Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Militant · The Church Spread Throughout the Whole World
Chapter 26: The Sixth Mark: Agreement with the Ancient Church
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 sixth Mark is agreement in doctrine with the ancient Church. For the true Church is called Apostolic — as Tertullian witnesses, in his book on prescription — not only because of the succession of the Bishops from the Apostles, but also because of what he calls the consanguinity of doctrine, namely because it retains the doctrine which the Apostles delivered. Now it is certain that the ancient Church of the first five hundred years was the true Church, and accordingly retained the Apostolic doctrine. Wherefore the Emperor Theodosius is praised by Sozomen, Book 7 of his history, chapter 12, for having by this art restrained the heretics of his time. He ordered the leaders of the sects to assemble; then he asked whether they thought that the ancient Fathers, who had governed the Church before that dissension which had then arisen concerning religion, had rightly agreed, and were truly holy and Apostolic; and when they had granted this, he subjoined: “Let us then examine your doctrine by their writings; and if it agree with them, let it be retained; if not, let it be cast away.”
Now in two ways we could prove from this Mark that ours is the true Church, and not the adversaries'. First, by producing the opinions of the ancients, by which we might confirm each of our dogmas and refute those of the adversaries; but this way would be most prolix, and liable to many calumnies and objections. The other way is shorter and surer, namely by showing, first, from the confession of the adversaries, that our dogmas are the doctrine of all the ancients; then, that the dogmas of the adversaries were held in the ancient Church for proven heresies. For thus it will be established that our doctrine agrees with the doctrine of the ancient Catholics, but their doctrine agrees with the doctrine of the ancient heretics.
And first, Calvin, in his Institutes, when he attacks ours, everywhere confesses that he is at war with all antiquity; from which it follows that ours is altogether consonant with antiquity. Thus he says, Book 2, chapter 2, § 4: “Among the Latins the name of free choice has always existed; but among the Greeks the word autexousion much more arrogantly.” And below, § 8: “I for my part would neither use such a word myself, and could wish that others, if they consult me, would abstain from it.” In the same place he says that all the ancients, Augustine excepted, in this matter extolled human powers more than was right, and either varied or wavered concerning free choice, so that nothing certain can be taken from their writings.
Thus he professes that he will follow none of the ancients but Augustine; and a little after he deserts even Augustine. For Book 2, chapter 3, § 7, he reproves that opinion of Augustine, from letter 106, that our will cooperates with grace, not as going before, but as following after; but, says Calvin, it does not cooperate even as a follower, but simply the whole is done by grace. And Book 3, chapter 11, § 15: “Nor is even Augustine's opinion,” he says, “to be received in all things, who refers grace to sanctification, because we are regenerated into newness of life by the Spirit.” And so in the article on grace and free choice Calvin confesses that he is at war with all antiquity. Likewise Book 2, chapter 14, § 3: “The error of the ancients cannot be excused,” he says, “who, while they do not attend to the person of the Mediator, keep a meagre sense of almost the whole doctrine which is read in the Gospel of John, and entangle themselves in much talk.” Calvin teaches in this place that the Son of God is subject to the Father even by reason of His Divinity; and because all the ancients teach the contrary, he himself says that all erred, and that their error is not excusable.
Likewise Book 2, chapter 16, § 9: “The fable,” he says, “of the subterranean place which is called Limbo, although it has great authors, yet is nothing but a fable.” He calls the ancient Fathers great authors; for he is not wont to call the scholastic Doctors anything but Sophists.
Likewise Book 3, chapter 3, § 10: “Let readers take from Augustine alone,” he says, “if they wish to have anything of the sense of antiquity. Moreover between him and us this difference may be seen, that he teaches the disease of concupiscence then only to become sin, when the will yields to the appetite; but we hold that very thing for sin, that a man is at all tickled by any desire against the law of God; nay, we assert that the very depravity which generates such desires in us is sin.” Here he openly confesses himself contrary to all the Fathers, and even to Augustine himself, in the question of concupiscence, which is the chief question. For from this foundation they deduce that there is not in us true justice, but only imputed; and that there are no good merits; nay, that all works are sins.
Likewise Book 3, chapter 4, § 38: “Almost all the ancients,” he says, “whose books are extant, either have fallen in this part, where satisfaction is treated, or have spoken too harshly and hardly.” Likewise Book 3, chapter 5, § 10: “Thirteen hundred years ago it was received by use that prayers should be made for the dead. But all the ancients, I confess, were carried away into error.” Likewise Book 3, chapter 15, § 2: “The old Doctors used, I confess, everywhere the name of merit.” And below he says that whoever invented this name consulted very ill for the sincerity of the faith. Likewise Book 4, chapter 4, § 10: “Antiquity sinned by immoderate severity, in that it required more in a Bishop than Paul requires, and especially, in process of time, celibacy.” Likewise Book 4, chapter 12, § 8: “The immoderate austerity of the ancients can in no way be excused, which both entirely disagreed with the Lord's prescription, and was wonderfully dangerous, since they enjoined on a sinner solemn penance now for seven, now for four, now for three years, now for a whole life.” Note that this seems harsh to Calvin because he himself thinks that a man is so justified by faith that almost nothing remains to be atoned for. Which if it were true, he would most rightly accuse all the ancients; and so it follows that our opinion, on the punishment remaining after the remission of the guilt, is, by Calvin's own judgment, the opinion of all the ancients.
Likewise Book 4, chapter 12, § 20: “I dare not wholly excuse the ancients, who both sowed certain seeds of superstition, and gave occasion to the tyranny which afterward arose; and the superstitious observation of Lent had then everywhere prevailed, because the common people thought they were rendering some special service to God in it, and the pastors commended it as a holy imitation.” And below: “It was therefore ill-omened and full of superstition, that under the title and color of imitating Christ they ordained a fast.” In the same place, § 23: “That marriage was forbidden to Priests was done by impious tyranny.” But when it was forbidden he himself notes, putting in the margin: Siricius, in his letter to the Bishops of Spain. Now Siricius sat almost 1200 years ago. And below he subjoins concerning this law: “These things, which seemed to procure reverence for the priesthood, were, I confess, received even of old with great applause.”
The same, Book 4, chapter 15, § 20: “That which I see received by use for many ages back, and indeed almost from the very beginning of the Church, that in danger of death lay persons should baptize, if a Minister were not present in time, I do not see by what firm reason it can be defended.” Likewise Book 4, chapter 18, § 21: “I judge that the ancients cannot be excused from having sinned somewhat in the manner of the action; for they imitated the Jewish mode of sacrificing more than either Christ had ordained or the reason of the Gospel allowed.” Thus far Calvin.
Now the Centuriators, in each Century toward the end of the fourth chapter, note that almost all the Doctors of that age taught those dogmas which we at this time maintain, which they themselves call the blemishes of the holy Fathers. And because it would be too long to tell of all, I will note only a few from the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Centuries.
In the second Century, then, chapter 4, column 59, on free choice, they say that it was granted by all the Fathers of that age: “In the same way Clement everywhere asserts free choice, so that it appears that in such darkness were not only all the Doctors of that age, but also that in later ages these errors gradually grew and increased.”
Now it is to be noted that the Lutherans hold the article on free choice as the foundation of their whole doctrine. For Luther, in his assertion of article 36, says that this article is the best and the sum of his affairs, so that the articles on the Papacy, on Councils, and other like matters, may be called trifles. And so in the chief controversy, and in the very sum of the matter, all the ancients (the Magdeburgians being witnesses) favor us. Then, column 60: “The doctrine of justification is delivered by these Doctors too negligently and obscurely; namely, they do not teach that we are justified by faith alone.” And Century 3, chapter 4, column 83: “You may see in the writings of the Doctors of this age no obscure traces of the invocation of the Saints.” And column 83: “All the Doctors of this age extolled martyrdom immoderately.” For the Lutherans will not have martyrdom to be a certain kind of Baptism, or that sins are in any way expiated by martyrdom.
In Century 4, column 293, they set down the testimonies of almost all the ancients of that age — as of Athanasius, Basil, Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Ephrem, Ambrose, and Prudentius — for the invocation of the Saints, which they themselves nevertheless call idolatry.
In Century 5, column 300: “As in some former ages the doctrine of free choice was depraved, so also in this, etc.” And below: “And although sometimes they seem to speak well and soundly, yet at last they set free choice, even in spiritual things, in a man's conversion.” And column 506: “Namely, this age ascribed to the good works of men that which flows from the depraved article of justification, etc.” And immediately they cite many testimonies of all the ancients of that age, even of Augustine, that works are meritorious; which they hold for a great error.
Moreover, elegantly against these who say that all the ancients erred, Tertullian speaks, in his book on prescriptions: “Come now, suppose all the Churches have erred; suppose the Apostle too was deceived in giving his testimony to some; that the Holy Spirit had regard to none, so as to lead it into truth — He who was sent for this by Christ, asked for this from the Father, that He might be the Teacher of truth; that the steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, suffering the Churches meanwhile to understand otherwise, to believe otherwise, than He Himself was preaching through the Apostles. And what likelihood is there that so many and so great Churches should have erred into one faith? ... Let anyone then dare to say that they erred who delivered it! However the error came about, it reigned surely as long as there were no heresies. Truth was waiting for certain Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free. Meanwhile the Gospel was preached amiss; so many thousands of thousands were baptized amiss, etc.”
Now, to come to the other part, it must be premised that in the ancient Church those errors were held commonly by all for proven and condemned heresies which are set down in the Catalogue of heresies by Irenaeus, Jerome, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine, Theodoret, Damascene, and other approved authors. For they, being holy and learned men, would never have dared simply to enter into the Catalogue of heresies those dogmas which they knew were doubted of in the Church. And besides, we read of no one who ever contradicted these Fathers, as if they had unjustly branded anyone with heresy. This premised, let us approach the Catalogue.
I. The Simonians taught that men are saved according to the grace of Simon, whom they made a god, “and not according to just works,” says Irenaeus, Book 1, chapter 20. The Eunomians likewise taught that no sins could hurt a man, provided he have faith, as Augustine testifies, in his book on heresies, chapter 54; who also, in his book on faith and works, chapter 14, says that this heresy of faith alone sufficing for salvation without works arose in the time of the Apostles, from Paul not being understood, and that therefore the other Apostles chiefly directed their pen against this heresy in their epistles — that is, Peter, John, James, and Jude. But this is the very same opinion of all the sectaries of this time.
Luther, in his book on the Babylonian captivity, chapter on the Eucharist: “There is no other way,” he says, “by which a man can deal with God or act, but by faith; works He cares nothing for.” In the same place: “So rich is the Christian that he cannot perish even if he would, however wickedly he live, unless he refuse to believe.” And although Calvin, Brentius, and certain others try somewhat to temper this opinion, when they say that good works are necessary as an effect of faith, yet they still stick in the same error; for even granting that necessity, they teach that works do not in any way merit eternal life, even though God require them as testimonies of faith. But this was the very heresy of Simon, who said that man is saved by grace, not by just works. Moreover, granting that necessity of works, all the sectaries teach that if anyone, after committing all crimes, have an act of faith, no sin is imputed to him — which is nothing else than what Eunomius and Luther teach.
II. Next, it was the heresy of Florinus that God is the cause of sins, which Irenaeus, in Eusebius, Book 5 of his history, chapter 20, said was more than a heresy, and which Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitory attributes also to Simon Magus. The same, without any shame, Calvin teaches, Book 1 of the Institutes, chapter 18, § 2: “Not only by the permission,” he says, “but also by the will of God, men sin, so that they deliberate on nothing but what God has decreed with Himself, and established by His secret direction.” And Book 3, chapter 23, § 24, he says that Adam fell into sin not only by God's foreknowledge and permission, but also by His will. And below, chapter 24, § 14: “That some despise to hear the word of God is their own depravity; but they were consigned to this depravity by God, that in them He might show His power and severity.”
The same Luther openly taught in his book on the enslaved will, where he says that that willing by which Judas willed to betray Christ was the work of God, and that it was not in the hand of Judas, or of any creature, to change that will. Similarly taught Peter Martyr in his Commentary on chapter 2 of the first book of Kings, and Philip Melanchthon in his Commentary on chapter 8 to the Romans, where he says that the betrayal of Judas was as much the work of God as the conversion of Paul; which commentaries are said to have so pleased Luther that he said Philip was second to Paul. Yet this error Philip retracted, both in his Common Places and in the Apology, article 19, of the Augsburg Confession.
III. It was the heresy of Origen that Adam lost the image of God to which he had been created, as Epiphanius witnesses, heresy 64. The same Calvin teaches, Book 2 of the Institutes, chapter 1, § 5: “By the sin of the first man the heavenly image was blotted out.” Likewise it was Origen's error that hell is nothing but the horror of conscience, as Jerome witnesses in his letter to Avitus. The same Calvin teaches, Book 3 of the Institutes, last chapter, last section.
IV. The Pepuzian heretics, as Augustine says in his book on heresies, chapter 27, give so much rule to women that they are honored even with the priesthood among them. Luther, in article 13 of those which Leo X condemned, says that in the Sacrament of Penance a woman or a boy can absolve as well as a Bishop or the Pope; and now in very fact among the Protestants in England a certain woman is the supreme Pontiff.
V. Proclus the heretic, in Epiphanius, heresy 64, said that sin always lives in the regenerate; for that concupiscence is truly sin, and is not taken away by Baptism, but only lulled to sleep by faith; which the same afterward the Messalian heretics taught, in Theodoret, Book 4 on heretical fables. This is the very opinion of Luther, articles 2 and 31, and in the assertions of those same articles; likewise of Philip in his Common Places, chapter on original sin, and of Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 15, § 10.
VI. The chief error of the Novatians was that there is not in the Church a power of reconciling men to God, except through Baptism. Afterward they also added that the baptized ought not to be anointed with Chrism by the Bishop. So Theodoret relates, Book 3 on heretical fables, and Saint Cornelius the Pope, in Eusebius, Book 6, chapter 33 of his history.
Which opinion, for the former part, is expressly that of the Calvinists. For Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, § 17, thus says that there is no Sacrament of Penance besides Baptism: “But that which Jerome says, that Penance is the second plank after shipwreck, is plainly impious, and cannot be excused.” For the latter part it is that of all the Lutherans. Luther, on the Babylonian captivity, chapter on the Eucharist, acknowledges only three Sacraments — Baptism, Penance, and Bread. Yet below, in the chapter on Extreme Unction, he rejects Penance. The Augsburg Confession, article 12, expressly rejects Confirmation. And Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, § 5 and following, says that our Chrism is the oil of the Devil polluted with lies; and therefore the Calvinists anoint their boots with it, when they can.
VII. Sabellius taught that there is only one person in God, not three, as Epiphanius witnesses, heresy 57. The same, in our time, Michael Servetus taught, Book 1 on the Trinity, without any circumlocution; and now that opinion reigns in many places.
VIII. It belongs to the Manichees, says Jerome in the preface of his Dialogues against the Pelagians, “to condemn the nature of men, and to take away free choice.” And Augustine, on heresies, chapter 46: “The Manichees do not attribute the origin of sins to free choice.” The same, openly, all the sectaries. Luther, article 36, says that free choice is a thing of title only. But in the assertions of the same article he says that it is a title without a thing, and that all things come to pass by absolute necessity. And therefore to the book which he wrote against free choice, against Erasmus, he gave the name, On the Enslaved Will. Calvin, Book 2 of the Institutes, chapters 2, 3, and 4, does not permit man a free election in any matter, so that he cannot even tolerate the very name. Yet in this Calvin is more impious than the Manichee, because the Manichee attributes the origin of sins to an evil God, Calvin to the good God.
The Manichees moreover accused everywhere the Fathers of the Old Testament — as Abraham, Samson, Sarah, Rebecca, and the like — as Augustine testifies, Book 22 against Faustus, and in his two books against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets. The same did Calvin. For Book 3, chapter 2, § 31 of the Institutes: “Sarah,” he says, “sinned in many ways, when she put her handmaid under her husband. And Rebecca corrupted the truth of God by various frauds and impostures, when by evil artifice she procures the blessing for her son, deceives her husband, forces her son to lie.” Likewise Book 3, chapter 5, § 8: “The deed of Judas Maccabaeus, who sent an offering for the dead to Jerusalem, was not without superstition and preposterous zeal.” Likewise Book 3, chapter 14, § 11, he says that Abraham was an idolater. Likewise Book 3, chapter 20, § 13: “In Samson, when he says, Strengthen me, O Lord, etc., a vicious desire of revenge ruled.” Likewise Book 4, chapter 15, § 22, after he had taught that it is lawful for a woman in no case to baptize, he adds: “Nor ought it to be drawn into an example, that Zipporah, a foolish woman, circumcised her son, in which she grievously sinned in many ways.”
IX. The Donatists would have the Church consist of the just alone, and thence deduced that the visible Church had perished from the world and remained in Africa alone, as Augustine teaches, in his book on the unity of the Church, chapter 12. The same most cruelly slaughtered Catholics, hated especially Monks and Bishops, whom they called Pharisees, and above all the Roman Bishop, whose see they called the chair of pestilence; they broke altars, spoiled Churches, sold the sacred chalices, gave the Eucharist to dogs, cast away the holy Chrism, as is plain from Augustine, Book 2 against Petilian, chapters 51 and 61, Book 3, chapter 40, and letter 163, and elsewhere; the same from Optatus, Books 2 and 6 against Parmenian.
That the doctrine and life of the Calvinists is the same is certain; for that the Church consists of the good alone, Calvin teaches, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 1, § 7, which also article 7 of the Augsburg Confession teaches. That the visible Church perished many ages ago, and now is only in the Northern parts where they themselves are, all teach, especially Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 2, § 2. Moreover, that the Calvinists have omitted nothing of what the Donatists said blasphemously, or cruelly, or sacrilegiously, or did against Catholics, and the Sacraments, and altars, etc., but have said and done much more and greater, is plain from the history of Surius, and from the book lately published which is entitled On the French Furies, and from other authors worthy of credit.
X. The Arians taught that the Son of God is less than the Father, as is in Epiphanius, heresy 69. Next, the same Arians received in no way the unwritten traditions, as Maximinus, Bishop of the Arians, teaches, in Augustine, Book 1, chapter 2, and the last chapter, against Maximinus. Which heresy afterward many others imitated, as Nestorius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, as is had in the Seventh Synod, act 1. Finally, the same Arians perpetrated more and greater sacrileges against the Sacraments, Altars, Priests, Monks, and Nuns than the Donatists, as is plain from Athanasius in his Apology for his flight, Rufinus, Book 11 of his history, chapter 3, Theodoret, Book 4 of his history, chapters 19 and 20, and Victor of Utica, Books 2 and 3 on the Vandal persecution.
The first error of the Arians many now openly teach, who are called Tritheites, as can be known from the Theses of Valentinus Gentilis. And although Luther, Philip, Calvin, and the like hold Arius for a heretic, yet they cannot deny that in their writings they sowed the seeds of this error, whence afterward arose those new Arians whom they themselves oppose, as we have shown in the preface of our books on Christ. Next, the other error all the heretics of this time teach. For the sectaries of this time reject all traditions, as is plain from Brentius in his Prolegomena, Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 8, § 8, and others. Moreover those cruel and sacrilegious deeds of the Arians, if only the names be changed, are those very things which the Calvinists everywhere do.
XI. The Aerian heretics, as Epiphanius witnesses, heresy 75, and Augustine, in his book on heresies, chapter 53, taught three errors: “That one ought not,” says Augustine, “to pray, or to offer an oblation for the dead, nor that solemnly appointed fasts should be celebrated, but that each should fast when he will, lest he seem to be under a law.” Finally, that a presbyter ought to be distinguished from a Bishop by no difference. Epiphanius adds that they, on the contrary, were wont to eat flesh on Friday, and in Lent, and especially in Holy Week; and if ever they wished to fast, they were wont to fast rather on the Lord's Day than on another day.
The same the Calvinists teach and do, and almost all the Lutherans. Calvin, Institutes, Book 3, chapter 5, §§ 6, 7, and following, disputes professedly against prayer for the dead. The same, Book 4, chapter 12, § 20, disputes against the fast of Lent, and calls it superstitious. Finally, Book 4, chapter 3, § 8, he says: “Of Bishops and Presbyters, of Pastors and Ministers, the function and province is the same.” The Centuriators, Century 4, chapter 5, column 401, though in numbering the errors of other heretics they are wont to omit those which they acknowledge to be their own, when they came to Aerius, because they saw that these three errors only were noted as proper to Aerius by Epiphanius and Augustine, could not omit them; and so they set them down indeed, but presently added that, if there be nothing else, these do not seem to be errors, but rather the contrary. They confess therefore that these three opinions are common to them with Aerius, nor do they deny that in the ancient Church they were held for condemned heresies. From which it follows that even the Centuriators, though not yet born then, were heretics of the ancient Church.
XII. Jovinian asserted that a man cannot sin after Baptism, if he was truly baptized, that is, if he truly received the faith and grace of God; next, that the choice of foods and fasts are not meritorious; besides, that marriage is equalled to virginity in dignity and merit — whence also several Nuns married at his exhortation; likewise, that the rewards of the blessed are equal; finally, that blessed Mary lost the virginity of her flesh in childbirth. So relate Jerome, Books 1 and 2 against Jovinian, and Augustine, in his book on heresies, chapter 82.
The first of these errors is also Calvin's, Book 2 of the Institutes, chapter 2, §§ 11 and 12, where he says that true faith, which in his opinion cannot be separated from grace, once had, can never be lost; and therefore belongs only to the elect. The second is the same Calvin's, Book 4, chapter 12, § 19, where he argues against all the ancients for having praised fasting as if it were meritorious. The same error of Jovinian is had in the Augsburg Confession, article 24, and in Philip's Common Places, chapter on mortification. The third is the error of Martin Luther in his epithalamium, where, expounding chapter 7 of the first to the Corinthians, he makes four comparisons. The first is of chastity with Matrimony absolutely, and thus he confesses chastity to be the nobler gift. The second, of chastity with Matrimony before God, and thus he says they are equal. The third, of a married woman with a virgin, and he says: “We must admit that a married woman before God excels virgins.” The fourth, of the state of the married with the state of the religious and Ecclesiastics professing celibacy; and he says that the state of the married is by its nature spiritual, divine, heavenly, and as it were gold, but the state of the celibate is secular, earthly, and as it were mire. Like things has the Augsburg Confession, article 23, and Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 13, § 3 and following. Of these two errors the Centuriators, Century 4, chapter 5, column 381, say that Jovinian is wrongly reproved by Jerome and Augustine, since they themselves rather, if they held the contrary, were heretics. The fourth error is that of Bucer and Molinaeus. For this one, on Bucer's authority, in the third part of the Evangelical Union, affirms that Jesus at His birth opened the womb of blessed Mary. The fifth is Luther's, in his sermon on the nativity of blessed Mary, and in his commentary on the first epistle of Peter, where he says that all Christians are as holy and just as is the Mother of God; from which without doubt it follows that all shall be equally blessed.
XIII. Vigilantius also taught many things. First, that the relics of the Saints are not to be venerated. Secondly, that the prayers of the dead for others are not heard; whence it follows that the Saints are invoked in vain. Thirdly, that Ecclesiastics ought to be married. Fourthly, that it is not expedient to leave all and give to the poor, and, the world being left, to hasten to religion. So relates Jerome, in his book against Vigilantius.
All the same things the sectaries now teach. Luther, in his sermon on the holy cross, says that the relics of the Saints are a seduction of the faithful, and therefore ought to be utterly buried under the earth; and in his book on abolishing the Mass, part 3, he affirms that God has no more care of the holy sepulchre of the Lord than of oxen, of which the Apostle says: Doth God take care for oxen? The same Luther, in his book on the Eucharist to the Waldenses, says that the invocation of the Saints is foolish and pernicious. The same, in the epithalamium, says that Matrimony is by divine right commanded to all, even to Ecclesiastics and Monks, who do not feel that they have the gift of continence. But he calls the gift of continence not the grace by which we do not consent to carnal temptations, but that by which we are not tempted — which gift almost none have. Finally, the same, in his book on monastic vows, professedly dissuades from religion, and only permits that women of 60 years, and men of 80 or 100, remain in monasteries. The same the Augsburg Confession teaches; for against the invocations of the Saints it treats, article 21; against the continence of Clerics and Monks, article 23.
Similarly Calvin treats against the invocation of the Saints, Book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 20, § 21, where he also says that the Papists, in their Litanies, Hymns, and Proses, in which they attribute everything to the dead Saints, make no mention of Christ — which is a most gross lie. Against the visitation of relics he treats, Book 4, chapter 13, § 7, and in the book which he entitled An Admonition concerning Relics. And in very fact the Calvinists burned, and cast into the flame, the bodies of Saints Irenaeus, Martin, Hilary, Bonaventure, etc. Against the celibacy of Clerics and the profession of Monks Calvin disputes, Book 4, chapters 12 and 13, whole chapters. Finally the Centuriators would not number Vigilantius among the heretics, but write of him, Century 4, chapter 8, column 602, where they say there was a contention between two holy Presbyters, that is, Vigilantius and Jerome, concerning relics, the invocation of the Saints, etc.; but that Jerome acted only with clamors, Vigilantius with solid reasons. Where also most impudently they attribute a certain censure of Erasmus on Jerome's book against Vigilantius to Gregory, as if Gregory had missed modesty in Jerome. But of these elsewhere.
XIV. The Pelagians taught, among other things, two. First, that there is no original sin in men, and especially in the children of the faithful. So relates Augustine, Book 6 against Julian, chapters 2 and 3, and Book 4 to Boniface, chapters 2 and 4. Secondly, that by any sin whatsoever, however slight, justice is lost, and accordingly every sin is mortal. So relates blessed Jerome, Book 2 against the Pelagians. The first of these Zwingli expressly teaches, in his book on Baptism, Martin Bucer on chapter 3 of Matthew, and Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 15, § 20 — except that Zwingli denies original sin simply in every man, and will only have it that we contracted certain miseries through Adam; but Bucer and Calvin deny original sin only in the children of the faithful, whom they say are born holy and are saved even without Baptism. The other error all the sectaries teach: Luther, assertion, article 32; Philip in his Common Places, chapter on the difference of mortal and venial sin; Calvin, Book 2 of the Institutes, chapter 8, § 58, and Book 3, chapter 4, § 28; all the rest will have every sin to be by its nature mortal.
XV. The Nestorians taught that in Christ there are two persons and two natures; so Theodoret, Book 4 on heretical fables. The same all despised the ancients, as Vincent of Lerins witnesses, which Luther, Calvin, and all the rest signally do. But the chief error of Nestorius Theodore Beza teaches at this time, whether from ignorance or from malice, who in his book on the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ says that he sets two hypostatic unions in Christ, one of the soul with the flesh, the other of the divinity with the humanity.
XVI. At the same time there were some — I know not whether they too were Nestorians — who taught that in the Eucharist the body of Christ does not remain, if it be kept to the next day; whom Cyril, in his letter to Calosyrius the Bishop, says to be mad. This error Bucer again devised, teaching that in the Eucharist there is not the body of Christ, except when it is received. See Cochlaeus, tract 8, Book 3 of the Miscellanies. The same afterward Philip Melanchthon taught, in his Common Places, chapter on the Lord's Supper, and Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, § 39.
XVII. The Eutychians taught that there is one nature in Christ, as one person; so relates Theodoret, Book 4 on heretical fables. The same at this time many have restored. First of all Caspar Schwenckfeld, in his book on the Divine Majesty of the humanity of Christ, asserts that after the ascension of Christ His human nature was converted into the divine, and is now true God, not a creature. The same, or something somewhat worse, Brentius seems to have held, who in his sermon on the Lord's Ascension teaches that the humanity of Christ, from the very incarnation, was always everywhere. The same teaches Jacob Smidelin in the Tübingen disputation, chapter 34; concerning which matter see our books on Christ.
XVIII. Xenaias the Persian first openly asserted that the images of Christ and the Saints are not to be venerated; Nicephorus witnesses, Book 16, chapter 27. The same now Calvin, Book 1 of the Institutes, chapter 11, whole; where also, § 7, he will in no way have the sign of the cross set up — in which he shows himself the brother of the Devil, save that he surpasses the Devil himself in impiety. For the Devil execrates the cross because he fears it, and by fearing honors it; Calvin execrates it because he despises and mocks it. There too, § 13, he says that in the first five hundred years there were no images in the temples of Christians — which is a notable lie, even by Calvin's own witness; for in the preface of the Institutes he says that Epiphanius, in his letter to John of Jerusalem, writes that he saw in a temple an image of Christ, or of I know not what Saint, hanging. And besides, Lactantius in his poem to the crucified, Basil in his oration on Barlaam near the end, Nyssen in his oration on Theodore not far from the beginning, Paulinus on the tenth Natal of Saint Felix, Prudentius on Saint Cassian, Evodius Book 2 on the miracles of Saint Stephen, Athanasius (or whoever is the author of the questions to Antiochus), question 16, teach that in their time there were images of the Saints in the temples; and that all these lived more than eleven hundred years ago is most well known. Add that Nicephorus, Book 14, chapter 2, says that an image of blessed Mary painted by Saint Luke was placed in the temple which Pulcheria, sister of Theodosius, built at Constantinople in honor of the blessed Virgin.
XIX. The Lampetians taught that monasteries ought to be free, that is, without perpetual vows; so relates Damascene, in his book on the hundred heresies, near the end. The same at this time Luther, who in his book on monastic vows says that one cannot vow piously in monasteries, except in this form: I vow chastity, poverty, and obedience until death, freely — that is, so that I may change when I will.
XX. There were certain who denied that the Eucharist is truly the flesh of Christ, and would have it to be only a figure or image of the body of Christ; so it is related in the Seventh Synod, act 6, volume 3. And long before, from Ignatius, the same relates Theodoret, in the Dialogue which is called Impassible. This heresy at this time Zwingli teaches, in his book on the words of the Lord's Supper, and Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, § 12.
We have thus far the heresies of twenty heresiarchs, which were condemned by the Church which existed in the first 700 years; which heresies, since we hold them for heresies, but our adversaries for articles of faith, it follows that our doctrine agrees with the doctrine of the ancient Church, but the adversaries' with the ancient heresies.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX. Nota sexta. Sexta Nota est conspiratio in doctrina cum Ecclesia antiqua. Yera enim Ecclesia dicitur Apostolica teste Tertull. lib. de praescript. non solum propter successionem Episcopo¬ rum ab Apostolis, sed etiam propter doc¬ trinae consanguinitatem, ut ipse loquitur, quia videlicet doctrinam retinet, quam Apo¬ stoli tradiderunt. Certum autem est, anti¬ quam Ecclesiam primis quingentis annis ve¬ ram Ecclesiam fuisse, et proinde Apostoli¬ cam doctrinam retinuisse. Quare laudatur Theodosius Imperator a Sozomeno lib. VII, hist. cap. 12. quod hac arte compescuerit haereticos sui temporis. Jussit Principes sec¬ tarum convenire, deinde petiit, an existima¬ rent, antiquos Patres, qui Ecclesiam rexe¬ rant ante dissidium illud, quod tunc de religione ortum fuerat, recte consensisse, et vere sanctos et Apostolicos fuisse, quod cum illi concessissent, subjunxit: « Examinemus ergo doctrinam vestram ad illorum scripta, et si cum illis consenserit, retineatur, sin minus, abjiciatur. » Jam duobus modis possemus ex hac Nota probare nostram esse veram Ecclesiam, non autem adversariorum. Primo, proferendo sententias veterum, quibus singula nostra dogmata confirmaremus, adversariorum re¬ futaremus ; sed hic modus prolixissimus es¬ set, et multis calumniis et objectio rflbus obnoxius. Altera via est brevior et certior, nimirum ostendendo primum ex confessione adversariorum, nostra dogmata esse doctri¬ nam omnium veterum. Deinde, dogmata adversariorum habita fuisse in Ecclesia an¬ tiqua pro exploratis heeresibus. Sic enim constabit, doctrinam nostram conspirare cum doctrina veterum Catholicorum, doctri¬ nam vero illorum conspirare cum doctrina veterum ha;reticorum. Ac primum Calvinus in sua institutione cum nostra oppugnat, passim fatetur, se re¬ pugnare toti antiquitati : Ex quo sequitur, nostra esse omnino antiquitati consentanea. Sic igitur ait lib. II, cap. 2. §. 4. « Semper apud Latinos nomen liberi arbitrii exstitit, apud Graecos vero aurd-oiio-to? vocabulum multo arrogantius. » Et infra §. 8. « Ego vero neque ipse hujusmodi vocem usurpare velim, et alios, si me consulant, abstinere optarim. » Ibidem dicit, omnes veteres, excepto Augustino, in hac re plus aequo extulisse humanas vires, et de libero arbi¬ trio aut variasse, aut vacillasse, ut nihil certi ex eorum scriptis sumi possit. Ita profitetur, se nullum veterum, excepto Augustino, secuturum; et paulo post etiam Augustinum deserit. Nam lib. II, cap. 3, §. 7 reprehendit illam Augustini sententiam, ex epict. 106. voluntatem nostram cooperari gratiae, non ut praeviam, sed ut pedissequam, atqui, ait Calvinus, nec ut pedissequam coo¬ perari, sed simpliciter totum fieri a gratia. Et lib. III, cap. 11. §. 15. « Ac ne Augustini quidem, inquit, sententia per omnia reci¬ pienda est, qui gratiam ad sanctificationem refert, quia in vitae novitatem regeneramur per spiritum. » Itaque in articulo de gratia et libero arbitrio fatetur Calvinus se toti antiquitati repugnare. Item lib. II, cap. 14. § 3. a Excusari non potest veterum error, inquit, qui dum ad Mediatoris personam non attendunt, totius fere doctrinae, quae in Evangelio Joannis legitur, jejunum obser¬ vant sensum, seseque implicantmultiloquiis.» Docet hoc loco Calvinus, Filium Dei subjec¬ tum esse Patri etiam ratione Divinitatis ; et quia omnes veteres contrarium docent, ipse ait, omnes errasse, neque eorum errorem excusabilem esse. Item lib. II, cap. 16. §. 9. « Fabula, inquit, de loco subterraneo, qui dicitur Limbus, tametsi magnos auctores habeat, tamen nihil aliud quam fabula est. » Yocat magnos auctores, antiquos Patres ; nam scholasticos Doctores non solet appellare, nisi Sophis¬ tas. 380 LIBER IV. Item lib. III, cap. 3. §. 10. : «Ab uno Au¬ gustino, inquit, sumant Lectores, si quid de sensu antiquitatis habere volunt. Porro inter illum et nos, hoc discriminis videri potest, quod ipse morbum concupiscentia}, tunc demum peccatum fieri docet, cum appeti¬ tioni cedit voluntas ; nos autem illud ipsum pro peccato habemus, quod aliqua omnino cupiditate contra legem Dei homo titillatur, imo ipsam pravitatem, quae hujusmodi cupiditates nobis generat, asserimus esse peccatum. » Hic aperte omnibus Patribus se fatetur contrarium, atque ipsi etiam Augus¬ tino, in quaestione de concupiscentia, quae praecipua quaestio est. Nam ex hoc funda¬ mento deducunt non esse in nobis veram justitiam, sed tantum imputativam, et nulla esse bona merita, imo omnia opera esse peccata. Item lib. III. cap. 4. § 38. : « Omnes fere veteres, inquit, quorum libri existunt, aut hac in parte lapsi sunt, ubi de satisfactione agitur, aut nimis aspere et dure locuti sunt. » Item lib. III, cap. 5. § 10. « Ante mille et trecentos annos usu receptum fuit, ut precationes fierent pro defunctis. Sed veteres omnes, fateor, in errorem abrepti sunt. » Item lib. III, cap. 15, § 2 «Usi sunt, fa¬ teor, passim vetusti Doctores nomine meriti.» Etinfra dicit, pessime consuluisse fidei since¬ ritati, qui hoc nomen invenit. Item lib. IV, cap. 4, § 10.: « Peccavit antiquitas, immodica severitate, quod plus requireret in Episcopo, quam Paulus requirat, ac praesertim successu temporis, coelibatum. » Item lib, IV, cap. 12, § 8.: «Excusari nullo modo potest immo¬ dica veterum austeritas, quae et prorsus Domini praescripto dissidebat, et erat mirum in modum periculosa, cum peccatori poeni¬ tentiam solemnem nunc in septem, nunc in quatuor, nunc in tres annos, nunc in totam vitam indicerent. » Nota, Calvino ita videri hoc asperum, quia ipse putat, per fidem sic justificari hominem, ut nihil pene luendum restet. Quod si verum esset, rectissime accu¬ saret omnes veteres; proinde sequitur sen¬ tentiam nostram de poena remanente post remissionem culpae, judicio Calvini senten¬ tiam esse omnium veterum. Item lib. IV, cap. 12, §. 20. : «Non in to¬ tum excusare audeo veteres ; qui et super¬ stitionis quaedam semina jecerint, et occasio¬ nem praebuerint tyrannidi, quae postea exorta est, et tunc passim invaluerat, superstitiosa Quadragesimae observatio, quia et vulgus eximium aliquod obsequium praestare se Deo in ea existimabat, et pastores eam commen¬ dabant pro sancta imitatione. » Et infra : « Fuit igitur xaxo&Moc et superstitionis plena, quod titulo ac colore imitationis Christi je¬ junium ordinabant. » Ibidem §. 23. « Quod Sacerdotibus interdictum fuit conjugium, id factum est impia tyrannide. » Quando autem fuerit interdictum, notat ipse in margine po¬ nens : Siricius in epistola ad Episcopos His¬ paniae. Porro Siricius fere ante annos 1200 sedit. Et infra subjungit de hac lege : «Haec quae videbantur reverentiam sacerdotio con¬ ciliare, magno plausu etiam antiquitus re¬ cepta esse fateor. » Idem lib. IV, cap. 15, §. 20.: « Quod multis ab hinc saeculis, adeoque ab ipso fere Eccle¬ siae exordio usu receptum video, ut in peri¬ culo mortis Laici baptizarent, si Minister in tempore non adesset, non video quam firma ratione possit defendi. » Item lib. IV, cap. 18, §. 21.: «Excusari non posse arbitror, veteres, quin aliquod in actionis modo pec¬ caverint; imitati sunt enim Judaicum sacri¬ ficandi morem magis, quam aut ordinaverit Christus, aut Evangelii ratio sinebat. » Haec Calvinus. Jam Centuriatores in singulis centuriis ad finem 4. capitis, annotant, omnes fere Doc¬ tores illius saeculi, docuisse ea dogmata, quae nos hoc tempore tuemur, quae ipsi naevos sanctorum Patrum vocant. Et quia de omnibus dicere nimis longum esset, anno¬ tabo solum aliqua pauca ex 2, 3, 4 et 5, Centuriis. In secunda ergo Centuria cap. 4, coi. 59. de libero arbitrio, dicunt, id ab omnibus Patribus ejus saeculi concessum fuisse : « Eodem, inquiunt, modo Clemens liberum arbitrium ubique asserit, ut appareat in ejusmodi tenebris, non tantum fuisse omnes ejus saeculi Doctores, verum etiam in pos¬ terioribus eas subinde crevisse et auctas esse. » Notandum autem est, Lutheranos habere articulum de libero arbitrio pro fundamento totius suae doctrinae. Lutherus enim in assert. artic. 36. dicit, hunc articulum esse opti¬ mum, et summum rerum suarum, adeo ut articuli de Papatu, de Conciliis aliisque si¬ milibus rebus nugae dici possint. Itaque in praecipua controversia, et in ipsa summa rei omnes veteres (testibus Magdeburgensibus) nobis favent. Deinde coi. 60.: «Doctrina, in¬ quiunt, de justificatione negligentius et ob- CAPUT IX. 381 scurius ab his Doctoribus tradita est, vide¬ licet, non ‘docent nos sola fide justificari. » Et Centur. III, cap. 4. coi. 83. « Yideas, inquiunt, in Doctorum hujus saeculi scriptis, non obscura vestigia invocationis Sancto¬ rum. » Et coi. 83. « Martyrium immodice extulerunt omnes hujus aetatis Doctores. » Nolunt enim Lutherani esse martyrium ge¬ nus quoddam Baptismi, aut ullo modo expiari peccata per martyrium. Centuria IV, coi. 293. ponunt testimonia veterum fere omnium illius saeculi, ut Atha- nasii,Basilii,Nazianzeni, Epiphanii,Ephrem, Ambrosii, et Prudentii, pro invocatione Sanctorum, quam ipsi tamen idololatriam vocant. Centuria Y, coi. 300. « Sicut, inquit, pri¬ oribus aliquot saeculis doctrina de libero arbitrio depravata est, ita hoc etiam etc. » Et infra : « Etiamsi autem interdum bene, et sane videantur loqui, tamen tandem libe¬ rum arbitrium in rebus etiam spiritualibus in sua conversione statuunt. » Et coi. 506. : « Nimirum haec aetas bonis hominum operi¬ bus adscripsit, id quod ex depravato articulo justificationis emanat etc. » Et statim citant omnium veterum illius saeculi, etiam Au¬ gustini, multa testimonia, quod opera sint meritoria ; quod ipsi pro magno errore ha¬ bent. Porro eleganter adversus istos, qui omnes antiquos errasse dicunt, loquitur Tertull. lib. de praescriptionibus : « Age, inquit, nunc omnes Ecclesiae erraverint ; deceptus sit et Apostolus de testimonio suo reddendo qui¬ busdam. Nullam respexerit Spiritus sanctus, uti eam in veritate deduceret, ad hoc missus a Christo, ad hoc postulatus de Patre, ut esset Doctor veritatis. Neglexerit officium Dei villicus, Christi Vicarius, sinens Eccle¬ sias aliter interim intelligere, aliter credere, quod ipse per Apostolos praedicabat. Et quid verisimile est, ut tot ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint?. . . . Audeat ergo aliquis dicere, errasse eos, qui tradiderunt? Quoquo modo sit erratum, tamdiu utique erravit error, quamdiu haereses non erant. Aliquos Mar- cionitas et Yalentinianos liberanda veritas expectabat. Interea perperam evangelizaba- tur. Tot millia millium perperam tincta etc. » Nunc ad alteram partem ut accedamus, praemittendum est, in Ecclesia antiqua illos errores habitos esse communiter ab omnibus pro exploratis et damnatis haeresibus, qui ponuntur in Catalogo haeresum ab Irenaeo, Hieronymo, Epiphanio, Philastrio, Augus¬ tino, Theodoreto, Damasceno, aliisque pro¬ batis auctoribus : Nam illi cum essent viri sancti et docti, numquam fuissent ausi, sim¬ pliciter in Catalogum liaereseon referre ea dogmata, de quibus in Ecclesia dubitari sci¬ vissent. Et praeterea neminem legimus, qui unquam contradixerit his Patribus, tanquam qui non juste aliquem notassent haereseos. Hoc praemisso, aggrediamur Catalogum. Simoniani docebant, salvari homines se¬ cundum gratiam Simonis, quem Deum fa¬ ciebant, « et non secundum opera justa », inquit Irenaeus lib. I, cap. 20. Eunomiani si¬ militer docebant, non posse homini ulla peccata nocere, modo fidem habeat, ut Au¬ gustinus testatur lib. de haeres, cap. 54, qui etiam lib. de fide et operibus cap. 14, dicit hanc heeresim de sola fide sufficiente ad sa¬ lutem sine operibus ortam esse tempore Apostolorum, ex non intellecto Paulo, et propterea contra hanc haeresim stylum prae¬ cipue direxisse alios Apostolos in suis epis¬ tolis, id est, Petrum, Joannem, Jacobum, et Judam. At haec eadem est sententia omnium sectariorum hujus temporis. Lutherus in lib. de captivitate Babylonica cap. de Eucharistia : « Non alia via, inquit, potest homo cum Deo convenire: aut agere, quam per fidem; opera ille nihil curat». Ibidem : « Tam dives est Christianus, ut non possit perire etiamsi velit, quantumcumque male vivat, nisi nolit credere. » Etsi autem Calvinus, Brentius, et alii quidam conentur nonnihil temperare hanc sententiam, dum dicunt, opera bona esse necessaria ; tan¬ quam effectus fidei, tamen adhuc haerent in eodem errore ; nam etiam posita ista neces¬ sitate, docent, opera non mereri ullo modo vitam aeternam, etiamsi Deus ea requirat, tanquam testimonia fidei. Haec autem erat ipsissima haeresis Simonis, qui dicebat, ho¬ minem salvari per gratiam, non per opera justa. Praeterea posita illa necessitate ope¬ rum, docent omnes sectarii : Si quis post omnia scelera patrata habeat actum fidei, nullum ei peccatum imputari, quod nihil est aliud, quam quod Eunomius et Lutherus docent. Deinde Florini haeresis fuit, Deum esse causam peccatorum, quam Ireneus apud Eusebium lib. V hist. cap. 20, dicebat esse plusquam haeresim , quam etiam tribuit Yincentius Lirinensis in suo Commonitorio 382 LIBER IY. Simoni Mago. Eamdem sine ullo pudore docet Calvinus lib. I. Instit.cap. 18, §. 2. : « Non solum permissu, inquit, sed etiam vo¬ luntate Dei, homines peccant, ita ut nihil ipsi deliberando agitent, nisi quod Deus apud se decreverit, et arcana directione constituit. » Et lib. III, cap. 23, §. 24, dicit Dei non solum praevisione et permissione, sed etiam voluntate in peccatum lapsum esse Adamum. Et infra cap. 24, §. 14. : « Quod, inquit, aliqui verbum Dei audire contemnunt, ipsorum est pravitas, sed in hanc pravitatem a Deo addicti sunt, ut in eis potentiam suam, et severitatem osten¬ dat. » Idem aperte docuit Lutherus in lib de servo arbitrio, ubi dicit : illud velle, quo Ju- das voluit Christum prodere, fuisse opus Dei, nec fuisse in manu Judse, aut ullius creaturae, mutare illam voluntatem. Simili¬ ter docuit Petrus Martyr in Commentario cap. II. lib. I. Reg. et Philippus Melanchton in Commentario cap. VIII ad Romanos, ubi dicit, ita fuisse opus Dei Juda? proditionem, ac Pauli conversionem; quae commentaria adeo dicuntur placuisse Lutbero, ut diceret, Philippum secundum esse a Paulo : Hunc tamen errorem Philippus retractavit, tum in Locis, tum in Apologia art. 19. Confessio¬ nis Augustanae. III. Origenis haeresis fuit perdidisse Ada¬ mum imaginem Dei, ad quam creatus fue¬ rat, testis est Epiphanius haeres. 64. Idem docet Calvinus lib. II, Instit. cap. 1, §. 5 : « Per peccatum, inquit, primi hominis obli- terata est coelestis imago. » Item Origenis fuit error, infernum nihil esse, nisi conscien¬ tiae horrorem, teste Hieronymo in epist. ad Avitum. Idem docet Calvinus lib. III. Instit. cap. ult. §. ult. IV. Peputiani haeretici, ut ait Augustinus lib. de haeres, cap. 27. tantum dant mulieri¬ bus principatum, ut sacerdotio quoque apud eos honorentur. Lutherus art. 13. ex iis, quos Leo X damnavit, dicit in Sacramento Poenitentiae aeque absolvere posse mulierem, vel puerum, atque Episcopum, vel Papam; Et jam re ipsa Pro testantibus in Anglia mu¬ lier quaedam est summus Pontifex. V. Proclus haereticus apud Epiphanium haeres. 64. dicebat, peccatum in renatis sem- per vivere; concupiscentiam enim vere esse peccatum, nec tolli per Baptismum, secl so¬ piri per fidem; Quod idem postea docuerunt Messaliani haeretici apud Theodoretum 1. IV de haereticis fabulis. Haec est ipsissima sen¬ tentia Lutheri artic. 2. et 31. atque in asser¬ tionibus eorumdem articulorum. Item Phi¬ lippi in locis communibus cap. De peccato originis, et Calvini lib. IY Instit. cap. 15. §• 10. YI. Novatianorum error praecipuus erat, non esse in Ecclesia potestatem reconciliandi homines Deo, nisi per Baptismum. Postea etiam addiderunt, non debere baptizatos inungi Chrismate ab Episcopo. Ita refert Theodoret. lib. III de haeret, fabul. et S. Cornelius Papa apud Eusebium lib. YI, cap. 33. hist. Quae sententia pro parte priore expresse Calvinistarum est. Nam Calvinus lib. IV Inst. cap. 19. §. 17. sic ait, nullum esse Poe¬ nitentiae Sacramentum, praeter Baptismum : « Quod vero Hieronymus ait : Poenitentiam esse secundam tabulam post naufragium; plane impium est, et excusari non potest. » Pro altera parte est omnium Lutheranorum. Lutherus de captivitate Babylonica, cap. de Eucharistia, tria tantum agnoscit Sacra¬ menta, Baptismum, Poenitentiam, et Panem. Tamen infra cap. de Extrema unctione, reji¬ cit Poenitentiam. Confessio Augustana art. 12. diserte rejicit Confirmationem. Et Calvi¬ nus lib. IV Instit. cap. 19. § 5. et sequent, dicit, Chrisma nostrum esse oleum Diaboli mendaciis pollutum, et propterea Calvinistse ex illo ocreas suas inungunt, cum possunt. VII. Sabellius docuit, unam tantum esse personam in Deo, non tres, testis Epipha¬ nius haeres. 57. Idem docuit nostro tempore Michael Servetus lib. I de Trinitate, sine ul¬ lis ambagibus, et nunc ea sententia in mul¬ tis locis regnat. VIII. Manichaeorum, inquit Hieronymus in praefatione Dialogorum contra Pelagianos, « est, hominum damnare naturam, et libe¬ rum auferre arbitrium. » Et Augustinus de haeres, cap. 46 : « Peccatorum originem, in¬ quit, non tribunt Manichaei libero arbitrio. » Idem aperte sectarii omnes. Lutherus art. 36. dicit, liberum arbitrium esse rem de solo titulo. In assertionibus autem ejusdem articuli dicit, esse titulum sine re, et omnia ex necessitate aibsoluta evenire. Et propte¬ rea libro, quem scripsit contra liberum arbi¬ trium in Erasmum, nomen posuit, de servo arbitrio. Calvinus lib. II. Instit. cap. 2, 3 et 4, non permittit homini liberam electionem ulla in re, adeo ut ne ipsum quidem nomen tolerare possit. Hoc tamen est magis impius CAPUT IX. 383 Calvinus Manichaeo, quod Manichseus Deo malo tribuat peccatorum originem, Calvinus Deo bono. Manichaei praeterea accusabant passim Pa¬ tres Testamenti veteris, ut Abraham, Sam- sonem, Sarani, Rebeccam, et similes, ut Augustinus testatur lib. XXII. contra Faus¬ tum, et duobus libris cont. Adversarium Le¬ gis et Prophetarum. Idem fecit Calvinus. Nam lib. III, cap. 2, §. 31. Instit. : « Sara, inquit, multis modis peccavit, cum ancillam viro suo supposuit. Rebecca vero variis frau¬ dibus, et imposturis Dei veritatem corrupit, cum malo artificio filii benedictionem pro¬ curat, maritum decipit, filium mentiri cogit.)) Item lib. III, cap. 5. §. 8. : « Superstitione et praepostero zelo non caruit factum Ju dee Machabaei, qui oblationem misit pro mor¬ tuis in Hierusalem. » Item lib. III, cap. 14, §. 11. dicit, Abraham fuisse idololatram. Item lib. III, cap. 20, § 13 : « In Samsone, inquit, cum ait : Robora me Domine etc. vitiosa cupiditas vindictae dominata est. » Item lib. IV, c. 15, §. 22. posteaquam do¬ cuerat, mulieri in nullo casu licere bapti¬ zare, subdit : « Nec in exemplum trahi de¬ bet, quod Sephora stulta mulier filium cir¬ cumcidit, in quo multis modis graviter peccavit. » IX. Donatistae Ecclesiam ex solis justis constare volebant, atque inde deducebant, Ecclesiam visibilem periisse de orbe terra¬ rum, et in sola Africa remansisse, ut Augus¬ tinus docet lib. de unit. Ecclesiae, 'cap. 12. Iidem Catholicos crudelissime trucidabant, oderant praecipue Monachos et Episcopos, quos Pharisaeos vocabant, et in primis Epis¬ copum Romanum, cujus sedem cathedram pestilentiae appellabant, altaria frangebant, Ecclesias spoliabant, sacros calices vende¬ bant, Eucharistiam canibus dabant, sacrum Chrisma projiciebant, ut patet ex Augustino lib. II. cont. Petilian. cap. 51. et 61. lib. III, cap. 40. et epist. 163. et alibi. Idem ex Op¬ tato lib. II et "VI contra Parmenian. Eamdem esse doctrinam et vitam Calvinis- tarum certum est, nam Ecclesiam ex solis bonis constare, docet Calvinus lib. IV Instit. cap. 1, §. 7. quod etiam docet articul. 7. Confessionis Augustanae. Ecclesiam visibilem a multis saeculis periisse, et nunc solum esse in Septentrionalibus partibus, ubi ipsi sunt, docent omnes, praecipue Calvinus lib. IV Instit. cap. 2, §. 2. Porro nihil eorum, quae blaspheme, vel crudeliter, vel sacrilege dixe¬ runt Donatistae, vel egerunt in Catholicos, et Sacramenta, atque altaria etc. omisisse Calvinistas, sed multo plura et majora dixis¬ se, et egisse, patet ex historia Surii, et ex libro, qui nuper prodiit, qui inscribitur : De furoribus Gallicis, et aliis auctoribus fide dignis. X. Ariani docebant, Filium Dei esse Patre minorem, ut est apud^Epiphanium haeres. 69. Deinde, iidem Ariani non recipiebant ullo modo traditiones non scriptas, ut docet Maximinus Episcopus Arianorum apud Au- gust. lib. I, cap. 2, et ult. cont. Maximinum. Quam heeresim postea imitati sunt multi alii, ut Nestorius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, ut habetur in VII Synodo, act. 1 . Denique iidem Ariani plura et majora sacrilegia patrarunt in Sacramenta, Altaria, Sacerdotes, Mona¬ chos, Sanctimoniales etc. quam Donatistae, ut patet ex Athanasio in Apologia pro fuga sua, Ruffino lib. XI, hist. cap. 3. Theodoreto lib. IV hist. cap. 19 et 20, et Victore Uticensi lib. II et III de Wandalica persecutione. Primum errorem Arianorum aperte do¬ cent hoc tempore multi, qui Tritheitae dicun¬ tur, ut agnosci potest ex Prothesibus Valen¬ tini Gentilis. Quamvis autem Lutherus, Phi¬ lippus, Calvinus, et similes habeant Arium pro haeretico, tamen negare non possunt, quin in suis scriptis hujus erroris semina jecerint, unde postea orti isti novi Ariani, quos ipsimet impugnant, ut nos demons¬ travimus in praefat. libror, de Christo. Deinde alterum errorem docent omnes hujus temporis haeretici. Sectarii enim hu¬ jus temporis omnes traditiones rejiciunt, ut patet ex Rrentio in Prolegomenis, Cal¬ vino lib. IV Institut. cap. 8. §. 8. et aliis. Porro illa crudelia et sacrilega facinora Aria¬ norum, si tantum nomina mutentur, sunt illa ipsa, quae Calvinistae passim factitant. XI. Aeriani haeretici, teste Epiphanio haeres. 75. et Augustino lib. de haeres, cap. 33. tres errores docuerunt : <c Orare, inquit Augustinus, vel offerre pro mortuis oblatio¬ nem non oportere, nec statuta solemniter celebranda esse jejunia, sed cum quisque voluerit jejunandum, ne videatur esse sub lege. » Denique, presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni. Addit Epi- phanius, eos e contrario consuevisse feria sexta, et in Quadragesima, ac praecipue in hebdomada sancta vesci carnibus et si quan¬ do jejunare volebant, potius die Duminico, quam alio die jejunare solitos. 384 LIBER IV. Eadem docent et faciunt Calvinistae, et Lutlierani fere omnes. Calvinus Instit. lib. III, cap. 5, §. 6, 7. et sequentib. disputat ex professo contra orationem pro defunctis. Idem lib. IV, cap. 12, §. 20. disputat contra jejunium Quadragesimae, et superstitiosum vocat. Denique lib. IV, cap. 3, §. 8. inquit : « Episcoporum, ac Presbyterorum, Pasto- rupi, ac Ministrorun^ eadem functio et pro¬ vincia est. » Centuriatores Cent. IV, cap, 5, coi. 401. cum in aliorum haereticorum erro¬ ribus numerandis soleant omittere eos quos suos etiam esse agnoscunt, cum ad Aerium venerunt, quia videbant hos tres errores tantum, tamquam proprios Aerii, ab Epi- phanio et Augustino annotatos fuisse, non potuerunt eos omittere : Itaque posuerunt illos quidem, sed mox addiderunt, si nihil aliud sit, hos non videri errores, sed contra¬ rios potius. Fatentur igitur, has tres senten¬ tias sibi cum Aerio esse communes, neque negant, in antiqua Ecclesia pro damnatis haeresibus habitas esse. Ex quo sequitur, ut etiam Centuriatores, licet tum nondum nati, antiquae Ecclesiae haeretici fuerint. XII. Jovinianus, non posse peccare asse¬ ruit hominem post Baptismum, sivere bapti- zatus fuerit, id est, sirevera fidem et gratiam Dei acceperit, deinde ciborum delectum, et jejunia non esse meritoria : pr&terea con¬ jugium virginitati dignitate et merito aequari. Unde etiam aliquot Sanctimoniales ejus hor¬ tatu nupserunt. Item praemia beatorum esse paria. Denique, B. Mariam in partu carnis virginitatem amisisse : Ita referunt Hierony¬ mus lib. I et II. contra Jovinian. et Augus¬ tinus lib. de haeres, cap. 82. Primus horum errorum est etiam Calvini, lib. II instit. cap. 2, §.11 et 12. ubi dicit, veram fidem, quae a gratia separari nequit opinione ipsius, semel habitam, numquam amitti posse : et ideo non esse, nisi electo¬ rum. Secundus ejusdem Calvini est lib. IV. cap. 12, §. 19. ubi arguit omnes veteres, quod laudaverint jejunium, quasi esset merito¬ rium. Idem error Joviniani habetur in Con¬ fessione Augustan. art. 24. et in locis Phi¬ lippi, cap. De mortificatione. Tertius est error Martini Lutheri in epi¬ thalamio, ubi exponens c. VII. primae ad Co- rinth. quatuor comparationes facit. Prima est, castitatis cum Matrimonio absolute, et sic fatetur castitatem esse nobilius donum. Secunda, castitatis cum Matrimonio coram Deo, et sic dicit esse aequalia. Tertia, mu¬ lieris conjugatae cum virgine, et ait : « Opor¬ tet admittamus mulierem conjugatam coram Deo praestare virginibus. » Quarta, status conjugatorum cum statu religiosorum et Ec¬ clesiasticorum profitentium coelibatum ; et dicit, statum conjugatorum ex natura sua esse spiritualem, divinum, coelestem, et quasi aurum : statum vero ccelibum esse saecularem, terrenum, et quasi lutum. Simi¬ lia habet Confessio Augustana, art. 23. et Calvinus lib. IV instit. cap. 13, §. 3. et se¬ quent. De his duobus erroribus Centuriato¬ res, Centur. IV, cap. 5, coi. 381. dicunt, perperam reprehendi Jovinianum, a Hiero¬ nymo et Augustino, cum ipsi potius, si con¬ trarium senserunt, fuerint haeretici. Quartus error Buceri ac Molinaei est. Hic enim Bucero auctore, in tertia unionis Evan- gelicae parte affirmat, Jesum nascentem adaperuisse vulvam B. Mariae. Quintus est Lutheri in sermone de natali B. Mariae, et in commentario primae epistolae Petri, ubi dicit, omnes Christianos esse aeque sanctos ac justos, atque est mater Dei : Ex quo sine dubio sequitur, fore omnes aeque beatos. XIII. Vigilantius multa etiam docuit. Pri¬ mo, Sanctorum reliquias non esse veneran¬ das. Secundo orationes mortuorum pro aliis non exaudiri ; ex quo sequitur, frustra Sanc¬ tos invocari. Tertio, Ecclesiasticos debere esse uxoratos. Quarto, non expedire relin¬ quere omnia et dare pauperibus, et ad reli¬ gionem, relicto saeculo, properare : Ita refert Hieronymus in libro contra Vigilantium. Eadem omnia docent nunc sectarii. Luthe- rus in sermone de sancta cruce dicit, reli¬ quias Sanctorum esse fidelium seductionem, et ideo sub terram penitus condi debere ; Et in libro de abroganda Missa, parte III affir¬ mat, non majorem esse Deo curam de sancto sepulehro Domini, quam de bobus, de qui¬ bus Apostolus ait : Numquid Deo est cura de bobus ? (1) Idem Lutherus lib. de Eucharistia ad Waldenses dicit, stultam et perniciosam esse Sanctorum invocationem. Idem in Epi¬ thalamio dicit, Matrimonium jure divino esse praeceptum omnibus, etiam Ecclesiasti¬ cis et Monachis, qui non sentiunt se habere donum continentiae. Vocat autem (ipse do- (1) I. Cor. IX, 9. CAPUT IX. 385 num continentiae, non gratiam, qua non consentimus tentationibus carnalibus, sed qua non tentamur, quale donum fere nulli habent. Denique, idem fere in lib. de votis monasticis ex professo dehortatur a reli¬ gione, et solum permittit, ut foeminae60 an¬ norum, et viri 80 vel 100 annorum in mo¬ nasteriis maneant. Eadem docet Confessio Augustana ; nam contra Sanctorum invoca¬ tiones agit art. 21. contra Clericorum conti¬ nentiam et Monachorum, art. 23. Similiter Calvinus contra invocationem Sanctorum agit lib. III Instit. cap.20, §. 21. Ubi etiam dicit, Papistas in suis Litaniis, Hymnis et Prosis, in quibus Sanctis mortuis nihil non tribuunt, nullam Christi mentio¬ nem facere, quod est mendacium crassissi¬ mum. Contra reliquiarum visitationem agit, lib. IV, cap. 13, §. 7 et in lib. quem inscrip¬ sit, Admonitionem de Reliquiis. Et reipsa Calvinistse combusserunt, et in flammam projecerunt corpora Sanctorum Irenaei, Mar- tini, Hilarii, Bonaventurae etc. Contra coeli¬ batum Clericorum, et Monachorum profes¬ sionem disputat Calvinus lib, IV, cap. 12 et 13 totis capitibus. Denique Centuriatores non voluerunt numerare Vigilantium inter haereticos, sed scribunt de eo Centur. IV, cap. 8, coi. 602. ubi dicunt fuisse contentio¬ nem inter duos sanctos Presbyteros, id est, Vigilantium et Hieronymum de reliquiis, invocatione Sanctorum etc. sed Hieronymum clamoribus tantum egisse, Vigilantium au¬ tem solidis rationibus. Ubi etiam impuden¬ tissime censuram quamdam Erasmi in librum Hieronymi contra Vigilantium tribuunt Gre- gorio, quasi Gregorius desiderasset in Hie¬ ronymo modestiam. Sed de his alias. XIV. Pelagiani duo inter alia docebant. Primo, non esse in hominibus peccatum ori¬ ginale, et praecipue in filiis fidelium. Ita re¬ fert Augustinus lib. VI cont. Julianum, cap. 2 et 3. et lib. IV ad Bonifacium, c. 2. et 4. Secundo, per quodlibet peccatum, quamvis levissimum, perdi justitiam, ac proinde om¬ ne peccatum esse mortale. Ita refert B. Hie¬ ronymus lib. II contra Pelagianos. Primum horum diserte docent Zwinglius in lib. de Baptismo, Marti nus Bucerus in cap. III Mat¬ thaei, et Calvinus lib. IV Inst. c. 15. §. 20. nisi quod Zwinglius negat simpliciter pecca¬ tum originale in quolibet homine, et tantum vult miserias quasdam per Adamum nos contraxisse. Bucerus autem et Calvinus, so¬ lum in filiis fidelium negant peccatum origi- Tom. II. nale, quos dicunt Sanctos nasci, et salvari etiam sine Baptismo. Errorem alterum do¬ cent omnes sectarii. Lutherus assert. art. 32. Philippus in locis cap. de discrimi ie pec¬ cati mortalis et venialis, Calvinus lib. II In¬ stit. cap. 8. §. 58. et lib. III, cap. 4. §. 28. cceteri omnes omne peccatum natura sua volunt esse mortale. XV. Nestoriani docuerunt, in Christo duas esse personas, et duas naturas; ita Tbeodo- retus lib. IV de hreret. fabulis. lidem omnes veteres contemnebant, teste Vincentio Liri— nensi, id quod egregie preestant Lutherus, Calvinus, et alii omnes; Errorem autem prsecipuum Nestorii docet hoc tempore Theodorus Beza sive ex ignorantia, sive ex malitia, qui in lib. de hypostatica duarum in Christo naturarum unione, dicit, se duas uniones hypostaticas in Christo ponere, unam animse cum carne, alteram divinitatis cum humanitate. * XVI. Eodem tempore fuerufit aliqui, nes¬ cio an etiam ipsi Nestoriani essent, qui do¬ cuerunt, in Eucharistia non manere corpus Christi, si servetur in alteram diem, quos Cyrillus in epist. ad Calosirium Episcopum insanire dicit. Hunc errorem rursum exco¬ gitavit Bucerus, docens, in Eucharistia non esse Christi corpus, nisi quando sumitur. Vide Cochlaeum tract. 8, lib. III Miscellaneo¬ rum. Idem postea docuit Philippus Melan- chthon in locis cap. de Coena Domini, et Calvinus lib. IV Instit. cap. 17. §. 39. XVII. Eutychiani docuerunt, unam esse in Christo naturam, sicut unam personam; ita refert Theodoretus lib. IV de hairet. fa¬ bulis. Eamdem hoc tempore multi instaura¬ runt. In primis Gaspar Swenckfeldius in lib. de Divina Majestate humanitatis Christi, as¬ serit, post ascensionem Christi, humanam eius naturam conversam esse in divinam, et jam esse verum Deum, non creaturam. Idem, vel aliquid aliquanto pejus videtur sensisse Brentius, qui in sermone de Ascensione Do¬ mini docet : Christi humanitatem ab ipsa incarnatione semper fuisse ubique. Idem docet Jacobus Smidelinus in disputatione Tubingensi cap. 34. de qua re vide libros nostros de Christo. XVIII. Xenaias Persa primus palam asse¬ ruit, CJmstiet Sanctorum imagines non esse venerandas : testis Nicephorus lib. XVI, cap. 27. Idem nunc Calvinus lib. I Instit. cap. 11. toto. Ubi etiam §. 7. non vult ullo modo erigi signum crucis : in quo se fratrem Diaboli 25 386 LIBER IV. ostendit, nisi quod Diabolum ipsum impie¬ tate vincit. Diabolus enim crucem execra- tur, quia timet, et timendo honorat ; Calvi¬ nus execratur, quia despicit, atque irridet. Ibi etiam §. 13. dicit, primis quingentis an¬ nis nullas fuisse imagines in templis Chris¬ tianorum , quod est insigne mendacium, etiam ipso Calvino teste ; nam in praefat. In- stit. dicit, Epiphanium in epist. ad Joannem Hierosolymitanum scribere, se in templo vi¬ disse imaginem Christi, aut nescio cujus Sancti pendere : Et praeterea Lactantius in carmine ad crucifixum, Basilius in oratione in Barlaam, circa finem ; Nyssenus oratione in Theodorum, non procul ab initio ; Pauli- nus Natali X S. Felicis; Prudentius de S. Cassiano ; Evodius lib. II de miraculis S. Stepliani; Athanasius, sive quicumque est auctor quaestionum ad Antiochum q. 16. do¬ cent , suo tempore imagines Sanctorum fuisse in templis : istos autem omnes vixisse ante mille et centum annos, notissimum est. Adde quod Nicephorus lib. XIV, cap. 2. di¬ cit, imaginem B. Mariae a S. Luca depictam, positam fuisse in templo , quod Pulcheria soror Theodosii Constantinopoli exstruxit in honorem B. Virginis. XIX. Lampetiani docuerunt, Monasteria debere esse libera, id est, sine votis perpe¬ tuis; ita refert Damascenus lib. de centum h seres, circa finem. Idem hoc tempore Lu- therus, qui in lib. de votis monasticis dicit, non posse voveri pie in Monasteriis, nisi hac forma : Voveo castitatem, paupertatem, et obedientiam usque ad mortem, libere, id est, ut mutare possim, quando volo. XX. Quorumdam, qui negabant, Eucha¬ ristiam vere esse carnem Christi, et tantum esse volebant figuram, seu imaginem corpo¬ ris Christi ; ita refertur in VII Synodo act. 6. tom. 3. Et longe antea ex Ignatio idem re¬ fert Theodoretus in Dialogo, qui dicitur Im¬ patibilis. Hanc haeresim docent hoc tempore Zwinglius in lib. de verbis Coenae Domini, et Calvinus lib. IV Instit. cap. 17. §. 12. Habemus hactenus viginti Haeresiarcha¬ rum heereses, quae damnatas sunt ab Eccle¬ sia, quae luit primis 700 annis, quas haere- ses cum nos pro haeresibus, adversarii nos¬ tri pro articulis fidei habeant, sequitur nos¬ tram doctrinam, conspirare cum doctrina antiquae Ecclesiae , Adversariorum autem cum haeresibus antiquis.