Bellarmine · Judicium de Libro Concordiae · Judgement on the Book of Concord
Chapter 2: The Last Three Errors (the Divine Attributes Given to the Humanity, the Union Placed in That Gift, the Whole Christ in Hell); the First Two Lies
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 Fourth Error
The fourth error is that many divine attributes were truly and really conferred on the humanity of Christ, such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and so the divine majesty itself. This error destroys the truth of Christ's humanity, renews the heresy of Eutyches, and fights with the Creed of the faith. For if Christ's humanity truly and really is not only everywhere, because it is in the whole world, but because it has the omnipresence and immensity which the Word has, and so is, or certainly can be, in infinite imaginary spaces outside the world: surely it is formally infinite and immense. And since it is not infinite in greatness of bulk, as the adversaries grant (for they say it is not spread out everywhere locally), it will be infinite in greatness of power; but infinite power requires an infinite essence. So Christ's humanity is an infinite essence; and so either it has been turned into the deity, or there are two infinite beings. The same argument can be made about omnipotence and the other attributes of God.
But let us hear the words of the Concord, page 731: “Christ has obtained, according to the human nature, the full possession and use of the divine majesty.” So there. Now if Christ according to the human nature has obtained the divine majesty, then according to the human nature he is God. Then according to the human nature he is not man. For the same thing according to the same respect cannot be two disparate things. And page 744: “Now even according to the human nature assumed he knows all things, and is in truth omnipotent.” So there. See how openly they say that Christ as man is omniscient and omnipotent; and what else is that but to say that Christ, as man, is not man but God? And page 745: “Holy Scripture attributes this majesty of omnipresence to Christ alone, and to no other man.” And a little before they had said that they were speaking of Christ's humanity, and not of the divinity alone, when they attribute omnipresence to Christ. Lastly, on page 738 they try at length to teach that Christ's humanity is capable of infinite attributes, truly and really communicated to it through the hypostatic union.
Nor do they get themselves out well when they say that this is the communication of properties which the ancient Fathers also acknowledged. For the communication of properties, according to the teaching of the Fathers, does not attribute to one nature what belongs to the other, but attributes to the one person the properties of both natures. See on the communication of properties Ambrose, book 2 On the faith, chapter 4; Augustine, book 1 On the Trinity, chapter 13; Cyril in the defence of the 4th Anathema; and John Damascene, book 3, chapter 4. And besides, the communication of properties which the Fathers acknowledge is mutual, and belongs no less to God than to man. But the adversaries attribute to the human nature a real communication of the divine attributes, and do not attribute to the divine nature a real communication of the human properties, as they expressly teach in this very Concord, page 736.
So the Dresden decree, which we mentioned above, published by the same Saxon ministers, rightly says somewhere: “It has been shown clearly enough that what is the chief head of our faith and of the Church, namely the article of the two natures in Christ, is horribly corrupted by the invented real and physical communication of properties in the natures themselves; and that, on the contrary, the heresies long ago condemned, of the Marcionites, Arians, Manichees, Samosatenes, Valentinians, Sabellians, Nestorians, Eutychians and Monothelites, are brought back and renewed.” So there.
The Fifth Error
The fifth error is that the hypostatic union consists in the communication of the divine attributes. For although on page 714 they seem to say that this communication is later than the hypostatic union (for they speak thus: “But because of the hypostatic union, and the communication following from it,” and so on), yet in many places they openly show that the hypostatic union consists in this communication. Page 729: “Because of this hypostatic union,” they say, “which can neither be thought of nor subsist without that true communication,” and so on. But surely that is not something later; it is truly of the essence, without which the other can neither be nor be thought of. And page 730: “And indeed,” they say, “the ancient Doctors of the Church joined these two words, koinonia and henosis, communication and union, in explaining this mystery, and explained the one by the other.” See how openly they want the hypostatic union and that communication of properties of theirs to be the same thing. When, then, they say that the one follows from the other, either they plainly fight with themselves, or they mean a logical following, not a physical one, as we say that from someone's being a man it follows that he is a rational animal.
Now this opinion, that the hypostatic union consists in that communication of the divine attributes, wholly destroys the mystery of the Incarnation. For first, since the divine attributes, that is, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and the like, are common to the whole Trinity, if the hypostatic union consists in their communication, it follows that all three persons are incarnate. For just as, according to the Catholic faith which the ancient general councils, the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th, set out, the person of the Son alone was incarnate because the union was made through the communication of the Son's own subsistence: so, according to the adversaries' opinion, the whole Trinity must be incarnate, since the union was made in what is common to the whole Trinity.
Next, if the hypostatic union consists in the communication of attributes, it follows that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are united hypostatically, and that there is only one person. For the Father, in begetting the Son, communicated to him all his attributes; and likewise the Father and the Son, in producing the Holy Spirit, communicated to him all their attributes.
Besides, either they want the hypostatic union to consist in the communication of all the attributes, or of some only. If of all, the hypostatic union will be impossible. For among the attributes of God is counted true eternity, which lacks beginning and end; but it is impossible for a created thing to lack a beginning, and at least it is certain that Christ's humanity was not from eternity. By the same reasoning, it is proper to God to lack an efficient principle; but that can in no way be communicated to a creature. But if of some only, who will be able to say which they are, since the reasoning is the same for all? For as there can be a hypostatic union without the communication of eternity, why could there not be one without the communication of omnipresence or omnipotence?
Lastly, these attributes cannot be essential to the human nature; so they will be accidental. This the book of Concord seems to assert when on page 741 it explains this communication by the working of the divinity which it exercises through the humanity. But this is the very heresy of Nestorius, who joined the Word with the man by working; and this heresy was expressly condemned in the fifth general council, chapters 4 and 5.
The Sixth Error
The sixth error is that the whole Christ, God and man, went down into hell. This follows openly from the third error, and besides is expressly asserted in the Concord itself, page 750: “We simply believe,” they say, “that the whole person, God and man, went down into hell after the burial.” And this error fights with two, indeed three, articles of the Creed; for it destroys the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. For if Christ went down into hell as man, he went down living, not dead; for a dead man is not a man, since every man by death ceases to be a man. But if Christ, living, both came down from the cross and arrived living in hell, not the soul alone went down but also the flesh; for the soul alone cannot be called a man. And if the soul and the flesh went down, what, I ask, lay in the tomb? Lastly, if Christ was always a man, and never truly died or was buried, certainly he did not truly rise either; for a man does not rise except when by new life he begins again to be a man, who by death had ceased to be a man.
And let these few things suffice about the errors against the Creed.
The Lies of the Concord
The First Lie
In the preface of the Concord, and indeed at the very beginning of the preface, there is a famous lie about the Augsburg Confession: namely that, spread through the whole world, it became known everywhere and began to be in the mouth and speech of all. For of the three parts of the world, two, Asia and Africa, have not yet heard even the name of the Augsburg Confession. In Europe, which is the third part, Greece, Italy and Spain either do not know at all what the Augsburg Confession is, or curse it as a harmful and heretical teaching. Gaul and Britain are inhabited partly by Catholics, partly by Calvinists; the first openly reject the Augsburg Confession, the second receive it in name only. And yet this new Concord in the Confession the Calvinists do not embrace even in name. There remains only the corner of Germany, and not the whole of it, in which the fame of the Confession may spread. For in Germany itself too there are found Zwinglians and Anabaptists, who never received the Augsburg Confession.
What more? At the beginning the Augsburg Confession could not have a place even in a part of Germany. For in the very year in which it was born at Augsburg, it was in a way put out at Augsburg too. For it was refuted by the Catholic Theologians and publicly condemned by the emperor Charles V in the general recess; to which condemnation subscribed 5 electors, 30 ecclesiastical princes, 23 secular, 22 abbots, 32 counts and barons, 39 free and imperial cities; while to the confession itself there subscribed only 1 elector, 6 princes, 2 cities. So Philip rightly writes, in book 1 of his Letters, in the letter to John Obernburger: “I take no pleasure,” he says, “in remembering the Diet of Augsburg, in which we were condemned by a sad and cruel sentence.”
Nor was the Augsburg confession only put out when hardly born; it was also so buried in two archives that for forty whole years it did not see the light. For the German Confession lay hidden for a very long time in the chancery of Mainz, and the Latin in that of Brussels; and meanwhile almost every year one edition after another was published, which, though all bore the title of the Augsburg Confession, yet in words and in sense differed very much both among themselves and from that first one. So that glorious praise of the Augsburg Confession, that spread through the whole world it became known everywhere, seems to need interpreting thus: the Augsburg Confession, that is, a Confession bearing the false name of the Augsburg Confession, through the whole world, that is, in a certain corner of the North, spread everywhere and became known, that is, began to be heard in some towns of Germany.
The Second Lie
In the same preface, past the middle, the adversaries protest that in the business of the Supper pious men are to be led to no other foundations than the words of the institution of the Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ; although both they and Luther too were dragged unwillingly into the dispute about the personal union of the two natures in Christ. But in the Concord itself, page 571, and again page 717, in the article on the Lord's Supper, together with Luther they lay four other foundations. The first is that Christ is God and man in one person, undivided and inseparable. The second, that the right hand of God is everywhere. The third, that the word of God is neither false nor deceiving. The fourth, that God has and knows various ways by which he can be in some place. So the protest of this preface is a lie.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
IV. ERROR. Quartqs error est, quod Christi humanitati sint collata vere et realiter multa attributa divina, ut omnipotentia, omniscientia, om- nipraesentia, atque adeo ipsa divina majestas. Qui error destruit veritatem humanitatis Christi, renovat haeresim Eutychetis, et pug¬ nat cum Symbolo fidei. Nam si Christi hu¬ manitas, vere et realiter non solum est ubi¬ que, quia est in toto mundo, sed quia habet omnipraesentiam et immensitatem , quam habet Verbum, et proinde est in infinitis spatiis imaginariis extra mundum, vel certe esse potest : profecto est formaliter infinita et immensa ; et cum non sit infinita magni¬ tudine molis, ut adversarii concedunt, nam dicunt, eam non esse diffusam ubique loca¬ liter, infinita erit magnitudine virtutis; infi¬ nita autem virtus infinitam essentiam requi¬ rit. Est igitur Christi humanitas essentia in¬ finita; et proinde vel est conversa in deita¬ tem, vel duo sunt entia infinita. Idem argu¬ mentum de omnipotentia, et aliis Dei attri¬ butis fieri potest. Sed verba Concordiae au¬ diamus, pag. 731 : « Adeptus autem est Christus, secundum humanam naturam, plenam possessionem, et di vinee majestatis usurpationem)). Hsec ibi. Jam si Christus secundum humanam naturam adeptus est divinam majestatem; ergo secundum hu¬ manam naturam est Deus. Ergo secundum humanam naturam non est homo. Nec enim idem secundum idem, duo disparata esse potest. Et pag. 744 : «Jam etiam secundum assumptam humanam naturam, omnia no¬ vit, et revera omnipotens est». Hsec ibi. Ecce quam aperte dicunt, Christum ut ho¬ minem esseomniscientem, etonmipotentem; quod quid est aliud quam dicere, Christum, ut hominem, non esse hominem, sed Deum? Et pag. 745 : « Scriptura sacra hanc maje¬ statem onmiprsesentise soli Christo, nulli autem alii homini tribuit». Et paulo ante dixerant, se de Christi humanitate loqui, et non de sola divinitate, cum Christo tribuunt omniprsesentiam. Denique pag. 738. prolixe docere conantur, Christi humanitatem ca¬ pacem esse infinitorum attributorum, vere et realiter sibi communicatorum per hypo¬ staticam unionem. Nec satis expediunt se, cum dicunt, hanc esse idiomatum communi¬ cationem, quam etiam veteres Patres agno¬ verunt. Nam communicatio idiomatum, se¬ cundum Patrum doctrinam, non tribuit uni naturae ea quae sunt alterius, sed tribuit uni supposito utriusque naturae proprietates. Vi¬ de de communicatione idiomatum Ambro¬ sium lib. ii. de fide, cap. 4. Augustinum lib. i. de Trinit. cap. 13. Cyrillum in defen¬ sione 4. Anathematismi. Et Joan. Damasce¬ num lib. m cap. 4. Et praeterea communi¬ catio idiomatum, quam Patres agnoscunt, mutua est, et non minus Deo convenit quam homini. At adversarii, humanae naturae tri¬ buunt realem communicationem divinorum attributorum ; divinae autem non tribuunt realem communicationem humanarum pro¬ prietatum ; ut in hac ipsa Concordia diserte docent, pag. 736. Itaque recte Dresdense decretum, cujus supra mentionem fecimus, ab iisdem Saxonicis ministris editum, ita alicubi habet : « Quod praecipuum fidei nos¬ trae, et Ecclesiae caput est, videlicet articu¬ lum de duabus naturis in Christo, id com¬ mentitia idiomatum, reali et physica, in ipsis naturis communicatione, depravari hor¬ ribiliter ; atque econtrario, heraeses jam olim damnatas, Marcionitarum, Arianorum, Ma¬ nichaeorum, Samosatensium, Valentiniano- rum, Sabellianorum, Nestorianorum, Eu- tychianorum, et Monothelitarum, reduci atque innovari, satis evidenter demonstratum est » . Haec ibi. V. ERROR. Quintus error est, quod unio hypostatica consistat in communicatione divinorum at- 108 JUDICIUM DE UTERO CONCORDIAE. tributorum. Tametsi enim pag. 714. viden¬ tur dicere communicationem istam esse po¬ steriorem unione hypostatica, sic enim lo¬ quuntur : « Propter unionem autem hypo¬ staticam, et ex ea consequentem commu¬ nicationem, etc. », tamen in pluribus locis aperte indicant, in ista communicatione consistere unionem hypostaticam, pag. 729 : « Propter hanc, inquiunt, hypostaticam unionem, quae sine vera illa communicatione nec cogitari, nec subsistere potest, etc. ». At certe id non est posterius, sed est vere de essentia, sineYjuo alterum nec esse, nec cogitari potest. Et pag. 730 : « Et sane, in¬ quiunt, veteres Ecclesiae Doctores, duo haec vocabula, xoivwvfa v xat 1'vi.nav, communicatio¬ nem et unionem in explicatione huj us mysterii conjunxerunt, et alterum peraltorum declara¬ runt» . En quam aperte idem esse volunt unio¬ nem hypostaticam, et suam illam communi¬ cationem proprietatum. Cum ergo dicunt, unumexaltero sequi, vel manifeste secum pu¬ gnant, vel intelligunt de consecutione logica, non physica, quomodo dicimus, ex eo quod aliquis est homo, sequi ut sit animal ratio¬ nale. Porro haec sententia, quod unio hyposta¬ tica consistat in illa communicatione divi¬ norum attributorum, destruit omnino myste¬ rium Incarnationis. Nam in primis, cum di¬ vina attributa, id est omnipotentia, omni- scientia, omniprsesentia, et similia, sint com¬ munia toti Trinitati, si in illorum communi¬ catione consistit unio hypostatica, sequitur, omnes tres personas esse incarnatas. Ut enim secundum Catholicam fidem, quam exposuerunt vetera concilia generalia, 3. 4. 5. et- 6. ideo sola persona Filii incarnata est, quia unio facta est per communicationem subsistentiae propriae ipsius Filii : ita secun¬ dum adversariorum sententiam totum Tri¬ nitatem incarnatam esse necesse est, cum unio facta sit in eo, quod est commune toti Trinitati. Deinde si unio hypostatica consistit in communicatione attributorum, sequitur, Pa¬ trem, et Filium, et Spiritum sanctum, uni¬ tos esse hypostatice, atque unam tantum esse personam. Nam Pater gignendo Filium, omnia sua attributa illi communicavit, et si¬ militer Pater et Filius producendo Spiritum sanctum, omnia sua attributa illi communi¬ carunt. Praeterea, aut volunt hypostaticam unionem consistere, in communicatione om¬ nium attributorum, vel aliquorum tantum ; si omnium, impossibilis erit unio hypo-* statica. Nam inter attributa Dei, numeratur vera aeternitas, quee principio et fine caret : at impossibile est rem creatam carere prin¬ cipio, et saltem certum est, Christi humani¬ tatem non fuisse ab aeterno. Pari ratione, Dei proprium est, carere principio effectivo; at id nullo modo creaturae communicari po¬ terit. Si vero aliquorum tantum quis dicere poterit qua) sint illa, cum eadem sit ratio omnium? Ut enim esse potest unio hypo¬ statica, sine communicatione aeternitatis,- cur esse non poterit sine communicatione omni- praesentiae, vel omnipotentia)? Denique ista attributa non possunt esse naturae humanae essentialia, erunt igitur accidentalia ; id quod liber Concordiae asserere videtur, cum pag. 741. explicat istam communicationem, per operationem divinitatis, quam exercet per humanitatem. At haec ipsa est Nestorii haeresis, qui Yerbum cum homine per ope¬ rationem conjungebat ; cstque haec haeresis expresse damnata in concilio Y generali cap. 4. et 5. VI. ERROR. Sextus error est, quod totus Christus, Deus et homo, ad inferos descenderit. Id quod aperte sequitur ex tertio errore, et praeterea in ipsa Concordia diserte asseritur, pag. 750 : «Simpliciter, inquiunt, credimus, quod tota persona Deus et homo post se¬ pulturam ad inferos descenderit». Atque hic error cum duobus, imrao etiam tribus articulis Symboli pugnat ; destruit enim mortem, sepulturam, et resurrectionem Christi. Nam si Christus homo descendit ad inferos, vivus non mortuus descendit; mortuus enim non est homo, cum omnis homo per mortem desinat esse homo. At si Christus vivus, et de cruce descendit, et vi¬ vus pervenit ad inferos, non anima solum descendit, sed etiam caro ; non enim sola ' * anima homo dici potest; quod si anima et caro descendit, quid, quaeso, jacuit, in se¬ pulcro? Denique si Christus semper fuit homo, nec unquam vere mortuus aut sepul- tus est, certe nec vere etiam resurrexit ; non enim resurgit homo, .nisi quando per novam vitam iterum incipit esse homo, qui per mortem desierat esse homo. Atque haec pauca de erroribus contra Symbolum suffi¬ ciant, MENDACIA CONCORDIA PRIMUM MENDACIUM. In prsefatione Concordia), atque adeo in ipso principio praffationis, habetur illustre mendacium de Confessione Augustana, quod videlicet in totum orbem terrarum sparsa, ubique percrebuerit, et in ore et sermone omnium esse coeperit. Nam ex tribus parti¬ bus orbis terra), duse, Asia atque Africa, ne nomen quidem Augustana) Confessionis ad¬ huc audierunt; in Europa, qua) tertia pars est, Graecia, Italia, Hispania, aut omnino quid sit Augustana Confessio, ignorant, aut eam ut perniciosam et haereticam doctrinam execrantur. Gallia ac Britannia, partim a Catholicis, partim a Calvinistis habitantur, quorum illi Augustanam Confessionem , a- perte repudiant; isti solo nomine recipiunt. Quamquam novam hanc in Confessione Concordiam, Calvinistse, ne quidem nomine amplectuntur. Solus restat angulus Germa¬ nia), isque non totus, in quo sese fama Con¬ fessionis dilatet. Nam et in ipsa Germania Zwingliani, et Anabaptistse inveniuntur, qui Confessionem August. numquam rece¬ perunt. Quid? quod initio nec in parte Ger¬ mania; Confessio Augustana locum habere potuit. Nam eo ipso anno quo Augusta) nata est, Augusta) quoque extincta quodammodo est . Siquidem a Theologis Catholicis refu¬ tata , et ab imperatore Carolo Y publice damnata fuit in generali recessu ; cui damnationi subscripserunt electores 5, ec¬ clesiastici principes 30, saeculares 23, abba¬ tes 22, comites et barones 32, civitates libe¬ ra; et imperiales 39, cum ipsi confessioni solum subscripserint elector I , principes 6, civitates 2. Quocirca merito Philippus lib. i. Epist. in epist. ad Joan. Obernburgerum ita scribit : « Non delector, inquit, recorda¬ tione Comitiorum Augustanorum, in quibus tristi, ac atroci sententia damnati sumus ». Nec solum Augusta; confessio vix dum nata, extincta fuit, sed etiam in duobus archiviis ita sepulta, ut per totos annos 40. lucem non viderit. Confessio enim Germanica in can- cellaria Moguntina, Latina vero in Bruxel- lensi longissimo tempore delituerunt, atque interim singulis prope annis edebantur, alioe atque alia;; quse cum omnes Confessionis Augustana) titulum pra) se ferrent, tamen et verbis, et sententiis, cum inter se, tum ab illa prima plurimum dissentiebant. Itaque gloriosum illud encomium Augustana) Con¬ fessionis, quod in totum orbem terrarum sparsa, ubique percrebuerit, ita interpre¬ tandum esse videtur : Confessio Augustana, id est, Confessio, falsum nomen gerens Con¬ fessionis Augustana) per totum orbem terra¬ rum, id est, in quodam angulo Septentrio¬ nis, ubique sparsa percrebuit, id est, in ali¬ quot oppidis Germaniie audiri ccepit. II. MENDACIUM. In eadem praffatione, ultra medium, pro¬ testantur adversarii, in negotio Cceme ad nulla alia fundamenta pios homines dedu¬ cendos esse, quam verborum institutionis Testamenti Domini nostri Jesu Christi ; licet tam ipsi, quam etiam Lutherus, inviti per¬ tracti sint ad disputationem de unione per¬ sonali duarum in Christo naturarum. At in ipsa Concordia, pag. 571. et iterum pag.717. in articulo de Ccena Domini, una cum Lu- thero , quatuor alia fundamenta jaciunt. Primum est , quod Christus sit Deus et homo, in una persona, indivisus, et insepa¬ rabilis. Secundum, quod dextera Dei est ubique. Tertium, quod verbum Dei sit neque falsum, neque fallax. Quartum, quod Deus varios modos habet, novitque, quibus aliquo in loco esse potest. Mendax igitur est hujus priefationis protestatio.