Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Militant · The Church Spread Throughout the Whole World
Chapter 27: The Seventh Mark: Union of the Members with the Head
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 seventh Mark is the union of the members among themselves and with the head; for that the Church is one body, one spouse, one fold, the Scriptures everywhere teach — Romans 12, Canticles 6, John 10 — and in the Constantinopolitan Creed we say one Church. But the chief unity of a body consists in the joining of the members with the head and among themselves. Of both unions we must speak, and first of the first. But since concerning the head of the Church, who is the Roman Pontiff, we have disputed elsewhere, here only, by bringing forward some testimonies of the Fathers, we will show that among the ancients the joining with the Roman Pontiff was always held for a mark of the true Church.
Irenaeus, Book 3, chapter 3, openly says that to the Roman Church, because of its more powerful principality, it is necessary that every Church agree — that is, those who are the faithful from every side. Cyprian, Book 1, letter 3: “After these things,” he says, “a false bishop having moreover been set up for them by heretics, they dare to sail, and to carry letters from schismatics and profane persons to the Chair of Peter and to the principal Church, whence the priestly unity took its rise; nor to consider that these are the Romans, to whom perfidy can have no access.” And Book 4, letter 8, speaking of the Chair of the Roman Pontiff: “We know that we have exhorted them to acknowledge and hold the mother and root of the Catholic Church.” Ambrose, in his oration on the death of Satyrus: “He asked,” he says, “whether he agreed with the Catholic Bishops, that is, whether he agreed with the Roman Church.”
Jerome, in his letter to Damasus on the word hypostasis: “Here the Church, torn into three parts, hastens to snatch me to itself. I meanwhile cry out: If anyone is joined to the Chair of Peter, he is mine. Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus say that they cleave to thee. I could believe it, if one asserted this; but now either two lie, or all.” And in the former letter: “I am associated in communion with thy Beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter. Upon that rock I know the Church is built. Whoever eats the lamb outside this house is profane. If anyone be not in the ark of Noah, he shall perish when the flood reigns. I know not Vitalis, I reject Meletius, I am ignorant of Paulinus. Whoever gathers not with thee scatters; that is, he who is not of Christ is of Antichrist.” And in the epitaph of Marcella he writes that Saint Athanasius and his successor Peter, Bishops of Alexandria, fleeing the persecution of the Arian heresy, took refuge at Rome as at the safest port of their communion.
Optatus, Book 2 against Parmenian, from the beginning for some pages, teaches that the first and chief dowry of the true Church is the Chair of Peter, which is at Rome; and thence he proves that the Donatists do not pertain to the true Church, because they were not joined with Siricius, who then sat in the Chair of Peter.
Augustine, in letter 162, speaking of Caecilian the Bishop: “Who,” he says, “might not care for the conspiring multitude of enemies, when he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the primacy of the Apostolic Chair has always flourished?” And in the Psalm against the party of Donatus: “Come, brethren, if you will, that you may be grafted into the vine. It is a grief when we see you cut off, lying thus. Number the Priests even from the very See of Peter, and in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom. That is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome.” Leo, letter 87 to the Bishops of the province of Vienne: “The Lord willed that the Sacrament of preaching the Gospel should so pertain to the office of all the Apostles, that He placed it principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles, so that from him as from a certain head He might diffuse His gifts as it were into the whole body; that he might understand himself to be excluded from the divine mystery who had dared to depart from the solidity of Peter.”
To these add experience; for we see all those Churches which divided themselves from that head, like branches cut off from the root, straightway wither. Certainly the Asiatic and African Churches, which once so flourished that they celebrated most numerous Councils, and always had many men most illustrious for doctrine, or sanctity, or for both gifts of God, from the time when they made schism from the Roman Church, celebrated no Councils, had no men known to the whole world for the fame of sanctity or doctrine, and now are involved in the utmost ignorance.
Let us come now to the agreement of the members among themselves. It is certain that Concord is a sign of the Kingdom of God, which ought to stand for ever; but Discord, of the Kingdom of the Devil, which must at last fall. Whence Matthew 12: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation. And 1 Corinthians 14: God is not the God of dissension, but of peace. And blessed Augustine, Book 18 of the City of God, chapter 52, says that the Devil desired through the heretics to bring it about that in the Church of Christ there should be free dissensions, as there were in the Academies of the Philosophers; that as those, through many divisions, at last perish and are consumed by one another, so it might happen in the Church.
Now from this Mark it is most clear that our Church alone is the true Church of God. For in our Church, first of all, all the sacred Writers agree marvelously among themselves, although they were diverse men, and wrote in diverse places, times, and languages — which blessed Augustine observes as a thing plainly divine, Book 18 of the City of God, chapter 41. Next, all the decrees of the legitimate Councils and Pontiffs agree among themselves even in all dogmas, although they were issued by diverse men, in diverse places, times, and occasions, and against most diverse, nay often contrary, heresies. Which is an open sign of one and the same Holy Spirit governing this Church. And that this is true, the diligence of the heretics shows, who, although they have diligently turned over everything, yet have found nothing of any moment which they could reprove, as we showed in the disputation on Councils.
Finally, now all Catholics, dispersed throughout the whole world, think the same concerning all the dogmas of faith; nor can they think otherwise, since all subject their own judgment to the judgment of one and the same supreme Pastor directing the Church from the Chair of Peter with the counsel of the other pastors.
But that there never was any sect of the Gentiles or of the Heretics in which such agreement existed can easily be shown. And first, of the sects of the Pagans, Augustine teaches, sermon 11 on the words of the Lord, that among them Juno and Hercules and other gods, dissenting among themselves and even warring, belonged to the same religion. Of the Philosophers it is so well known to all that Basil, oration 1 on the work of the six days, says that there is no need for us to fight against the Philosophers, since they suffice by their mutual dissensions to overthrow their own doctrine; of which see also Theodoret in his book on faith, and Augustine, Book 18 of the City of God, chapter 41.
That the same was the custom of all the heretics is most certain; for Irenaeus, Book 1, chapter 21 and following, teaches that the heresy of Simon, the first heresiarch, was soon divided, and thence were born the sects of the Menandrians, Basilidians, Saturninians, etc. Likewise, Book 1, chapter 5, he writes of the Valentinians that, though they were very many, scarcely two or three agreed among themselves in all dogmas. Of the Donatists Augustine writes, Book 1 on Baptism, chapter 6, that the heresy of the Donatists was in his time cut into many minute fragments.
That the Marcionists were soon divided, and thence were born the Lucianists, Appellians, and Severians, Epiphanius teaches, Book 1, volume 3 against heresies. That the Montanists were divided into Pepuzians, Artotyrites, Phrygasts, etc., Epiphanius writes, Book 2, volume 1. That the Manichees too were divided into sects, Augustine testifies, in his book on heresies, chapter 46. That the Messalians were divided into Martyrians, Sathanians, Enthusiasts, Epiphanius teaches, heresy 80, and Theodoret, Book 4 on heretical fables. The Arians were soon divided into Acacians, Macedonians, Eunomians, as is plain from Rufinus, Book 10 of his history, chapter 25. The same Arians too changed their faith almost every year, as Hilary writes in both his books to Constantius. In like manner the Eutychians were so divided that almost all the sects which afterward existed in the East are the offspring of the Eutychians, as is plain from Evagrius, Books 3 and 4 of his history, and from Damascene, in his book on the hundred heresies.
Finally, in our time it is established, from Frederick Staphylus in his little book on the Concord of Luther's disciples, that the Lutherans, scarcely yet born, began to be divided into Anabaptists, Confessionists, and Sacramentarians; and again each sect into others and others, up to 34, and this indeed in the time of Staphylus; but now nearly 100 most diverse sects are numbered proceeding from Luther alone. Which is done by the great providence of God; for in this way the heresies consume themselves; for their division is not Mathematical, which proceeds to infinity. Whence Isaiah 19 says: I will make the Egyptians to rush against the Egyptians. And Hilary, Book 7 on the Trinity: “The war of the heretics is the peace of the Church.”
Add that the same heretical authors do not agree with themselves, which is a most certain mark of false doctrine, as Luther himself says in his book on monastic vows: “You cannot more certainly discern lies than when they are contrary to their very selves. For it is so ordained by God that the impious always confound themselves, and that lies do not agree, but always testify against themselves.” Moreover, innumerable contradictions of Luther John Cochlaeus collected in the Seven-Headed; where at the end he added 36 various opinions of Luther alone on one article, that is, on communion under both kinds. The Augsburg Confession too, which all hold for sacrosanct, they have so changed and variously published that they themselves know not which is the true Augsburg Confession; concerning which consult the Harmony of Andreas Fabritius of Liège, where you will see, besides the rest, the edition of the year '30 and the edition of the year '40, of which one is twice as large as the other.
But to this argument the adversaries answer as they can. Calvin, first of all, in the preface of the Institutes, says that it is no wonder if from his religion divisions and contrary sects soon arise; for this happened even to the Church of the Apostles — for from it came the Simonians, Nicolaitans, etc.; for always the Devil, where he sees good seed sown, approaches and oversows tares. Next, the same Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 13, § 14, says that from this Mark it is gathered that there is no true Church among us; for there are among us as many conventicles and divisions of schismatics as there are monasteries. For of old the Monks lived indeed separated from others, but they did not receive the Sacraments separately; nay, they flocked to the Churches of the ordinary ministers, and there took part in the sacred rites with the rest of the people. But now each monastery has erected for itself a private altar, and they receive the Sacraments separated from the Christian people, which they testify even by their names, since some are called Benedictines, others Franciscans, others Dominicans. Thirdly, others add that there are among us more sects — of Thomists, Scotists, and the like — than among them.
I answer to the first that this is the difference between the division of heretics from the Church and division from some heresy: that in the Catholic Church there is found a certain rule for composing controversies, that is, the judgment of the supreme Pastor, or of a plenary Council; and therefore dissension does not arise from the doctrine of the Church, but from the malice of the Devil alone. Moreover, from whatever source it arises, it is soon condemned, and, the heretic being cast out, the rent is repaired, nor does it advance further in the Church itself. But among the heretics there is no rule for ending controversies. For each sets himself before the others, and each wishes to be judge of the others; and hence it comes that ordinarily any new heresy at once brings forth others and others, until through many divisions it is consumed, so that it seems a miracle if any heresy lasts long. And so the doctrine of the Church of itself begets union and conjunction of minds; heresy of itself, and from its own nature, buds forth divisions and schisms. Since therefore we see, after the manner of other heresies, the Lutheran sect soon divided into so many other sects, and daily divided more and more, nor any end of divisions to be hoped from them, we rightly judge them heretics, and that at last the Lutheran name will utterly perish.
To the second argument I say, first, that it is a lie of Calvin that the ancient Monks had not their own altar, but received the Sacraments in the Churches of the ordinary parish priests. For Epiphanius, in his letter to John of Jerusalem, testifies that he ordained in the Monastery of Saint Jerome the Presbyter Paulinian, who should confect the Sacraments in the Monastery itself for the other Monks, because Saint Jerome, out of too great humility, dared not offer the sacrifices of the altar. Likewise Cassian, Conference 18, which is that of Abbot Pyamon, chapter 13, narrates that in the very Desert his Monks had their own Presbyters, Monks also, who ministered the Sacraments to the rest. Augustine, Book 1 on the customs of the Church, chapters 31 and 33, teaches that not only in solitude, but also in cities, as at Milan and Rome, the Monks had in their monasteries a Presbyter set over them; who without doubt was therefore a Presbyter, that he might confect the Sacraments in the monastery, and the Monks might not be forced to go out of the Monasteries to go to the Churches. Finally John Damascene, in the history of Barlaam and Josaphat, writes that Barlaam the Hermit celebrated the sacrifice of the Mass in his cell, only his minister Josaphat being present.
I say secondly that no one is made a schismatic because of a diverse altar materially, but formally; otherwise all parish priests would be schismatics, because they have diverse altars in the same city, and all Bishops would be schismatics, because they have diverse altars in diverse cities. Those alone therefore are schismatics who so erect their own altar that they esteem the altar of others profane. Finally, that the Monks of this time are not schismatics is plain from this, that they obey one supreme Pontiff, are ordained Presbyters by the ordinary Bishops, and are frequented by the peoples. Moreover those names of Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans are taken not from an author of doctrine, but from the founder of a stricter discipline, as is well known.
To the third I say that Thomists and Scotists do not dissent except in those things which do not pertain to the faith, as blessed Augustine says of the dissensions of the Doctors of his time, Book 1 against Julian; and therefore all Catholics always subject themselves and their opinions to the definition of the Church. And so, although sometimes they seem to fight in words, yet in very deed in matters of faith all agree, since all profess that they believe that one thing which shall have been judged to be believed in the Catholic Roman Church.
But the heretics dissent about the chief matters of faith, and one holds another for a heretic, and yet they acknowledge the same Luther as father. Concerning which see Hosius, Book 1 against Brentius, and Canisius in the preface of the books of Vega printed at Cologne. Nor can the adversaries deny this in any way. For, first, they do not deny that the Anabaptists are heretics to the Lutherans and Zwinglians, and the contrary; and yet all came forth from the same Luther. Next, the Zwinglians are heretics to the rest of the Lutherans, as is plain from the testament of Brentius and from many books of Luther. But the Zwinglians and Calvinists dare not execrate Luther, and yet in most grave matters they dissent from him, as is plain from the books of Calvin, Beza, Martyr, on the Lord's Supper and on the place of the body of Christ.
Again, among the Confessionist Lutherans, the rigid and the soft contend most gravely. This appears from the books of John Wigand and Illyricus against George Major and Philip Melanchthon, and of these against those. The Centuriators, in the preface of the fifth Century, say thus of themselves: “Although there are still some Doctors of the Church of God dispersed in various places, yet these are mocked, molested, afflicted, weakened, and broken not only by the sons of this age, to whom this is customary, but even by their own fellow-workers and brethren, while they proclaim them Stoics and seditious; while they charge them with the crimes of sedition and heresy.”
John Wigand, in his book on the errors of George Major: “Thou, George, art that man who troublest Israel, not we, who warn thee of foul errors warring with the word of God. For thou dost sow and plant far and wide these tares and hideous errors in the Church of God, in published books. But we exhort the Church of God to persist in the true purity of doctrine once acknowledged and received from God through the saving instrument Luther.” And below: “It is not wool nor flax that is here disputed, but the most grave heads of Christian doctrine, which are foully depraved by Major and others.” And below, after the fourth error: “Major boasts with huge audacity that he has not departed a hair's breadth from the doctrine of Luther, and meanwhile attributes Luther's whole doctrine on the enslaved will to a reprobate mind, and gives the Devil a seat in the chair of Luther.” And below, after the seventh error: “These pernicious errors of Major the man of God Luther publicly refuted and exploded, both in his writings and in disputations.”
Besides, among the rigid themselves a most grave question arose concerning original sin; for Illyricus contends that original sin is a substance, and calls the contrary opinion Pelagian specters. But on the contrary John Wigand, Tilmann Heshusius, and others write against Illyricus as against a manifest Manichee. Certainly Heshusius, at the beginning of his antidote against Illyricus, teaches that this question pertains to the foundations of the faith.
Finally, from the same province of Saxony, within ten years, came forth contradictory opinions published in a public name, on a matter of all the most grave. For in the Synod of Dresden, held in the year 1571, by common consent they exploded the opinion of Brentius, Illyricus, and others concerning the person of Christ; and yet that very opinion, condemned by them, in the year 1580 they publicly received in the book of Concord; and both the Synod and the Concord were printed at Wittenberg, and bear before them the authority of the same Prince.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. Nota septima. Septima Nota est unio membrorum inter se et cum capite; nam Ecclesiam esse unum corpus, unam sponsam, unum ovile, passim Scripturae docent, ad Rom. XII, Cantic. VJ, Joan. X, et in Symbolo Constantinopolita- no, dicimus unam Ecclesiam. Praecipua au¬ tem unitas corporis consistit in conjunctione membrorum cum capite et inter se. De utra¬ que unione dicendum est, et primum de pri¬ ma : Sed quoniam de capite Ecclesiae, qui est Romanus Pontifex, alibi disseruimus, hic solum, aliquot in medium allatis testimoniis Patrum, ostendemus, apud veteres semper fuisse habitam pro nota verae Ecclesiae con¬ junctionem cum Romano Pontifice. Irenaeus lib. III, cap. 3. aperte dicit, ad Romanam Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse esse omnem conve¬ nire Ecclesiam, id est, eos, qui undique sunt fideles. Cyprianus lib. I, epist. 3. : « Post ista, inquit, adhuc insuper Pseudoepiscopo sibi ab haereticis constituto , navigare au¬ dent, et ad Petri Cathedram atque Eccle¬ siam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, a schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre, nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum. » Et lib. IV, epistol. 8. de Cathedra Romani Pontificis loquens : « Scimus, inquit, horta¬ tos nos esse, ut Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem et radicem agnoscerent et tenerent. » Am¬ brosius in oratione de obitu Satyri : « Ro¬ gavit, inquit, si cum Episcopis Catholicis, id est, si cum Ecclesia Romana consenti¬ ret. » Hieronymus in epist. ad Damasum de hy¬ postasis nomine : « Hic, inquit, in tres par¬ tes scissa Ecclesia, me ad se rapere festinat. Ego interim clamito : Si quis Cathedrae Pe¬ tri jungitur, meus est. Meletius, Vitalis, at¬ que Paulinus tibi haerere se dicunt. Possem credere, si hoc unus assereret; nunc aut duo mentiuntur, aut omnes.» Et in epist. superiori : « Ego, inquit, Beatitudini tuae, id est, Cathedrae Petri communione conso¬ cior : Super illam petram aedificatam Eccle- CAPUT X. 387 siam scio. Quicumque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, profanus est ; Si quis in Arca Noe non fuerit, peribit regnante dilu¬ vio. Non novi Vitalem, Meletium respuo, ignoro Paulinum. Quicumque tecum non colligit, spargit, id est, qui Christi non est, Antichristi est. » Et in epitaphio Marcellae scribit, S. Athanasium et ejus successorem Petrum, Alexandrinos Episcopos, persecu¬ tionem Arianse haereseos declinantes, tam¬ quam ad tutissimum suae communionis por¬ tum, Romam confugisse. Optatus lib. II contra Parmen. a principio per aliquas paginas, docet, verse Ecclesiae dotem primam et praecipuam esse Cathe¬ dram Petri, quse Romae est, et inde probat, Donatistas non pertinere ad Ecclesiam ve¬ ram, quia non essent conjuncti cum Siricio, qui tunc sedebat in Cathedra Petri. Augustinus in epist. 162. loquens de Ce- ciliano Episcopo : « Qui, inquit, posset non curare conspirantem multitudinem inimico¬ rum, cum se videret Romanse Ecclesiae, in qua semper Apostolicse Cathedrae viguit principatus, per communicatorias litteras esse conjunctum?» Et in Psal. cont. partem Donati : «Venite fratres, si vultis, ut insera¬ mini in vite. Dolor est, cum vos videamus praecisos ita jacere : Numerate Sacerdotes, vel ab ipsa Petri sede, in ordine illo Patrum quis, cui successerit, videte : Ipsa est petra, quam non vincunt superbae inferorum por¬ tae. » Leo epist. 87. ad Episcopos Viennen¬ sis provinciae : « Praedicationis , inquit, Evangelii Sacramentum ita Dominus ad om¬ nium Apostolorum officium pertinere voluit, ut in beatissimo Petro Apostolorum omnium summo, principaliter collocaret, ut ab ipso quodam capite dona sua, velut in corpus omne diffunderet, ut exortem se mysterii in- telligeret esse divini, qui ausus fuisset a Pe¬ tri soliditate recedere. » His adde, experientiam ; Videmus enim omnes illas Ecclesias, quae ab isto capite se diviserunt, tamquam ramos praecisos a ra¬ dice, continuo aruisse. Certe Ecclesiae Asia¬ ticae et Africanae, quae quondam ita flore¬ bant, ut numerosissima Concilia celebrarent, et semper haberent multos homines, vel doctrina, vel sanctitate, vel utroque Dei mu¬ nere clarissimos, ab eo tempore, quo a Ro¬ mana Ecclesia schisma fecerunt, nulla Con¬ cilia celebrarunt, nullos habuerunt homines fama sanctitatis aut doctrinae toti orbi no¬ tos, et nunc in summa ignoratione versan. . tur. Veniamus nunc ad consensionem membro¬ rum inter se. Certum est, Concordiam esse signum Regni Dei, quod stare debet in aeter-. num : Discordiam autem, Regni Diaboli, quod tandem ruere debet. Unde Matth. XII : Omne Regnum in seipsum divisum , desolabitur. Et I. Corint. XIV : Non est dissensionis Deus, sed pacis (I). Et B. Augustinus lib. XVIII de Civit. Dei,cap.52. dicit, Diabolum cupivisse per haereticos efficere, ut in Ecclesia Christi essent liberae dissensiones, quomodo erant in Academiis Philosophorum : ut sicut illae per multas divisiones tandem intereunt, et ab invicem consumuntur, ita fieret in Ec¬ clesia. Jam ex hac nota clarissimum est, nostram Ecclesiam solam esse veram Dei Ecclesiam: Si quidem in nostra Ecclesia in primis om¬ nes Scriptores sacri mirifice inter se con¬ sentiunt, licet fuerint homines diversi, et in locis, temporibus, ac linguis diversi scripse¬ rint, quod pro re plane divina B. August observat lib. XVIII Civ. Dei, cap. 41. Dein¬ de omnia legitimorum Conciliorum et Pon¬ tificum decreta etiam in omnibus dogmati bus inter se conveniunt, licet edita sint a di¬ versis hominibus, diversis locis, temporibus, occasionibus, et contra diversissimas, imo saepe contrarias haereses. Quod est apertum signum unius et ejusdem Spiritus sancti, hanc Ecclesiam gubernantis. IIoc autem esse verum, ostendit diligentia haereticorum, qui licet omnia diligenter evolverint, tamen non invenerunt quidquam ullius momenti, quod reprehendere possent; ut in disputa¬ tione de Conciliis ostendimus. Denique, nunc omnes Catholici, toto orbe dispersi de omnibus dogmatibus fidei sen¬ tiunt idem : Nec possunt aliter sentire, cum omnes subjiciant sensum suum sensui unius et ejusdem summi Pastoris ex Cathedra Pe¬ tri cum consilio aliorum pastorum Ecclesiam dirigentis. Quod autem nulla unquam fuerit secta Gentilium , vel Haereticorum, in qua talis consensio esset; facile potest ostendi. Ac primum de Paganorum sectis, docet Augus¬ tinus serm. 11. de verbis Domini, ad eam- dem religionem apud eos Junonem et Her¬ culem, aliosque Deos inter se dissidentes, et (1) Matth. XII, 25; I. Cor. XIV, 33, 388 LIBER IV. etiam belligerantes pertinuisse. De Philoso¬ phis notum est omnibus adeo, ut Basilius orat. i. de opere sex dierum dicat, non esse opus, ut nos pugnemus contra Philosophos, cum illi mutuis dissentionibus sufficiant ad .suam ipsorum doctrinam evertendam : De quo etiam vide Theodoretum lib. de fide, et Augustinum lib. XVIII de Giv. Dei, cap. 41. Eumdem fuisse morem omnium iiaereti- corum, certissimum est; Nam Ireneeus lib.I, cap. 21 . et sequentibus docet, hseresim Si¬ monis primi haeresiarchae mox divisam, et inde natas esse sectas Menandrianorum, Ba- silidianorum, Saturninianorum etc.Item lib. I, cap. 5. scribit de Valentinianis, quod cum essent plurimi, vix duo aut tres inter se con¬ veniebant in omnibus dogmatibus. De Do-' natistis scribit Augustinus lib. I de Baptis¬ mo, cap. 6. heeresim Doriatistarum in multa minutissima frusta concisam fuisse suo tempore. Marcionistas mox divisos fuisse, et inde natos Lucianistas, Appellianos, et Severia- nos docet Epiphanius lib. I, tom. III contra hsereses. Montanistas divisos esse in Pepu- zianos, Artotyritas, Phrygastas etc. scribit Epiphanius lib. II, tom. I. Manichaeos quo¬ que in sectas divisas testatur Augustinus lib. de haeres, cap. 46. Messalianos autem divi¬ sos in Martyrianos, Sathanianos, Entusias- tas, docent Epiphanius haeres. 80. Theodo- retus lib. IV de haeretic. fabul. Ariani mox divisi sunt in Acacianos, Macedonianos,Eu- nomianos, ut patet ex Ruffino lib. X hist. cap. 25. Iidem etiam Ariani singulis fere an¬ nis fidem mutabant, ut scribit Hilarius in utroque libro ad Constantium. Pari ratione Eutychiani ita divisi fuerunt, ut omnes fere sectae, quae postea exstiterunt in Oriente, sint proles Eutychianorum, ut patet ex Eva- grio lib. III et IV histor. et ex Damasceno lib. de centum heeresibus. Denique nostro tempore constat ex Fride- rico Staphylo in libello de Concordia disci¬ pulorum Lutheri, Lutheranos vixdum natos, dividi coepisse in Anabaptistas, Confessio- nistas, et Sacramentarios ; et rursum singu¬ las sectas in alias et alias usque ad 34, et hoc quidem tempore Staphyli; Nunc autem numerantur fere 100 diversissimae sectae ab uno Luthero prodeuntes. Id quod fit magna providentia Dei ; nam hoc modo haereses se- ipsas consumunt ; divisio enim earum non est Mathematica, quae procedit in infinitum. Unde Isaiae XIX dicitur : Concurrere faciam SEgyptios adversus yEgyptios (1). Et Hilarius lib. VII de Trinitate : « Bellum haereticorum, inquit, pax est Ecclesiae. » Adde, quod iidem etiam auctores haeretici secum non consentiunt , quae est certissima nota falsae doctrinae, ut ipsemetLutherus ait in lib. de votis monasticis : « Mendacia, in¬ quit, certius dignoscere non potes, nisi quan¬ do sibimetipsis contraria sunt. A Deo enim ita ordinatum est , ut impii semper seipsos confundant, et quod mendacia non conso¬ nent , sed semper contra semetipsa testen- tur. » Porro Lutheri contradictiones innu¬ meras collegit Joannes Cochlaeus in Septici - pite. Ubi ad finem adjecit 36 varias senten¬ tias unius Lutheri de uno articulo, id est, de communione sub utraque specie. Confessio¬ nem quoque Augustanam, quam omnes pro sacrosancta habent, ita immutarunt, et varie ediderunt, ut nesciant ipsi, qure sit vera Confessio Augustana, de quare consule Har¬ moniam Andrese Fabritii Leodii , ubi vide¬ bis praeter caetera editionem anni 30; et edi¬ tionem anni 40, quarum una duplo est major altera. Sed ad hoc argumentum adversarii res¬ pondent ut possunt. Calvinus in primis in praefatione Instit. dicit , non esse mirum si ex religione sua mox oriantur divisiones, et sectae contrariae. Nam id accidit etiam Ec¬ clesiae Apostolorum ; Ex ea enim prodierunt Simoniani, Nicolaitae etc. semper enim Dia¬ bolus, ubi videt bonum semen seminari, ac¬ cedit, et superseminat zizania. Deinde, idem Calvinus lib. IV Instit. cap. 13, §. 14. dicit, ex hac nota colligi, non esse apud nos veram Ecclesiam. Nam tot sunt apud nos schisma¬ ticorum conventicula, et divisiones, quot sunt monasteria. Olim enim Monachi vi vehant qui¬ dem separati ab aliis, sed non percipiebant Sacramenta separatim; imo concurrebant ad Ecclesias ordinariorum ministrorum , et ibi cum reliqua plebe sacris intererant. Nunc autem singula monasteria sibi privatum al¬ tare erexerunt, et Sacramenta percipiunt se¬ parati a populo Christiano , quod etiam no¬ minibus testantur, cum alii Benedictini, alii Franciscani, alii Dominicani dicantur. Tertio addunt alii , plures apud nos esse sectas, Thomistarum , Scotistarum , et similium, quam apud illos. CAPUT X. 389 Respondeo ad primum, hoc esse discrimen inter divisionem haereticorum ab^cclesia, et divisionem ab aliqua heeresi, quod in Eccle¬ sia Catholica invenitur certa regula compo¬ nendarum controversiarum , id est, senten¬ tia summi Pastoris, vel Concilii plenarii , et ideo non oritur ex doctrina Ecclesiae dissen¬ sio, sed ex sola malitia Diaboli. Prseterea undecumque oriatur, mox damnatur, et ejec¬ to haeretico scissura resarcitur, nec ulterius in ipsa Ecclesia progreditur. At apud haere¬ ticos non est ulla regula finiendarum contro¬ versiarum. Quisque enim se praeponit aliis, et quisque vult esse judex aliorum , et inde fit, ut ordinarie quaelibet nova hseresis sta- tim pariat alias, et alias , donec per multas divisiones consumatur, ita ut miraculum vi¬ deatur, si aliqua hseresis diutius duret. Ita¬ que Ecclesiae doctrina per se gignit unionem, et conjunctionem animorum : haeresisper se, et ex propria sua natura divisiones, et schis¬ mata germinat. Cum ergo videamus more aliarum haeresum, sectam Lutheranam mox divisam fuisse in tam multas alias sectas, et quotidie magis, et magis dividi, nec sperari ab illis ullum finem divisionum, merito judi¬ camus eos haereticos , et tandem penitus in¬ teriturum nomen Lutheranum. Ad secundum argumentum dico, in primis esse mendacium Calvini , quod antiqui Mo¬ nachi non habuerint proprium altare , sed acceperint Sacramenta in Ecclesiis ordina¬ riorum parochorum. Nam Epiphanius in epistola ad Joannem Ilierosolym. testatur, se in Monasterio S. Hieronymi ordinasse Presbyterum Paulinianum , qui in ipso Mo¬ nasterio Sacramenta conficeret cseteris Mo¬ nachis, quia S. Hieronymus prae humilitate nimia non audebat sacrificia altaris offerre. Item Cassianus collat. 18. quae est Abbatis Pyamonis, c. 13. narrat in ipsaEremo habuis¬ se Monachos suos Presbyteros, etiam Mona¬ chos, qui Sacramenta caeteris ministrabant. Augustinus lib. I de moribus Ecclesiae cap . 31 et 33. docet non solum in solitudine, sed etiam in urbibus ut Mediolani, et Romae ha¬ buisse Monachos in suis coenobiis praeposi¬ tum Presbyterum; qui sine dubio ideo Pres¬ byter erat, ut in coenobio Sacramenta confi¬ ceret , et non cogerentur Monachi egredi e Monasteriis, ut irent ad Ecclesias. Denique Joannes Damascenus in historia de Barlaam et Josaphat scribit , Barlaam Eremitam in sua cella sacrificium Missae celebrasse, prae¬ sente solum ministro suo Josaphat. Dico secundo , schismaticum non fieri ul¬ lum propter diversum altare materialiter, sed formaliter, alioqui omnes parochi essent schismatici , quia habent diversa altaria in eadem civitate. Et omnes Episcopi essent schismatici , quia habent altaria diversa in civitatibus diversis . Soli igitur illi schismatici sunt, qui ita erigunt altare proprium, ut al¬ tare aliorum profanum censeant. Denique Monachos hujus temporis non esse schisma¬ ticos ex eo perspicuum est, quod parent uni summo Pontifici , ordinantur Presbyteri ab Episcopis ordinariis, denique frequentantur a populis. Porro nomina illa Benedictino- rum, Franciscanorum, Dominicanorum de¬ sumpta sunt non ab auctore doctrinae , sed ab institutore severioris disciplina? , ut no¬ tum est. At tertium dico , Thomistas et Scotistas non dissentire, nisi in iis rebus, quae ad fidem non pertinent, utB. Augustinus dicit de dis- sentionibus Doctorum sui temporis lib. I. contra Julianum; et pro.pterea semper sub¬ jiciunt se, et sua Ecclesiae definitioni omnes Catholici. Proinde etsi verbis interdum pug¬ nare videant , re tamen ipsa in rebus fidei omnes conveniunt; cum omnes id unum credere se profiteantur, quod in Ecclesia Ca¬ tholica Romana credendum esse judicatum fuerit. At haeretici de rebus fidei praecipuis dis¬ sentiunt, et unus habet alium pro haeretico, et tamen eumdem Lutherum patrem agnos¬ cunt. De quo vide Hosium , lib. I. contra Brentium, et Canisium in praefatione libro¬ rum Yegse Coloniae excusorum. Neque id ad¬ versarii inficiari ulla ratione possunt : Siqui¬ dem primo non negant, Anabaptistas haere¬ ticos esse Lutlieranis etZwinglianis, et con¬ tra; et tamen ex eodem Luthero omnes pro¬ dierunt. Deinde Zwingliani sunt haeretici Lu- theranis cseteris , ut patet ex testamento Brentii, et multisLutheri libris* At Zwinglia¬ ni, et Calvinistae non audent Lutherum exe- crari , et tamen in rebus gravissimis ab eo dissentiunt, ut patet ex libris Calvini, Bezae, Martyris, de coena Domini , et de loco cor¬ poris Christi. Rursus inter Confessionistas Lutheranos, rigidi, et molles gravissime contendunt. Id apparet ex libris Joannis Wigandi, et Illyri¬ ci contra Georgium Majorem , et Philippum Melanchthonem, et horum contra illos. Cen- • ' turiatores in praefatione Y. Centuriae de se sic aiunt : « Etsi sunt aliqui adhuc Doctores 3.90 LIBER 1 V. Ecclesiae Dei in variis locis dispersi , tamen ii non tantum a filiis hujus saeculi , qnibus hoc solemne est, sed etiam a propriis syner- gis, et confratribus irridentur, molestantur, affliguntur, debilitantur, et franguntur, dum eos Stoicos, et seditiosos proclamant : dum seditionis , et liaeresum crimina eis impin¬ gunt. » Joannes Wigandus in lib. de error. Geor- gii Majoris : «Tu, inquit, Georgi, es ille vir, qui turbat Israel, non nos , qui te monemus de foedis erroribus pugnantibus cum verbo Dei. Nam tu ista zizania et tetros errores, in Ecclesia Dei libris editis , longe, lateque disseminas, ac plantas. Nos vero Ecclesiam Dei hortamur , ut in vera , et semel agnita, atque accepta puritate doctrinae a Deo per salutare organum Lutherum perstet. » Et in¬ fra : « Non sunt lana, neque linum, de qui¬ bus hic disceptatur, sed de gravissimis doc¬ trinae Christianae capitibus , quae a Majore, et aliis foede depravantur. » Et infra post quartum errorem : « Major, inquit, ingenti audacia gloriatur , se ne pilum quidem de doctrina Lutheri discessisse , et interim to¬ tam Lutheri doctrinam de servo arbitrio, re¬ probae menti, et Diabolo in cathedra Luthe¬ ri sedem attribuit. » Et infra post septimum errorem : « Hos perniciosos errores, inquit, Majoris , vir Dei , Lutherus tum in scriptis suis, tum disputationibus publice refutavit, et explosit. » Praeterea inter ipsos rigidos quaestio gra¬ vissima orta est de peccato originis ; Nam Il¬ lyricus contendit peccatum originis esse sub¬ stantiam , et contrariam sententiam vocat spectra Pelagiana. Contra vero Joannes Wi¬ gandus, Tilmannus Heshusius , et alii scri¬ bunt contra Illyricum, ut contra manifestum Manichaeum. Certe Heshusius initio antidoti contra Illyricum, docet istam quaestionem ad fundamenta fidei pertinere. Denique ex- eadem provincia Saxonia, in¬ tra decem annos prodierunt contradictoriae sententiae publico nomine editae , de re om¬ nium gravissima. Nam in Synodo Dresden- si, anno 1571 celebrata, communi consensu exploserunt sententiam Brentii , Illyrici, et aliorum de persona Christi , et tamen illam ipsam sententiam a se damnatam, anno 1580 in lib. Concordiaepublice receperunt; et tam Synodus, quam Concordia Wittembergae im¬ pressa sunt, et ejusdem Principis auctorita¬ tem prae se ferunt.