Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book III: On the Interpretation of Scripture
Chapter 7: The same proved from the testimonies of Popes and Emperors
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book III: On the Interpretation of Scripture. 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).
Let there come, in the fourth place, the testimonies of the ancient Pontiffs and of the ancient Emperors, that is, of the authors of both Laws. Damasus in epistle 3 to Stephen; Innocent I in the epistle to the Councils of Carthage and Milevis (which are among Augustine's epistles 91 and 93); Leo I in epistle 84 to Anastasius and 89 to the Bishops of the province of Vienne; Gelasius in the epistle to the Bishops of Dardania; Gregory book 4 epistle 52 to the Bishops of Gaul — teach (as also the later Pontiffs) that the graver causes, and especially those of Faith, pertain to the judgment of the Apostolic See; and to this Julius in epistle 2 cites the decree of the Council of Nicaea.
Now the Emperors thought the same. In the time of the Emperor Aurelian, when there was a question between the Catholics and Paul of Samosata the heretic about the house of the Church, the Emperor, though a pagan, answered and commanded that the Church be given to him to whom the Priests of Italy and the Roman Bishop should write; being taught, forsooth, by his own men that the Roman Bishop is the supreme judge of Christian causes. So Eusebius writes book 7 of the History chapter 26.
Constantine, as Eusebius testifies book 3 On the life of Constantine chapter 12, in the Council of Nicaea did not sit down before the Bishops had nodded that he should sit. By which sign he sufficiently indicated that he was not the president of the Council. Then, the Council being finished, he wrote an epistle to all the Churches, which Eusebius there sets down entire, at the end of which he thus says: “Which things being so, embrace with willing minds this decree of the Council as a gift of God and a command truly sent down from heaven. For whatever is decreed in the holy Councils of the Bishops, all that ought to be attributed to the divine will.”
Of the same blessed Ambrose thus speaks epistle 32: “Constantine,” he says, “sent no laws beforehand, but gave free judgment to the Priests.” Of whom Augustine too, in epistle 162 chapter 7, testifies that, when the Donatists wished their cause to be judged by him, he sent them to their own proper judge, that is, Pope Melchiades; and when they had appealed from the sentence of the Pontiff to the Emperor himself: “He gave,” says Augustine, “another judgment, that of Arles” (namely of other Bishops), “not because it was now necessary, but yielding to their perversities.” For the Christian Emperor did not dare so to take up their tumultuous and deceitful complaints as himself to judge of the judgment of the Bishops who had sat at Rome.
The Emperor Gratian thus speaks in the epistle to the Bishops of Aquileia, which was read in the Council of Aquileia: “Nor could the controversies of a doubtful opinion be more rightly tried” (perhaps, resolved) “than if we appointed the Bishops themselves the interpreters of the altercation that had arisen; that, namely, by those from whom the appointed doctrines proceed, the repugnance of the discordant teaching should be resolved.” Which words Ambrose in that Council thus interpreted: “Behold,” he says, “what a Christian Emperor appointed. He was unwilling to do injury to the Priests; he appointed the Bishops themselves the interpreters.”
Theodosius the younger, in the epistle to the Synod of Ephesus (which Nicholas I also cites in the epistle to Michael): “Candidianus,” he says, “the magnificent count of the valiant domestics, is deputed to go to your most holy Synod, but in no way to communicate in the questions which are to be treated concerning the pious doctrines; for it is unlawful that one who is not of the order of the most holy Bishops should intermingle in Ecclesiastical treatments.”
The Emperor Marcian, law Nemo, Code On the supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith: “He does injury,” he says, “to the judgment of the most reverend Synod, who strives to revolve and dispute what has once been judged.”
Valentinian the elder, as Sozomen writes book 6 of the History chapter 7, being asked to permit a Synod to be gathered to explain certain doctrines of Faith, thus answered: “For me,” he says, “who am in the lot of the people, it is not lawful to search out such things too curiously. Let the Priests, whose care these things are, meet together among themselves in whatever place they will.”
The Emperor Basil, in the Eighth Synod act 10, thus speaks: “But of you laymen, both you who are in dignities and you who converse absolutely, I have nothing further to say than that it is in no way lawful for you to move a discourse about Ecclesiastical causes, nor at all to resist the integrity of the Church and oppose a universal Synod. For to investigate and inquire into this belongs to the Patriarchs, Pontiffs, and Priests, who have obtained the office of governing, who have the power of sanctifying, of loosing, and of binding, who have received the Ecclesiastical keys; not to us, who ought to be fed, who need to be sanctified, to be bound, or to be loosed from a bond.” In the same place the same Emperor says that the other Emperors his predecessors — Constantine, Theodosius, Marcian, and others — never subscribed in Synods except after all the Bishops.
Finally of Theodoric King of the Goths, though an Arian, we read thus in the Fourth Roman Synod under Pope Symmachus: “To these things the most serene King, God inspiring, thus answered: that it was in the arbitration of the Synod to prescribe what was to be followed in so great a matter, and that nothing pertained to himself beyond reverence in Ecclesiastical affairs.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII. Idem probatur testimoniis Pontificum et Imperatorum. Accedant quarto loco testimonia veterum Pontificum, et veterum Imperatorum, id est, auctorum utriusque Juris. Damasus in epist. 3. ad Stephanum, Innocentius I, in epist. ad Goncil. Carthaginen. etMilevit., quae sunt apud Augustinum 91. et 93. Leo I, in epist. 84. ad Anastas. et 89. ad Episcopos Vien¬ nensis provinciae, Gelasius in epist. adEpisc. Dardan. Gregorius lib. IV. epist. 52. ad Episc. Galliae (ut etiam posteriores) docent, causas graviores, et praesertim Fidei, ad ju¬ dicium Sedis Apostolicae pertinere : et ad hoc citat Julius in epist. 2, decretum Nicaeni Concilii. Jam Imperatores idem senserunt. Tem¬ pore Aureliani Imperatoris, cum esset quaes¬ tio inter Catholicos, et Paulum Samosate- num haereticum de domo Ecclesim, Impera¬ tor licet gentilis respondit, et jussit illi dari Ecclesiam, cui scriberent Italiae Sacerdotes, et Episcopus Romanus ; nimirum edoctus a suis, Episcopum Romanum esse judicem su¬ premum Christianarum causarum. Ita scri¬ bit Eusebius lib. VII, hist. cap. 26. Constantinus, teste Eusebio lib. III, Devit. Constant, cap. 12. in Concilio Nicaeno non prius assedit, quam Episcopi ut sederet an¬ nuissent. Quo signo^ satis indicavit, se non esse praesidentem Concilii. Deinde finito Concilio scripsit epistolam omnibus Ecclesiis, quam Eusebius ibidem totam ponit, in cujus fine sic ait : « Quae cum ita se habeant, li¬ bentibus animis hoc decretum Concilii, tan- quam donum Dei, et mandatum revera coe- litus demissum amplectamini. Nam quidquid in sanctis Episcoporum Conciliis decernitur, id universum divinae voluntati debet attri¬ bui. » De eodem sic loquitur B. Ambrosius epist. 32. Constantinus, inquit, « nullas leges ante praemisit, sed liberum dedit judicium Sacer¬ dotibus. » De quo etiam Augustinus in epist. LIBER III. 1 184 162. c. 7. testatur, quod cum Donatistse vel¬ lent ab ipso judicari causam suam, ipse eos remisit ad suum judicem proprium, id est, Melchiadeni Papam, et cum illi appellassent a sententia Pontificis ad ipsum Imperato¬ rem : « Dedit ille », inquit Augustinus, «aliud Arelatense judicium », (aliorum scilicet Episcoporum) « non quia jam necesse erat, sed eorum perversitatibus cedens ». Neque enim ausus est Christianus Imperator sic eorum tumultuosas et fallaces querelas sus¬ cipere, ut de judicio Episcoporum qui Romae se'derant, ipse judicaret. Gratianus Imperator sic loquitur in epist. ad Episcop. Aquileien. , quae lecta est in Concilio Aquileiensi : « Neque controversiae dubiae sententiae rectius poterant experiri » (expediri fortasse) « quam si obortae alter¬ cationis interpretes ipsos constituissemus Antistites, ut videlicet a quibus proficiscun¬ tur institutae doctrinae, ab eisdem discordis eruditionis repugnantia solveretur ». Quae verba Ambrosius in Concilio illo sic inter¬ pretatus est : « Ecce : » inquit, « quod Chris¬ tianus constituit Imperator. Noluit injuriam facere Sacerdotibus, ipsos interpretes con¬ stituit Episcopos. » Theodosius junior in epist. ad Synod. Ephesin., quam etiam citat Nicolaus I. in epist. ad Michaelem : « Deputatus », inquit, « est Candidianus, magnificus comes strenuo¬ rum domesticorum, transire usque ad sanc¬ tissimam vestram Synodum, ac in nullo quidem quae facienda sunt de piis dogmati¬ bus quaestiones communicare : illicitum namque est, eum qui non sit ex ordine sanc¬ tissimorum Episcoporum, Ecclesiasticis im¬ misceri tractatibus. » Martianus Imperator, I. Nemo C. de sum¬ ma Trinitate et Fide catholica : « Injuriam » , inquit, « facit judicio Reverendissimae Sy- modi, qui semel judicata revolvere et dis¬ putare contendat. » Valentinianus senior, ut scribit Sozome- nus libro VI histor. cap. 7. rogatus, ut per¬ mitteret Synodum congregari ad quaedam Fidei dogmata explicanda, sic respondit : « Mihi », inquit, « qui sum in sorte plebi§, fas non est talia curiosius perscrutari. Sa- cerdotes, quibus ista curae sunt, inter seip- sos quocumque voluerint loco conveniant. » Basilius Imperator in VIII Synodo act. X, sic loquitur : « De vobis autem», inquit. « laicis, tam qui in dignitatibus quam qui absolute conversamini, quid amplius dicam non habeo, quam quia nullo modo vobis li¬ cet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem mo¬ vere : neque penitus resistere integritati Ecclesiae, et universali Synodo adversari. Hoc enim investigare et quaerere, Patriar¬ charum, Pontificum et Sacerdotum est, qui regiminis officium sortiti sunt, qui sanctifi¬ candi, quisolvendi, et ligandi potestatem ha¬ bent, qui Ecclesiasticas adepti sunt claves; non nostrum qui pasci debemus, qui sancti¬ ficari, qui ligari, vel a ligamento solvi ege¬ mus » . Ibidem dicit idem Imperator, Impera¬ tores alios praedecessores suos, Constantinum, Theodosium, Martianum, et alios nunquam in Synodis subscripsisse, nisi post omnes Episcopos. Denique de Theodorico Rege Gothorum, etsi Ariano, in IV Synodo Romana sub Sym¬ macho Papa sic legimus : « Ad haec Serenis¬ simus Rex taliter, Deo aspirante, respondit: In synodali esse arbitrio in tanto negotio sequenda praescribere, nec aliquid ad se praeter reverentiam de Ecclesiasticis nego¬ tiis pertinere. »