Bellarmine · Judicium de Libro Concordiae · Judgement on the Book of Concord
Chapter 1: The Emptiness of the Concord; the First Three Errors against the Creed (Christ Obedient as God, Mediator as God, His Humanity Everywhere)
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VII, Judicium de Libro Concordiae, a judgement of 1585 on the Lutheran Formula of Concord. 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 Judgement of Robert Bellarmine of Montepulciano, theologian of the Society of Jesus, on the book which the Lutherans call the book of Concord; with a short Apology for the same Judgement.
The Augsburg Confession that Bellarmine answers here is on this site in full, so each article he cites can be read in its own words.
The book of Concord, lately published by the Lutherans, seems to me to contain three things, besides the common and well-known errors of the Lutherans: namely a notable emptiness, very grave heresies against the Apostles' Creed, and countless lies, most open and fighting among themselves. We shall speak of each in order.
The Emptiness of the Concord
A notable emptiness, then, is seen in the subscription. For what was the point of having all the ministers, preachers, schoolmasters and under-masters subscribe? Certainly no example of subscriptions of this kind in a matter of faith can be sought from antiquity. For from Apostolic times, through fifteen hundred years, in all Councils, general as well as national or provincial, only the prelates who have some jurisdiction were accustomed to subscribe. Sometimes too the names of emperors or kings or some princes were added; but of schoolmasters and under-masters there is no mention anywhere.
Next, this subscription to the book of Concord is a sign of huge discord. For what kind of union shall we think there is among the Lutherans, when not only the princes had to be brought to Concord, but even private men had to be forced to subscribe? And although the subscription seems numerous, it too is an argument of fewness. For if the Catholic Church required a subscription of this kind, in a moment of time she would have not eight thousand but more than eight hundred thousand subscribers; nor from Italy alone would countless priests and deacons, and heads of schools and colleges, subscribe most willingly, but also from Spain, Germany, Gaul, America, Brazil, India, Japan; nor would some be lacking even from Britain and Palestine.
Lastly, so numerous a subscription makes inexcusable so many and such gross lies as we shall note below. For if only one or two had seen that book before it was published, human weakness could perhaps be pardoned if some error had crept in. But that sixteen thousand eyes could not catch those grossest lies, who would bear it? One of two things is surely necessary: either they were all blind, or they wished to make Concord even with lies.
On the Errors of the Concord, Which Disagree with the Creeds Received in the Concord Itself
The First Error
The first error is that Christ was obedient to the Father not only as man but also as God. This error wholly destroys the true divinity of Christ, which the Nicene Creed asserted against the Arians. For if Christ obeyed the Father as God, certainly as God he is distinct from the Father; so the Father is one God and the Son another God. But there is only one true God, and it is certain that the Father is true God; so the Son is not true God, nor homoousios with the Father, as we confess in the Nicene Creed. Again, he who obeys is less than him whom he obeys: for to command belongs to the superior, to obey to the inferior. So, if Christ obeys the Father as God, as God he is less than the Father; and the Creed of Athanasius lies when it says: Equal to the Father according to the divinity, less than the Father according to the humanity. Besides, Christ obeyed according to that nature according to which he died; for death itself was the highest and most complete obedience. But Christ did not die according to the divinity, but only according to the flesh: 1 Peter 4, Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh, and so on. Lastly, why did the Apostle Paul, when about to say to the Philippians, chapter 2, He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, put first, He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, unless to warn us that it was not according to the form of God, by which he is equal to the Father, but according to the form of a servant, by which he is less than the Father, that Christ showed obedience unto death to God the Father? [“formam servi, qua aequalis est Patri” printed; the sense requires “form of God”]
But perhaps the Concord does not hold this error. Let us look, then, whether it is so. In the Epitome of the disputed articles, article 3, page 536: “We believe,” they say, “teach and confess with great consent that Christ is indeed truly our righteousness; but yet neither according to the divine nature alone, nor according to the human nature alone. We believe that the whole Christ, according to both natures, is our righteousness: namely in his obedience alone, which he showed to the Father, most complete, even unto death.” So they. If, then, our righteousness, that is, the righteousness imputed to us, is the whole Christ according to both natures, and that righteousness consists in the obedience which Christ showed the Father unto death, it certainly follows that the whole Christ according to both natures showed obedience to God the Father.
And below, page 664: “And it is to be held,” they say, “that our righteousness consists neither in the divine nor in the human nature, but in his whole person; for he, as God and man, in his sole, whole and most perfect obedience, is our righteousness.” What is “he who as God and man in his obedience is our righteousness,” but that Christ as God and man obeyed the Father, and that obedience is reckoned as our obedience? Nor is it the same to say, God and man obeyed the Father, and, Christ as God and man obeyed the Father. The first attributes obedience to the divine person, but in the human nature, and is Catholic; the second attributes obedience to both natures, and is Arian. And page 663: “The whole obedience of the whole person of Christ, which he showed to the Father for our sake even to the shameful death of the cross, is imputed to us.” And below: “But since the obedience of Christ is not of one nature only but of the whole person,” and so on. And in these places, why do they say that obedience was of the whole person? Was it not enough to say it was of the person? But they would not have attributed obedience to both natures unless they had said, of the whole person. For by the whole person they say, on page 727, that they mean the two natures.
Nor is it any wonder that the professors of the Augsburg Confession and Apology think so, since the chief architect himself of both the Confession and the Apology, Philip Melanchthon, in the Common Places of the year 1558, in the place on the Son, page 40, wrote thus: “The divine nature was not indeed torn or dead, but it was obedient to the Father, was still, gave way to the wrath of the eternal Father.” And Martin Luther in the book On Councils and the Church contends that not only obedience but even suffering can be attributed to the divinity.
The Second Error
The second error is that Christ carried out the office of mediator and Pontiff not only through the human nature but also through the divine. For so run the words of the Concord, page 736, in the article on the person of Christ: “So Christ is our mediator, redeemer, King, High Priest, and so on, not according to one nature only, whether divine or human, but according to both natures.” But that Christ is mediator and Pontiff according to both natures, and so not only as man but also as God, is an error which fights openly with Christ's true divinity, and so with the Creed of the faith, where Christ is called true God from true God.
For a mediator, by that through which he exercises the office of mediator, is necessarily distinct from him of whom he is mediator. But Christ is mediator of God and men. So, if he is mediator as God, as God he is distinct from God; there will then be two gods, one greater and another less, as the Arians wished. Therefore blessed Paul, 1 Timothy 2, having said, There is one mediator of God and men, at once added, the man Christ Jesus. And blessed Augustine, book 2 On original sin, chapter 28: “He is not mediator by this,” he says, “that he is equal to the Father; for by this he is as far from us as the Father is; and how will there be a middle where the distance is the same? So the Apostle does not say, Christ Jesus, but, the man Christ Jesus. By that, then, he is mediator, by which he is man: lower than the Father, by which he is nearer to us; higher than us, by which he is nearer to the Father. Which is said more openly thus: lower than the Father, because in the form of a servant; higher than us, because without the stain of sin.” And tractate 82 on John: “The mediator of God and men, not in so far as he is God but in so far as he is man, Christ Jesus.”
Next, if Christ is mediator as God, one of two things follows: either the whole Trinity is mediator, or Christ is not one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but some other God. For what belongs to one person by reason of the Godhead belongs also to all the other persons who have the same Godhead. So being mediator, which belongs to the Son by reason of the Godhead, since as God he is mediator, belongs also to the Father and the Holy Spirit, if they have one and the same Godhead with the Son; or, if it does not belong to them, certainly they do not have it.
Lastly, to be a pontiff and priest intrinsically and essentially includes being a creature, and far less than him to whom the sacrifice is to be offered. For every pontiff and priest is a minister of God, and worships the supreme God with the cult of latria when he offers him sacrifice. So if Christ, as he is God, is also pontiff, and offers sacrifice to his Father, surely as God he is far less than his Father, and so truly and properly a creature. Hence the Arians, among their propositions which are read in Augustine, volume 6, in the sermon of the Arians, counted this one too, that the Son of God is the minister and priest of his Father. But blessed Augustine himself, book 1 On the agreement of the evangelists, chapter 3: “According to the man,” he says, “Christ was made both King and Priest, so that he might be, to intercede for us, the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” And book 10 of the City of God, chapter 20: “Hence that true mediator, in so far as, taking the form of a servant, he was made mediator of God and men, while in the form of God he receives sacrifice with the Father, with whom he is one God.” And St. Cyril in the Apology for his chapters against the Orientals, in the defence of the tenth chapter: “When he was made man,” he says, “he was called also Pontiff; not that he offered sacrifice to a greater God, but to himself and the Father.” And below: “He was called priest,” he says, “because of the humanity.” And book 11 on John, chapter 7: “In so far as he is Son and God,” he says, “he bestows good things on us together with the Father; but in so far as he is mediator and Pontiff, he brings our prayers to God.”
The Third Error
The third error is that the human nature of Christ is everywhere truly and really. For so speaks the book of Concord in the article on the Lord's Supper, page 572: “The right hand of God is everywhere; and at it Christ, by reason of his humanity, is truly and in fact placed; and so, present, he governs, and has in his hand and under his feet, as Scripture says, all things that are in heaven and on earth.” And below, page 731: “In truth he fills all things, and everywhere, not only as God but also as man, present, he rules from sea to sea.” And like things are read on page 74[?] [the last figure is damaged in the scan].
Now this error is contrary, first, to the Scriptures, which in many places assert that Christ, by reason of his humanity, was not somewhere. John 6: When the crowd saw that Jesus was not there. John 11: Lazarus is dead, and I am glad for your sakes, that you may believe, that I was not there. Matthew, the last chapter: He is not here, he is risen.
Second, it is contrary to the articles of the Creed on Christ's conception, birth, passion, death, descent into hell, resurrection from the dead, ascension into heaven, and coming down to judge. For the article on the conception teaches that the body of Christ was in the womb of Mary alone. But if it was everywhere straight from the incarnation, as the adversaries teach, it was in the wombs of all women, and indeed of all men.
The article on the birth teaches that Christ's body came forth from the womb after the ninth month, and so was truly born. But according to the ubiquitists, before the ninth month, indeed from the first day of the conception, it was outside the womb; and after the ninth month it was still in the womb, and never went out of it. Nor does the reply they bring hold, when they say that Christ was truly born because, having been in the womb locally for the space of nine months and not elsewhere, he afterwards began to be locally outside the womb and not in the womb. This solution, I say, is worth nothing. For what is truly everywhere, whether it be so locally or in another way, cannot truly and properly be moved from place to place, but can only be moved metaphorically, that is, appear where it did not appear, although it was there. Just as God, who is truly everywhere, though not locally, cannot be moved, but only appear and show himself where before he was not seen to be, although he was there. In the same way, then, if the body of Christ was everywhere from the conception itself, even if it was not everywhere locally, yet it could never truly be moved from place to place; and so the birth from the womb was not a true going out of the womb, nor a true birth, but only apparent and metaphorical.
By the same reasoning the other articles are destroyed. For he who was always everywhere could not truly pass in the passion from the place of the Supper to the garden, nor from the garden to the house of Caiaphas, nor thence to the praetorium of Pilate, nor thence to mount Calvary; nor could the soul in death be separated from the body, so that the body lay without the soul in the tomb and the soul without the body went down to hell; nor could the soul truly return to the body in the resurrection; nor could that living body go out of the closed tomb, nor come in to the disciples when the doors were shut; nor lastly could it truly go up into heaven, nor will it be able truly to come down from heaven on the last day. But all these things must be explained metaphorically, as when we read of such changes of God.
Third, this error is contrary to the truth of the Lord's body in the Supper, and, what is to be wondered at, it confirms the opinion of Zwingli, for the destroying of which it was thought up. For if the body of Christ is everywhere from the conception itself, we do not need the sacrament of the Supper to have the presence of the Lord's body. What then does the sacrament of the Supper do? It certainly does not give the presence of the Lord's body, for that was there before too. What then does it do, but this, that it signifies that Christ's body is there? But this is what the Zwinglians want: that by force of the sacrament of the Supper we have nothing but a sign. And the book of Concord seems to acknowledge this same thing, page 745, when it says: “Therefore we have him present not only according to the divine but also according to the human nature, according to which he is our brother, and we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones. And indeed for the confirming of this too he instituted his holy Supper, to witness that even according to that nature by which he has flesh and blood he wills to be with us, to dwell in us, and to work effectively.”
Besides, if the body of Christ is everywhere, it cannot truly be taken with the bread, however consecrated, nor his blood be drunk with the wine, however consecrated. For bread and wine can truly be taken because they are not everywhere, and so truly pass from the table to the hand, from the hand to the mouth, from the mouth to the stomach; which cannot be said of Christ's body and blood if they are everywhere: just as, although God is everywhere, no one eats God with bread or drinks God with wine. What then is the Eucharist for? That Christ's body may be had fruitfully, some follower of Brenz will say. Then only the fruit, only the efficacy, only the power of the Lord's body is taken in the Supper; but this is just what the Calvinists teach.
Fourth, this ubiquity is contrary to the Dresden decree, which was published in the same Saxony by the same theologians of the Augsburg Confession about ten years before, that is, in the year 1571, where among other things these words are read: “That invented physical communication, which in our time first began to be brought in together with the ubiquity of Christ's body, was unknown to the whole orthodox Church and to the whole Christian world from the beginning, and is even now rejected and most sharply censured by the Papists themselves.” And below: “That invented ubiquity has corrupted in a horrible way almost all the articles of faith concerning Christ, and above all wipes out and overturns the distinction of the divine and human nature in Christ.” So there, then. But now what ten years ago were most pestilent heresies must be dogmas of the most holy faith. Such, it seems, is the constancy of the Saxon Theologians.
Fifth, it is contrary to the opinion of the chief author of the Confession and the Apology, which two books hold the first place in the Concord. For Philip Melanchthon, in a letter to Frederick, Count Palatine, which he wrote in the year 1551, speaks thus: “Others have thought up ubiquity.” And he adds: “All these are monstrous things, unknown to learned antiquity.”
Lastly, it is contrary to St. Augustine and all the Fathers. And, to leave out the rest, Augustine in letter 57 to Dardanus not only teaches that Christ's humanity is not everywhere, but also answers the chief argument of the adversaries. For they think it necessarily follows that Christ's humanity is everywhere if it is joined personally to the Word, which without doubt is everywhere. But St. Augustine: “The man Christ,” he says, “was to be on that day according to the flesh in the tomb, according to the soul in hell; but the same Christ, as God, is always everywhere.” And below: “But it does not follow that what is in God is everywhere as God is. For of us too the most true Scripture says that in him we live and move and are; and yet we are not everywhere as he is. But that man is in God otherwise, since God too is in that man otherwise, in a certain proper and singular way. For God and man is one person, and both is one Christ Jesus, everywhere by that which is God, but in heaven by that which is man.” So he.
Nor have distinctions about the various ways of being in a place any room here. For St. Augustine denies in form the very thing the adversaries teach. For they hold that because of the hypostatic union Christ's humanity must necessarily be wherever the Word is, in some supernatural and divine way; but this very thing Augustine denies. And besides the example he brought, we have also a notable example in the rational soul. For the head is united to the soul, and yet the head is not at once wherever the soul is; since the soul is also in the feet, where certainly the head is not.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
JUDICIUM ROBERTI BELLARMINI POLITIANI S. J. THEOLOGI DE LIBRO, QUEM LUTEE RANI VOCANT CONCORDIAE G L7 NI APOLOGIA BREVI PRO EODEM JUDICIO. Liber Concordiae, nuper editus a Lutheranis, tria mihi continere videtur, praeter communes et notos Lutheranorum errores, insignem videlicet vanitatem, gravissimas haereses contra Symbolum Aposto- licum, et mendacia innumerabilia, apertissima, atque inter se pugnan¬ tia. De singulis ordine dicemus. VANITAS / ET ERRORES COX COR DI/E DE VANITATE CONCORDIAE. Insignis igitur vanitas in subscriptione perspicitur. Quorsum enim attinebat, ut om¬ nes ministri, concionatores , luclimagistri, hypodidascali, subscriberent? Certe non po¬ test exemplum ullum, ejusmodi subscriptio- mim, in negotio fidei, ab antiquitate peti. Siquidem ab Apostolicis temporibus per an¬ nos mille quingentos, in omnibus Conciliis tam generalibus, quam nationalibus , aut provincialibus, soli praelati, qui jurisdictio¬ nem aliquam habent, subscribere consueve¬ runt. Sunt etiam interdum addita nomina imperatorum, aut regum, aut principum aliquorum ; sed ludimagistrorum et hypodi¬ dascalorum, nulla usquam invenitur mentio. Deinde ista subscriptio ad librum Concordiae, ingentis discordiae signum est. Qualem enim unionem inter Lutheranos esse existimabi¬ mus, quaudo non solum principes ad Con¬ cordiam redigi, sed etiam privati homines ad suscribendum cogi debuerunt? Et quam¬ vis numerosa subscriptio esse videatur, est tamen ipsa quoque argumentum paucitatis. Nam si Catholica Ecclesia ejusmodi subscri¬ ptionem requireret, in puncto temporis ha¬ beret non octo millia, sed plus quam octin¬ genta millia subscribentium; neque ex sola Italia libentissime sub criberent innumera¬ biles presbyteri et diaconi, atque scholarum et gymnasiorum praefecti, sed etiam ex Hi¬ spania, Germania, Gallia, America, Brasilia, India, Japonia ; nec deessent etiam ex Bri¬ tannia et Palaestina. Denique tam numerosa subscriptio, inexcusabilia reddit tam multa, et tam crassa mendacia, quae nos infra an¬ notabimus. Si enim unus tantum aut alter librum istum, antequam ederetur, vidisset, ignosci posset fortasse humanae imbecillitati, si aliquid erroris obrepsisset : at quod sede¬ cim millia oculorum crassissima illa menda¬ cia, de prehendere non potuerint, quis ferat ? Alterum profecto n cessarium est, aut caecos omnes fuisse , aut etiam cum mendaciis Concordiam facere voluisse. DE ERRORIBUS CONCORDUE, DISCOR¬ DANTIBUS A SYMBOLIS IN IPSA CON¬ CORDIA RECEPTIS. I. ERROR. Primus error est, quod Christus non solum ut homo, sed etiam ut Deus, Patri fuerit obediens. Qui error destruit penitus veram divinitatem Christi, quam Symbolum Nicae¬ num contra Arianos asseruit. Nam si Chri¬ stus ut Deus Patri obedivit, certe ut Deus a Patre distinguitur, alius igitur Deus est Pa¬ ter, alius Deus est Filius : sed unus tantum est verus Deus, et constat Patrem esse verum Deum, non igitur filius est verus Deus, nec 6, ao u-io; Patri, ut in Nicaeno Symbolo confi¬ temur. Sursum qui obedit, minor est illo, t JUDICIUM DE LIBRO CONCOUDLE. 10 : cui obedit : nam imperaro superioris, obe- dire inferioris est ergo : si Christus ut Deus, Patri obedit, ut Deus minor est Patre, et mentitur Symbolum Athanasii, cum ait : jEqualis Patri secundum divinitatem, minor Patre secundum humanitatem. Adhaec, se¬ cundum illam naturam Christus obedivit, secundum quam mortuus est : nam ipsa mors, obediendia fuit summa, et absolutissi¬ ma; at non est mortuus Christus secundum divinitatem, sed solum secundum carnem, I Pet. iv. Christo igitur in carne passo etc. Denique cur Apostolus Paulus, ad Philippeo. it. dicturus : humiliavit semetipsum, factus obediens usque ad mortem, praemisit, exi¬ nanivit semetipsum formam servi accipiens, nisi ut nos admoneret, non secundum for¬ mam servi, qua aequalis est Patri, sed secun¬ dum formam servi, qua minor est Patre, Chri¬ stum obedientiam usque ad mortem Deo Patri praestitisse ? Sed fortasse non habet Concordia hunc errorem. Inspiciamus igitur an ita sit. In Epitome articulorum controversorum, art. 3. pag. 536. (i Credimus, inquiunt, docemus, et confitemur magno consensu, quod Chri¬ stus quidem vere sit nostra justitia ; sed ta¬ men neque secundum solam divinam natu¬ ram, neque secundum solam humanam na¬ turam. Credimus autem Christum totum, secundum utramque naturam, esse nostram justitiam : in sola videlicet obedientia sua, quam ille Patri ad mortem usque absolutis¬ simam praestitit ». Haec illi. Si igitur justitia nostra, id est, nobis imputata, totus Christus est, secundum utramque naturam, et justitia illa in obedientia consistit, quam Christus Patri usque ad mortem exhibuit, certe se¬ quitur, Christum totum secundum utramque naturam Deo Patri obedientiam praestitisse. Et infra, pag. 664 : « Ac sentiendum est, inquiunt, quod justitia nostra, neque in di¬ vina, neque in humana natura, sed in tota ipsius persona consistat : quippe, qui ut Deus et homo, in sola sua tota, et perfectissima obedientia, est nostra justitia ». Quid est, qui ut Deus et homo in sua obedientia est nostra justitia, nisi Christus ut Deus et homo, Patri obedivit, et ea obedientia, nostra obe¬ dientia reputatur? Nec est idem, Deus et homo Patri obedivit, et, Christus ut Deus et homo Patri obedivit. Illud enim personte divinse obedientiam tribuit, sed in natura humana, et Catholicum est : hoc vero utri¬ que natura; tribuit obedientiam, et Arianum est. Et pag. 663 : « Tota totius persona; Christi obedientia, quam ille Patri usque ad ignominiosam crucis mortem, nostra causa, pra;stitit, nobis imputatur » . Et infra : « Cum autem obedientia Christi, non sit unius dum¬ taxat natura;, sed totius persona;, etc » . Et in his locis, quare dicunt totius personae obedientiam illanvfuisse ? Non satis erat di¬ cere, fuisse personae ? Sed utrique naturae obedientiam non tribuissent, nisi totius per¬ sonae dixissent. Per totam enim personam duas naturas pag. 727. significare se dicunt. Nec mirum est, professores Augustanae Con¬ fessionis et Apologiae ita sentire, quandoqui¬ dem ipse primarius, tam Confessionis, quam Apologiae architectus Philippus Melanch- thon, in locis communibus anni 1558. loco de Filio, pag. 40. ita scripsit : « Natura di¬ vina, non est quidem lacerata, aut mortua, sed fuit obediens Patri, quievit, cessit irae aeterni Patris ».Et Martinus Lutherus in lib, de Conciliis et Ecclesia, non solum obe¬ dientiam , sed etiam passionem divinitati tribui posse contendit. II. ERROR. Alter error est, quod Christus fuerit per¬ functus munero mediatoris, et Pontificis, non solum per humanam naturam, sed etiam per divinam. Sic enim habent verba Concor¬ diae, pag. 736. in articulo de persona Christi : « Itaque Christus est noster mediator, re¬ demptor, Rex, Summus Pontifex etc. Non se¬ cundum unam tantum naturam, sive divinam, sive humanam, sed secundum utramque naturam ». At quod Christus sit mediator, et Pontifex secundum utramque naturam, et ideo non solum ut homo, sed etiam ut Deus, error est, qui aperte pugnat cum Christi vera divi¬ nitate, et proinde cum Symbolo fidei, ubi dicitur Christus, Deus verus de Deo vero. Nam mediator per id quo munus mediatoris exercet, necessario distinguitur ab eo cujus est mediator. Est autem Christus mediator Dei et hominum. Ergo, si ut Deus mediator est, ut Deus a Deo distinguitur ; erunt igitur duo dii ; unus major, alius minor, ut Ariani volebant. Quocirca B. Paulus, I Timoth. ii. cum dixisset : Unus est mediator Dei et ho¬ minum, mox adjunxit : homo Christus Jesus. Et B. Augustin. lib. ii. de peccato originali, cap. 28. Non per hoc, inquit, mediator est, quod ecqualis Patri, per hoc enim quantum Pater, tantum et ipse a nobis distat : et quo- III. ERROR. 105 modo erit medietas, ubi eadem distantia est? Ideo Apostolus non ait : Christus Jesus, sed, homo Christus Jesus, per hoc ergo me¬ diator, per quod homo : inferior Patre, per quod nobis propinquior : superior nobis, per quod Patri propinquior. Quod apertius ita dicitur inferiore Patre, quia in forma servi : superior nobis, quia sine labe peccati. Et tract. 82. in Joan. Mediator Dei et hominum, non in quantum Deus, sed in quantum homo est, Christus Jesus. Deinde si Christus, ut Deus, mediator est, sequitur unum e duobus, aut totam Trinitatem esse mediatricem, aut Christum non esse unum Deum cum Patre et Spiritu sancto, sed alium quemdam Deum. Nam quod uni personae convenit ratione Deitatis , id etiam aliis omnibus personis convenit, quae habent eamdem Deitatem. Igi¬ tur esse mediatorem, quod Filio convenit ratione Deitatis , quandoquidem ut Deus mediator est , convenit etiam Patri et Spi¬ ritui sancto, si unam et eamdem cum Filio Deitatem habent ; vel si non convenit, certe non habent. Denique esse pontificem, el sa¬ cerdotem, intrinsece et essentialiter includit esse creaturam, et longe minorem eo, chi sacrificium offerri debet. Omnis enim ponti¬ fex et sacerdos minister Dei est, et cultu latriae Deum summum colit, dum ei sacrifi¬ cium offert. Ergo si Christus, ut Deus est, pontifex etiam est, et Patri suo sacrificium defert, profecto ut Deus, Patre suo longe mi¬ nor, atque adeo vere et proprie creatura est. Hinc videlicet Ariani inter propositiones suas, quee leguntur apud Augustinum tomo 6. in serm. Arianorum, etiam istam nume¬ rabant, quod Filius Dei minister et sacerdos sit Patris sui. Ipse vero B. Augustin. lib. i. de consensu evangelistarum, cap. 3 : Secun¬ dum hominem, inquit, Christus et Rex, et Sacerdos effectus est, ut esset ad interpel¬ landum pro nobis mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Jesus. Et lib. x. de Civit. Dei, c. 20 : Unde, inquit, verus ille mediator, in quantum formam servi accipiens, media¬ tor effectus est Dei et hominum, cum in for¬ ma Dei sacrificium cum Patre sumat, cum quo est unus Deus. Et S. Cyrillus in Apolo- gia pro capitulis suis adversus Orientales in defensione decimi capituli. Quando, in¬ quit, factus est homo, vocatus est et Ponti¬ fex ; non quod majori Deo offerret sacrificium sed sibi ipsi et Patri. Et infra : Dictus est, in¬ quit, sacerdos propter humanitatem. Et lih. xi. in Joann, cap. vn : In quantum, inquit, filius et Deus est, una cum Patre bona nobis largitur ; in quantum vero mediator est, et Pontifex, nostras preces ad Deum adducit. III. ERROR. Tertius error est, quod natura humana Christi sit ubique vere, et realiter. Sic enim loquitur liber Concordise, in articulo de Coe- na Domini pagina 572 : a Dextera Dei ubique est ; ad eam autem Christus, ratione huma¬ nitatis sum, vere et re ipsa collocatus est : ideoque praesens gubernat, in manu sua, et sub pedibus suis, ut Scriptura loquitur, ha¬ bet omnia quae in ccelo sunt et in terra». Et infra pag. 731 : Revera omnia implet, et ubique non tantum ut Deus, verum etiam ut homo, prmsens dominatur a mari ad ma¬ re ». Et similia leguntur pag. 74o. Porro hic error repugnat primo Scripturis, quae passim asserunt, Christum ratione hu¬ manitatis, alicubi non fuisse. Joan. vi. Cum vidisset turba, quid Jesus non esset ibi. Joan. xi. Lazarus mortuus est, et gaudeo propter vos, ut credatis , quoniam non eram ibi. Matth. ult. Non est hic, surrexit. Secundo, repugnat articulis Symboli, de Christi conceptione , nativitate , passione, morte, descensu ad inferos, resurrectione a mortuis, ascensione ad coelos, et descensu ad judicandum. Nam articulus de conceptio¬ ne, docet in solius Marise utero corpus Christi fuisse. At si ubique fuit statim ab incarnatione, ut adversarii docent, fuit in uteris omnium heminarum, immo etiam omnium virorum. Articulus de nativitate docet, Christi cor¬ pus post nonum mensem ex utero prodiisse, et sic vere esse natum. At secundum ubi- quistas, ante nonum mensem, immo primo die conceptionis fuit extra uterum, et post nonum mensem adhuc erat in utero, nec in¬ de unquam exiit. Nec valet responsio quam adferunt, cum dicunt, Christum vere esse natum, quia cum fuisset in utero localiter spatio novem mensium, et non alibi, postea esse coepit localiter extra uterum, et non in utero. Ileec, inquam, solutio nihil valet, nam quod vere est ubique, sive localiter, sive alio modo sit, non potest vere et proprie moveri de loco ad locum, sed solum potest meta¬ phorice moveri, id est, apparere, ubi non apparebat, licet ibi esset. Quemadmodum Deus, qui ubique vere est, tametsi non loca¬ liter, moveri non potest, sed solum apparere et ostendere se, ubi antea non videbatur 106 JUDICIUM DE LIBRO CONCORDIAE. esse, quamvis ibi esset. Eodem igitur modo, si corpus Christi ab ipsa conceptione ubique fuit, licet non localiter fuerit ubique, tamen numquam vere moveri potuit de loco ad locum ; et proinde nativitas ex utero, non verus ex utero egressus, nec vera nativitas, sed tantum apparens, et metaphorica fuit. Pari ratione destruuntur casteri articuli. Qui enim semper ubique fuit, non vere potuit in passione transire de loco Coense ad hortum, nec de horto ad domum Caiphse, m c inde ad praetorium Pilati, nec inde ad montem Calvariae : nec potuit in morte separari anima a corpore, ita ut corpus sine anima in se¬ pulcro jaceret , et anima sine corpore ad inferos descenderet : nec potuit vere anima in resurrectione ad corpus redire : nec cor¬ pus illud redivivum de clauso sepulcro egredi ; nec intrare ad discipulos januis clausis; nec denique vere potuit in coelum conscendere ; nec poterit vere in novissimo die de coelo descendere. Sed haec omnia metaphorice exponi debent, quemadmodum cum de Deo legimus ejusmodi mutationes. Tertio, repugnat hic error veritati corpo¬ ris Domini in Coena, et quod admirabile est, confirmat Zwinglii sententiam, ad quam de¬ struendam excogitatus est. Nam si corpus Christi, ab ipsa conceptione est ubique, non egemus sacramento Ccenae, ut praesentiam habeamus corporis Dominici. Quid igitur sa¬ cramentum Ccenae facit? non exhibet certe praesentiam corporis Domini : nam haec an¬ tea quoque aderat. Quid igitur facit? nisi hoc quod significat Christi corpus adesse? At hoc volunt Zwingliani, ex vi sacramenti Ccenae nihil nos habere, nisi signum. Et hoc idem videtur liber Concordiae agnoscere, pag. 745, cum ait : « Quare eum praesentem habemus, non tantum secundum divinam, verum etiam secundum humanam naturam: juxta quam ipse frater noster est, et nos caro sumus de carne ejus, et os de ossibus ejus. Et sane in hujus etiam rei confirmatio¬ nem, sacram suam Coenam instituit : ut te¬ staretur, se etiam secundum eam naturam, qua carnem et sanguinem habet, nobiscum esse, in nobis habitare, et efficaciter operari velle i) . Prseterea, si Christi corpus ubique est, non potest vere cum pane, quantumlibet consecrato, sumi, nec sanguis ejus cum vino, quantumlibet etiam consecrato, bibi. Nam panis et vinum ideo sumi vere possunt, quia non sunt ubique, et proinde vere trans¬ eunt de mensa ad manum, de manu ad o$, de ore ad stomachum : quse de Christi cor¬ pore et sanguine dici non possunt, si ubique sunt : quemadmodum, licet Deus ubique sit, nemo tamen cum pane Deum comedit, nec cum vino Deum bibit. Quorsum igitur Eu¬ charistia? Ut habeatur Christi corpus fru¬ ctuose, dicet aliquis Brentianus; ergo solus fructus, sola efficacia, sola virtus corporis Domini sumitur in Ccena ; at hoc ipsum do¬ cent Calvinistee. Quarto, repugnat haec ubiquitas decreto Dresdensi, quod in eadem Saxonia,ab iisdem Confessionis Augustanae theologis, ante an¬ nos circiter decem promulgatum est, id est, anno 1571, ubi praeter alia haec verba le¬ guntur : « Commentitia ista communicatio physica, quae nostro primum tempore cum ubiquitate corporis Christi introduci coepta est, universae orthodoxae Ecclesiae, et toto orbi Christiano, inde usque ab initio inco¬ gnita fuit, atque etiamnum a Pontificiis ipsis rejicitur, et taxatur acerrime». Et infra: « Commentitia illa ubiquitas, horrendum in modum corrupit omnes pene articulos fidei de Christo, ac discrimen divinae et humanae naturae in Christo in primis delet, atque evertit ». Haec ibi tunc. Nunc autem sacro¬ sanctae fidei dogmata esse debent, quae ante annos decem pestilentissimae haereses erant. Ista videlicet est constantia Theologorum saxonicorum. Quinto, repugnat sententiae primarii au¬ ctoris Contessionis, et Apologiae, qui duo libri primum locum in Concordia obtinent. Philippus siquidem Melanchthon in epist. ad Fridericum comitem Palatinum, quam scri¬ psit anno 1551. ita loquitur : «Alii ubiqui- tatem excogitarunt ». Et addit : « Ilaec sunt portentosa omnia, ignota eruditae vetustati ». Denique repugnat S. Augustino, et omnibus Patribus. Ac, ut caetera omittamus, Augu- stin. in epist. 57. ad Dardanum, non solum docet, Christi humanitatem non esse ubique, sed etiam solvit primarium argumentum adversariorum. Illi enim existimant, neces¬ sario sequi, ut Christi humanitas sit ubi¬ que, si conjuncta est personaliter Verbo, quod sine dubio est ubique. At S. Augustin. : Homo, inquit, Christus, illo die secundum carnem in sepulcro, secundum animam in inferno futurus, Deus vero idem ipse Chri¬ stus, ubique semper est. Et infra : Non est autem consequens, ut quod in Deo est, ita sit ulique ut Deus. Nam et de nobis verissi¬ ma Scriptura dicit, quod in illo vivimus, V. ERROR. 107 movemur, et sumus, nec tamen sicut ille, ubique sumus; sed aliter homo ille in Deo, quoniam aliter et Deus ille in homine, pro¬ prio quodam et singulari modo. Una enim persona Deus et homo est, et utrumque est unus Christus Jesus, ubique per id quod Deus est, in coelo autem per id quod homo. Haec ille. Neque hic locum habent distin¬ ctiones de variis modis essendi in loco. Nam S. Augustinus negat in formaidipsum, quod adversarii docent. Ipsi enim volunt, propter unionem hypostaticam, Christi humanitatem necessario esse debere ubicumque est Ver¬ bum, modo quodam supernaturali, et di¬ vino : at hoc idem Augustinus negat. Et prae¬ ter exemplum ab eo adductum habemus etiam insigne exemplum in anima rationali. Nam caput unitum est animae, et tamen non ubi* cumque est anima, ibi continuo est caput; cum anima sit etiam in pedibus, ubi certe non est caput.