Bellarmine · Judicium de Libro Concordiae · Judgement on the Book of Concord
Chapter 9: Lies XLV to LX: The Libraries, the Catechism, Common Life, Merit, Jerome on the Saints, Jovinian, and Aerius
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 Forty-fifth Lie
Page 188, in the Apology, article 15: “There are extant,” says Philip, “huge books, indeed whole libraries, containing not a syllable about Christ, about faith in Christ, about the good works of each one's calling, but only gathering traditions.” If you have visited all the libraries and read all the books, why do you not show us even one church author who does not speak of Christ and of faith?
The Forty-sixth Lie
Page 190, in the Apology, article 15: “Among the adversaries,” says Philip, “there is no catechesis of children at all.” How shameless this lie is, the countless Catechisms published by ours bear witness; nor was the teaching of children ever lacking in the Church. But it is foolish to answer a man who proves nothing and is most given over to lying.
The Forty-seventh Lie
Page 194, in the Apology, article 16: “It is most empty,” says Philip, “that Christian perfection is to hold nothing of one's own.” And below: “But the Monks spread that outward hypocrisy before the eyes of men, so that it could not be seen in what things true perfection lies. With what praises did they extol the community of goods, as if it were of the Gospel! But these praises have very much danger, especially since they disagree far from the Scriptures.” Philip would have done well, to prove that the praises of common life disagree with the Scriptures, to bring forward those words of blessed Luke (for he usually connects his arguments so, being a notable Dialectician): And the multitude of believers had one heart and one soul; nor did any of them say that anything of what he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And a little after: And great grace was upon them all; for neither was there any needy among them. For as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the prices of what they sold and laid them at the feet of the Apostles; and it was divided to each as each had need. Acts 4. He could also have added Augustine's commentary, to fortify his opinion more. For in sermon 1 On the common life of clerics he has this: “See, I say it, hear: he who deserts the fellowship of common life once taken up, which is praised in the acts of the Apostles, falls from his vow and falls from his holy profession.” And below: “I know how great an evil it is to profess something holy and not fulfil it. Vow, he says, and pay to the Lord your God.” In short, if anyone reads those two sermons of Augustine, it will be a wonder if he does not see Philip's emptiness.
The Forty-eighth Lie
Page 195, in the Apology, article 18: “But what difference is there,” says Philip, “between the Pelagians and our adversaries, since both think that men without the Holy Spirit can love God and do God's commands as to the substance of the acts, and merit grace and justification by works which reason brings about by itself without the Holy Spirit?” Do you want to hear how great the difference is between us and the Pelagians? As great as between Catholics and heretics. Nor is it the Pelagian error that man can do some commands, and sometimes, as to the substance of the acts, by the powers of nature alone, that is, without the special help of God's grace. For you too teach this same thing, unless perhaps you fight with yourself, on the same page. For these are your words: “The human will has liberty in works and in choosing things which reason grasps by itself. It can in some way bring about civil righteousness, or the righteousness of works. It can speak of God, show God a certain worship by outward work, obey magistrates and parents in choosing the outward work; it can keep the hands from murder, from adultery, from theft.” These words of yours are ours too; and this we call fulfilling some commands as to the substance of the acts. Further, to love God above all things without the Holy Spirit is attributed to man perhaps by one or two of the Scholastics; but the weightier ones are against it, such as St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure and others. But that works done without the Holy Spirit merit grace and justification, no Theologian teaches; it is your lie, your slander.
The Forty-ninth Lie
Page 198, in the Apology, article 20: “It is a blasphemy not to be borne,” says Philip, “to give the honour of Christ to our works. These Theologians are no longer ashamed of anything, if they dare to bring such an opinion into the Church.” But, good man, the confutation of the Theologians does not have what you blame. For those Theologians nowhere say that works without Christ merit the remission of sins. But they deny what you teach: that our works, though they proceed from faith, from grace, from the merits of Christ, yet merit nothing. So when the confutation says that our works merit the remission of sins, it has this sense: that works of penance done with faith and the help of God merit de congruo, or by way of disposition, the remission of guilt, which we taught above, at the eighth lie, is the language of the Scriptures and the Fathers; and that the works of a justified man, done from grace infused into us through the merit of Christ, merit de condigno the remission of the punishment which sometimes is left when the guilt has been forgiven. For, as Augustine says, tractate 124 [“424” in the scan] on John, the punishment is longer than the guilt, lest the guilt be thought small if the punishment ended with it. And that our satisfactions merit not only the remission of punishment but also the crown of glory, we heard a little before from Cyprian, in the sermon On the lapsed, in its last words.
The Fiftieth Lie
Page 200, in the Apology, article 21: “Nor do these asses see,” says the most courteous Philip, “that in Jerome against Vigilantius there is not a syllable about invocation. He speaks of the honours of the saints, not of invocation.” But what sort of consequence is this: Jerome speaks of the honours of the saints, so not of invocation? Invocation, it seems, is not an honour but a disgrace. And that is why you want no one but Christ to be called on, lest the glory proper to Christ be shared with others.
Hear then. Vigilantius did not want the saints honoured; and since he was not ignorant that the chief honour of the saints is their invocation, he showed by two reasons that they ought not to be called on by men: first, because, shut up in hidden resting places, they could not be present where they wished and bring help of themselves to those calling on them; and second, because no one after death could obtain anything from God for another, and so invocation would be useless. Jerome refutes both reasons. “You say,” he says, “that the souls of the Apostles and Martyrs have sat down either in Abraham's bosom, or in a place of refreshment, or under the altar of God, and cannot be present at their tombs (where, that is, they are chiefly called on by the faithful) and where they will. They are of senatorial rank, it seems, so as to be shut up not in a foul prison among murderers but in free and honourable custody. Will you lay down laws for God? Will you put chains on the Apostles?” and so on. And below: “He says that while we live we can pray for one another, but after we are dead no one's prayer for another is to be heard. If the Apostles and Martyrs, while still set in the body, can pray for others, how much more after their crowns, victories and triumphs?” Since, then, Jerome refutes the arguments of Vigilantius, by which he, begrudging the saints their honours, attacked their invocation, we would be truly stupid, and almost asses, if we did not gather from this that the invocation of the saints is approved by Jerome.
The Fifty-first Lie
Page 200, in the Apology, article 21: “Nor did the rest of the ancient writers before Gregory,” says Philip, “make mention of invocation.” Are you not ashamed, so great a master in Israel, either to have read nothing in the ancients or to lie so shamelessly? I shall bring forward, then, twenty-four Fathers older than Gregory, who, like the twenty-four elders of the Apocalypse, may bear witness for the invocation of the saints. See Dionysius the Areopagite, the book On the church hierarchy, chapter 6; Irenaeus, book 5; Eusebius, book 13 On the preparation for the Gospel, chapter 7; Athanasius, the sermon on the Gospel on the holy Mother of God; Basil, the oration on the forty Martyrs, and on Psalm 33; Nazianzen, the oration on Cyprian, and on Athanasius; Nyssen, the oration on St. Theodore; Cyril, the fifth Mystagogical Catechesis; Ephrem, the Sermon on the praises of the Martyrs; Chrysostom, homily 66 to the people of Antioch, and homily 43 on Genesis, homily 8 on Matthew, homily 1 on the first to the Thessalonians; Theodoret, book 8 On curing the affections of the Greeks, and in the religious history, at the end of each of the lives; Hilary on Psalm 124 and on Psalm 129; Ambrose, book 10 on Luke, chapter 21, and in the book On widows; Jerome in the Epitaph of Paula; Rufinus, book 2 of the Church History, chapter 33; Prudentius in the hymn on St. Cassian, and on St. Hippolytus, and on St. Laurence; Paulinus of Nola, Letter 12 to Severus; Gaudentius of Brescia, in the tractate on the dedication of the Basilica of the Council of the saints; Sulpicius Severus, the Letter to Aurelius the Deacon and the Letter to Bassula his mother-in-law; Maximus of Turin, the sermon on St. Agnes; Augustine, the book On the care for the dead, chapter 4, and Sermon 17 on the words of the Apostle; Leo I, Sermon 5 on the Epiphany; Victor of Utica, book 3 On the Vandal persecution; Fulgentius of Ruspe, the sermon on the praises of Blessed Mary. To these is added the council of Chalcedon, of 630 Fathers, and the others we cited above, at the tenth lie.
The Fifty-second Lie
Page 201, in the Apology, article 21: “A threefold honour,” he says, “is to be approved. The first is thanksgiving. The second, the strengthening of our faith. The third, the imitation of faith and the other virtues. These true honours the adversaries do not require.” But where did you read, or from whom did you hear, that we do not require these honours?
The Fifty-third Lie
Page 220, in the Apology, for the marriage of priests: “The Monks,” he says, “found fault with marriage as a kind of life which hardly ever pleased God, or certainly did not please him except for the sake of begetting.” But all the Monks who wrote commentaries on the Master recognize three goods for which Marriage pleases God: faith, offspring and sacrament. See book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 31.
The Fifty-fourth Lie
Page 223, in the Apology, for the marriage of priests, Philip argues thus: “In the time of Jovinian the world did not yet know the law of perpetual celibacy. So it is a shameless lie that the marriage of priests is the heresy of Jovinian.”
Whether Philip lies or not, let blessed Jerome be judge. He, then, in the book against Vigilantius, says thus: “As Euphorbus is said to have been reborn in Pythagoras, so in this man the depraved mind of Jovinian has risen again; so that in the one and in the other we are forced to answer the snares of the devil. That one, condemned by the authority of the Roman Church, among pheasants and pork did not so much give up his spirit as belch it out; this one, the innkeeper of Calahorra, and, by a twist on the name of his little village, a dumb Quintilian, mixes water with wine, and from his former trade tries to join the poisons of his faithlessness with the Catholic faith: to attack virginity, to hate chastity, to cry out at the banquet of worldly men against the fasts of the saints. O wickedness! He is said to have Bishops as partners in his crime; if indeed they are to be called Bishops who do not ordain Deacons unless they have first taken wives; believing no celibate chaste, indeed showing how holily they live who suspect evil of everyone. And unless they see the wives of the clerics pregnant and infants crying in their mothers' arms, they do not give the sacraments of Christ. What will the Churches of the East do? What those of Egypt and of the Apostolic See, which receive clerics either virgin, or continent, or, if they had wives, they cease to be husbands? This Dormitantius taught, giving free rein to lust,” and so on. If, then, by Jerome's witness the heresy of Vigilantius and that of Jovinian was one and the same opinion, so much so that Jovinian is said to have come to life again in Vigilantius, Philip lies when he says that the heresy of Jovinian was not opposed to the continence of priests.
And that it is also a lie that in the time of Jovinian the law of perpetual celibacy was not known to the world is clear enough from what we said above, at the fourteenth lie; and also from this very testimony of Jerome; and from Augustine in the book On heresies, chapter 82, where we read that some consecrated virgins, already advanced in age, contracted marriages at Jovinian's prompting. Which St. Augustine would certainly not have blamed if virginity consecrated to God did not include a vow of perpetual celibacy, or if this vow had not been known to the world at that time.
The Fifty-fifth Lie
Page 226, in the Apology, on the Mass: “This is the state of the cause,” says Philip, “of which the readers must be warned by us as Aeschines warned the judges not to let the adversary go outside the cause. We showed in our Confession that we hold that the Lord's Supper does not confer grace ex opere operato, nor, applied for others, living or dead, does it merit for them ex opere operato the remission of guilt or punishment.” But it is a wonderful perversity to accuse others of the sin you yourself commit. For this is not the state of the cause, whether the Mass merits grace and justifies ex opere operato. For if this were the state, the cause would be finished. The chief question lies in this: whether the Mass is a true and properly called sacrifice, which all the Lutherans deny and all the Catholics affirm.
The Fifty-sixth Lie
Page 233, in the Apology, on the Mass: “But the adversaries,” he says, “everywhere twist the name of sacrifice to the ceremony alone; the preaching of the Gospel, faith, invocation and the like they leave out, although the ceremony was instituted for these.” We confess indeed that sacrifice properly so called signifies neither the preaching of the Gospel nor invocation, but the offering of the body of Christ made by the priest with a mystical ceremony. But that there is no preaching of the Gospel among us, nor invocation, is too shameless a lie, since in the very celebration of the sacrifice the Gospel is read, and often explained too, and many prayers are poured out for priests, for kings, for the people.
The Fifty-seventh Lie
Page 239, in the Apology, on the Mass: “Of the faith,” he says, “by which we freely obtain the remission of sins, no mention at all was made by the adversaries; about the exercises of faith struggling with despair, about the free remission of sins because of Christ, all the books, all the sermons of the adversaries were dumb.” Philip was a great and wonderful man, who read all the books and heard all the sermons, even if they were given in various places at the same time, or at various times in the same place. And what is more wonderful, he heard even those sermons which were given before he was born; otherwise how did he know that all sermons were dumb about the free remission of sins because of Christ?
The Fifty-eighth Lie
Page 239, in the Apology, on the Mass: “They carry the Mass over to the dead too,” he says, “and free souls from the pains of purgatory by the application of the Sacrament; although without faith the Mass does not profit even the living. Nor can they bring even one syllable from the Scriptures in defence of these fables, which they teach in the Church with great authority; nor do they have testimonies of the ancient Church or of the Fathers.” There are two lies here. One, that we say souls are freed from the pains of purgatory by the application of the Sacrament. For no Catholic teaches this; but what we say of the sacrifice Philip ignorantly or craftily carries over to the Sacrament. The other lie is that we do not have testimonies of the ancient Church that the Mass profits the dead too. For we have so many testimonies that we could plainly overwhelm the adversaries.
The fourth Council of Carthage, canon 79, orders the dead to be commended by prayers and offerings. The Council of Worms, canon 10, orders prayer and sacrifice even for those who were hanged. Like things are read everywhere in the councils. Tertullian, in the book On Monogamy: “Let her pray,” he says, “for his soul, and offer on the yearly days of his falling asleep.” Cyprian, book 1, letter 9: “There is no reason,” he says, “why an offering or prayer should be made among us for his falling asleep.” Ambrose, book 2, Letter 8: “So,” he says, “I think her soul is not so much to be wept over as followed with prayers, not to be saddened with your tears but rather commended to the Lord with offerings.” Cyril, the fifth Mystagogical Catechesis: “Believing,” he says, “that it is the greatest help to the souls for whom the supplication of that holy and awesome sacrifice is offered.” Chrysostom, homily 69 to the people of Antioch: “Not without reason was it laid down by the Apostles that in the awesome mysteries a memory of the dead should be made.” I leave out the rest.
The Fifty-ninth Lie
Page 217 [as printed], in the Apology, on the Mass: “The adversaries,” says Philip, “falsely cite against us the condemnation of Aerius, who they say was condemned because he denied that in the Mass an offering is made for the living and the dead.” Our question with the Lutherans is whether the Mass profits the dead; for that it profits the living no one denies. Further, Augustine, in the book On heresies, chapter 53, counts this too among the teachings proper to Aerius: that one must not pray or offer an oblation for the dead. But this same thing all the Lutherans say.
The Sixtieth Lie
In the same place Philip says thus: “Epiphanius testifies that Aerius held that prayers for the dead are useless; he blames this, and we do not defend Aerius.” If Philip speaks the truth, the other part of the Concord lies, with which almost all the Lutherans agree. For on page 381: “The purgatory of souls is defined to be a mere mask of the devil.” But if there is no purgatory of souls, prayers for the dead are useless, as Aerius wanted; unless perhaps Philip wants prayer to be made for souls in bliss or in damnation.
Add that Epiphanius, heresy 75, which is that of Aerius, reports also another error of his, and that in his own words: “But neither shall a fast be appointed; for these things are Jewish, and under the yoke of slavery. For the law is not laid down for the righteous, but for parricides and matricides and the rest. But if I wish to fast at all, I shall choose whatever day I please of myself, and I shall fast for the sake of liberty.” And below: “But in the days of Easter (which we call the greater or holy week), when among us there are sleepings on the ground, chastities, afflictions, eating of dry food, prayers, vigils and fasts, and all the salvations of souls by holy afflictions, they from early morning feast, filling their veins with meat and wine, laugh aloud, mocking and jeering at those who carry out this holy worship of the Easter week.” I ask you, Philip, do you not do and teach this same thing? Matthias Illyricus acts more frankly, who in Century 4, chapter 5, column 401, acknowledges that the teachings of Aerius were that one must not pray or offer for the dead, nor keep fixed fasts; and because Luther taught things like these, he prefers to make Epiphanius and Augustine heretics rather than Aerius.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
XLV. MUNDA CIUM. Pag. 188. in Apologia, art. 15. « Exstant (inquit Philippus) immensi libri, immo bi¬ bliotheca? totae, nullam syllabam de Christo, de fide in Christum, de bonis operibus suae cujusque vocationis continentes, sed tantum colligentes traditiones ». Si tu omnes biblio¬ thecas adiisti, et omnes libros legisti, cur non indicas nobis, vel unum auctorem ec¬ clesiasticum, qui de Christo ct fide non lo¬ quatur ? XLVI. MENDACIUM. Pag. 190. in Apologia, art. 15. a Apud adversarios (inquit Philippus) nulla pror¬ sus est /.arrf/Yiat; puerorum ».Quam impudens hoc mendacium sit testantur innumerabiles Catechismi, qui a nostris editi sunt, nec un¬ quam defuit in Ecclesia puerilis institutio ; sed stultum est respondere homini nihil probanti, et ad mentiendum projectissimo. XLVII. MENDACIUM. Pag. 194. in Apologia, art. 16. « Vanissi¬ mum est (inquit Philippus) quod sit perfectio Christiana, non tenere proprium. » Et infra : « Sed Monachi illam externam hypocrisim offuderunt oculis hominum, ne videri posset, in quibus rebus sit vera perfectio : quibus laudibus vexerunt communionem rerum , quasi Evangelicam ? At lue laudes plurimum habent periculi, praesertim cum longe dis¬ sentiant a Scripturis ». Bene autem Philip¬ pus fecisset, si ad probandum, laudes vita? communis dissentire a Scripturis, attulisset in medium verba illa B. Luca; (solet enim ipse plerumque, ut est insignis Dialecticus, ita connectereargumenta);multitudinis autem credentium, erat cor unum, et anima una : nec quisquam eorum quse possidebat, ali¬ quid suum esse dicebat, sed erant illis omnia communia. Et paulo post : Et gratia magna erat in omnibus iliis, neque enim quisquam egens erat inter illos. Quotquot enim pos¬ sessores agrorum nut domorum erant, ven¬ dentes afferebant pretia eorum, quae vende¬ bant et ponebant ante pedes Apostolorum. Dividebatur autem singulis, prout cuique opus erat. Actor, iv. Potuisset quoque Au¬ gustini commentarium adjicere, ut magis communiret sententiam suam. Is enim in sermone 1. do Communi clericorum vita, sic habet : Ecce dico, audite ; Qui societatem communis vita? jam susceptam, quse lauda¬ tur in actibus Apostolorum, deserit, a voto suo cadit, et a professione sancta cadit. Et infra : Ego scio quantum mali sit, profiteri sanctum aliquid, nec implere. Yovete, in¬ quit, et reddite Domino Deo vestro. Ac breviter, si quis legat duos illos Auguslini sermones mirum si non videat Philippi va¬ nitatem. XLV1II. MENDACIUM Pag. 195. in Apologia, art. 18. « Sed quid interest (inquit Philippus) inter Pelagianos, et adversarios nostros? cum utrique sentiant homines sine Spiritu sancto posse Deum diligere, et praecepta Dei facere, quoad sub¬ stantiam actuum, mereri gratiam ac justifi¬ cationem operibus, qua; ratio per se efficit sine Spiritu sancto » ? Yis audire, quantum intersit inter nos et Pelagianos? quantum inter Catholicos et haereticos. Neque Pela- gianus error est, posse hominem aliqua prae¬ cepta, et aliquando facere quoad substan¬ tiam actuum, solis naturae viribus, id est, sine sp- ciali auxilio gratiae Dei. Nara hoc idem et tu doces, -nisi tecum fortasse pug- LI. MENDACIUM. 133 nas, in eadem pagina. Hfec enim sunt verba tua. « Habet humana voluntas libertatem in operibus, et rebus deligendis, quas ratio per se comprehendit : Potest aliquo modo effi¬ cere justitiam civilem, seu justitiam operum. Potest loqui de Deo, exhibere Deo certum cultum externo opere, obedire magistrati¬ bus, parentibus in opere externo eligendo, potest continere manus a esede, ab adulte¬ rio, a furto ». Ha3C tua, etiam nostra sunt : Et hoc vocamus implere quaedam preeeepta, quoad substantiam actuum. Porro diligere Deum super omnia sine Spiritu sancto tri¬ buit homini fortasse unus aut alter Schola¬ sticorum, sed graviores repugnant, ut S. Tho- mas, S. Bonaventura, et alii. Quod autem opera sine Spiritu sancto facta mereantur gratiam et justificationem, nullus Theologo¬ rum docet, tuum est mendacium, tua ca¬ lumnia. NUX*. MENDACIUM. Pag. 198. in Apologia, art. 20. « Non est ferenda (inquit Philippus) blasphemia, tri¬ buere honorem Christi nostris operibus. Ni¬ hil pudet jam istos Theologos, si talem sen¬ tentiam in Ecclesia auSent ferre ». At, bono vir, non id habet confutatio Theologorum, quod tu reprehendis. Nec enim usquam dicunt Theologi illi, opera sine Christo me¬ reri remissionem peccatorum. Sed negant, quod vos docetis, opera nostra, licet ex fi¬ de, licet cx gratia, licet ex Christi meritis prodeant, nihil tamen mereri. Itaque cum confutatio dicit, opera nostra mereri remis¬ sionem peccatorum, hunc habet sensum , quod opera poenitentire cum fide, et auxilio Dei facta, mereantur ex congruo, sive per modum dispositionis, culpae remissionem, quam esse vocem Scripturarum et Patrum, supra docuimus, mendacio 8. Opera vero hominis justificati, facta ex gratia, per .Chri¬ sti meritum nobis infusa, mereantur ex con¬ digno remissionem poenie , qure interdum relinquitur, culpa dimissa. Nam, ut ait Au- gusf. tractat. 424 in Joan., productior est poena, quam culpa, ne parva putaretur cul¬ pa, si cum illa finiretur et poena. Nec solum peence remissionem, sed et coronam glorice mereri nostras satisfactiones, paulo ante ex Cypriano audivimus, in serm. do lapsis, in postremis verbis. L. MENDACIUM. Pag. 200. in Apologia art. 21 : «Nec vident isti asini (inquit humanissimus Philippus) apud Hieronymum contra Vigilantium, nul¬ lam exstare syllabam de invocatione. Lo¬ quitur de honoribus sanctorum, non de in¬ vocatione ». At qusanam est ista consequen¬ tia : Loquitur Hieronymus de honoribus sanctorum, ergo non de invocatione? Vi¬ delicet invocatio non est honor, sed igno¬ minia. Et idcirco nullum prseter Christum, invocari vultis, ne decus Christo proprium, cum aliis communicetur. Audi igitur. Vigi¬ lantius nolebat sanctos honorari ; et quo¬ niam non ignorabat, praicipuum sanctorum honorem, esse ipsorum invocationem, dua¬ bus rationibus ostendit, non eos debere ab hominibus invocari, tum, quia abditis rece¬ ptaculis inclusi, non possent ubi vellent esse preesentes, et se invocantibus per se opem ferre ; tum etiam, quia nec posset ullus post mortem, pro alio apud Deum aliquid impe¬ trare, et proinde supervacanea esset invoca¬ tio. Utramque rationem Hieronymus refellit. Ais, inquit, vel in sinuAbrahse, vel in loco refrigerii, vel subter aram Dei, animas A- postolorum et Martyrum consedisse, nec posse suis tumulis (ubi videlicet a fidelibus priecipue invocantur) et ubi voluerint adesse preesentes. Senatoria; videlicet dignitatis sunt, ut non inter homicidas teterrimo car- cere, sed in libera honestaque custodia re¬ cludantur. Tu Deo leges pones? Tu Apostolis vincula injicies, etc. Et infra : Dicit, inquit, quod dum vivimus, mutuo pro nobis orare possumus, postquam autem mortui fueri¬ mus, nullius sit pro alio exaudienda oratio. Si Apostoli, et Martyres adhuc in corpore constituti, possunt orare pro ceeteris; quanto magis post coronas, victorias, et triumphos ? Crnrf ergo Hieronymus Vigilantii argumenta refellat, quibus ille sanctorum honoribus invidens, invocationem eorum oppugnabat, vere stupidi, ac ferme asini essemus, si non inde colligeremus, invocationem sanctorum c Hieronymo approbari. LI. MENDACIUM. Pag. 200. in Apologia, art. 21. « Neque reliqui veteres scriptores (inquit Philippus) ante Gregorium fecerunt mentionem invo¬ cationis». Non te pudet tantum magistrum 134 MENDACIA CONCORDLE. in Israel, aut nihil in veteribus legisse, aut tam impudenter mentiri? Proferam igitur viginti quatuor Patres, Gregorio antiquiores, qui instar viginti quatuor seniorum de Apocalysi testimonium dicant pro invoca¬ tione sanctorum. Vide Dionys. Areopag. lib. de Ecclesiastica hierarchia cap. vi. Iren. lib. v. Euseb. lib. xm. de prsepar. Evang. cap. vn. Athan. serm. in Evangelium de S. Deipara. Basilium orat, in quadraginta Mar¬ tyres, item in Psal. xxxm. Nazianzenum orat, in Cyprianum; item in Athanasium. Nyssenum orat, in S. Theodorum. Cyrillum Catechesi v. Mystagogica. Ephrem Serm. de laudibus Martyrum Cbrys. hom. 66. ad populum Antiochenum. Item hom. 43. in Genesin hom. 8. in Matthaeum hom. 1. in priorem ad Thessalonicens. Thodoretum lib. vm. de curandis Graecorum affectionibus. Et in hist. religiosa, ad finem singularum vi¬ tarum. Hilarium in Psal. cxxiv. et in Psal. cxxix. Ambrosium lib. x. in Lucam cap. 21. Et in lib. de viduis. Hieron. in Epitaphio Paulae. Ruffinum lib. n . hist. Eccles. cap. 33. Prudentium in hymno de S. Cassiano ; item de S. Hippolyto ; item de S. Laurentio. Paulinum Nolensem, Epist. 12. ad Severum. Gaudentium Brixiensem, tractatu in dedica¬ tionem Basilic. Concilii sanctorum. Severum Sulpitium, Epist. ad Aurelium Diaconum, et Epist. ad Bassulam Socrum. Maximum Taurinensem, serm. de S. Agnete. August. lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 4. et Serm. 17. de verbis Apostoli. Leonem I. Serm. 5. de Epiphania. Yictorem Uticensem lib. m. de persecutione Wandalica. Fulgentium Ru- spensem, serm. de laudibus Beatae Mariae. His accedit concilium Chalcedonense, 630. Patrum, et alia quae supra citavimus, men¬ dacio X. LII. MENDACIUM. Pag. 201. in Apologia, art. 21. « Triplex honos, inquit, probandus est. Primus est gratiarum actio. » « Secundus confirmatio fidei nostrae. Ter¬ tius imitatio fidei et ceeterarum virtutum. IIos veros honores nonrequiruntadversarii ». At ubi legisti, vel a quo audivisti, nos non requirere hos honores? Lllf. MENDACIUM. Pag. 220. in Apologia, pro conjugio sa¬ cerdotum. « Yituperabant Monachi, inquit, conjugium, tamquam vitae genus, quod vix unquam Deo placeret, aut certe non place¬ ret, nisi propter procreationem ». At omnes Monachi, qui commentaria in Magistrum scripserunt, agnoscunt tria bona, propter quae Matrimonium Deo placeat, fidem, pro¬ lem, et sacramentum. Yide lib. iv. Sent. dist. 31. LIV. MENDACIUM. Pag. 223. in Apologia, pro conjugio sa¬ cerdotum, Philippus sic argumentatur. « Jo- viniani tempore nondum norat mundus le¬ gem de perpetuo coelibatu. Impudens igitur mendacium est, conjugium sacerdotum, Jo- viniani haeresim esse». Utrum Philippus mentiatur nec ne, judex sit beatus Hieronymus. Is igitur in lib. con¬ tra Vigilantium sic ait: Quomodo Euphor- bius in Pythagora renatus esse perhibetur, sic in isto Joviniani mens prava surrexit : ut in illo, et in hoc, diaboli respondere coga¬ mur insidiis. Illae Romanae Ecclesiae aucto¬ ritate damnatus, inter phasides aves et car¬ nes suillas non tam emisit spiritum, quam eructavit : iste caupo Calagurritanus, et in perversum propter nomen viculi mutus Quin- tillianus, miscet aquam vino ; et de artificio pristino, suae venena'"perfidiae Catholicae fi¬ dei sociare conatur impugnare virginitatem, odisse pudicitiam, in convivio saecularium contra sanctorum jejunia proclamare. Proh nefas, Episcopos sui sceleris dicitur habere consortes ; si tamen Episcopi nominandi sunt, qui non ordinant Diaconos, nisi prius uxores duxerint ; nulli ccelibi credentes pu¬ dicitiam, immo ostendentes, quam sancte vivant, qui male de omnibus suspicantur. Et nisi praegnantes uxores viderint clericorum, infantesque de ulnis matrum vagientes, Christi sacramenta non tribuunt. Quid fa¬ cient Orientis Ecclesiae? quid iEgypti, et Se¬ dis Apostolicse? quae aut virgines clericos accipiunt, aut continentes, aut si uxores ha¬ buerint, mariti esse desistunt. Hoc docuit Dormitantius, libidini frsena permittens etc. Si igitur Hieronymo teste Yigilantii haeresis ac Joviniani, una atque eadem sententia fuit, adeo utinVigilantio Jovinianus revixisse dicatur, mentitur Philippus, cum ait, non fuisse haeresim Joviniani oppositam conti¬ nentiae sacerdotum. Quod vero mendacium etiam sit, Joviniani tempore, mundo notam non fuisse legem perpetui ccelibatus, satis LVI1I. MENDACIUM. 135 constat ex iis, quce supra diximus, menda¬ cio XIV, necnon ex hoc ipso Hieronymi testimonio, et ex Augustino in lib. de heere- sibus cap. 82. ubi legimus, quasdam sacras virgines, provectae jam setatis, Joviniano auctore, nuptias contraxisse. Quod certe D. Augustinus non reprehendisset, si virginitas consecrata Deo, votum perpetui coelibatus non complecteretur, aut hoc votum illo tem¬ pore notum mundo non fuisset. LV. MENDACIUM. Pag. 226. in Apologia, de Missa. « Hic causse status est (inquit Philippus) de quo ita nobis monendi sunt lectores, ut ^Eschines admonebat judices, ne sinerent adversarium extra causam egredi. Nos in' Confessione nostra ostendimus, nos sentire quod Ccena Domini non conferat gratiam ex opere ope¬ rato, nec applicata pro aliis, vivis aut mor¬ tuis, mereatur eis ex opere operato remis¬ sionem culpse aut poense. At mira ista perversitas est, alios arguere ejus peccati, quod ipse committis. Non enim iste est causae status, an Missa mereatur gra¬ tiam, et justificet ex opere operato. Si enim iste status esset, causa finita esset. QuEestio vero praecipua in eo consistit : an Missa sit verum et proprie dictum sacrificium, quod omnes Lutherani negant, et Catholici omnes affirmant. LYI. MENDACIUM. Pag. 233. in Apologia, de Missa, a Sed adversarii (inquit) ubique sacrificii nomen ad solam cberemoniam detorquent : praedi¬ cationem Evangelii, fidem, invocationem, et similia omittunt; cum caeremonia propter heee instituta sit ». Fatemur quidem sacrifi¬ cium proprie dictum, nec praedicationem Evangelii, nec invocationem significare, sed oblationem corporis Christi, cum mystica caeremonia a sacerdote factam ; sed quod non sit apud nos Evangelii praedicatio, nec invocatio, nimis impudens niendacium est, cum in ipsa celebratione sacrificii legatur Evangelium, et saepe etiam exponatur, et multai preces fundantur pro sacerdotibus, pro regibus, pro populo. LYII. MENDACIUM. Pag. 239. in Apologia, de Missa. «De fide (inquit) qua gratis consequimur remissionem peccatorum, nulla prorsus fiebat ab adversa¬ riis mentio ; de exercitiis fidei luctantis cum desperatione, de gratuita remissione pecca¬ torum propter Christum, omnes libri, omnes conciones adversariorum mutae erant ». Magnus et mirabilis vir fuit Philippus, qui omnes libros legit, omnes conciones audivit, etiamsi variis in locis eodem tempore, aut variis temporibus eodem loco haberentur. Et quod mirabilius est etiam illas conciones audivit, quae prius factae sunt, quam ipse nasceretur, alioqui, unde novit, de gratuita remissione peeeatorum propter Christum omnes conciones mutas fuisse. LVIII. MENDACIUM. Pag. 239. in Apologia, de Missa. « Trans¬ ferunt (inquit) Missam et ad mortuos, libe¬ rant animas, applicatione Sacramenti, a poe¬ nis purgatorii ; cum sine fide nec vivis Missa prosit. Neque ex Scripturis, vel unam sylla¬ bam afferre possunt, ad defensionem istarum fabularum, quas in Ecclesia magna auctori¬ tate docent : neque Ecclesiae veteris, neque Patrum testimonia habent » . Duo sunt hic mendacia. Unum, quod applicatione Sacra¬ menti, liberari dicamus animas a poenis purgatoriis. Nemo enim Catholicorum hoc docet; sed quod de sacrificio dicimus, im¬ perite aut callide transfert Philippus ad Sa¬ cramentum. Alterum mendacium est, quod non habeamus testimonia veteris Ecclesiae, quod Missa prosit etiam defunctis. Tot enim habemus testimonia, ut plane adversarios obruere possimus. Concil. Carthaginiense IV. can. 79. jubet commendari defunctos ora¬ tionibus, et oblationibus. Concil. Worma- tiense can. 10. jubet, etiam pro suspensis orari, et sacrificari. Similia passim in con¬ ciliis leguntur. Tertullianus lib. de Monoga¬ mia: Pro anima, inquit, ejus oret, et offerat annuis diebus dormitionis ejus. Cyprianus lib. i. epistol. 9 : Non est, inquit, quod pro dormitione ejus apud nos fiat oblatio, aut deprecatio. Ambrosius lib. ii. Epistol. 8: Itaque, inquit, non tam deplorandam quam prosequendam orationibus reor, nec maesti¬ ficandam lacrymis tuis, sed magis oblatio¬ nibus animam ejus Domino commendandam. Cyrillus Catechesi 5. Mystagogica : Maxi¬ mum, inquit, credentes esse animarum ju¬ vamen, pro quibus offertur obsecratio sancti illius et tremendi sacrificii. Chrysostomus homil. 69. ad populum Antiochenum ; Non MENDACIA CONCORDIAE. 136 temere hsec ab Apostolis sancita fuerunt, ut in tremendis mysteriis defunctorum agatur memoria. Omitto caiteros. LIX. MENDACIUM. Pag. 217. in Apologia, de Missa. « Falso (inquit Philippus) citant adversarii contra nos damnationem Aerii, quem dicunt pro- pterea damnatum esse, quod negaverit in Missa oblationem fieri pro vivis et mortuis ». Quaestio nostra cum Luth eranis est, an Missa prosit mortuis, nam quod vivis prosit, nemo negat. Porro Augustinus lib. de haeres, cap. 53. inter dogmata propria Aerii etiam illud numerat : Orare, vel offerre pro mor¬ tuis oblationem, non oportere. At hoc idem omnes Lutherani dicunt. LX. MENDACIUM. Ibidem, sic ait Philippus. « Epiphanius testatur Aerium sensisse, quod orationes pro mortuis sint inutiles, id reprehendit, neque nos Aerio patrocinamur.» Si verum loquitur Philippus, mentitur altera pars Concordia1., cui fere concordant omnes Lutherani. Nam pag. 381. « Purgatorium animarum, mera diaboli larva esse definitur». At si nullum est purgatorium animarum, inutiles sunt orationes pro mortuis, ut volebat Aerius, nisi forte velit Philippus, pro animabus beatis, aut damnatis orandum esse. Adde quod Epiphanius hiares. 75. quae est Aerii, refert etiam alium ejusdem errorem, et qui¬ dem ipsius verbis. Sed neque jejunium, in¬ quit, erit ordinatum , « haec enim Judaica sunt, ct sub jugo servitutis. Justo enim lex non est posita, sed patricidis ac matricidis, et reliquis. Si vero omnino volo jejunare, qualemcumque eligam diem, a me ipso, et jejunabo propter libertatem. » Et infra : In diebus autem Paschalis (quos nos vocamus majorem, sive sanctam hebdomadam) quando apud nos fiunt humi dormitiones, castitates, afflictiones, siccorum esus, preces, vigilias, ac jejunia, et omnes animarum salutes, per sanctas afflictiones ; ipsi a summo mane ob¬ sonantur, carneque ac vino venas suas ex¬ plentes, cachinnantur, ridentes ac subsan¬ nantes eos, qui sanctum hunc cultum heb¬ domadis Paschatis perficiunt. Quaeso te, Philippe, an non et vos hoc idem facitis ct docetis? Magis ingenue Matthias Illyricus facit, qui Cent. 4. cap. 5. coi. 401, agnoscit, Aerii dogmata fuisse, non orandum, nec of¬ ferendum pro mo ‘tuis ; nec stata jejunia servanda ; et quia horum similia docuit Lu- the i us, mavu t Ej ij Lanium ct Augustinum hicretic. is facere, quam Aerium,