Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Militant · The Church Spread Throughout the Whole World
Chapter 16: The Arguments That the Church Can Fail Are Resolved
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).
Now that the Church can fail, and sometimes does fail, they prove by these arguments. First, at the beginning of the world the whole Church consisted in Adam and Eve alone, at least in root. But each lost the faith and apostatized from God, as is clear both from Genesis 3 and from the Fathers, Ambrose, book on Paradise, chapter 6, Augustine, Enchiridion, chapter 45, and Prosper, Book 1 on the grace of God, against the collator, before the middle.
Secondly, in the time of Moses the whole Church apostatized from God. For Aaron the high priest set forth the calf to be adored, and the whole people cried: These are thy gods, O Israel.
Thirdly, in the time of Elijah the whole visible Church had failed. For 3 Kings 19 Elijah says: I am left alone. And the Lord to him: I have left me seven thousand men in Israel, who have not bowed their knees before Baal; and that these were hidden is not doubtful, since not even Elijah knew them.
Fourthly, from Isaiah 1: The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel hath not known me. From the sole of the foot to the top of the head there is no soundness in it. And Jeremiah 2: They are confounded, the house of Israel, they and their kings, their princes, and priests, and prophets, saying to a stock: Thou art my father. Why will you contend with me in judgment? You have all forsaken me, saith the Lord. And 2 Paralipomenon 15: Many days shall pass in Israel without the true God, without a priest, and without a teacher, and without the law.
Fifthly, it was foretold that this visible Church would cease. Daniel 9: The victim and the sacrifice shall fail. Luke 18: The Son of man, when He cometh, shall He find, thinkest thou, faith on earth? 2 Thessalonians 2: Unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed. And so Calvin thinks that it was said to us which we read, Jeremiah 7: Trust not in lying words, saying: The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord. For as those ancient Jews did not believe the Prophets foretelling desolation, seeing that they had the temple of the Lord and the external ceremonies; so we glory that we have the ancient temples, the successions of Bishops, the Apostolic See, and meanwhile attend not to the Scriptures, which openly foretell to us desolation.
Sixthly, the general Council of Basel deposed Eugene as a heretic, and all who adhered to him, and elected Felix. Then, however, the Council being concluded and dissolved, Eugene again crept into the See without any canonical election, and from him were born as many as were afterward Popes, and Cardinals, and Bishops; therefore at least from that time the Church adhering to the Roman Pontiff was not the true Church, and since there was no other visible one, it follows that the visible Church perished. This argument Calvin, in the preface of the Institutes, sets in the last place as the strongest, and adds these words: “Here, being caught, they must needs stick; either therefore let them define the Church otherwise, or all will be held by us as schismatics.”
Seventhly, they bring forward testimonies of the Fathers, and first Hilary, book against Auxentius, near the end: “Ill has the love of walls seized you; ill do you venerate the Church of God in roofs and buildings; ill do you thrust under these the name of peace; for me the mountains, and lakes, and prisons, and pits are safer.” Where he says that in his time the true Church was so obscured that it was found only in hiding-places and caverns. Then Jerome, in the Dialogue against the Luciferians, speaking of the same time: “The whole world groaned, and wondered to find itself Arian.” Likewise Basil, letters 69 and 70, and Bernard, sermon 33 on the Canticle, so deplore the vices of all the Prelates of their time that they sufficiently show that at that time all had turned aside into their own way, and that there was no visible Church. Finally Chrysostom, homily 49 on Matthew, teaches that sometimes there is no visible sign by which the true Church may be known, and that therefore then recourse is to be had to the Scriptures alone.
I answer to the first: if for the first parents to have sinned is for the Church to have failed, then not only the visible but also the invisible Church failed, which is against the adversaries. I say secondly that then there was no Church. For two men are not a Church, but there was only the beginning of the Church, and a beginning both material and formal. For Adam was the material beginning of the Church, because he was the first of all of the Church; he was also the formal beginning, because he was the head, or Teacher and Ruler, of the people of God, while he lived. Further, the head of the Church cannot indeed err by teaching false doctrine, yet it can err by living ill, and even by thinking ill, as a private man; and this alone we see happened to Adam; for he lived ill at some time, and perhaps also thought ill of God, yet he did not teach ill.
To the second, of the sin of Aaron and the people in the worship of the golden calf, I say that at that time neither the head nor the body of the Church failed; for the head was Moses alone, whom it is certain did not err. For Aaron was not yet Pontiff; for he was made so afterward, as is clear Exodus 40. Nor did the body fail, for all the Levites were free from that sin, as is clear from the same thirty-second chapter, where Moses says: If any man be on the Lord's side, let him join with me; and all the sons of Levi were gathered to him.
To the third, of the time of Elijah, the consequence and the antecedent of this argument are denied. The consequence indeed, because the case of the people of the Jews and of the people of the Christians is not the same. For the people of the Jews was not the universal Church, as is the people of the Christians, but a particular one, and therefore even outside that people faithful and just were found, as Melchisedech, Job, and afterward Cornelius the Centurion, and the Eunuch of Queen Candace, and some others. And so even if the whole Synagogue of the Jews had failed, not straightway would the whole Church of God on earth have failed. But the antecedent too is denied. For it cannot be shown that the Synagogue of the Jews ever wholly failed until the coming of Christ, at which time too it did not so much fail as was changed for the better.
To that, therefore, of Elijah I say that Elijah speaks not of the whole people of the Jews, but only of that part which was subject to the King of Samaria. For it is established from the same 3 Kings that in the time of Elijah there reigned in Jerusalem Asa, and after him Josaphat, most excellent Kings, and that under them there were in Jerusalem a people and Priests most manifestly persisting in the true religion. Whence the Lord, when He says, I have left me seven thousand men, added, in Israel. For those then were called Israel who were under the King of Samaria, as those who were under the King of Jerusalem were called Juda. From which it appears evidently that Philip Melanchthon was deceived, who in the Commonplaces, chapter on the Church, says that in the time of Elijah the Church was in Elijah alone, and Elisha, and a few Priests. Whom Calvin also followed in this error, in the preface of the Institutes, who rests chiefly on this argument of Elijah.
To the fourth Augustine answers, book on the unity of the Church, chapter 12, and book against the Donatists after the conference, chapter 20, where he teaches that the Prophets and Apostles sometimes reprehend the whole people, as if no one there is good, when yet very many are good; and on the contrary sometimes console all, as if all are good, when it is established that many there are evil. Ezekiel 3 it is said: All the house of Israel is of a hardened forehead and hard heart. And yet chapter 9 it is said: Mark Thau upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and mourn for all the abominations that are done in the midst of it. To the Galatians 3: O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you not to obey the truth? And yet chapter 6 he says: Brethren, if a man be overtaken in any fault, you who are spiritual instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness. To that of Paralipomenon I answer, first, that it is understood only of the kingdom of Israel, not of the kingdom of Juda. Then perhaps Scripture speaks of a time which was to be after the coming of the Messiah; for now many days pass in Israel without God, without a priest, without the law.
To the fifth I say that we do not glory in the temples, and the succession of Bishops, and the Apostolic See in themselves, but on account of the promise of Christ, who says: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, etc. And the gates of hell shall not prevail, etc. Which promise the Jews never had. Nor is it true that anywhere in the Scriptures the ruin of the Church is foretold, but rather the contrary everywhere. Wherefore to that of Daniel, although Hilary, canon 25 on Matthew, and Hippolytus, and Apollinaris in Jerome on chapter 9 of Daniel, understand that prophecy of the time of Antichrist, yet without doubt they were deceived. For Daniel speaks most openly of the overthrow of Jerusalem and the cessation of the sacrifice of the Jews. For so expound Chrysostom, and Theophylact, and Jerome on chapter 24 of Matthew, Augustine, letter 80 to Hesychius, and also Eusebius, Book 8 of the Demonstration of the Gospel, chapter 2, Clement of Alexandria, Book 1 of the Stromata, Tertullian, book against the Jews, chapter 5, otherwise 8, and the common opinion of the Hebrews, and Julius Africanus in Jerome on chapter 9 of Daniel.
And this solution the heretics are compelled to admit. For they say that now are the times of Antichrist, and have been for many ages, and yet the victim and sacrifice has not ceased. Therefore they must understand this place of Daniel not of the time of Antichrist, but of the overthrow of Jerusalem, which indeed is evidently gathered from the Gospel. For that which Matthew chapter 24 says: When you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains. The same Luke thus expounded, chapter 21: When you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with an army, then know that the desolation thereof is at hand. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
To that of Luke 18: Shall He find, thinkest thou, faith on earth?, I say that the Lord speaks not of faith simply, but of a certain exceptional faith which is found in few, and will be found in very few in the last days. So expound Jerome in the Dialogue against the Luciferians, and Augustine, book on the unity of the Church, chapter 13. Or let us say with Theophylact that the Lord speaks of faith absolutely, and wishes to say that few will be faithful in the time of Antichrist, yet not none, nor so few that they do not make up the Church.
To that of Paul I say that by the name of revolt (discessio) is understood either Antichrist himself, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and Augustine, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 19, expound, who will have him called the revolt by metonymy, because he will be the cause that many revolt from Christ; or a defection from the Roman empire, as Ambrose, Sedulius, and Primasius expound, which is a very probable opinion; or finally a revolt from the Church not general, but particular, that is, not of all, but of many; or of all indeed, but of hidden heretics. For as certain of the ancients beautifully expounded, in Augustine, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 19, just as now many who for some time were in the Church with a feigned mind at last openly revolt by manifest profession of heresy, so, Antichrist coming, all altogether who shall then be found in the Church as hidden heretics will revolt from the Church and join themselves to Antichrist.
To the sixth I say that the Council of Basel was indeed lawful at the beginning. For both the Legate of the Roman Pontiff was present, and very many Bishops. But at the time when it deposed Eugene and elected Felix, it was not a Council of the Church, but a schismatic, seditious conventicle of no authority at all. For so it is called in the last Lateran Council, session 11; and accordingly Eugene was always the true Pontiff, and it is a most open lie of Calvin, who says that this Council endured to the end in the same authority and dignity.
For first, at the time when the Council dared to pronounce sentence against the Pontiff, there was in the Council no Legate of the Pontiff, and the chief Bishops had all departed; but a certain Cardinal of Arles had assumed to himself the office of presiding, and because the Bishops were very few, they introduced into the Synod a huge multitude of Presbyters, so that against all the form of the ancient Councils, it was a Synod not of Bishops but of Presbyters.
Then at the same time was held at Florence a Council, in which the supreme Pontiff presided, and with him sat Latin and Greek Bishops, without comparison more than the Basel ones were, and together with the Bishops was present the Emperor of the Greeks, and the Legate of the Emperor of the Latins, so that it could in no way be doubted which of the two was the true general Council of the Church.
Thirdly, God too, wishing to pronounce His sentence, afflicted Basel at that time with so horrible a plague that the greater part of those Fathers who were there were either destroyed or compelled to withdraw. All which things Aeneas Sylvius relates in his history of the Council of Basel, at which he himself was present, and which the Basel heretics lately published as favoring themselves, on account of the condemned Eugene, when in truth it harms them very much. Add that the Council of Basel, continued at Lausanne, subjected itself to Nicholas, as is clear from the letter of Nicholas V.
Now to the places of the Fathers. To Hilary I say first what Augustine once answered, letter 48, to the Donatists objecting the same testimony, that the Church is indeed sometimes obscured by the multitude of scandals, but yet so that even then it is eminent in its most firm members, as in fact at that time, of which Hilary speaks, the Church was eminent in Julius, Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercelli, and then in Damasus, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and not a few other most firm and most constant pillars of the Church.
I say secondly that Hilary in that place speaks only of the Church of Milan, in which many simple people venerated Auxentius as a Catholic, when yet he was an Arian. For with wonderful cunning Auxentius acted, that he might be acknowledged an Arian by the Arians, and yet be believed a Catholic by many simple people. Hilary wishes, therefore, that Auxentius should not be believed, even though he seemed a Bishop and preached in the temple, and that it was better to remain in prisons and caves with right faith than in the temple of God with heretics.
But this, which is said of one city, one Basilica, and one Bishop, cannot be drawn to the whole Church. For it can happen that one Bishop in one city, in one temple, teach heresy, yet not that all Bishops in all cities and temples of the whole world do the same.
To the place of Jerome I answer that in the words of Jerome there are two figures: one of understanding, when he says, “the world groaned”; for he calls "the world" a great part of the world, not the whole world; the other of catachresis, when he says, “it wondered to find itself Arian”; for he improperly calls Arians those who through ignorance had subscribed to heresy. For he speaks of that multitude of Bishops who, assembling from the whole world at Rimini, deceived by the Arians, decreed that the word [homoousios] should be taken away, which what it signified they did not understand: who without doubt were not heretics, nor erring, except materially. Just as if one of us should utter a blasphemous sentence in a foreign tongue, thinking it to be some pious prayer, he could not properly be called a blasphemer: wherefore the same Bishops, when they were admonished and acknowledged the deceit, straightway corrected the error too, and with tears did penance for the blasphemy, though uttered only with the tongue; and then indeed the world groaned, and wondered to find itself Arian.
To Basil I say that he does not in those letters deplore the vices of Catholics, but the misery of the Church on account of the infestation of the heretics; for what is said in that place against the Bishops is not said against Catholic Bishops, as Brentius thought, but against Arian Bishops.
And truly it is credible that Brentius sinned not from ignorance, but from malice. For in the same place, to teach that among Catholic Bishops there is not the true Church, he relates from Book 11 of Rufinus's ecclesiastical History, chapter 6, that Moses the holy Hermit refused in any way to be ordained by the Bishop of Alexandria, who was after the Roman Pontiff the chief Patriarch. But in the same book and chapter Rufinus says that that Bishop of Alexandria was an Arian, and a most savage persecutor of the Catholics, and therefore Moses refused to be ordained by him, but by some Catholic; so that by no reason can the fraud and impudence of Brentius be covered or excused.
To Bernard I say that he reprehends vices of morals, not vices of doctrine, and did not therefore believe that those evil Bishops were not truly Bishops. For he himself, sermon 66 on the Canticle, refutes from the Apostolic institution the heretics who said that evil Bishops are not Bishops.
To Chrysostom it has already been answered above that those words are taken from the unfinished work, which either has an Arian heretical author, or was depraved by heretics. See homily 48, where he openly calls the Homoousians heretics.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXI.
Solvuntur argumenta, quibus adversarii pro¬
bant, Ecclesiam posse deficere.
Jam quod Ecclesia possit deficere, et ali¬
quando deficiat, probant his argumentis.
Primo, initio mundi in solis Adamo et Eva
Ecclesia tota consistebat, saltem in virtute.
At uterque fidem amisit, et a Deo apostata-
vit, ut patet tum ex Genes. III, tum ex Patri¬
bus, Ambrosio libro de Paradiso cap. 6.
Augustino Enchirid. cap. 45. et Prospero 1.
de gratia Dei, contra collatorem, ante me¬
dium.
Secundo, tempore Mosis, tota Ecclesia a
Deo apostatavit. Nam Aaron summus Ponti¬
fex proposuit vitulum adorandum, et totus
populus clamavit : Hi sunt Dii tui Israel (2).
Tertio, tempore Eliae, tota Ecclesia visibi¬
lis defecerat. Nam III. Reg. XIX Elias dicit:
Relictus sum ego solus. Et Dominus ad eum :
Reliqui mihi septem millia virorum in Israel ,
qui non curvaverunt genua ante Baal (3), hos
autem occultos fuisse non dubium est, cum
eos ne Elias quidem cognosceret.
Quarto, ex Isaiae I : Cognovit bos possesso¬
rem suum , et asinus prcesepe domini sui , Israel
autem me non cognovit. A planta pedis usque
ad verticem capitis non est in eo sanitas. Et
Hierem. II : Confusi sunt domus Israel, ipsi et
Reges eorum, Principes , et Sacerdotes , et Pro-
phetce eorum , dicentes ligno : Pater meus es tu.
Quid vultis mecum judicio contendere ? Omnes
dereliquistis me, dicit Dominus. Et II. Paral.
XV : Transibunt dies multi in Israel sine Deo
vero , sine Sacerdote, et Doctore, et sine Le-
ge (4).
Quinto, praedictum est, Ecclesiam istam
visibilem cessaturam Daniel. IX : Deficiet hos¬
tia, et sacrificium ; Lucae XVIII : Filius homi¬
nis cum venerit, putas inveniet fidem in terra ;
II. Thessal. II : Nisi venerit discessio primum,
et revelatus fuerit homo peccati. Itaque nobis
Calvinus dictum esse existimat id, quod le¬
gimus Hierem. VII : Nolite confidere in verbis
mendacii, dicentes : Templum Domini, templum
— (3) III. Reg. XIX, 14 et 18. — (4) Isai. I, 3; Jerem.
23
354
LIBER III.
Domini (I). Ut enim antiqui illi Judaei non
credebant Prophetis praedicentibus desola¬
tionem, qui videbant se habere templum
Domini, et externas caeremonias ; ita nos
gloriamur, quod habeamus antiqua templa,
Episcoporum successiones, Apostolicam se¬
dem, et interim non attendimus ad Scriptu¬
ras, quae nobis desolationem aperte praedi¬
cunt.
Sexto, Concilium Basileense generale de¬
posuit Eugenium tanquam haereticum, et
omnes ei adhaerentes, et elegit Felicem. De¬
inde tamen Concilio concluso et soluto, ite¬
rum Eugenius in sedem irrepsit sine ulla
canonica electione, et ab eo nati sunt quot¬
quot postea fuerunt Papae, et Cardinales, et
Episcopi ; Ergo saltem ab eo tempore Ec¬
clesia Romano Pontifici adhaerens, non fuit
vera Ecclesia, et cum nulla fuerit alia visi¬
bilis, sequitur, visibilem Ecclesiam periisse.
Hoc argumentum Calvinus in praefatione Ins-
titut. ponit in ultimo loco tanquam fortissi¬
mum, et addit haec verba : « Hic deprehensi
haereant rfecesse est, aut igitur aliter Eccle¬
siam definiant, aut omnes a nobis schisma¬
tici habebuntur. »
Septimo, proferunt Patrum testimonia, ac
primum Hilarius libro contra Auxentium,
circa finem : « Male, inquit, vos parietum
amor coepit ; male Ecclesiam Dei in tectis,
aedificiisque veneramini, male sub his pacis
nomen ingeritis ; montes mihi, et lacus, et
carceres, et voragines sunt tutiores. » Ubi
dicit, adeo suo tempore fuisse obscuratam
veram Ecclesiam, ut solum in latebris et ca¬
vernis inveniretur. Deinde Hieronymus in
Dialogo contra Luciferianos de eodem tem¬
pore loquens : « Ingemuit, inquit, totus or¬
bis, et se Arianum esse miratus est. » Item
Basilius epist. 69 et 70. et Bernardus serm.
33. in Cantica, ita deplorant vitia Praelato¬
rum omnium sui temporis, ut satis osten¬
dant, eo tempore omnes declinasse in viam
suam, et nullam fuisse visibilem Ecclesiam.
Denique Chrysostomus homil. 49. in Mat¬
thaeum, docet, interdum nullum esse visibile
signum, quo vera Ecclesia cognoscatur, et
ideo tunc solum ad Scripturas esse recurren¬
dum.
Respondeo ad primum, si primos parentes
peccasse, est Ecclesiam defecisse, tunc non
solum visibilem, sed etiam invisibilem Ec¬
clesiam defecisse, quod opt contra adversa¬
rios. Dico secundo, tunc non fuisse Eccle¬
siam. Nec enim duo homines sunt Ecclesia,
sed tantum fuisse initium Ecclesiae, et ini¬
tium tam materiale, quam formale. Nam
Adam fuit principium Ecclesiae materiale,
quia primus omnium fuit de Ecclesia ; fuit
etiam formale principium, quia fuit caput
sive Doctor et Rector populi Dei, dum vixit.
Porro caput Ecclesiae non potest quidem er¬
rare docendo falsam doctrinam, tamen po¬
test errare male vivendo, et male etiam sen¬
tiendo, ut privatus homo, atque hoc tantum
videmus accidisse Adamo ; male enim ali¬
quando vixit, et forte etiam male de Deo
sensit, tamen non male docuit.
Ad secundum, de peccato Aaronis et po¬
puli in cultu vituli aurei, dico, eo tempore
neque caput, neque corpus Ecclesiae defe¬
cisse ; nam caput erat solus Moses, quem
certum est non errasse. Aaron siquidem
nondum erat Pontifex ; nam postea factus
est, ut patet Exodi XL. Non etiam corpus
defecit, nam omnes Levitae immunes fuerunt
ab eo peccato, ut patet ex eodem trigesimo-
secundo capite, ubi Moses dicit : Si quis est
Domini , jungatur mihi , congregatique sunt ad
eum omnes filii Levi (2).
Ad tertium, de tempore Eliae, negatur
consequentia et antecedens hujus argumenti.
Consequentia quidem, quia non est eadem
ratio populi Judaeorum et populi Christiano¬
rum. Nam populus Judaeorum non erat Ec¬
clesia universalis, ut est populus Christiano¬
rum, sed particularis, et propterea etiam
extra illum populum inveniebantur fideles
et justi, ut Melchisedech , Job, et postea
Cornelius, Centurio, et Eunuchus Candacis
Reginae, et alii nonnulli. Itaque etiamsi, uni¬
versa Synagoga Judaeorum defecisset, non
continuo omnis Ecclesia Dei in terris defe¬
cisset. Sed antecedens etiam negatur. Non
enim ostendi potest, unquam Synagogam
Judaeorum defecisse omnino usque ad Chris¬
ti adventum, quo tempore etiam non tam
defecit, quam mutata est in melius.
Ad illud ergo de Elia dico, Eliam non lo¬
qui de omni populo Judaeorum, sed solum
de illa parte, quae subjecta erat Regi Sama¬
riae. Constat enim ex eodem lib. III Regum,
tempore Eliae regnasse in Hierusalem Asa,
et post eum Josaphat optimos Reges, et sub
ipsis fuisse in Hierusalem populum et Sacer¬
dotes manifestissime in vera religione per-
(1) Dan. IX, 27; Lue. XVIII, 8; II. Tliessal. II, 3; Jerem. VII, 4. — (2) Exod. XXXII, 26.
CAPUT XVI.
355
sistentes. Unde Dominus, cum ait : Reliqui
mihi septem millia virorum, addidit In Is¬
rael (1). Israel enim tunc dicebantur ii, qui
erant sub Rege Samariae, sicut ii, qui erant
sub Rege Hierusalem, dicebantur Judas. Ex
quo apparet evidenter, deceptum esse Phi¬
lippum Melanchthonem, qui in Locis com¬
munibus, cap. de Ecclesia, dicit, tempore
Eliae Ecclesiam fuisse in solo Elia, et Elisaeo,
et paucis Sacerdotibus. Quem etiam in er¬
rore secutus est Calvinus praefatione Institu¬
tionum, qui hoc argumento de Elia praeci¬
pue nititur.
Ad quartum respondet Augustinus libro
de unitate Ecclesiae cap. 12. et libro contra
Donatistas, post collationem cap. 20. ubi
docet, Prophetas et Apostolos interdum re¬
prehendere universum populum, quasi nemo
ibi sit bonus, cum tamen permulti sint boni,
et e contrario interdum consolari omnes,
quasi omnes sint boni, cum constet ibi mul¬
tos esse malos Ezech. III dicitur : Omnis do¬
mus Israel attrita fronte est, et duro corde. Et
tamen cap. IX dicitur : Signa Thau super
frontes virorum gementium , et dolentium super
cunctas abominationes , quce fiunt in medio ejus.
Ad Galat. III : 0 insensati Galatce , quis vos
fascinavit non obedire veritati ? Et tamen cap.
VI ait : Fratres, etsi prceoccupatus fuerit homo
in aliquo delicto, vos qui spirituales estis, hujus¬
modi instruite in spiritu lenitatis (2). Ad illud
ex Paralipomenon respondeo, in primis so¬
lum intelligi de regno Israel, non de regno
Juda. Deinde fortasse loqui Scripturam de
tempore, quod erat futurum post Messiae
adventum ; Nunc enim transeunt dies multi
in Israel sine Deo, sine Sacerdote , sine
Lege.
Ad quintum dico, nos non gloriari in tem¬
plis, et successione Episcoporum, et Apos-
tolica sede secundum se, sed propter Christi
promissionem, qui ait : Tu es Petrus, et su¬
per hanc petram etc. Et portae inferi non prae¬
valebunt etc. (3). Qualem promissionem Ju¬
daei nunquam habuerunt. Neque verum est,
alicubi in Scripturis praedictam esse Eccle¬
siae ruinam, sed potius contrarium ubique.
Quare ad illud Danielis, etsi Hilarius can. 25.
in Matthaeum, et Hyppolitus, atque Apollina-
rius apud Hieronymum in cap. IX. Danielis,
intelligunt eam prophetiam de tempore An-
tichristi, tamen sine dubio decepti sunt. Lo¬
quitur enim Daniel apertissime de eversione
Hierusalem, et cessatione sacrificii Judaeo¬
rum. Sic enim exponunt Chrysostomus, et
Theophylactus, et Hieronymus in cap. XXIV
Matthaei, Augustinus ep. 80. ad Esychium,
necnon Eusebius lib. VIII Evangel. demonst.
cap. 2. Clemens Alexandrinus lib. I Stroma¬
tum, Tertullianus libro contra Judaeos cap.
5. alias 8. et communis opinio Hebraeorum,
ac Julius Africanus apud Hieronymum in c.
IX. Danielis.
Et hanc solutionem coguntur admittere
haeretici. Nam ipsi dicunt, nunc esse tem¬
pora Antichristi, et fuisse jam a multis sae¬
culis, et tamen non cessavit hostia et sacri¬
ficium. Ergo debent intelligere hunc locum
Danielis non de tempore Antichristi, sed de
eversione Hierosolymae, quod sane gx Evan-
gelio evidenter colligitur. Quod enim Mat¬
thaeus cap. XXIV ait : Cum videritis abomi¬
nationem desolationis, quce dicta est a Daniele
Propheta , stantem in loco sancio, equi legit in-
telligat . Tunc equi in Juda sunt, fugiant ad,
montes. Idem sic exposuit Lucas cap. XXI :
Cum videritis circumdari ab exercitu Hierusa¬
lem, tunc scitote, quia appropinquavit desolatio
ejus ; Tunc qui in Judaea sunt , fugiant ad mon-i
tes (4).
Ad illud Luc. XXVIII ‘.Putas inveniet fidem
in terra { 5)? dico, Dominum non loqui de
fide simpliciter, sed de eximia quadam fide,
quae in paucis reperitur, et in paucissimis
reperietur in ultimis diebus. Ita exponunt
Hieronymus in Dial. contra Luciferianos, et
Augustinus lib. de unitate Ecclesiae c. 13.
vel dicamus cum Theopliylacto, loqui Do¬
minum de fide absolute, et velle dicere pau¬
cos futuros fideles tempore Antichristi, non
tamen nullos, nec tam paucos, ut non faciant
Ecclesiam.
Ad illud Pauli dico , discessionis nomine,
vel intelligi ipsum Antichristum , ut Chry-
sost. Theodor. QEcumen. Theophyl. et Au-
gust. lib. XX de civitat. Dei cap. 19. expo¬
nunt, quem volunt appellatum discessio¬
nem per metonymiam , quia erit causa, ut
multi discedant a Christo ; vel defectionem
a Romano imperio, ut Ambrosius, Sedulius,
et Primasius exponunt, quae est valde pro¬
babilis sententia : vel demum discessionem
ab Ecclesia non generalem , sed particula¬
rem, id est, non omnium, sed multorum, vel
(1) II. Reg. XIV, 18. — (2) Ezech. III, 7; IX, 4; Galat. III, 1 ; VI, 1. — (3) Matth. XVI, 18. —
U) Matth. XXIV, 15 et 16; Luc. XXI, 20 et 21. — (5) Luc. XXVIII, 8. *
356
LIBER III.
omnium quidem , sed occultorum haeretico¬
rum. Utenimpulchre exponebant quidam ve¬
teres apud August. lib. XX de civit. Dei c,
19. sicut modo multi, qui aliquandiu fuerunt
in Ecclesia ficto animo , tandem aperte dis¬
cedunt per manifestam haeresis professionem,
ita veniente Antichristo, omnes prorsus, qui
tunc invenientur in Ecclesia occulti haereti¬
ci, ab Ecclesia discedent, et Antichristo se,
adjungent.
Ad sextum dico,Basileense Concilium ini¬
tio quidem fuisse legitimum. Nam et Lega¬
tus aderat Romani Pontificis , et Episcopi
plurimi. At quo tempore Eugenium deposuit
et Felicem elegit, non fuit Concilium Eccle¬
siae, sed Gonciliabulum schismaticum, sedi¬
tiosum , et nullius prorsus auctoritatis. Sic
enim appellatur in Concilio Lateranensi ul¬
timo, sess. XI. et proinde Eugenius semper
fuit verus Pontifex, et mendacium est aper¬
tissimum Calvini , qui dicit , hoc Concilium
usque ad finem perdurasse in eadem aucto¬
ritate, et dignitate.
Nam in primis, quo tempore Concilium in
Pontificem sententiam pronuntiare ausum
est, non erat in Concilio Legatus Pontificis,
et Episcopi praecipui omnes discesserant;
sed Cardinalis quidam Arelatensis assumpse¬
rat sibi munus praesidendi, et quia Episcopi
paucissimi erant, introduxerunt in Synodum
ingentem multitudinem Presbyterorum, ita ut
contra omnem formam aatiquorum Concilio¬
rum, non Episcoporum, sed Presbyterorum
Svnodus esset.
Deinde eodem tempore agebatur Floren¬
tiae Concilium , in quo praesidebat summus
Pontifex, et cum eo sedebant Episcopi Lati¬
ni et Graeci sine comparatione plures, quam
essent Basileenses , et una cum Episcopis
aderat Imperator Graecorum, et Legatus Im¬
peratoris Latinorum, ut nullo modo dubitari
posset, utrum ex duobus esset verum Conci¬
lium Ecclesiae generale.
Tertio, Deus quoque sententiam suam di¬
cere volens , tam horribili peste Basileam
tunc affligebat, ut major pars eorum Patrum,
qui ibi erant, velextincti ; vel secedere coac¬
ti fuerint. Quae omnia refert vEneas Sylvius
in historia Concilii Basileensis, cui ipse inter¬
fuit, et quam ediderunt nuper haeretici Ba¬
sileenses, tanquam sibi faventem , propter
damnatum Eugenium, cum revera illis plu¬
rimum noceat. Adde, quod Concilium Ba-
sileense Lausannae continuatum , subjecit
se Nicolao, ut patet ex epistola Nicolai V.
Nunc ad loca Patrum. Ad Hilarium dico
primo , id quod respondit olim August. ep.
48, Donatistis idem testimonium objicienti¬
bus, Ecclesiam quidem interdum obscurari
multitudine scandalorum, sed ita tamen, ut
etiam tunc in suis firmissimis emineat , si¬
cut revera eo tempore, de quo- loquitur Hi¬
larius, eminebat Ecclesia in Julio , Athana-
sio, Hilario, Eusebio Vercellensi, ac deinde
in Damaso, Ambrosio, Basilio, Gregorio Na-
zianzeno , aliisque non paucis firmissimis,
atque constantissimis Ecclesiae columnis.
Dico secundo, Hilarium loqui eo loco tan¬
tum de Ecclesia Mediolanensi, in qua multi
simplices venerabantur Auxentium , ut Ca¬
tholicum , cum tamen esset Arianus. Nam
mira calliditate agebat Auxentius , ut ab
Arianis agnosceretur Arianus, et tamen a
multis simplicibus crederetur Catholicus.
Vult igitur Hilarius, non esse credendum Au
xentio , etiamsi Episcopus videretur , et in
templo concionaretur, et melius esse, in car-
ceribus et speluncis manere cum recta fide,
quam in templo Dei cum haereticis.
Hoc autem, quod dicitur de una civitate,
una Basilica, et uno Episcopo, non potest
trahi ad Ecclesiam universam. Potest enim
fieri, ut unus Episcopus in una urbe, in uno
templo doceat haeresim , non tamen ut om¬
nes Episcopi in omnibus urbibus et templis
mundi totius idem faciant.
Ad locum Hieronymi respondeo, in verbis
Hieronymi duas esse figuras; unam intellec¬
tionis, cum ait : «Ingemuit orbis; » vocat enim
orbem magnam partem orbis , non totum
orbem; alteram abusionis, cum ait : «Aria-
num se esse miratus est, » vocat enimAria-
nos improprie eos, qui per ignorantiam sub¬
scripserant haeresi. Loquitur enim de illa
multitudine Episcoporum , qui ex toto orbe
convenientes Arimini , ab Arianis decepti,
decreverunt, tollendum esse nomen opoovtriog,
quod quid significaret , non intelligebant :
qui sine dubio non fuerunt haeretici, nec er¬
rantes, nisi materialiter. Quemadmodum si
quis nostrum blasphemam sententiam pro¬
ferret lingua extranea, putans esse piam ali¬
quam precationem, non proprie blasphemus
dici posset : Quocirca iidem Episcopi, ut ad¬
moniti sunt, et fallaciam agnoverunt, conti¬
nuo errorem etiam correxerunt , et cum la-
chrymis poenitentiam egerunt blasphemiae,
ingemuit orbis , et se Arianum esse miratus
est.
licet sola lingua prolatae , et tum videlicet
CAPUT XVII.
357
Ad Basilium dico , eum non deplorare in
illis epistolis vitia Catholicorum , sed mise¬
riam Ecclesiae, propter infestationem haere¬
ticorum ; Quae enim dicuntur eo loco adver¬
sus Episcopos, non dicuntur adversus Epis¬
copos Catholicos , ut Brentius putavit , sed
adversus Episcopos Arianos.
Et sane credibile est, Brentium non ex ig¬
norantia, sed ex malitia peccasse. Nam ibi¬
dem , ut apud Episcopos Catholicos doceat
non esse veram Ecclesiam, refert ex lib. XI,
Ruffmi hist. Ecclesiast. cap. 6, Mosem Ere¬
mitam sanctum noluisse ullo modo ordinari
ab Episcopo Alexandrino, qui erat post Ro¬
manum Pontificem primarius Patriarcha.
At in eodem libro et capite Ruffinus dicit,
illum Episcopum Alexandrinum fuisse Aria-
num, et saevissimum persecutorem Catholi¬
corum, et propterea Mosem noluisse ab eo,
sed ab aliquo Catholico ordinari ; ita ut nulla
ratione fraus et impudentia Brentii tegi, yel
excusari queat.
Ad Bernardum dico , eum reprehendere
vitia morum , non vitia doctrinae , et non
propterea credidisse , Episcopos illos malos
non fuisse vere Episcopos. Ipse enim serm.
66. in Cantica refellit ex instituto Apostolico
haereticos , qui dicebant , Episcopos malos
non esse Episcopos.
Ad Chrysostomum jam responsum est su¬
pra, verba illa desumpta esse ex opere im¬
perfecto , quod vel habet auctorem haereti¬
cum Arianum , vel fuit ab haereticis depra¬
vatum. Vide homil. 48. Ubi aperte vocat
haereticos homousianos.