitne ille de Ecclesia, an non ? Quarto, ssepe accidit, aut certe accidere potest, ut haeretici manifesti alicubi simu¬ lent se Catholicos, item Judaei, Tureae, Pa¬ gani miscent se fidelibus, et tamen aut ipsi de Ecclesia non erunt, aut Ecclesiam esse dicimus coetum haereticorum et Paganorum hypocritarum. Respondeo ad primum, ad hoc, ut aliquis sit de corpore Ecclesiae, non requiri charac¬ terem, sed externum Baptismum ; nec ex¬ ternum Baptismum requiri, ut quis censea¬ tur et sit de Ecclesia, sed tantum ut admit¬ tatur. Si quis enim petit admitti ad Ecclesiam, id non fiet sine Baptismo. Tamen si quis dicat se baptizatum, et non constet contrarium, admittetur ad Sacramenta caetera, et per hoc erit de corpore Ecclesiae. Et signum hujus quia si postea innotescat, illum non fuisse baptizatum, siquidem culpa ipsius id sit fac¬ tum, expelletur de congregatione, nec reci¬ pietur, nisi post poenitentiam baptizetur. At si non culpa ejus, non repelletur, sed perfi¬ cietur ineo, quod deerat, nec judicabitur non fuisse in Ecclesia, sed judicabitur in¬ trasse aliunde, quam per ordinariam portam. Unde Innocentius III. cap. Apostolicam, de Presbytero non baptizato, judicavit, Presby¬ terum non baptizatum vere fuisse in Eccle¬ sia, et jussit pro ejus anima offerri sacrifi¬ cium, ut pro aliis fidelibus. Et Dionysius Alexandrinus, ut habemus lib. VII, cap. 8. hist. Eccles. judicavit quemdam fuisse vere in Ecclesia, quem constabat non vere bapti¬ zatum, sed tantum percepisse alia Sacra¬ menta, ut baptizatum. Hsec videtur fuisse sententia Joan. Drie- donis lib. IV de script. et dogm. Eeclesiast. cap. 2. part. 2. ubi sic loquitur. « Omnes qui habentur, tamquam Sacramento fidei visibiliter adseripti Ecclesiee, secundum pa¬ cem quamdam corporaliter cum Christiano populo conversantes, dicuntur esse in Eccle¬ sia, donec vel judicio Ecclesia? separentur, vel sua sponte exeant, ipsam Ecclesiam con¬ temnentes et persequentes, » Hrec ille. Qui satis aperte scribit, in Ecclesia esse non so¬ lum omnes baptizatos, sed omnes etiam illos, qui habentur pro baptizatis. Posset ta¬ men etiam responderi, et melius, eos qui non sunt baptizati, et tamen habentur pro baptizatis, esse de Ecclesia secundum appa¬ rentiam exteriorem tantum, id est, putative, non vere. Nec tamen inde sequitur, ut Ec¬ clesia fiat invisibilis : nam tametsi non pos¬ sent aliqui probare se esse baptizatos, tamen plurimi probare possunt : et Baptismus na¬ tura sua visibilis est. Ad secundum dico, posse in Episcopis duo considerari. Primo, quod locum Christi te¬ neant, et quod propterea debeamus illis obe- dientiam, et quod ipsi non possint nos deci¬ pere in iis, quee necessaria sunt ad salutem. Secundo, quod habeant potestatem Ordinis, et Jurisdictionis. Si primo modo consideren¬ tur, certi sumus certitudine infaillibili, quod isti, quos videmus, sint veri Episcopi et Pas¬ tores nostri. Nam ad hoc non requiritur, nec fides, nec character ordinis, nec legitima electio, sed solum, ut habeantur pro talibus ab Ecclesia. Cum enim sint Episcopi prop¬ ter Ecclesiam, non contra : Deus assistit eis, qui pro talibus habentur, ne errent in Eccle¬ sia docenda. Itaque sunt illi veri Episcopi, et Pastores, non absolute : sed quo ad illa tria quse diximus. Quod est idem, ac si dice¬ remus, eos non esse quidem in se veros Episcopos : tamen donec pro talibus haben¬ tur ab Ecclesia, deberi illis obedientiam, cum conscientia etiam erronea obliget : item tenere eos locum Christi, de facto non de jure, cum re ipsa populum Christi nomine regant. Denique non posse ab illis Ecclesiam 344 LIBER III. decipi, cum Ecclesia non possit errare, et tamen eos teneatur sequi, quos pro veris Pastoribus habet. Quod postremum sano modo accipiendum est ; si videlicet hujus¬ modi Episcopi in doctrina omnes conveniant, aut summi Pontifices sint. Neque enim du¬ bium est, quin Episcopi particulares, si ab aliis dissideant, errare possint. Si secundo modo considerentur, non habemus certitu¬ dinem, nisi moralem, quod isti sint veri Epi¬ scopi, quamquam certum est certitudine infaillibili, quod aliqui saltem sint veri, alio- qui Deus Ecclesiam deseruisset. Sed ad hoc, ut teneamus Ecclesiam certam et conspi¬ cuam, quantum ad capita et membra, suffi¬ cit prima consideratio. Ad tertium dico, excommunicatos occul¬ tos esse de Ecclesia, numero, non merito ; de facto, non de jure. Ad quartum dico, in primis difficile esse, ut ejusmodi homines non continuo detegan¬ tur, sed tamen etiamsi longo tempore delu¬ dant Ecclesiam, nihil inde incommodi acci¬ dere posse : nam Ecclesia non eos numerat inter suos, nisi ratione professionis externae (nec enim de internis hominesjudicant) pro¬ fessio autem illa externa sanctissima est, licet ab illis male usurpetur. Itaque sunt illi de Ecclesiae corpore, dum fidelibus jungun¬ tur eo vinculo professionis et obedientiae, quod Ecclesiam universam ligat, et in unum corpus redigit. Nec tamen sequitur, Eccle¬ siam propterea esse coetum haereticorum, et Paganorum hypocritarum ; nam etsi pauci quidam tales in Ecclesia sunt, tamen certi sumus certitudine Fidei divinae, in eadem Ecclesia multos esse vere fideles, pios, et electos, quemadmodum etiam in corpore humano inveniuntur et ungues et capilli, qui non vivunt, et nemo tamen inde colligit, corpus humanum nihil esse, nisi ungues et capillos. Atque haec'dicta sunt juxta senten¬ tiam Driedonis. Nam secundum alteram sen¬ tentiam, quam nos paulo ante veriorem esse diximus, respondendum erit, Judaeos, Tur¬ eas, Paganos, nec non manifestos Haereticos, qui simulent se esse Christianos et Catholi¬ cos non esse de Ecclesia, nisi secundum ap¬ parentiam exteriorem et putative, non vere. Neque inde sequetur ut Ecclesia fiat invisi¬ bilis : nam si forte necesse sit, cognoscere, an ejusmodi homines sint Ecclesiae Catholicae membra, nec ne : cogi poterunt, ut osten¬ dant admissionem suam ad Ecclesiam, id est, ut probent se baptizatos, vel reconciliatos, quae visibilia, et sensibus externis exposita sunt. Alia vero ratio est de fide, aliisque internis virtutibus, quas qui in omnibus Ec¬ clesiae membris requirunt, ii faciunt Eccle¬ siam plano invisibilem, et soli Deo notam, ut recte Petrus a Soto Brentianis objecit.