Bellarmine · Judicium de Libro Concordiae · Judgement on the Book of Concord
Chapter 3: The Third Lie: That the Confession Teaches What Luther and Melanchthon Had Always Taught
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 Third Lie
In the Preface of the Confession to Charles V, page 6, this is found: “We offer in this cause of religion the Confession of our Preachers and our own; such teaching as they have hitherto delivered from the holy Scriptures and the pure word of God in our lands, duchies, dominions and cities, and handled in the Churches.”
That this is a notable lie can be known even from this, that Luther's Confession disagrees in many things with the Augsburg one; although it was published in the same year 1530, and it does not seem credible that the Lutherans could know better than Luther himself what the Lutheran teaching is. Article 11 of the Lutheran Confession has: “That private Confession ought to be free.” But the Augsburg Confession, in the chapter on Confession, says: “Among them the body of the Lord is not usually given except to those first examined and absolved.” And in the chapter on the Mass it says thus: “None are admitted to the Sacrament unless first examined and heard.” Likewise article 16 of the Lutheran Confession wants “the Mass to be abolished above all abominations.” But the Augsburg Confession, in the chapter on the Mass: “Our Churches,” it says, “are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is kept among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence.”
Besides, neither the Augsburg Confession built by Philip, nor the Lutheran one, which without doubt gave birth to the Augsburg, agrees with the teaching which Luther and Melanchthon delivered at the beginning. I hear that John Cochlaeus in the same year 1530 gathered articles from the books of Luther and Philip against each article of the Augsburg Confession; but I have not yet been able to see them. But I readily believe he did so, since I too could do it with no trouble, though I am much less versed in the books of the Lutherans than Cochlaeus was. And not to be too long, I shall compare only two or three of the principal articles of the Confession with the teaching of Luther and Philip.
The first article of the Augsburg Confession runs thus: “The Churches among us teach with great consent that the decree of the Nicene Synod, on the unity of the divine essence and on the three persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting.” And below: “And they use the name person in the sense in which the church writers used it in this cause, to signify not a part or a quality in another, but what properly subsists.” And below: “They condemn all heresies that have arisen against this article, such as the Manichees, Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians,” and so on. To this first article the third is rightly joined, which is on the incarnation of the Son of God, in which two natures are asserted united in one person.
But how true Luther believed the Nicene decree on the unity of the essence to be, he showed well enough by the words he used against James Latomus: “My soul,” he says, “hates this word homoousios.” Yet he could not be ignorant that this word was made firm in the Nicene council against the Arian heretics (as St. Augustine says, book 3 against Maximinus, chapter 14) by the authority of truth and the truth of authority. Nor did this slip from Luther through thoughtlessness. For he repeats it again in the book On councils: “St. Jerome,” he says, “greatly troubled, wrote lamentable letters to Damasus, Bishop of Rome, and wished the word homoousios struck out.” Where another fraud of Luther's is to be noted. For St. Jerome thought that not the word homoousios but the word hypostasis should be kept silent, because of the ambiguity of that word. The two letters of St. Jerome on this matter to Damasus are well known, one of which ends thus: “I beseech your blessedness, by the crucified, the salvation of the world, by the homoousios Trinity, that authority be given me by your letters either to keep silent or to speak of hypostases.”
Next, if the Catholic teaching on the unity of the essence and the Trinity of persons is approved by Luther, why did he take out of the common prayers of the Germans that little prayer: Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us? That this form of calling on God is not new, but was used by the most ancient Fathers, Greek as well as Latin, is certain from Nazianzen, who in the second oration on peace, near the end, says: O holy and long-suffering Trinity, receive these too, and so on; and from Augustine, the last book, last chapter, On the Trinity: “O Lord, one God,” he says, “God the Trinity, whatever I have said in these books of what is yours, may your own acknowledge; if anything of mine, do you forgive, and your own. Amen.”
Further, how rightly Luther thought about the Incarnation can easily be understood even from three of his works. For in the sermon on the Lord's Nativity, in which he explains the first chapter of the letter to the Hebrews, while he fears to mix the natures with Eutyches, he boldly divides the persons with Nestorius. For he says: “Some unskilled men make Christ an omnipotent man.” But if that man Christ is not omnipotent, by the same reasoning he is not God; for he cannot be God who is not omnipotent. There will be two, then, Christ God and Christ man, which is most openly the Nestorian opinion. On the other hand, in the book On Councils and the Church, part 2, while he wishes to avoid Nestorius, he openly falls into Eutyches. For he speaks thus: “I had business a little while ago with Nestorians, who disputed most obstinately against me that the divinity of Christ could not suffer.” And below: “It must be said, this man Christ, this flesh and blood, made heaven and earth.” Certainly the divinity and the flesh are names of natures, not of persons. So if for Luther the divinity suffers, if the flesh makes heaven and earth, who does not see that Luther confuses the natures of Christ?
And to show the leaning of his mind toward Nestorius and Eutyches, Luther in the same book On Councils excuses Nestorius and Eutyches so carefully that he gives each of them good zeal, a sincere mind and right faith, and says they slipped only from some ignorance and in their way of speaking; and he lays the whole cause of the tumults and disturbance of that time on the Catholic Bishops. And at last he goes so far as to say “that he fears lest at the last judgement some who are called heretics may sit as judges, and the Bishops who condemned them in Councils may perish for ever”; all but openly affirming that Nestorius and Eutyches will be judges with Christ, and the saints Leo and Cyril will perish for ever.
Further, in the book which is entitled The Confession of Martin Luther on the Lord's Supper, he not only rebukes the Zwinglians for attributing the passion of Christ to the humanity alone and not also to the deity, but also, on the other hand, seems to raise the humanity itself into the deity, when he says: “You must place that essence of Christ which is one person with God very far outside the creatures, and so as far as God himself is outside the creatures.” Nor does Luther mean that Christ's humanity is outside the creatures as to place or space, but as to order and dignity. For in the same book he contends that Christ's humanity is everywhere. And in the Sermon on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper: “We believe,” he says, “that Jesus Christ according to the humanity is placed above all creatures, and fills all things.” And below: “And has all things in his hand, and is present everywhere.” If, then, Christ's humanity is outside the order of creatures, it is not a created nature but an uncreated essence, and for that reason must no longer be called humanity but divinity. Again: if Christ's humanity is as far from the creatures in excellence and dignity as God himself is, and God is separated from all creatures by an infinite distance, then Christ's humanity is of infinite dignity and excellence. From which it follows either that there are two infinite natures, or that Christ's humanity has been turned into the deity; which is the Eutychian heresy. And perhaps not without a hidden reason there is no mention, neither in the Confession nor in the Apology, of Nestorius and Eutyches, who yet ought to have been condemned by name in the third article, as Arius and Eunomius are condemned in the first.
Now Philip Melanchthon, in the Common Places of the year [15]39, page 9: “It is necessary,” he says, “that there be in the Son something of the divine nature.” And again, page 11: “It is necessary that there be in Christ some divine nature.” And in the Places of the year [15]45, folio 53, speaking of the Holy Spirit: “God testifies,” he says, “through Joel, that not a created knowledge is sent, but something of the essence of God.” And it is necessary that there be a distinct person, which is something of God and yet is not the Father. For Philip, then, either there are many divine natures, since it is necessary that there be some divine nature in the Son; or certainly there are many parts of the same divinity, since in the Son as well as in the Holy Spirit there is something of the divine nature. How well this fits with the first article of the Confession, no one fails to see.
Again, the same Philip in the Places of the years [15]45 and [15]58, page 40: “The divine nature,” he says, “was not torn or dead, but was obedient to the Father, was still, gave way to the wrath of the eternal Father.” What clearer could be said for the Arian heresy? For if the divine nature of the Son was obedient to the Father and gave way to his wrath, the divinity of the Son is distinct from the Father, and the Father does not have the divinity, or has another. Where then is the unity of the divine essence which the Augsburg Confession preaches?
Besides, in the same Places, page 42, he explains that saying, Glorify me, Father, thus: “Now, being sent, I am subject to the cross, and serve my calling. But afterwards restore to me the glory which I had with you before the founding of the world,” and so on. Certainly what was not lost cannot be restored; so Christ lost the glory which he had before the founding of the world. But he did not lose it as man, since before the founding of the world he was not man; so he lost it as God. So Christ is a changeable God, and for that reason neither true God nor one God with the Father, but a God made and created by the Father, as the Arians taught. And perhaps he points to this too in the same Places, page 45, when he says: “At the time of the passion there was not in Christ the glory of blessedness, as at another time.” I pass over this, that in the same place, page 22, he wants the three divine persons to be three singular intelligent beings. This way of speaking does not agree well enough with the Creed of Athanasius, which is received in this Concord as pious, as it truly is. For as it is said in the Creed, not three almighty but one almighty, so without doubt it must be said, not three intelligent but one intelligent.
Let us come to the articles on free choice and the cause of sin, and see whether Luther and Philip always taught what they now teach in the Confession. Article 18 of the Confession runs thus: “On free choice they teach that the human will has some liberty for bringing about civil righteousness and for choosing things subject to reason,” and so on. Article 19, on the cause of sin, teaches: “That although God creates and preserves nature, yet the cause of sin is the will of the wicked, namely of the devil and of the ungodly, which, without God's help, turns itself away from God; as Christ says: When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own.”
Let us hear now Luther's words from the assertion of article 36: “Free choice,” he says, “is a fiction among things, and a title without a thing; for it is in no one's hand to think anything good or evil, but all things (as Wyclif's article condemned at Constance rightly teaches) happen of absolute necessity; which the poet too meant when he said: All things stand by fixed law.” And Christ, Matthew 6: A leaf of a tree shall not fall to the ground without your father [as printed; the saying is of the sparrow, Matthew 10:29]. And below: “There is no doubt that this name, free choice, came into the Church with Satan as master.” And, so that Luther might shut off for himself and his followers the way to a retractation, in the same assertion he had said by way of preface: “In the other articles, on the Papacy, on councils, on indulgences, and other trifles that are not necessary, the lightness and folly of the Pope and his followers is to be borne. But in this article, which is the best of all and the sum of our affairs, it is to be grieved over and wept that wretched men are so mad.” And in the book against the king of England he had written: “That he was so certain of his teaching that if anyone taught otherwise, or condemned what he himself wrote on faith, on works, on free choice and so on, he would be condemning God, and must remain a son of hell.” And things like these Philip taught in the Places published in the years [15]21 and [15]22.
So far, then, is it from being true, what is said in the preface of the Confession, “that this very teaching of the Confession is that which the Lutheran Preachers have hitherto delivered,” that it is rather most true that in the chief article and in the sum of the matter the authors of the Confession went over from Luther to the Pope. And (if Luther's prophecy be true) they must now remain sons of hell, since they dared to condemn God in Luther. I am not unaware that Luther in the Saxon Visitation, and Philip in the Epitome of moral philosophy and in the Places published in later years, taught very differently on free choice and the cause of sin from what they had taught before, when they had the first fruits of the Spirit; yet this neither excuses the lie, and it convicts them of inconstancy. And because it seems to help not a little toward commending the architect of this Confession to recall Philip's remarkable constancy in teaching, I shall note briefly his opinions on free choice and the cause of sin.
In the Places of the year [15]21, first, he rejects the very name of free choice and of reason: “The word free choice,” he says, “has come into use, most foreign to the divine letters and to the sense and judgement of the spirit. There has been added from the philosophy of Plato the word reason, equally harmful.” But in the later Places: “The less learned,” he says, “are to be warned to take from the natural philosophers the distinctions and names of the parts of man. In man there is a knowing and judging part, which is called mind, or intellect, or reason; the other, desiring, part is called will. And the mind and will joined together are called free choice.”
Second, he defends Valla against John Eck: “Valla,” he says, “who confuted the opinion of the schools on free choice, Eck says wished to know more than he had learned; an exceedingly witty trifler, of course.” But in the later Places: “Valla,” he says, “and very many others wrongly take liberty away from the will of man.” And in the Epitome of moral Philosophy: “Let us flee,” he says, “those Stoic notions about Fate, or Valla's absurd imaginings, which because of the divine government take liberty away from the will.”
Third, he finds fault with philosophy: “In this place,” he says, “Christian teaching wholly disagrees with philosophy and human reason.” But in the Epitome of moral philosophy: “The description of reason,” he says, “was most wisely added by Aristotle.” And in the Places, the chapter on the powers of man: “This,” he says, “is the liberty of the will, which the philosophers rightly attribute to man.”
Fourth, he takes away all liberty and contingency: “Since,” he says, “all things that happen happen necessarily according to the divine predestination, there is no liberty of our choice. What then, you will say, is there no contingency in things? No chance? No fortune? The Scriptures teach that all things happen necessarily. And if there seems to you to be contingency in human affairs, the judgement of reason must here be overruled.” But in the later Places: “It must be granted,” he says, “that apostolic Scripture attributes to man, even now after the fall, some liberty of choosing those things that are subject to reason.” And below: “This Manichaean imagining (namely the one that takes away liberty and contingency) is a horrible lie, and minds are to be led away from this error and taught that free choice does something.”
Fifth, in the commentary on chapter 8 of the letter to the Romans, he teaches that God is the cause of sins. “As we confess,” he says, “that the calling of Paul was God's own work, so we confess that these are God's own works: whether those which are called indifferent, as eating, drinking and so on, or those which are evil, as David's adultery, Manlius's severity. For it is clear from chapter 1 to the Romans that God does all things, not by permission but by power.” And below: “So there is no reason why we should admit the cold gloss that God permits evils and does not also do them.” But in the Places, on the cause of sin: “This,” he says, “is a true and pious opinion, to be held with both hands, and more truly with the whole heart: that God is not the cause of sin, nor wills sin.” And below: “Nor do those figures of speech in the Hebrew tongue fight with this opinion: I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and the like. For it is certain that in the Hebrew phrase they signify permission, not effective will.”
From these things I think it is clear enough both how weighty and constant an author that so much celebrated Confession had, and how true is what is asserted in its preface: that in this Confession is contained the teaching which up to that time the Lutherans had delivered from the divine letters.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
III. MENDACIUM. Pradationc Confess. ad Caroluin V pag. G. ita habetur : « Offerimus in hac religionis causa, nostrorum Concionatorum,et nostram Confessionem; cujusmodi doctrinam ex Seri- 110 MENDACIA CONCORDIAE. pturis sanctis, et puro verbo Dei, hactenus illi in nostris terris, ducatibus, ditionibus, et urbibus tradiderunt, ac in Ecclesiis tra¬ ctaverunt. Hoc insigne mendacium esse, vel ex eo co¬ gnosci potest, quod Confessio Lutberi in multis ab Augustana dissentit; cum tamen eodem anno 1530. edita sit, neque credibile videatur, melius Lutheranos, quam ipsum Lutherum , quae sit Lutherana doctrina , scire potuisse. Articulus 11. Lutheranae Confessionis habet : « Quod Confessio pri¬ vata debeat esse libera ». Confessio autem Augustana, in cap. de Confessione, dicit : « Apud suos non solere porrigi corpus Do¬ mini, nisi antea exploratis et absolutis ». Et in cap. de Missa, sic ait: « Nulli admittun¬ tur ad Sacramentum, nisi antea explorati atque auditi». Item artic. 16. Lutheranae Confessionis, vult « Missam prae omnibus abominationibus esse abrogandam ». Con¬ fessio vero Augustana in cap. de Missa : « Falso, inquit, accusantur Ecclesiae nostra3, quod Missam aboleant; retinetur enim Missa apud nos, et summa reverentia celebratur». Ad haec nec Augustana Confessio a Phiiippo fabricata, nec Lutherana, quae Augustanam sine dubio peperit, cum ea doctrina concor¬ dat, quam initio Lutherus et Melanchton tradiderunt. Audio Joanuem Cochlaeum eo¬ dem anno 1530. collegisse articulos ex libris Lutheri et Philippi, contra singulos articulos Confessionis Augustanae ; sed eos nondum videre potui. Sed facile credo illum hoc fe¬ cisse, cum ipse quoque id praestare nullo negotio possim , qui tamen multo minus versatus sum in Lutheranorum libris, quam Cochlaeus fuerit. Ac ne sim nimis prolixus, conferam solum duos, aut tres principales Confessionis articulos, cum Lutheri et Phi¬ lippi doctrina. Articulus primus Confessionis Augustanae sic habet : « Ecclesiae magno consensu apud nos docent, decretum Nicaenae Synodi, de unitate essentiae divinae, et de tribus perso¬ nis, verum et sine ulla dubitatione creden¬ dum esse ». Et infra : « Et nomine personae utuntur ea significatione, qua usi sunt in hac causa scriptores ecclesiastici, ut signifi¬ cet non partem, aut qualitatem in alio, sed quod proprie subsistit ». Et infra : « Dam¬ nant omnes haereses contra hunc articulum exortas, ut Manichaeos, Yalentinianos, Aria- nos, Eunomianos, etc. » Huic articulo primo recte annectitur tertius, qui est de incarna¬ tione Filii Dei, in quo duae naturae unitae as¬ seruntur in una persona. Lutherus autem quam verum crediderit Nicaenum decretum de unitate essentiae, satis ostendit illis verbis, quibus est usus contra Jacobum Latomum : « Anima mea, inquit , odit hoc verbum 6p.oou<rio; ». Quod tamen verbum ignorare non poterat in concilio Nicaeno, (ut D. Au¬ gustinus loquitur lib. ni. contra Max. cap. 14.) adversus haereticos Arianos, veritatis auctoritate, et auctoritatis veritate, firma¬ tum esse. Neque vero id Luthero excidit per incogitantiam. Nam rursum id repetit, in libro de conciliis : « Sanctus, inquit, Hiero- ronymus vehementer perturbatus, lamenta¬ biles litteras scribebat ad Episcopum Rom. Damasum, et cupiebat expungi vocabulum ogoouato? ». Ubi scilicet notanda est alia fraus Lutheri. Non enim S. Hieronym. vocabulum SfAoouffioi;, sed vocabulum 6 ttoot ccsic, tacen¬ dum arbitrabatur, propter ejus vocis ambi¬ guitatem. Notae sunt epistolae duae S. Hiero¬ nymi de hac re ad Damasum, quarum altera ita concluditur : obtestor beatitudinem tuam per crucifixum, mundi salutem, per 6uooucnov Trinitatem, ut mihi epistolis tuis sive tacen¬ darum, sive dicendarum hypostaseon detur auctoritas. Deinde, si Luthero probatur doctrina Ca¬ tholica de unitate essentiae, et Trinitate per¬ sonarum, cur ex precibus communibus Ger¬ manorum , illam precatiunculam sustulit : sancta Trinitas unus Deus, miserere nobis ? Nec novam esse hanc formam invocationis, sed ab antiquissimis Patribus, tam Graecis, quam Latinis, usurpatam, certum est ex Na- zianzeno, qui oratione secunda de pace, ad finem, ait : 0 Trinitas sancta et longanimis, suscipe etiam istos etc. Et ex August. lib. ult. cap. ult. de Trinitate : Domine, Deus unus, inquit, Deus Trinitas, quaecumque dixi in his libris de tuo, agnoscant et tui : Si qua de meo, et tu ignosce, et tui, Arnen. Porro de Incarnatione, quam recte Luthe¬ rus senserit, et tribus ejus operibus facile poterit intelligi. Nam in concione de Natali Domini, qua primum caput epistolae ad He¬ braeos exponit, dum metuit cum Eutyehete permiscere naturas, audacter cum Nestorio dividit personas. Dicit enim : « Imperitos quosdam, facere Christum hominem omni¬ potentem». At si ille homo Christus non est omnipotens, eadem ratione non est Deus ; nec enim Deus esse potest qui non sit omni¬ potens. Duo igitur erunt, Christus Deus, et III. mendacium. ih Christus homo, quae est apertissime Nesto- riana sententia. Contra vero, in lib. de Con¬ ciliis et Ecclesia part. 2. dum vitare cupit Nestorium, aperte incidit in Eutychetein. Sic enim loquitur : « Mihi paulo ante nego¬ tium fuit cum Nestorianis, qui pertinacis¬ sime contra me disputabant, quod divinitas Christi non posset pati ». Et infra : « Opor¬ tet dici, hic homo Christus, haec caro et sanguis condidit coelum et terram ». Certe natura divinitatis et carnis, nomina sunt naturarum non personarum. Ergo si Lu- thero divinitas patitur, si caro coelum ac terram condit, quis non videat, a Luthero Christi naturas confundi? Ac ut propensio¬ nem animi sui in Nestorium, et Eutychetem Lutherus ostenderet, in eodem de Conciliis libro, ita diligenter Nestorium et Eutyche¬ tem excusat, ut utrique zelum bonum, ani¬ mum sincerum, et fidem rectam tribuat, et solum ex inscitia quadam, et in modo lo¬ quendi lapsos dicat ; totam vero causam tumultuum et perturbationis illius temporis, in Episcopos Catholicos referat. Et eo usque tandem progreditur, ut dicat, « vereri se, ne in extremo judicio aliqui, qui dicuntur haeretici, judices sedeant; et Episcopi, qui illos in Conciliis damnaverunt, in aeternum pereant ». Tantum non aperte affirmans, Nestorium, et Eutychetem cuin Christo ju¬ dices futuros, sanctos vero, Leonem, et Cyrillum, in seternum perituros. Porro in libro, qui inscribitur : « Confessio Martini Lutheri de Ccena Domini, non solum repre¬ hendit Zwinglianos, quod passionem Christi soli tribuant humanitati, non etiam deitati; sed etiam econtrario ipsam humanitatem in deitatem evehere videtur, cum ait : « Ne- cesse habes, eam Christi essentiam, quse est cum Deo una persona , longissime extra creaturas collocare, ideoquetam longe quam . Deus ipse, extra creaturas est ». Neque vult Lutherus dicere, Christi humanitatem extra creaturas esse, quantum ad locum, sive spa¬ tium, sed quantum ad ordinem et dignita¬ tem. Nam in eodem libro contendit, ubique esse Christi humanitatem. Et in Serm. de sacramento Coenae Domini : « Credimus, inquit, quo Jesus Christus sit juxta humani¬ tatem, super omnes creaturas collocatus, et omnia impleat ». Et infra : « Et habeat om¬ nia in sua manu, et sit ubivis praesens ». Si igitur Christi humanitas , extra ordinem creaturarum est, non creata natura, sed in- creata essentia est, ac per hoc non amplius humanitas, sed divinitas dici debet. Rur¬ sum : Si Christi -humanitas tam longe abest a creaturis, quantum ad excellentiam et dignitatem, quam longe abest ipse Deus; Deus autem infinito intervallo a creaturis omnibus separatur; igitur Christi humanitas infinitae dignitatis, et excellentiae est. Ex quo sequitur, aut duas esse infinitas natu¬ ras, aut Christi humanitatem in deitatem esse conversam ; quse est hseresis Eutychia- na. Et fortasse non sine mysterio, nec in Confessione, nec in Apologia, ulla fit mentio Nestorii, et Eutychetis, qui tamen nomina- tim damnari debuissent in articulo tertio, ut damnantur in primo, Arius, et Eunomius. Jam vero Philippus Melanchthon, in Locis anni 39. pagin. 9 : « Necesse est, inquit, in Filio aliquid esse divinse naturae». Et rur¬ sum pag. 11 : « Necesse est in Christo ali¬ quam esse divinam naturam ». Et in Locis anni 45. fol. 53. de Spiritu sancto loquens : « Testatur, inquit, per Joelem Deus, nou mitti creatam agnitionem, sed aliquid essen¬ tiae Dei ». Necesse est autem personam esse distinctam, quae est aliquid Dei, et tamen non est Pater. Philippo igitur, aut multae sunt naturae divinae, cum necesse sit in Filio aliquam esse divinam naturam; aut certe multae sunt partes ejusdem divinitatis, cum tam in Filio, quam in Spiritu sancto aliquid sit divinae naturae. Quod quam bene cohae¬ reat cum articulo primo Confessionis, nemo non videt. Rursum, idem Philippus in Locis anni 45. et 58. pag. 40 : « Non est, inquit, lacerata, aut mortua divina natura, sed fuit obediens Patri, quievit, cessit irae aeterni Patris ». Quid clarius pro Ariana haeresi dici poterat; nam si natura divina Filii, Patri fuit obediens, et irae illius cessit, distin¬ guitur divinitas Filii a Patre, et Pater non habet divinitatem, vel habet aliam. Ubi est igitur unitas essentiae divinae, quam praedi¬ cat Augustana Confessio? Ad haec in iisdem Locis pag. 42. ita exponit illud : Glorifica me Pater : « Nunc missus subjectus sum cruci, et servio meae vocationi. Deinde vero gloriam mihi restitue , quam ante mundi constitutionem apud te habui, etc. » Certe non potest restitui quod non fuit amissum ; amisit igitur Christus gloriam, quam habuit ante mundi constitutionem; non autem ami¬ sit eam ut homo, cum ante mundi constitu¬ tionem non fuerit homo, amisit igitur ut Deus. Deus igitur mutabilis est Christus, ac per hoc nec Deus verus, nec Deus unus cum ! 1 2 MENDACIA CONCORDLE. Patre, sed Deus factus ct creatus a Patre, ut Ariani docebant. Atque huc etiam fortasse alludit in iisdem locis pag. 45.. cum ait: « Tempore passionis non fuisse in Christo gloriam beatitudinis , ut alio tempore ». Omitto illud, quod ibid. pag. 22. tres per¬ sonas divinas, tres esse vult singulares in- telligentes. Qui modus loquendi, non satis consentit cum Symbolo Athanasii, quod in hac Concordia, tamquam pium, ut vere est, recipitur. Ut enim in Symbolo dicitur : Non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens, ita sine dubio dici debet, non tres intelligentes, sed unus intelligens. Veniamus ad articulos de libero arbitrio, et causa peccati, et videamus, an id semper Lutherus et Philippus docuerint, quod in Confessione nunc docent. Artic. 18. Confes¬ sionis, sic habet: « De libero arbitrio docent quod humana voluntas, habeat aliquam li¬ bertatem ad efficiendam civilem justitiam, et diligendas res rationi subjectas etc. ». Ar¬ tic. 19. de causa peccati docet : « Quod ta¬ metsi Deus creat et conservat naturam, ta¬ men causa peccati est voluntas malorum, vi¬ delicet diaboli, et impiorum, quee non adju¬ vante Deo avertit se a Deo, sicut Christus ait: Cum loquitur mendacium, ex seipso loqui¬ tur » . Audiamus nunc verba Lutheri ex assert. art. 36. « Liberum», inquit, « arbitrium, est figmentum in rebus, et titulus sine re ; quia nulli est in manu sua quippiam cogitare boni, vel mali, sed omnia, (ut Wiclefi arti¬ culus Constantia? damnatus, recte docet) de necessitate absoluta eveniunt, quod et poeta voluit, quando dixit : Certa stant omnia lege ». Et Christus Mattb. vi : Folium arbo¬ ris non cadet in terram , sine patre vestro (1). Et infra: « Non est dubium Satana magistro in Ecclesiam venisse hoc nomon, liberum arbitrium » . Ac, ut sibi et suis Lutherus pra¬ eluderet aditum ad retractationem in eadem assertione, ita praefatus fuerat : « In ca?teris articulis, de Papatu, de conciliis, de indul¬ gentiis, aliisque non necessariis nugis, fe¬ renda est levitas, et stultitia Papae, et suorum. Sed in hoc articulo, qui omnium optimus, ct rerum nostrarum summa est, dolendum ct flendum est, miseros sic insanire». Et in lib. contra regem Anglite scripserat: «Adeo se certum esse de sua doctrina, ut si quis aliter doceret, aut damnaret, quae ipse scri¬ psit de fide, de operibus, de libero arbitrio etc., is damnaret Deum, ct oporteret ipsum manere filium inferni ». Atque hjs similia Philippus docuit in Locis, anno 21. et 22. editis. Tantum abest igitur, ut verum sit, quod in praefatione Confessionis dicitur : « Hanc ipsam Confessionis doctrinam eam esse, quam hactenus Lutherani Concionato- res tradiderunt », ut potius sit verissimum, in praecipuo articulo et in summa rei defe¬ cisse Confessionis auctores a Luthero ad Papam. Et (si verum sit Lutheri vaticinium) oportere jam eos 'manere filios inferni : quippe qui Deum in Luthero damnare ausi fuerint. Non ignoro Lulherum in Visitatione Saxonica, et Philippum in Epitome moralis philosophia?, et in Locis editis posterioribus annis, longe aliter docuisse de libero arbitrio et causa peccati, quam antea docuerant, cum haberent primitias Spiritus ; tamen id neque mendacium excusat, ct arguit incon¬ stantiam. Et quia non parum conducere vi¬ detur ad commendationem architecti hujus Confessionis, ad memoriam revocare Phir lippi egregiam in doctrina constantiam, an¬ notabo breviter ejus sententias de libero ar¬ bitrio, et causa peccati. In Locis anni 21. primo, repudiat nomen ipsum liberi arbitrii, et rationis : « Usurpata est vox », inquit, « liberi arbitrii, a divinis litteris, ac sensu, et judicio spiritus alienissi¬ ma. Additum est c Platonis philosophia, vo¬ cabulum rationis seque perniciosum » . At in Locis posterioribus: «Monendi sunt», in¬ quit, « rudiores, ut a physicis sumant distin¬ ctiones, et appellationes partium hominis. In homine est pars cognoscens, et judicans, quse vocatur mens, vel intellectus, vel ratio ; altera pars appetens, vocatur voluntas. Vo¬ catur autem liberum arbitrium mens et vo¬ luntas conjuncta. » Secundo, defendit Vallam, contra Joan- nem Eckium : « Valla », inquit, « ait Eckius quod scholarum sententiam de libero arbi¬ trio confutavit, plura voluisse scire, quam didicisset, scilicet egregie festivus nugator ». At in locis posterioribus : « Valla », inquit, « et plerique alii non recte detrahunt volun¬ tati hominis libertatem ». Et in Epitome mo¬ ralis Philosophia? : « Stoicas illas », inquit, « de Fato, seu Valla? absurdas imaginatio¬ nes, qua? propter divinam gubernationem, adimunt libertatem voluntati, fugiamus ». (1) Mat. VI. IV. MENDACIUM. 113 Tertio, reprehendit philosophiam : « Hoc loco », inquit, « prorsus Christiana doctrina a philosophia, et humana ratione dissentit». At in Epitome moralis philosophia} : « Est », inquit, « prudentissime ab Aristotele addita rationis descriptio ». Et in locis, cap. de vi¬ ribus hominis : « Ilaec est», inquit, « libertas voluntatis, quam philosophi recte tribuunt homini ». Quarto, tollit omnem libertatem, et con¬ ti ngentiam : « Quandoquidem » , inquit, « omnia quae eveniunt, necessario juxta di¬ vinam praedestinationem eveniunt, nulla est arbitrii nostri libertas. Quid igitur, inquies, nulla ne est in rebus contingentia? nihil ca¬ sus ? nihil fortuna ? Omnia necessario eve¬ nire, Scripturae docent. Et si videatur tibi in rebus humanis esse contingentiam, judicio rationis hic imperandum est. » At in locis posterioribus: « Concedendum est », inquit, (t quod Scriptura apostolica tribuat homini, etiam nunc post lapsum, libertatem aliquam deligendi ea, quae sunt subjecta rationi». At infra : a Ilaec Manichaea imaginatio (quae videlicet libertatem et contingentiam tollit) horribile mendacimn est, et ab hoc errore mentes abducendae sunt, et docendae agere aliquid liberum arbitrium ». Quinto, in comment. ad cap. vm. epist. ad Rom. docet, Deum peccatorum causam esse. « Sicut », inquit, « fatemur, proprium Dei opus fuisse Pauli vocationem, ita fate¬ mur opera Dei propria esse ; sive quae media vocantur, ut comedere, bibere etc. sive quae mala sunt, ut Davidis adulterium, Manlii severitatem. Constat enim ex cap. 1. ad Ro¬ mam Deum omnia facere, non permissive, sed potenter ». Et infra: «Ergo non est, cur frigidum glossema admittamus, Deum mala permittere, non etiam facere ». At in locis de causa peccati : « Est », inquit, « heec vera, et pia sententia, utraque manu, et ve¬ rius, toto pectore tenenda, Deum non esse causam peccati : nec velle peccatum». Et infra: « Nec figurae illae verborum in sermone hebraico pugnant cum hac sententia : Indu¬ rabo cor Pharaonis ; et similes. Certum est enim hebraica phrasi significare permisio- nem, non efficacem voluntatem ». Ex his satis constare puto, et quam gra¬ vem et constantem auctorem habuerit illa Confessio tantopere celebrata, et quam ve¬ rum sit, quod in ejus praefatione asseritur, in hac Confessione eam doctrinam con :eri, quam usque ad illud tempus ex divinis litteris Lutherani tradiderant.