Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Militant · The Church Spread Throughout the Whole World
Chapter 22: The Second Mark: Antiquity
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).
The second Mark is Antiquity; for without doubt the true Church is more ancient than the false, just as God was before the Devil was. Wherefore Matthew 13 we read that the good seed was sown before the cockle: and the Church is called Catholic because it was in every time, and likewise is called Apostolic because its foundations are from the Apostles, and accordingly it is most ancient. Now that our Church is more ancient than all the conventicles of the pagans, nay that our Scripture is more ancient than the very gods of the Gentiles, Tertullian demonstrates in the Apologetic, chapters 19 and 20, and blessed Augustine, Book 18 of the City of God, chapters 37 and 38. But that our Church, which the adversaries call Papistical, is that very one which Christ instituted, and accordingly older than all the sects of the heretics, can be concluded by this reasoning.
In every notable change of religion these six things can always be demonstrated. First, its author. Second, some new dogma. Third, the time in which it began. Fourth, the place where it began. Fifth, who attacked it. Sixth, some small assembly which gradually, others being added, began to grow. For all these we find in the very Church of Christ, which yet was not a new Church, but only a certain change of the state of the Church according to the predictions of the Prophets. For first, we know that the author was Christ, whence we are called Christians. Secondly, that the new dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation began then to be believed explicitly. Thirdly, that these began to be preached in the 15th year of the empire of Tiberius Caesar. Fourthly, that it began in Judea. Fifthly, that this religion was soon attacked by the Scribes and Pharisees, then by the Gentiles with the utmost force. Sixthly, we know that at the beginning the Christians were much fewer than the Jews were, when the separation was made. If therefore in this change of the state of the same Church those six things can be shown, much more can the same be demonstrated in any complete change. Now we most easily demonstrate all these of each of the sects of the heretics. But none of these could the adversaries ever demonstrate of our Church after Apostolic times.
And to illustrate the matter by examples. We know that the author of the Arians was a certain Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria. Of the Nestorians, Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople. Of the Lutherans, Martin Luther, a presbyter and Monk of the order of Saint Augustine.
Secondly we know what dogmas they invented. For Arius taught that the Son of God is a creature. Nestorius, that in Christ are two persons. Luther, that men are justified by special faith alone, that is, by this alone, that they think themselves just; likewise he denied that the Eucharist is a sacrifice.
Thirdly we know the times. For the Arian heresy began in the year of the Lord 344; the Nestorian in the year 431; that of the Lutherans in the year 1517.
Fourthly we know the places. Arianism began in Egypt; the Nestorian heresy in Thrace; the Lutheran in Saxony.
Fifthly we know that the Arians were soon attacked by Pope Sylvester, by the Council of Nicaea, by Athanasius, Hilary, and others. The Nestorian by Pope Celestine, the Council of Ephesus, Cyril, and very many others. The Lutheran by Pope Leo X, by the Council of Trent, by all the Catholic universities, and very many Doctors.
Sixthly we know that the beginnings of these heresies were very small, and that at the beginning of the separation the Catholics diffused throughout the whole world were incomparably more than were the Arians, Nestorians, or Lutherans, which not even they deny.
But that they can show none of these of us is clear. For first, they never objected to us the author of our sect, nor did they call us from any particular man, which they would certainly most gladly do if they could.
Secondly, they never showed the first origin of any of our dogmas; nay the Centuriators, in each Century, chapter 4 near the end, note what authors defended our dogmas, which they now attack, and find no origin but in the time of the Apostles. For they number even Justin and Irenaeus among our supporters, who, it is established, followed close upon the times of the Apostles. And chapter 5 in each Century they enumerate all the heresies of each age, and who resisted them, and never noted any heresy devised by the Roman Pontiffs, but rather all heresies condemned by them. Now indeed they object to us many heresies. For Tilmann Heshusius writes a book on the six hundred heresies of the Papists, but those heresies, except the lies of Tilmann, are most ancient dogmas, which could most easily be proved even from the Centuries. For Illyricus finds our dogmas in the books of all the Fathers; but in the Fathers he calls them blemishes, in us heresies. This forsooth is the cunning of the adversaries: that they may show us to be outside the Church, they call our dogmas heresies; that they may not seem themselves separated from the Church of the Fathers, they call the same dogmas in them blemishes.
Thirdly, they could never designate a certain time of our defection from the Church. They say indeed that after the first five hundred years this sect began greatly to prevail, yet when it began they never said absolutely.
Fourthly, they never showed in what place it began, for after the first five hundred years flourished Gregory, with whom that the whole world communicated can be known from his letters, which he sends to all the provinces. Likewise after the death of Gregory was celebrated the sixth general Council, from which it is manifestly gathered that the whole East and West at that time were joined with the Roman Pontiff as members with their head.
Fifthly, they never showed who attacked it as newly arisen, and what Councils were celebrated against it. They object indeed the Council of Constantinople under Copronymus, which seems to have been general, and condemned images, which the Romans defended. But this was not a true general Council, since it had no true Patriarch. Moreover that Council did not condemn a dogma then arisen, but an ancient dogma received in the whole Church; for it did not decree that the worship of images should not be received, but that it should be abolished, and that images should be taken away from the temple. See Cedrenus, Zonaras, and Paul the Deacon.
Sixthly, it can in no way be shown that our Church ever separated itself from some greater one, so that those who adhered to the Roman See were very few, and the rest of the Christians much more; for from the letters of blessed Gregory which he writes to the Bishops of the East, Africa, Spain, Gaul, Italy, it is established that almost all Christians communicated with him.
This argument from antiquity the ancient Fathers always used against the heretics, to show the true Church. Tertullian, book on prescription: “Who are you,” he says, “whence and when came you? Where have you lain hidden so long?” Optatus, Book 2 against Parmenian: “Show the origin of your chair, you who wish to claim for yourselves the holy Church.” Hilary, Book 6 on the Trinity, before the middle: “Late has the age of this present time brought forth to me these most pious Doctors. Late has my faith, which thou hast instructed, had these masters; I believed in Thee before I heard all these.” Jerome in his letter to Pammachius and Oceanus: “Whoever thou art, an asserter of new dogmas, I beseech thee to spare Roman ears, spare the faith which was praised by the Apostolic mouth. Why after four hundred years dost thou strive to teach us what before we knew not? Until this day the Christian world was without your doctrine.” And in his book against the Luciferians at the end: “From this very thing, that they were instituted later, they show themselves to be those whom the Apostle foretold would come.” Finally Augustine, book against the letter of the foundation, chapter 4, sets antiquity among the marks of the Church.
To this argument they bring four solutions. First, Calvin answers, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 2, § 3, that an invincible argument cannot be drawn from antiquity. For Ishmael was older than Isaac, and yet it was said: Cast out the bondwoman and her son. But Ishmael was not a figure of a false religion, but only of the Old Testament, which was good and from God: but because the state of the men of that Testament was that of servants who are led by fear, there ought to succeed to it a more perfect New Testament, to which belong the free, who are led by love. Galatians 4: It is written that Abraham had two sons, etc.; which things are said by an allegory: for these are the two Testaments.
Secondly they say that it cannot be shown of our Church at what time, in what place, by what author precisely it began, not that it is not really new, but because that change was not made all at once, but errors gradually crept in, the pastors not noticing, nay even sleeping. But other changes too were not made all at once, but gradually, as is clear of Luther, who at the beginning denied nothing but indulgences, etc., and yet we know of each when and how they arose. Moreover Matthew 13 the cockle is not said to be born while men slept, but sown while men slept; but presently, being born, to have appeared and been known. How then were our heresies not detected for almost a thousand years? Truly not only the pastors, but even God would have slept greatly, if for so many ages He never raised up anyone to resist those errors. And that of the Gospel would have to be deleted: I am with you even to the consummation of the world.
Thirdly they say that although it cannot be shown when the beginning of this depravation began, yet it can be shown when the notable change was made. For at the beginning of the year 600 the Pope was openly changed into Antichrist, when namely the Roman Pontiff obtained from the Emperor Phocas that he should be called the head of the Bishops, and when he opened the Pantheon, the temple of all the gods. So teach the Magdeburgians, Century 7, chapter 1, and most of the adversaries agree. For Theodore Bibliander too, in the tables of his Chronology, sets at the beginning of the year 600 the appearance of Antichrist, that is, of the Pope; and Luther in his computation of the times will have Saint Gregory to have been the last Pope; and passim the Calvinists and Lutherans extend the purity of the Church to the first 500 or 600 years.
But first, after the year 670, long after the times of Phocas, was celebrated the sixth general Council, which the adversaries receive as sacrosanct; as is clear both from others and from the Confession of the Zurichers and from the Centuries of the Magdeburgians. But in that Council the chief part belonged to the Roman Pontiff Agatho; for his opinion, explained through his legates and letters, all followed, as the Centuriators too describe at length, Century 7, chapter 9. Either therefore the Pope was not yet Antichrist, or the whole Church and a holy general Council venerated and followed Antichrist.
Moreover it is false that Phocas first gave to the Roman Pontiff the name of head of the Church. For Justinian the elder, who was almost a hundred years before Phocas, in his letter to Pope John II in express words calls him the head of all the Churches. And this same is had in the letter of the same John II in answer to Justinian, where the Pope repeats the sum of the Emperor's letter; and each letter is had in the Code, Book 1, title 1, laws 4 and 6. Nor were the Centuriators ignorant of this. For Century 6, chapter 10, column 670, they make mention of the fourth law of the Code, which is taken from the letter of Pope John. And so against their own conscience they lie.
Moreover before the times of Justinian the Council of Chalcedon, in its letter to Leo, calls him the head of all the Bishops. And Saint Leo himself, sermon 1 on the holy Peter and Paul, thus addresses Rome: “Through the sacred See of blessed Peter, made the head of the world, thou presidest more widely by divine religion than by earthly dominion.” And below: “Less is it that warlike labor subdued to thee than what Christian peace has subjected.” Phocas, therefore, did not first give this name to the Roman Pontiff, but first restrained the pride of the Bishop of Constantinople, who wished to make himself equal to the Roman Pontiff.
To that of the Church which is called the Pantheon, I say first that the argument is against the adversaries. For Daniel 11 we read that Antichrist will fight against all gods, and will secretly worship only the god Maozim; and 2 Thessalonians 2 it is said that he will lift himself above all that is called God. Therefore if the Pope opened the temple to all the gods, by this very thing he is not Antichrist. Moreover before the temple Pantheon was consecrated to God in memory of all the Saints, there were already at Rome the temples of Saint Peter, Paul, Laurence, Sebastian, etc.
But Melanchthon objects, in the Confession and Apology, article 21, that the invocation of the Saints was not before the times of Gregory; therefore it began then. I answer that it is a lie. For very many Fathers, and among them Ambrose in his book on widows, make mention of the invocation of the Saints: but of Antichrist and the invocation of the Saints we have disputed fully in their places.
Fourthly, Calvin answers, in the preface of the Institutes, that his Church is not new, but most ancient, nay that very one which Christ founded, yet that it was not seen for many ages, and now at last has appeared. But against this is the argument which blessed Augustine makes against the Donatists, Book 3 on Baptism, chapter 2: either that Church which now has appeared had before perished, and now has risen again; or had not perished, but only lain hidden, and now has lifted up its head. Not the first, because then they themselves could not have been reborn, if the mother had perished. If it perished: “Whence then,” says blessed Augustine, “did Donatus appear? from what earth did he sprout? from what sea did he emerge? from what heaven did he fall?” And moreover the promises of Christ would be false, Matthew 16: The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And Matthew last chapter: I am with you, even to, etc. Not the second, because then either that hidden Church professed its faith, or did not profess it; if it professed, then it was not hidden, but manifest; and if manifest, how did no one notice it? How were they not seized and coerced by the inquisitors, who began to be in the Church long before the age of Luther? Why does no trace, no memory of them exist? But if it did not profess the faith, but truly and properly lay hidden (which part they are compelled to defend), then it was not the Church, and accordingly there was no true Church in the world. For, as they themselves say, the confession of faith is a mark of the true Church; and Romans 10: With the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Moreover if it is so, how, when Luther and Calvin appeared, was there no one who joined himself to them, but those whom they themselves deceived? If many Lutherans and Calvinists lay hidden, many, when Luther and Calvin preached, ought straightway to have recognized their associates, and run to them even uncalled; but it did not so happen. For almost all who are Lutherans and Calvinists confess that they were before of ours, and had thought nothing of that new doctrine. Nay Luther himself confesses that he was once not a Lutheran, but a Catholic Monk, and celebrated Masses for fifteen years seriously and devoutly. See the book on private (cornered) Mass, or John Cochlaeus in the acts of Luther of the year 1534; likewise Book 2 of Luther against Zwingli, or the Seven-Headed of John Cochlaeus, chapter 24.
Finally, if the Church had so lain hidden as Calvin says, it would follow that the Church of Christ was worse and more miserable than every heretical sect, and even than the very people of the Jews after the overthrow of Jerusalem; which certainly is blasphemous, since God through the Prophets passim foretells the glory of the Church, and promises that He will always be with it. That this follows is clear; for every heretical sect had its own temples, its own bishops, its own Sacraments. And likewise the Jews after the overthrow of Jerusalem always had some synagogues, where they freely exercised their ceremonies, as is clear from Gregory, Book 7, letter 5; nor were they ever compelled generally to adore strange gods. But the Church, which Calvin feigns to have lain hidden for almost a thousand years, had no temples, no sacred rites, no bishops, nor had one corner of the earth where it freely exercised the acts of its Religion; and, what is worse, was compelled to serve strange gods, to adore idols, to communicate in sacrileges, which is a more horrible and longer captivity than ever was that of the Jews; nay it is a Church more deformed than the very ruins of the Synagogue.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V. Nota secunda . Secunda Nota est Antiquitas; nam sine dubio vera Ecclesia antiquior est, quam falsa; Quemadmodum Deus ante fuit, quam esset Diabolus. Quocirca Matth. XIII prius seminatum legimus .fuisse bonum semen, quam zizania : et Ecclesia dicitur Catholica, quia omni tempore fuit, et similiter dicitur Apostolica, quia fundamenta ab Apostolis, et. proinde antiquissima. Jam quod nostra Ecclesia sit antiquior omnium paganorum conventiculis, imo quod nostra Scriptura sit antiquior ipsis Diis Gentilium, demonstrat Tertullianus in Apologetico, e. 19 et 20. et B. Augustinus lib. XVIII de civitate Dei, cap. 37 et 38. Quod autem- nostra Ecclesia, quam adversarii Papistica vocant sit illa ipsa quam Christus instituit, et proinde vetustior omnibus sectis haereticorum, hac ratiocina¬ tione concludi potest. In omni insigni mutatione religionis sem- per ista fex demonstrari possunt. Primo, auctor ejus. II. dogma aliquod novum. III. tempus, quo coepit. IV. locus ubi coepit. V. quis eam oppugnaverit. VI. exiguus ali¬ quis coetus, qui paulatim aliis accidentibus crescere coeperit : nam illa omnia inveni¬ mus in ipsa Christi Ecclesia, qute tamen non fuit nova Ecclesia, sed solum mutatio quae¬ dam status Ecclesiae secundum Prophetarum praedictiones. Primo enim scimus, auctorem fuisse Christum, unde Christiani - dicimur. Secundo coepisse tunc explicite credi nova dogmata Trinitatis , et Incarnationis. Tertio coepisse ista praedicari anno 15 Imperii Ti¬ berii Caesaris. Quarto coepisse in Judaea. Quinto mox oppugnatam fuisse hanc religio¬ nem a Scribis et Pharisaeis, deinde a Genti¬ libus summa vi. Sexto scimus, initio fuisse multo pauciores Christianos, quam essent Judaei, cum separatio facta est. Si ergo in hac mutatione status ejusdem Ecclesiae illa sex ostendi possunt, multo magis eadem po¬ terunt demonstrari in quavis perfecta muta¬ tione. Jam vero nos illa omnia , de singulis haereticorum sectis facillime demonstramus. Nihil autem horum adversarii unquam de nostra Ecclesia post Apostolica tempora de¬ monstrare potuerunt. Ac ut exemplis rem illustremus. Ariano- rum auctorem scimus fuisse Arium quem¬ dam Presbyterum Alexandrinum. Nesloria- norum vero Nestorium, Episcopum Constan- tinopolitanum. Lutheranorum autem Marti- num Lutherum presbyterum , et Monachum ordinis sancti Augustini. Secundo scimus, quai dogmata invenerint. Arius enim docuit Filium Dei esse creatu¬ ram. Nestorius in Christo esse duas personas. Lutherus justificari homines per solam fidem specialem, id est, per ljoc solum, quod se justos putent : item negavit Eucharistiam esse sacrificium. Tertio scimus tempora. Coepit enim Ariana hairesis anno Domini 344. Nestoriana anno 431. Lutheranorum anno 1517. 368 LIBER IV. Quarto scimus loca. Coepit Arianismus in ^Egypto. Nestoriana haeresis in Thracia. Lu- therana in Saxonia. Quinto scimus, Arianos mox oppugnatos fuisse a Sylvestro Pontifice, a Concilio Ni¬ caeno, ab Athanasio, Hilario, et aliis. Nesto- rianam a Pontifice Coelestino, Concilio Eplie- sino, Cyrillo, aliisque permultis. Lutheranam a Leone X Pontifice, a Concilio Tridentino, ab Academiis omnibus Catholicis, et Docto- ribus plurimis. Sexto scimus, initia harum haeresum valde exigua fuisse, et multo plures initio separa¬ tionis sine comparatione fuisse Catholicos toto orbe terrarum diffusos quam erant Aria- ni, Nestoriani, vel Lutherani , quod ne ipsi quidem negant. Quod vero nihil horum de nobis ostendere possint, perspicuum est ; nam Primo, nun¬ quam objecerunt nobis auctorem nostrae sec¬ tae, nec ab ullo particulari homine nos ap¬ pellaverunt, quod certe libentissime facerent si possent. Secundo, nunquam ostenderunt primam originem ullius dogmatis nostri ; imo Centu- riatores in singulis Centuriis , cap. 4. circa finem, annotant, qui auctores defenderint nostra dogmata, quae nunc ipsi oppugnant, nec originem inveniunt’, nisi tempore Apos¬ tolorum. Nam etiam Justinum, et lrenaeum numerant inter nostros fautores : quos constat proxime insecutos Apostolorum tempora. Et c. 5. in singulis Centuriis enu¬ merant omnes heereses cujuslibet saeculi, et qui restiterint , nec unquam annotarunt aliquam haeresim excogitatam a Romanis Pontificibus, sed potius omnes heereses ab illis condemnatas. Nunc quidem nobis mul¬ tas heereses objiciunt. Nam Tilmannus Hes- husius scribit librum de sexcentis heeresibus Papistarum, sed illae heereses, exceptis men¬ daciis Tilmanni, sunt antiquissima dogmata, quod vel ex Centuriis, facillime probari pos¬ set. Nam Illyricus nostra dogmata in om¬ nium Patrum libris invenit ; sed in Patribus vocat naevos, in nobis heereses, scilicet, heec est astutia Adversariorum; ut ostendant nos esse extra Ecclesiam, nostra dogmata vo¬ cant heereses : ut non videantur ipsi sepa¬ rati ab Ecclesia Patrum, eadem dogmata in illis vocant neevos. Tertio , numquam designare potuerunt tempus certum nostree defectionis ab Eccle¬ sia. Dicunt quidem post primos quingentos annos coepisse valde invalescere hanc sec¬ tam, tamen quando coeperit , absolute num¬ quam dixerunt. Quarto, numquam ostenderunt, quo loco coeperit, nam post primos quingentos annos floruit Gregorius, cum quo totum orbem terrarum communicasse , ex epistolis ejus, quas ad omnes provincias mittit, cognosci potest. Item post Gregorii obitum celebra¬ tum est Concilium VI generale, ex quo ma¬ nifeste colligitur, totum Orientem, et Occi¬ dentem, eo tempore cum Romano Pontifi¬ ce, ut membra cum suo capite , conjuncta fuisse. Quinto, numquam ostenderunt, quis eam oppugnaverit, tamquam nuper ortam; et quae Concilia contra eam celebrata fuerint. Objiciunt quidem Concilium Constantinopo- litanum sub Copronymo, quod videtur fuisse generale, et damnavit imagines, quas Ro¬ mani defendebant. At non fuit hoc verum generale Concilium, cum non habuerit ul¬ lum verum Patriarcham. Praeterea istud Concilium non damnavit dogma tunc exor¬ tum, sed dogma antiquum, et in tota Eccle¬ sia receptum ; nam non statuit, ut non re¬ ciperetur cultus imaginum, sed ut abole¬ retur, et ut imagines e templo auferrentur. Vide Cedrenum, Zonaram, et Paulum Dia¬ conum. Sexto , non potest ullo modo ostendi, quod unquam nostra Ecclesia separaverit se ab aliqua majore ; ita ut qui adhaerebant Romanae sedi , essent paucissimi , reliqui Christiani multo plures ; nam ex epistolis B. Gregorii, quas scribit ad Episcopos Orien¬ tis, Africae, Hispaniae, Galliae, Italiae con¬ stat omnes fere Christianos cum eo commu¬ nicasse. Hoc argumento ab antiquitate semper usi sunt veteres Patres contra haereticos, ad os¬ tendendam veram Ecclesiam. Tertullianus libro de preescript. : « Qui estis vos , inquit, unde, et quando venistis? Ubi tamdiu la¬ tuistis? » Optatus 1. II contra Parmenianum : <( Vestrae, inquit, cathedrae originem osten¬ dite , qui vobis vultis sanciam Ecclesiam vendicare. » Hilarius lib. VI de Trinitate ante medium. » Tarde mihi, inquit, hos piissimos Doctores aetas nunc hujus saeculi protulit. Sero hos habuit fides mea , quam tu erudisti, magistros, inauditis ego his om¬ nibus in te credidi etc. » Hieronymus in epist. ad Pammachium, et Oceanum : « Quis¬ quis, inquit, assertor es novorum dogma¬ tum, quaeso te, ut parcas Romanis auribus, CAPUT y. 369 parcas fidei, quae Apostolico'ore laudata est. Cur post quadringentos annos docere nos ni¬ teris, quod ante nescivimus ? Usque in hanc diem sine vestra doctrina Christianus mun¬ dus fuit. » Et lib. contra Luciferianos in fine : « Ex hoc ipso, inquit, quod posterius instituti sunt, eos se esse indicant, quos fu¬ turos Apostolus praenuntiavit. t> Denique Augustinus lib. contra epistol. fundamenti, cap. 4. antiquitatem inter notas Ecclesiae ponit. Ad hoc argumentum quatuor adferunt so¬ lutiones. Primo , respondet Calvinus lib. IV Instit. cap. 2, §. 3. non posse ex antiquitate invictum argumentum duci. Nam Ismaelfuit senior quam Isaac, et tamen dictum est : ejice ancillam, et filium ejus. At Ismael non fuit figura falsae religionis, sed solum Testa¬ menti veteris quod erat bonum, et a Deo : Sed quia status hominum ejus testamenti erat servorum, qui timore ducuntur, debuit ei suc¬ cedere testamentum novum perfectius, ' ad quod pertinent liberi, qui ducuntur amore. Galat. IV : Scriptum est , quia Abraham duos filios habuit etc. quce sunt per allegoriam dicta , hcec enim sunt duo Testamenta etc . (1). Secundo dicunt, non posse ostendi de nos¬ tra Ecclesia, quo tempore, quo loco, per quem auctorem praecise coeperit etc. non quod revera non sit nova, sed quia non facta est simul ista mutatio, sed paulatim irrepse¬ runt errores non advertentibus, imo etiam dormientibus pastoribus. At etiam aliae mu¬ tationes non factae sunt totae simul, sed pau¬ latim, ut patet de Luthero, qui initio non negabat nisi indulgentias etc. et tamen sci¬ mus de singulis, quando, et quomodo ortae sint. Praeterea Matth. XIII non dicuntur zi¬ zania nata dormientibus hominibus, sed se¬ minata dormientibus hominibus; mox autem nata apparuisse, et cognita, fuisse. Quomodo igitur nostrae haereses per mille ferme annos detectae non sunt? Sane non solum pastores, sed etiam Deus valde dormivisset, si per tot saecula numquam excitassetaliquem, qui istis erroribus resisteret. Et delendum esset ex Evangelio illud : Ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem saeculi (2). Tertio dicunt, quod licet non possit osten¬ di, quando coeperit initium hujus deprava¬ tionis, tamen posse ostendi, quando insignis mutatio facta est. Nam initio anni 600 Papa in Anticbristum aperte mutatus est, quando (1) Galat. IV, 22. — (2) Matth. XXVIII, 20. TOM. II. videlicet Romanus Pontifex obtinuit a Phoca Imperatore, ut caput Episcoporum dicere¬ tur, et quando aperuit Pantheon templum omnium Deorum. Ita docent Magdeburgen- ses Centur. VII, cap. 1. et concordant pleri- que adversariorum. Nam etiam Theodorus Bibliander in tabulis suse Chronologise initio anni 600 ponit apparitionem Antichristi , id est, Papse ; et Lutherus in supputatione tem¬ porum, vult S. Gregorium fuisse ultimum Papam ; et passim Calvinistae, et Lutherani, usque ad primos 500. vel 600. annos exten¬ dunt Ecclesiae puritatem. At in primis post annum 670, diu post tem¬ pora Phocee celebratum est Concilium VI ge¬ nerale, quod adversarii ut sacrosanctum re¬ cipiunt; ut patet tum ex aliis, tum ex Con¬ fessione Tigurinorum, et ex Centuriis Mag- deburgensium ; In eo autem Concilio praeci- • puae partes fuerunt Romani Pontificis Aga- thonis ; Nam ejus sententiam per legatos et epistolas ipsius explicatam, omnes secuti sunt, ut etiam prolixe describunt Centuria- tores Cent. VII, cap. 9. Vel ergo Papa non¬ dum erat Antichristus , vel tota Ecclesia, et sanctum generale Concilium Antichristum venerata et secuta est. Praeterea falsum est, quod Phocas primus ' tribuerit Romano Pontifici nomen capitis Ec¬ clesiae. Nam Justinianus senior, qui fere cen¬ tum annis fuit ante Phocam in epistola ad Joannem II Papam disertis verbis vocat eum caput omnium Ecclesiarum. Et hoc idem habetur in epistola ejusdem Joannis II res- ponsiva ad Justinianum, ubi Papa repetit summam litterarum Imperatoris, et habetur utraque epistola in Codice lib. I, tit. 1, leg. 4 et 6. Nec id ignorabant Centuriatores. Nam Cent. VI, cap. 1 0, eoi. 670. meminerunt le¬ gis quartae Codicis, quae ex epistola Joannis Papae sumpta est. Itaque contra conscientiam suam mentiuntur. Praeterea ante tempora Justiniani Conci¬ lium Chalcedonense in ep. ad Leonem vocat eum caput omnium Episcoporum. Et ipseS. Leo serrn. 1. de sanctis Petro , et Paulo’, sic Romam alloquitur : « Per sacram B. Petri sedem caput orbis effecta latius praesides re¬ ligione divina, quam dominatione terrena./» Et infra : « Minus est, quod tibi bellicus la¬ bor subdidit, quam quod pax Christiana subjecit. » Phocas igitur non primus hoc no¬ men tribuit Piomano Pontifici , sed primus U 370 LIBER IV. compescuit superbiam Episcopi Gonstanti- nopolitani , qui se Romano Pontifici aequare volebat. Ad illud de Ecclesia, quae dicitur Pan¬ theon, dico primo, argumentum esse contra adversarios. Nam Dan. XI legimus, Anti- christum pugnaturum contra omnes Deos, et solum in occulto adoraturum Deum Mao- zim. et II. Thess. II dicitur elevaturum se- ipsum supra omne, quod, dicitur Deus. Ergo si Papa aperuit templum omnibus Diis, hoc ipso non est Antichristus. Praeterea antequam templum Pantheon consecraretur Deo in memoriam omnium Sanctorum, jam erant Romae templa S. Petri, Pauli, Laurentii, Se- bastiani etc. Sed objicit Melanchthon in Confessione et Apolog. art. 21. invocationem Sanctorum non fuisse ante Gregorii tempora ; ergo tunc coepit. Respondeo, mendacium esse. Nam plurimi Patres, et in iis Ambrosius inlib. de viduis, meminerunt invocationis Sanctorum : sed de Antichristo, et invocatione Sanctorum suis locis fuse disseruimus. Quarto, respondet Calvinus in praefat. In- stit. suam Ecclesiam non esse navam, sed antiquissimam; imo illam ipsam, quam Christus fundavit, tamen non esse visam per multa saecula, et nunc demum apparuisse. At contra est argumentum quod facit B. Au¬ gustinus contra Donatistas lib. III de Bap¬ tismo, cap. 2. aut ista Ecclesia , quae nunc apparuit, antea perierat, et nunc resurrexit ; aut non perierat, sed tantum latuerat, et nunc extulit caput. Non Primum, quia tunc non potuissent renasci ipsi, si mater perie¬ rat. Si periit : « Unde ergo, inquit, B. Au¬ gustinus, Donatus apparuit? de qua terra germinavit? ex quo mari emersit? de quo coelo cecidit? » Et praeterea falsae erunt pro¬ missiones Christi, Matth. XVI : Portae inferi non 'praevalebunt adversus eam. Et Mattaei ul¬ timo : Ego vobiscum sum usque etc. (1). Non Secundum, quia tunc vel ista Ecclesia latens profitebatur suam fidem, vel non profiteba¬ tur ; si profitebatur, ergo non erat latens, sed manifesta : et si manifesta, quomodo nemo advertebat? Quomodo non capieban¬ tur, et coercebantur ab inquisitoribus , qui longo tempore ante Lutheri aetatem esse coeperunt in Ecclesia? Quod nullum vesti¬ gium, nulla memoria eorum exstat ? Si au¬ tem non profitebatur fidem, sed vere et pro¬ prie latebat , (quam partem ipsi defendere coguntur) ergo illa non fuit Ecclesia, ac pro¬ inde nulla fuit in mundo vera Ecclesia. Nam ut ipsi dicunt, confessio fidei est nota verae Ecclesiae : et Rom. X : Ore confessio fit ad salutem (2). Praeterea si ita est , quomodo apparente Luthero, et Calvino nemo fuit qui se illis ad¬ jungeret, nisi quos ipsi deceperunt? Si multi Lutherani, et Calvinistae latebant, debuis¬ sent multi praedicante Luthero, et Calvino mox cognoscere socios suos, et ad eos cur¬ rere etiam non vocati, at non ita factum est; Nam omnes fere qui sunt Lutherani, et Cal¬ vinistae, fatentur se antea fuisse ex nostris, et nihil cogitasse de nova illa doctrina. Imo Lutherus ipse fatetur, se aliquando non fuis¬ se Lutheranum, sed Monachum Catholicum, et Missas celebrasse per quindecim annos serio, ac devote. Vide librum de Missa an¬ gulari, vel Joannem Cochlaeum in actis Lu¬ theri anni 1534. Item lib. II Lutheri contra Zwinglium , vel Septicipitem Joannis Coch- lsei, cap. 24. Denique, si ita Ecclesia latuisset, ut Calvi¬ nus dicit, sequeretur Ecclesiam Christi fuisse pejorem , et miseriorem omni secta haereti¬ ca, et ipso etiam populo Judaeorum post eversionem Hierosolymae ; quod certe est blasphemum, cum Deus per Prophetas pas- sim praedicet gloriam Ecclesiae, et pollicea¬ tur se cum ea semper futurum. Quod illud sequatur, patet ; nam omnis haeretica secta habuit sua templa, suos Episcopos, sua Sa¬ cramenta. Et similiter Judaei post eversam Hierusalem semper habuerunt aliquas Syna¬ gogas, ubi libere excercuerunt suas caere¬ monias, ut patet ex Gregorio li. VII, epist. 5. nec unquam coacti sunt generaliter adorare Deos alienos. At Ecclesia, quam latentem fingit Calvinus, per annos fere mille, nulla habuittempla, nulla sacra, nullos Episcopos, nec habuit unum angulum terrae ubi libere exerceret actus Religionis suae , et quod pe- jus est, coacta est servire Diis alienis , ado¬ rare idola, sacrilegiis communicare, quae est horribilior, et longior taptivitas quam un¬ quam fuerit Judaeorum; imo est Ecclesia deformior ipsis ruinis Synagogae. (1) Matth. XVI, 10; XXVIII, 20. — (2) Rom. X, 10. CAPUT VI. 371