Bellarmine · Judicium de Libro Concordiae · Judgement on the Book of Concord
Chapter 7: Lies XXV to XXXIV: Melanchthon’s Moderation, Augustine on Concupiscence, Faith Alone, and the Church
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 Twenty-fifth Lie
Page 51, in the preface: “And now I have written as moderately as I could. And if anything seems said too harshly, I must say beforehand that I am quarrelling with the Theologians and Monks who wrote the confutation, not with the Emperor or the princes, whom I revere as I ought,” and so on. If these words are true, Philip wrote nothing in this Apology that could sound like abuse against the Theologians and Monks and other Catholics who did not write the confutation; and against those too who did write the confutation, even if something was said rather harshly, the moderation fitting so great a Theologian was kept.
But on this very page 51, in the words that come right before this protest of moderation, the Catholic Theologians are most harshly whipped. “But the adversaries,” he says, “so conduct the cause as to show that they seek neither truth nor concord, but to suck up our blood.” And below, on the same page: “All Theologians are called Sophists.” And below, page 103, Philip speaks most moderately when he says: “It is shameful for the adversaries to preach love so much when they nowhere show it. What are they doing now? They scatter Churches, write laws in blood and set them before the Emperor, most merciful prince, to be published; they slaughter priests and other good men, if anyone has lightly shown that he does not wholly approve some manifest abuse.” And page 164: notable moderation is seen in these words of Philip: “May God destroy those ungodly Sophists who so wickedly twist the word of God to their most empty dreams.” And a little after: “Who taught these asses dialectic?” And page 200: “Nor do these asses see, in Jerome against Vigilantius,” and so on. And page 208: “They defend manifest abuses with a new and unheard-of cruelty. They allow no fit teachers in the Church.” And page 212: “Now let the prudent reader weigh what brow these worthless men have.” And below, of most weighty Theologians he says: “As if that public infamy of shameful and monstrous lusts which burn among those holy Fathers, who pretend to be Curii and live like bacchanals, much adorned the Church; and most of the things which these men do with the greatest licence cannot even be named with decency.” And page 220: “Those Sardanapaluses deliberately misuse the pretext of religion.” And page 222: “You see,” he says, “the extreme shamelessness of these rascals,” and so on. Surely it is a moderation to be praised, that old men, most weighty and most learned Theologians, should be called now asses, now rascals, now Sardanapaluses, now worthless men, and called so by one who hardly has a good hold of grammar.
The Twenty-sixth Lie
Page 59, in the Apology, article 2: “In the same way,” says Philip, “Augustine too speaks, who says: Sin is forgiven in Baptism, not so that it is not, but so that it is not imputed. Here he openly confesses that sin is, that is, remains, although it is not imputed. And this opinion so pleased those after him that it was quoted even in the decrees.”
It is truly a wonder that lies so please some people that they can by no means be torn away from them. Luther had written this same thing in the assertion of article 2, and it was shown him by the Bishop of Rochester that Augustine nowhere says that sin remains and is not imputed, but that concupiscence remains and is not imputed as sin, just as it truly is not sin. For these are Augustine's words, which are quoted corruptly by the Lutherans, book 1 On marriage and concupiscence, chapter 25: “If it is asked how this concupiscence remains in the regenerate, in whom the remission of all sins has been made, the answer is that the concupiscence of the flesh is forgiven in Baptism, not so that it is not, but so that it is not imputed as sin.” In book 6 against Julian, chapter 8, too, Augustine does not say that sin remains in act and passes in guilt. For Augustine was not so stupid as not to understand that these do not hang together, that sin remains in act and does not remain in guilt; since the same Augustine is accustomed to define sin by guilt. And in the same place, book 1 On marriage and concupiscence, chapter 25, he says: “This is not to have sin, not to be guilty of sin.” He also asserts everywhere that the concupiscence remaining is a certain evil and weakness, but not sin. Tractate 41 on John: “Because all iniquity has been blotted out,” he says, “has no weakness remained?” And book 6 against Julian, chapter 5: “The justified lack all sin, but not all evil.”
What of this, that Philip himself too, in the colloquy of Worms (as John Cochlaeus testifies in his examination of the Augsburg Confession, article 2), frankly confessed that this place of Augustine had been wrongly quoted, when John Eck put it to him? What of this, that many of ours have now often warned the Lutherans of this error? Since, then, a lie so often exposed and refuted is still found in the book of Concord, to which eight thousand men subscribed, one of two things is necessary: either this lie could not be caught by sixteen thousand eyes, or the adversaries wished to make Concord even with lies. Add that in the decree of Gratian too, distinction 4 On consecration, canon Per Baptismum, it is not said that sin remains (as Philip lies), but concupiscence.
The Twenty-seventh Lie
Page 62, in the Apology for article 4, Philip says thus: “The authors of the confutation of the Augsburg Confession condemn our affirming that men obtain remission of sins by faith, and are justified by faith in Christ.” But it is a lie. For the authors of the confutation of the Confession do not condemn our saying that we are justified by faith, but by faith alone. For that confutation of which Philip speaks is extant in the harmony of the Augsburg Confession published by Andreas Fabricius of Liège, and in it we read thus, article 5: “That they make mention of faith here is approved, in so far as it is understood of faith not alone, as some wrongly teach, but of faith which works through love, as the Apostle rightly teaches, Galatians 5.” So there.
The Twenty-eighth Lie
In the same place: “Antony, Bernard, Dominic, Francis and other holy Fathers chose a certain kind of life,” and so on. Either Philip speaks from his heart when he calls Antony, Bernard, Dominic and Francis saints, or he thinks one thing and says another. If he speaks from his heart, he destroys the whole Augsburg confession and all Lutheranism outright. For it is certain that these four Fathers were Monks, and Fathers of Monks, and all thought up a certain kind of clothing, wore cowls, abstained from certain foods, kept vows of perpetual continence, poverty and obedience, and commended them to others. Likewise it is certain that Antony went off into the desert and left all civil duties; that Bernard and Dominic said Mass constantly and held to the Roman Pope, and so were Papists beyond measure; and lastly no one is ignorant that Francis, in his testament, commended the faith of the Roman Church, and ordered that if any of his men strayed from the faith of the Roman Church he should be most carefully guarded and handed over to the judges. But if he says one thing and thinks another, he is the imitator and son of him who was a liar from the beginning, indeed who is named by the Truth himself the father of lies.
The Twenty-ninth Lie
Page 105, in the Apology: “The adversaries,” says Philip, “teach that men are justified by love and works; of faith, by which we lay hold of Christ the propitiator, they say nothing. Indeed they disapprove this faith, and not only disapprove it in opinions or writings, but try to blot it out of the Church with the sword and with punishments.” We have already said often that we require true faith in Christ above all in the business of justification; and so Philip lies when he says that we either say nothing of faith or attack faith.
But that special faith of the Lutherans, proud and arrogant, which wants to justify alone and does not suffer the companions God assigned it, we rightly reject, and wish it blotted out from the foundations and destroyed; since it too blots out and destroys prayer, the sacraments, good works, and whatever God instituted for the salvation of men. For if anyone does not pray from faith, he prays badly, and provokes God rather than appeases him, as even the adversaries confess. So faith must go before prayer. But where there is faith, there at once is justification; and the Lutheran is certain by faith that his sins are forgiven, and cannot doubt of it without a very grave crime. So he cannot pray and say: Forgive us our debts; or with the publican: God be merciful to me a sinner; but he must say with the Pharisee: Lord, I thank you that I am not as other men. For how will he dare to ask for what he knows certainly by faith that he has already obtained? By the same reasoning, without faith the sacraments do not profit but harm; but when faith is present it justifies at once; why then is Baptism given after faith? The Ninevites too lost that fast of theirs, so full of labour. For if they fasted without faith, it profited them nothing; if with faith going before, God was already appeased before the fast. Many things could be said here, but this cause has now been handled by many to the point of weariness.
The Thirtieth Lie
Page 112 [“H2” in the scan], in the Apology: “Plainly,” says Philip, “the adversaries are deaf; it has been said so often that the law does not profit without Christ, because of whom good works please. But everywhere, Christ being shut out, they teach that the works of the law merit justification.” You lie, Philip, and so shamelessly that it would be a wonder if you found anyone to believe you. Bring forward at least one of our Theologians who teaches that works without Christ merit justification. Certainly the Catholic confutation itself, against which above all you write the Apology, speaks thus in article 4: “Yet all Catholics confess that our works of themselves are of no merit.” See above, at the twentieth lie.
The Thirty-first Lie
Page 124, in the Apology, article 6, Philip says thus: “Nor let it offend anyone that they claim for themselves the name of the Church. For the Church of Christ is among those who rightly teach the Gospel of Christ, not among those who defend wrong opinions against the Gospel.” And everywhere in this Apology Philip denies that the Church is among us. But that this is false can be proved from the same Apology. For on the next page, that is 125, Philip says: “Antichrist sits in the temple of God”; that is, as he himself explains, rules in the Church and holds offices. And on page 130 he says that the Pope is Antichrist. If, then, the Pope as Antichrist rules and holds offices in the Church, and yet does not rule or hold offices among the Lutherans but among the Papists, then not the Lutherans but the Papists are the Church.
And besides, on page 222 Philip acknowledges some offence “in that he made a schism, and tore himself and his followers away from those who are thought the ordinary Bishops”; and he adds that he desired concord with the greatest zeal; which he often repeats elsewhere too. But if the Church is not among us, but the kingdom of Antichrist, and the Bishops themselves are members of Antichrist, certainly it is no crime to disagree with us and our Bishops; but on the contrary it is rather a very grave crime to want to agree with Antichrist. Let the book of Concord agree with itself, then, and either confess that the Church is among us, or not say that Antichrist holds office in the Church, nor desire Concord with us.
The Thirty-second Lie
Page 129, in the Apology: “It is a manifest error,” says Philip, “which the adversaries teach, that men merit the remission of sins by love toward God before grace.” But truly no Catholic ever even dreamed what is here put to us; and in the Catholic confutation it is repeated everywhere that works without grace are worth nothing.
The Thirty-third Lie
In the same place: “What need will there be of faith, if the sacraments justify ex opere operato, without a good movement in the one using them?” But no Catholic ever said or wrote that in adults an inner movement of faith, of displeasure or of contrition and so on is not required with the sacraments. And we above, at the twentieth lie, brought forward St. Thomas, asserting that the merit of Christ is applied to men through faith in the sacraments.
The Thirty-fourth Lie
Page 129, in the Apology, Philip says thus: “But perhaps the adversaries demand that the Church be defined thus: that it is an outward monarchy, supreme over the whole world, in which the Roman Pontiff must have an unaccountable power, about which no one may dispute or judge, of making articles of faith, of abolishing the Scriptures, of instituting what worship and sacrifices he pleases,” and so on. And below: “And this definition, not of the Church of Christ but of the Pontifical kingdom, has as its authors not only the Canonists but also Daniel, chapter 11.”
Bring forward, then, one canonist who says that the Roman Pontiff can abolish the Scriptures, institute sacrifices and do like things; and when you cannot, know that you both are and are held to be a liar. But we can easily show that your Luther claimed so much authority for himself as to abolish very many books of most holy Scripture, such as the volumes of the Maccabees, the Letter of James, the Letter to the Hebrews, and some others. Likewise to make a new article, namely that each one is bound to believe by faith that he is righteous, although he sins in every good work. And what is brought from Daniel to show that the Roman Pontiff is Antichrist fits not the Pontiff but Luther most aptly. For in that place Daniel attributes to Antichrist not the instituting of sacrifices, which you attribute to the Pope, but the taking away of the continual sacrifice, which Luther tried with all his strength to do. Daniel adds in the same place that Antichrist will fight against all Gods; but the Roman Pontiff, as you at least think, worships countless Gods, namely all the Saints, men and women, who reign with Christ; while on the contrary Luther wages war against all the Saints.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
XXV. MENDACIUM Pag. 51. in praefatione. <' Et nunc scripsi, quam moderatissime potui. Ac si quid vide- 126 MENDACIA CONCORDIAE. tur dictum asperius, hoc mihi prsefandum est, me cum Theologis, ac Monachis, qui scripserunt confutationem, litigare, non cum Caesare, aut principibus, quos, ut de¬ beo, veneror etc. » . Si vera sunt haec verba, contra Theologos, et Monachos, aliosque Catholicos, qui confutationem non scripse¬ runt, nihil scripsit in Apologia hac Philip¬ pus, quod contumeliam sonare possit : con¬ tra ipsos etiam, qui confutationem scripse¬ runt, etsi aliquid asperius dictum sit, ser¬ vata tamen est moderatio, quae tantum Theologum decebat. At in ista ipsa pag. 51. in verbis, quae immediate praecedunt hanc protestationem moderationis, asperrime fla¬ gellantur Theologi Catholici. « Sed adver¬ sarii, inquit, sic agunt causam, ut ostendant se neque veritatem, neque concordiam quae¬ rere, sedut sanguinem nostrum exsorbeant» . Et infra, eadem pagina : « Sophistae nomi¬ nantur omnes Theologi ». Et infra pag. 103. moderatissime loquitur Philippus, cum ait : « Turpe est autem adversariis, tantopere praedicare dilectionem, cum nusquam prae¬ stent eam. Quid nunc agunt ? Dissipant Ec¬ clesias, scribunt leges sanguine, et has pro¬ ponunt Caesari, clementissimo principi pro¬ mulgandas, trucidant sacerdotes, et alios bonos viros, si quis leviter significarit, se aliquem manifestum abusum non omnino probare ». Et pagin. 164. Insignis modera¬ tio cernitur in istis verbis Philippi : « Deus perdat illos impios Sophistas, qui tam sce¬ lerate detorquent verbum Dei, ad sua som¬ nia vanissima ». Et paulo post : « Quis do¬ cuit hos asinos dialecticam». Et pag.' 200. « Nec vident isti asini apud Hieronymum contra Vigilantium etc ». Et pag. 208. « Ma¬ nifestos abusus nova et inusitata crudelitate defendunt. Nullos patiuntur in Ecclesia ido¬ neos doctores ». Et pag. 212. « Nunc hoc expendat prudens lector, quid frontis ha¬ beant isti nihili homines ». Et infra, de gravissimis Theologis ait : « Quasi vero Ec- < lesiam valde ornet ista publica infamia fla¬ gitiosarum, ac prodigiosarum libidinum, qute stagrant apud illos sanctos Patres, qui curios simulant, et bacchanalia vivunt ; ac pleraque ne verecunde quidem nominari queunt, quse isti summa licentia faciunt ». Et pag. 220. « Illi Sardanapali consulto abu¬ tuntur praetextu religionis ». Et pag. 222. « Videtis, inquit, extremam impudentiam istorum nebulonum etc. » . Sane praedicanda moderatio est, senes gravissimos, doctissi- mosque Theologos, nunc asinos, nunc ne¬ bulones, nunc Sardanapalos, nunc homirfes nihili appellari, et sic appellari ab eo, qui vix grammaticam bene teneat. XXVI. MENDACIUM. Pag. 59. in Apologia art. 2. « Ad eumdem modum, (inquit Philippus), loquitur et Au¬ gustinus qui ait : Peccatum in Baptismo re¬ mittitur, non ut non sit, sed ut non impute¬ tur. Hic palam fatetur esse, hoc est, manere peccatum, tametsi non imputetur. Et haec sententia, adeo placuit posterioribus, ut re¬ citata sit et in decretis. Mirum profecto est, tantopere placere qui¬ busdam mendacia, ut ab eis avelli nulla ra¬ tione possint scripserat hoc idem Lutherus in assertione articuli 2. et ostensum illi fuit ab Episcopo Rolfensi, nusquam dicere Au¬ gustinum, peccatum manere, et non impu¬ tari, sed concupiscentiam manere, et non im¬ putari in peccatum, sicut vere non est pecca¬ tum. Hcec enim verba sunt Augustini : quae corrupte citantur a Lutheranis, libro pri¬ mo de nuptiis et concupiscentia, cap. 25. Si quaeritur quomodo ista concupiscentia maneat in regenerato, in quo universorum facta est remissio peccatorum ? Responde¬ tur, dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in Bapti¬ smo, non ut non sit, sed in peccatum non imputetur. Lib. quoque vi. in Julianum cap. 8. non dicit August. peccatum actu manere, reatu transire. Nec enim tam stupidus erat August. ut non intelligeret, ista non cohae¬ rere, peccatum actu manere, et non manere reatu ; cum ipse idem August. peccatum per reatum definire soleat. Et ibid. lib. i. de nuptiis et concup. cap. 25. Cum dicit, hoc est non habere peccatum, reum non esse peccati. Qui etiam passim asserit, concupi¬ scentiam remanentem malum quoddam, et infirmitatem esse, non autem peccatum. Tractatu 41. in Joannem : Numquid, inquit, quia deleta est tota iniquitas, nulla remansit infirmitas ? Et lib. vi. contra Julianum cap. 5. Omni peccato carent justificati, sed non omni malo. Quid quod ipse etiam Philippus in colloquio Wormatiensi, (ut Joan. Cochleeus testatur in discussione Confessionis Augusta¬ na) art. 2.) ingenue fassus est, male hunc locum ex Augustino esse citatum, cum id ei Joan. Eckius objecisset. Quid ? quod multi nostrorum stepiusjam de hoc errore Luthe- ranqs admonuerunt? Cum igitur mendacium XXIX. MENDACIUM. 127 toties patefactum et refutatum, in libro Con¬ cordia?, cui octo millia hominum subscripse¬ runt, adhucinveniatur, unum e duobus neces¬ sarium est, aut hoc mendacium a sedecim millibus oculorum deprehendi non potuisse, aut voluisse adversarios, etiam cum men¬ daciis Concordiam facere. Adde quod in de¬ creto etiam Gratiani dist. 4. de consecra¬ tione, can. Per Baptismum ; non habetur peccatum manere (ut Philippus mentitur) sed concupiscentiam. XXVII. MENDACIUM. Pag. 62. in Apologia pro art. 4. sic ait Philippus. « Damnant auctores confutationis Confessionis Augustanae, quod affirmamus, homines fide consequi remissionem peccato¬ rum, et fide in Christum justificari. » At men¬ dacium est. Non enim auctores confutatio¬ nis Confessionis damnant, quod fide dicamur justificari, sed quod fide sola. Illa enim con¬ futatio, de qua Philippus loquitur, exstat in harmonia Confessionis Augustanae, edita ab Andrea Fabrilio Leodio, et in ea sic legimus art. 5. Quod fidei mentionem hic faciunt, eatenus approbatur, quatenus de fide non sola, ut aliqui male docent, sed qua? per di¬ lectionem operatur, ut Apostolus recte do¬ cet, ad Galat. v. intelligatur : ha?c ibi. XXVIII. MENDACIUM. t Ibidem. Antonius, Bernardus, Dominicus, Franciscus, et alii sancti Patres, elegerunt certum vi Ice genus, etc. Vel ex animo Phi¬ lippus loquitur, cum sanctos vocat, Anto¬ nium, Bernardum, Dominicum, Franciscum, vel aliud sentit, aliud dicit. Si loquitur ex animo, destruit totam confessionem Augu¬ stanam, et universum prorsus Lutherani- smum. Constat enim hos quatuor Patres Monachos fuisse, et Patres Monachorum, et omnes certum vestimenti genus excogitasse, cucullos gestasse, a certis cibis abstinuisse, vota continentiae perpetuae, et paupertatis, ac obedientiae coluisse, atque aliis commen¬ dasse. Item Antonium certum est in solitu¬ dinem se contulisse, et omnia civilia officia deseruisse. Bernardum et Dominicum Mis¬ sam assidue dixisse, Papae Romano adhae¬ sisse', atque adeo Papistas supra modum fuisse : Franciscum denique nemo ignorat, in suo testamento fidem Romanae Ecclesiae commendasse ; ac imperasse, ut si quis ex suis a fide Romanae Ecclesiae aberraret, is diligentissime custoditus, in manus judicum traderetur. Si vero aliud loquitur, aliud sentit, illius imitator, et filius est, qui men¬ dax fuit ab initio, immo et qui pater men¬ dacii, ab ipsa veritate nominatur. XXIX. MENDACIUM. Pag. 105. in Apologia. « Adversarii, in¬ quit Philippus, docent homines justificari, dilectione et operibus ; de fide, qua appre¬ hendimus propitiatorem Christum, nihil di¬ cunt. Immo hanc fidem improbant, neque improbant tantum sententiis, aut scriptis, sed etiam ferro et suppliciis conantur in Ecclesia delere ». Jam ssepe diximus, veram fidem in Christum nos maxime requirere in negotio justificationis; et propterea mentiri Philippum, cum ait, nos de fide aut nihil dicere, aut fidem oppugnare. Specialem ta¬ men illam fidem Lutheranorum , superbam, atque arrogantem, quie sola vult justificare nec patitur comites, quos illi Deus assignavit, merito rejicimus, et deletam funditus, atque .exterminatam optamus, quandoquidem et ipsa delet atque exterminat orationem, sa¬ cramenta, opera bona, et quidquid Deus ad salutem hominum instituit. Nam si quis non orat ex fide, male orat, et Deum irritat po¬ tius, quam placat, ut adversarii etiam fa¬ tentur. Debet igitur fides orationem pra?ce- dere. At ubi est fides, ibi continuo est justi¬ ficatio; et certus est Lutheranus ex fide, sibi remissa esse peccata; neque potest ea de ro sine gravissimo scelere dubitare ; Ergo non potest orare ac dicere : Dimitte nobis debita nostra, vel cum publicano : Deus, propitius esto mihi peccatori ; Sed cum Phariseeo di¬ cendum illi est : Domine, gratias tibi ago, quia non sum sicut cseteri homines. Quo¬ modo enim petere audebit, quod certo scit ex fide, se jam esse consecutum ? Pari ra¬ tione sine fide sacramenta non prosunt, sed obsunt; at fides ubi adest, mox justificat; quorsum igitur Baptismus post fidem adhi¬ betur? Ninivita? quoque perdiderunt jeju¬ nium illud suum tam laboriosum. Nam si absque fide jejunarunt, nihil eis profuit; si fide pra?cedente, jam Deus ante jejunium placatus erat. Multa hic dici possent, sed causa ista usque ad fastidium jam a multis tractata est. 128 MENDACIA CONCORDIAE. XXX. MENDACIUM. Pag. H2. in Apologia. « Plane (inquit Philippus), surdi sunt adversarii, toties jam dictum est , legem sine Christo non pro¬ desse, propter quem placent bona opera. Sed illi ubique, excluso Christo, docent me¬ reri justificationem, opera legis. Mentiris, Philippe, et tam impudenter, ut mirum sit, si quem inveneris, qui tibi credat. Profer saltem unum ex Theologis nostris, qui do¬ ceat, opera sine Christo mereri justificatio¬ nem. Certe ipsa confutatio Catholica, adver¬ sus quam potissimum Apologiam scribis, ita loquitur art. 4. Attamen omnes Catholici fa¬ tentur, opera nostra ex se nullius esse me¬ riti. Vide supra, mendacio XX. XXXI. MENDACIUM. Pag. 124. in Apologia, art. 6. sic ait Philip. « Nec offendat quemquam, quod sibi Ecclesise nomen vendicant. Nam Ecclesia Christi apud hos est, qui Evangelium Christi recte docent : non apud illos, qui pravas opiniones contra Evangelium defendunt». Et passim in hac Apologia negat Philippus, apud nos esse Ecclesiam. At hoc falsum esse, ex eadem Apologia convinci potest. Nam pag. sequenti, id est, 125, dicit Philippus ; « Anti christum sedere in templo Dei, id est, ipse exponit, in Ecclesia dominari, et gerere officia. Et pag. 130. dicit; Papam esse Anti- christum ». Si ergo Papa tamquam Anti- christus in Ecclesia dominatur, et gerit offi¬ cia, et tamen non dominatur nec gerit offi¬ cia inter Lutheranos, sed inter Papistas, ergo non Lutherani, sed Papistae sunt Ec¬ clesia. Et praeterea pag. 222. Philippus agno¬ scit aliquam offensionem, « eo quod schisma fecerit, et se cum suis divulserit, ab illis, qui existimantur ordinarii Episcopi ; et ad¬ dit, se concordiam summo studio concupi¬ visse » ; quod e.t alibi saepe repetit. At si apud nos non est Ecclesia, sed regnum Antichri- sti, et ipsi Episcopi membra suntAntichristi, certe non est crimen, a nobis et Episcopis nostris dissidere ; sed e contrario potius cri¬ men gravissimum est, cum Antichristo velle concordare. Concordet igitur secum liber Concordiae, et aut apud nos Ecclesiam esse fateatur, aut non dicat Antichristum in Ec¬ clesia magistratum gerere, neque nobiscum Concordiam desideret. XXXII. MENDACIUM. Pag. 129. in Apologia. « Manifestus (in¬ quit Philippus) error est, quod docent ad¬ versarii, mereri homines remissionem pec¬ catorum dilectione erga Deum, ante gra¬ tiam». At profecto ne somniavit quidem unquam ullus Catholicorum, quod hic nobis objicitur, et in confutatione Catholica pas¬ sim repetitur, opera sine gratia nihil valere. XXXIII. MENDACIUM. Ibidem. Quid opus erit fide, si sacramenta ex opere operato, sine bono motu utentis justificant? Ac nullus Catholicorum dixit vel scripsit unquam, in adultis non requiri cum sacramentis motum internum fidei, dis¬ plicentiae, vel contritionis etc. Et nos su¬ pra, mendacio XX. adduximus S. Thomam, asserentem, applicari Christi meritum ho¬ minibus per fidem, in sacramentis. -XXXIV. MENDACIUM. Pag. 129. in Apologia, sic ait Philippus : « Sed fortasse adversarii sic postulant, defi¬ nire Ecclesiam quod sit monarchia externa, suprema totius orbis terrarum, in qua opor¬ teat Romanum Pontificem habere potesta¬ tem dcvuTTsuOuvov, de qua nemini liceat dispu¬ tare, aut judicare, condendi articulos fidei, abolendi Scripturas, qua velit instituendi cultus et sacrificia, etc.» Et infra :« Atque haec definitio non Ecclesiae Christi , sed regni Pontificii, habet auctores non solum Cano- nistas, sed etiam Danielem, cap. xi ». Profer igitur unum canonistam, qui dicat Pontificem Romanum posse Scripturas abo¬ lere, instituere sacrificia, et similia facere, et cum non potueris, scito, te et esse et ha¬ beri mendacem. At nos facile possumus ostendere, Lutherum vestrum id sibi aucto¬ ritatis arrogasse, ut aboleret plurimos sa¬ crosanctae Scripturae libros, ut Machabaeo- rum volumina, Epistolam Jacobi, Epistolam ad Hebraeos, et alia, quaedam. Item, ut con¬ deret noyum articulum, quo videlicet quis¬ que ex fide credere teneatur se esse justum, licet in omni bono opere peccet. Quod vero ex Daniele adducitur, ad demonstrandum Romanum Pontificem esse Antichristum , non in Pontificem, sed in Lutherum aptis¬ sime quadrat. In eo enim loco Daniel Anti- XXXIX. MENDACIUM. 129 christo tribuit, non instituere sacrificia, quod vos Papae tribuitis, sed tollere juge sa¬ crificium, quod Lutherus totis viribus facere conatus est. Addit ibidem Daniel, Antichri- stum contra omnes Deos pugnaturum; at Pontifex Romanus, ut vos quidem putatis, Deos innumerabiles colit, omnes videlicet Sanctos, et Sanctas, qui cum Christo reg¬ nant, cum e contrario Lutherus adversus omnes Sanctos bellum gerat.