Bellarmine · Judicium de Libro Concordiae · Judgement on the Book of Concord
Chapter 11: The Short Apology, Part 1: How the Booklet Came Out; the Subscriptions; Christ’s Obedience Defended against the Württemberg Theologians
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 Short Apology of Robert Bellarmine for his booklet on the Lutherans' book of Concord.
When, many years ago, the Lutherans' book of Concord had come out in Saxony, a certain very weighty and very learned man, who by his own right could command me, asked me to let him know by letter what I thought of that Concord. I at once read through the book, which he himself had sent me, and set down my opinion of it in very few words, that is, in a very short booklet. That booklet of mine came, I do not know how, into the hands of David Sartorius, a truly excellent printer, who was then working with great praise at printing Catholic books at Ingolstadt. He asked me, through a friend of mine, whether I would take it amiss if the booklet were brought out by his press. I answered, as was the fact, that I had not made the booklet with the intention that it be published, but to obey him who had laid that burden on me; yet if the Theologians of Ingolstadt judged that the little work could usefully be published, I did not oppose it. So the booklet was published; and because it seemed to have stung the adversaries not lightly, it was printed again by order of Stephen, of most famous memory, the most powerful king of Poland. And not long after, turned into German as a paraphrase and enlarged, it so kindled the bile of the Ministers of the new Gospel that it seemed worthy to be crushed by the whole University of the Theologians of Württemberg with joined arms, and as it were in a drawn-up column.
But the booklet itself, as I hear, still lives; indeed it has not shed even a drop of blood, but, armed with the shield of truth, sings with the Prophet: “The arrows of children are their wounds.” And certainly, if its author had leisure to spend time on trifles of this kind, he could in ten days put out ten other booklets like it on the emptiness, errors and lies of this refutation. And to show that the matter is so, I shall bring forward a few examples. For that it is not worth the trouble to refute the adversaries' whole book, unless one enjoys wasting good hours badly, the reader will understand from these few things we shall say.
In the first part of the booklet I had noted the emptiness of those who, to show that the Concord in teaching among the Lutherans was very great, had forced a crowd of schoolmasters, under-masters and the like, who have neither the authority nor the knowledge to be able to judge of teachings, especially disputed ones, to subscribe to dogmas of faith. And I added that no example of such subscriptions in a matter of faith can be sought from antiquity, since from Apostolic times, through fifteen hundred years, in councils general as well as national or provincial, only the Prelates who have jurisdiction were accustomed to subscribe.
To this the Theologians of Württemberg answer in these words: “It is not hidden from us, praise be to God, what method was kept in the subscriptions of councils, which we too have often followed before in our assemblies, so that if anything about religion was committed to writing, only the chief Theologians subscribed; as can be seen in the Smalcald articles. But that ordinary Ministers too, not so excellently learned, subscribed, could well have been left out in a public writing, had not the Electors and Princes been forced to it by your shameless slanders, which you have vomited out in public print against their Theologians and Ministers, to the public insult of the Augsburg confession. But the Jesuits ought to have remembered with what lying titles the Bishops of the Council of Trent were proud, to carry men away into admiration of themselves, when they boasted themselves Bishops and Patriarchs of I know not what places, to which none of them ever came, and from which regions no churchman had been sent to the Council of Trent.”
This answer shows well enough that they had nothing solid with which to clear away that emptiness noted by us. For first, we did not object to them that in the ancient Councils only outstanding Theologians used to subscribe, but only the Prelates who have jurisdiction, that is, Bishops. So when they say that it is not hidden from them what method was kept in the ancient Councils, and that it was kept by them too in their assemblies, where only the chief Theologians subscribed, either they say falsely that the form of the ancient Councils is not hidden from them, or they lie when they affirm that it was kept by them in their assemblies. For in the ancient Councils true Bishops subscribed, not just any Theologians; but in the assemblies of the Lutherans it is not doubtful that no true Bishop subscribed, but Theologians of I know not what kind.
Next, when they add that the names of Ministers only ordinarily and not excellently learned could have been left out, had not our slanders forced them, by which we are accustomed to reproach them that there is no concord among their Ministers: they say nothing at all to the point. For when we object to them that they do not agree among themselves in the gravest teachings, we are not speaking of the crowd of the unskilled, which we know is easily led by those whom it looks up to for their reputation for learning, but of learned men, or certainly of those who want to be held learned. And we know that not only in all Germany among the various sects of Lutherans, but in Saxony itself, and among those who want to be called Lutherans properly, there are very grave disagreements; as could be known even from the colloquy of Altenburg, where twelve men chosen from Saxony itself to settle the quarrels about religion not only charged one another with very grave errors but also went away without any hope of concord. So for washing out this mark of so great a disagreement among them, the subscription of so many thousands of worthless persons is of no use at all. For what wonder is it if from one faction only six men (for so many were the authors of the book of Concord) agree among themselves and force eight thousand unskilled men subject to them to subscribe? Certainly in the Catholic Church, to the definitions of the Council of Trent, absolutely all who want to be held Catholics, whether learned or unlearned, princes or private men, Italians, Gauls, Spaniards, Germans, English, Poles, or of whatever region they are, submit their opinion and judgement.
What they add last about the Fathers of the Council of Trent, that they never saw the places whose titles they bear, can be counted among the splendid lies. The Council is extant; the names and titles of each of the Bishops are extant. And among almost three hundred Bishops of various nations, I do not know whether three or four could be found whose Churches lie in places where Bishops cannot have safe access.
In the second part of my booklet I blamed six very grave errors against the Apostles' Creed which the adversaries put in the book of Concord. And they answer in their refutation in such a way that they add errors to errors, and show such ignorance of Theological matters that they seem wholly unteachable.
Let an example be the refutation of the first error. The first error noted by me in their book had been that Christ was obedient to the Father not only as man but also as God. “They answer that they gladly acknowledge this opinion; and there is no need,” they say, “for the Jesuits to convict us at length of this teaching from the book of Concord and Philip's common places, since we not only constantly profess it, but also count it our greatest consolation that the obedience by which we are reckoned righteous and blessed is ascribed to Christ not only according to the humanity but also according to the deity.” So they.
And they admit not only that Christ as God obeyed the Father, but also that the blessed Virgin Mary is not only the Mother of God, which is the opinion of all Catholics, but also the Mother of Christ as God, which is unheard of among Christians until now; since, as I shall show below, the reduplicating word “as” reduplicates not the person but the form. “Just as,” they say, “Mary is the Mother of Christ not only as man but also as God, so too Christ, not only as man but also as God, was obedient to the Father.” But what is it, if we wish to speak properly, that blessed Mary is the Mother of Christ not only as man but also as God, except that Christ has his divinity from blessed Mary, as he has his humanity from her? And if Christ has both humanity and divinity from his Mother, certainly before he was born of the Virgin he was not God, indeed he was not anything; which is the error of Ebion and Photinus.
From the same foundation of ignorance they add a little after that it cannot be denied that Christ as God was obedient to the Father, unless two persons are affirmed in Christ with Nestorius, one which obeyed the Father, namely the human person, the other which did not obey the Father, namely the Son of God. As if one and the same divine person could not obey the Father “in the form of a servant” (to use the words of the Scriptures) and command with the Father in the form of God. For so the Apostle, Philippians 2, says of one and the same person of Christ that “in the form of God he thought it not robbery to be equal to God the Father, in the form of a servant he was obedient to the Father unto death, even the death of the Cross”; and St. Athanasius in the Creed says of the same person of Christ: “Equal to the Father according to the divinity, less than the Father according to the humanity.” Nor is it anything else that the Catholic Theologians say: Christ, one and the same, that is, one and the same person, as God is equal to the Father, as man is less than the Father; as God he was before his Mother, as man he had his beginning from his Mother.
But the adversaries go further, and attribute obedience to the Son of God even before he took the form of a servant, that is, not only according to the deity but according to the deity alone; how this can be distinguished from the Arian heresy, let them see. For they bring forward those words of the Lord, John 3: “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.” (For so they cite it, who take no account of the vulgate and most ancient edition.) And at once they add: “If, then, God sent his only-begotten Son into the world to save the human race, this Son of God must have been obedient to the Father when he came into the world, took human nature, and in it redeemed us wretched sinners. Hence of the eternal Son of God it is sung in the Nicene Creed: He came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit,” and so on. So they. From which it is plainly gathered that they hold that the Son of God obeyed the Father even before he was man, and so according to the deity alone. For the Son of God, when he came into the world and took human nature, was not God and man, but God only; unless someone is so foolish as to say that God and man came down from heaven to become man. So God the Word, when he was not man, came down from heaven to become man; and so the Word was made flesh, and the incarnation itself was the coming down. Which the Apostle says in other words, Philippians 2: He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. And if God the Word, when he was not yet man, obeyed the Father so as to come down and become man, who does not see that obedience, and so subjection, is attributed to God the Word according to the divinity alone? For he could not obey according to the humanity, which he did not have.
But, they say, if God sent his Son into the world to take flesh, how did the Son not obey the Father when he came into the world and took flesh? This is the very argument of the Arians, who gathered subjection from the sending. But our forefathers answered the old Arians, and we answer the new Arians, that to send is not to command, nor is to be sent always to obey. For a master indeed sends a servant by commanding, a friend a friend by urging, and an inferior can send a superior by asking. And certainly the adversaries cannot deny that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, according to that saying of John 14: “But the Paraclete, whom the Father will send in my name”; and chapter 15: “When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send you from the Father”; and yet that the Holy Spirit obeys the Father and the Son, or that the Father and the Son command anything of the Holy Spirit, not even the adversaries have dared to admit. So the common opinion of the Theologians is true, that sending in divine things signifies not a bidding, not a command, but the procession of one person from another, with the connotation of a new effect.
But it will be worth the trouble to learn what the adversaries answer to our arguments. They report first these words of ours: If Christ as God obeyed the Father, certainly as God he is distinct from the Father. So the Father is one God and the Son another God; but there is only one true God, and it is certain that the Father is true God; so the Son is not true God, nor homoousios with the Father, as we confess in the Nicene Creed. Then they answer in these words: “These Jesuits must be rude asses, since they do not know how to distinguish between the unity of the deity and the distinction between the persons in this one deity. For certainly the Son is distinct from the Father as a divine person, which the Father himself is not; and yet he is not another God than the Father. And so the Father and the Son are one God, though distinct persons, of whom one obeys the other.” So they. As modest as they are, so sharp are they.
But we, because we know that the unity of the deity with the sole distinction of persons is believed by all professors of the Catholic faith, noted as a proven error the adversaries' teaching from which it follows that the deity of the Son is distinct from the deity of the Father, and so that the Son is not true God nor consubstantial with the Father. And the argument by which we showed that this follows, the adversaries did not answer. For what they set out, that Christ as God obeyed the Father is the same as saying Christ as a divine person obeyed the Father as another divine person, can in no way be defended. For that reduplicating particle “as” reduplicates not the person but the form. Nor is there any doubt that all actions belong to persons, or subjects; and so reduplicating particles are not used to mark the person, or subject; but because there can be doubt according to which form the subject acts when it has several forms, the reduplicating particle signifies the form according to which the subject acts. So, just as he who says, Peter as a musician sings, as a physician heals, as a man reasons, signifies that the person who is called Peter sings according to the science of music, heals according to the science of medicine, reasons according to his rationality, so to speak: so he who says, Christ as God obeys the Father, signifies that Christ, who is a divine person, obeys the Father according to the deity. And since he who obeys is distinct from him whom he obeys, it follows that Christ, who obeys the Father according to the deity, is distinct from the Father according to the deity. And if the Son is distinct from the Father according to the deity, it evidently follows that there are two divinities, of the Father and of the Son, and that the Father is one God and the Son another God; just as from the Son's being distinct from the Father according to personality, all Theologians rightly gather that there are two personalities, of the Father and the Son, and that the Father is one person and the Son another person. This, then, is the argument which those Württemberg Theologians ought to have answered. But it seems they did not grasp the force of the argument, although they want to seem so sharp that in comparison with them all others could be called asses.
Nor do they get out of our second argument much more happily. For they set out our second argument in these words: “Again, he who obeys is less than him whom he obeys; for to command belongs to the superior, to obey to the inferior. So if Christ as God obeys the Father, as God he is less than the Father, and the Creed of Athanasius lies when it says: Equal to the Father according to the divinity, less than the Father according to the humanity.” And they answer in this way: “This reasoning has place in persons who are not of the same dignity, where one commands and the other obeys by a certain necessity, even unwillingly. But with Christ and his obedience the matter is otherwise. For the Father did not command the Son as God so that he took human nature under compulsion; but the Son of God did this of his own accord and freely, according to the eternal decree of the whole Trinity; so the obedience of the Son of God is other than the obedience of a subject toward his magistrate.”
Here we hear a new Theology, a new Philosophy, a new meaning of words. For until now obedience was the virtue by which a subject fulfils the command of his superior. Among persons of wholly the same dignity, and so equal in all things, it is unheard of that there be obedience worthy of the name, since an equal has no command or power over an equal. Certainly blessed Paul writes to the Ephesians, chapter 6: Children, obey your parents; and again: Servants, obey your masters; and to the Hebrews, chapter 13: Obey your superiors, and be subject to them. And the reason of all these is that the superior is greater than the subject, the master greater than the servant, the father in human things greater than the son, because older, because wiser, because the cause. And St. Augustine, sermon 6 on the words of the Lord, writes that obedience is to be given to superiors, but in such order that the greater are always put before the less: so that children obey parents, because parents are greater than children; but the fatherland more than parents, because the fatherland is greater than parents; and God more than the fatherland, because God is greater than the fatherland. So too he teaches that one must obey the curator, but the proconsul more than the curator, the emperor more than the proconsul, God more than the emperor. Nor would it be hard to bring forward many testimonies of this kind, not only from the holy Scriptures and the ancient Fathers but also from the philosophers and other profane writers, among whom command always answers to obedience as if face to face, and obedience is attributed to the subject, command to the prince.
Nor do the adversaries rightly refuse to recognize obedience answering to command except in those who obey unwillingly; as if that were not true and praiseworthy obedience by which a subject gladly obeys his prince. This being so, unless the adversaries want to misuse words and assign a new definition to obedience, they are altogether forced either to admit with the Arians that Christ according to the divinity is less than the Father, if they contend that Christ according to the divinity showed true obedience to the Father; or they must deny that Christ according to the divinity obeyed the Father, if with the Catholics they want the Son to be equal to the Father according to the divinity.
But most foolish of all is the answer to the third argument. For they themselves set out our third argument thus: “Besides, Christ obeyed according to that nature according to which he died; for death itself was the highest and most complete obedience. But Christ did not die according to the divinity, but only according to the flesh; so neither did he obey the Father according to the divinity, but only according to the humanity.” They answer in these words: “The words kata, according to, show the cause why what is proper to the humanity is ascribed to the Son of God, and in turn why the properties of the deity are attributed to the Man; for because there are not two but only one Christ, in whom two different natures are most closely and inwardly united, therefore these two natures share among themselves all the operations, sufferings, and the glory too, of this person,” and so on.
It is a great wonder why they do not notice that by this answer of theirs our argument is not answered but confirmed. For if the word kata, that is, according to, shows the cause why what is proper to the humanity is attributed to the Son of God, and what is proper to the divinity to the man Christ, certainly it is not lawful to say, The Son of God died according to the divinity, just as it is not lawful to say, Christ the man created the world according to the humanity; but it must be said in this way: The Son of God died according to the humanity, and Christ the man created the world according to the divinity. For the cause why death is attributed to the Son of God is not the divinity but the humanity; and the cause why the creation of the world is attributed to the man is not the humanity but the divinity, as the adversaries confess on the following page, and the thing itself cries out of itself. What need is there, then, for us to labour in confuting their error, when they fight so openly with themselves and confute their own opinion by their own answer?
And what they add a little after, that we with the Nestorians deny that Christ God was born, suffered and died, is mere slander. For although we deny that Christ as God, or according to the divinity, suffered and died, yet we most gladly confess that Christ God suffered and died.
Lastly (to close this place at some point), I ask this one thing of the adversaries: since at the end of this book of refutation they themselves challenge all the Jesuits to a disputation on the condition that divine Scripture alone be judge, let them bring forward one place from the whole old or new testament where it is found that blessed Mary is the mother of Christ as God, and that Christ as God, or, what is the same, according to the deity, obeyed the Father, or suffered and died. For so far they have brought forward only these: The blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God cleanses us from all sin, 1 John 1; and: God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him, John 3; and: Behold I come; in the roll of the book it is written of me that I should do your will; my God, I have willed it, and your law is in the midst of my heart. But neither in these places nor anywhere else will they find those novelties of words of theirs. Or certainly, as we showed them that it is written, 2 Corinthians 13, Christ was crucified through weakness, that is, from that part by which he was weak and passible, namely from the humanity; and Romans 1, Who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh; and lastly 1 Peter 4, Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh: so let them in turn read to us that it is written somewhere, Who was crucified through power, that is, from that part by which he was impassible, namely from the divinity; or, Who was made to him of the seed of David according to the divinity; or, Christ therefore having suffered in the deity. Since they cannot show this, let them understand that, with Scripture as judge, to which they had appealed, they have wholly lost the cause.
All the rest that belongs to the errors I have thought should be left out, since it is like what has gone before, and my purpose is not to answer the refutation, but only to show that the refutation is unworthy of an answer.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
BREVIS APOLOGIA
✓
ROBERTI BELLARMINI
PRO LIBELLO SUO DE LIBRO CONCORDIAE LUTHERANORUM,
Cum ante multos annos liber Concordiae
Lutheranorum in Saxonia prodiisset, petiit
a me vir quidam gravissimus atque doctissi¬
mus, et qui mihi jure suo imperare poterat,
ut ei per litteras significarem quid mihi de
ea Concordia videretur. Perlegi continuo li¬
brum, quem idem ipse ad me miserat, et
sententiam meam de eo libro paucissimis
verbis, id est, brevissimo libello comprehen¬
di. Pervenit is meus libellus, nescio quomo¬
do ad manus Davidis Sartorii, egregii sane
typographi, qui tunc Ingolstadii Catholicis
libris excudendis magna cum laude ope¬
ram dabat. Is vero per amicum quemdam
meum a me quaesivit, moleste ne essem la¬
turus, si is libellus typis ipsius emitteretur
in lucem : respondi, quod res erat, me non
eo animo libellum confecisse, ut ederetur,
sed ut ei parerem, qui mihi onus illud im¬
posuerat : tamen si Theologi Ingolstadienses
opusculum illud utiliter edi posse judicarent,
me non repugnare quo minus id fieret. Ita
libellus in lucem editus est : qui quoniam
visus est non leviter adversarios pupugisse,
iterum jussu clarissimae memoriae Stephani
regis Poloniae potentissimi typis mandatus
est. Nec multo post in linguam Germanicam
paraphrastice conversus, et auctus ita Mi¬
nistrorum novi Evangelii bilem accendit, ut
dignus visus sit qui ab universa Academia
Yirtembergensium Theologorum conjunctis
armis, et quasi agmine facto opprimeretur.
Sed libellus ipse, ut audio, vivit adhuc, im-
mo ne guttam quidem cruoris emisit, sed
clipeo veritatis armatus canit cum Propheta :
« Sagittae parvulorum factae sunt plagae eo¬
rum. » Et certe si auctor ipsius vacaret in
ejusmodi nugis tempus consumere, posset
decem diebus, decem alios similes libellos
emittere de vanitate, erroribus, et menda¬
ciis hujus refutationis. Ac ut rem ita se ha¬
bere demonstrem, pauca quaedam exempla
gratia proferam. Totum enim librum adver¬
sariorum refellere non esse operae pretium,
nisi quem juvet bonas horas male perdere,
ex his paucis quae dicemus lector intelliget.
In prima parte libelli notaveram vanitatem
eorum, qui ut Concordiam in doctrina maxi¬
mam esse apud Lutheranos ostenderent,
coegerant ad subscribendum dogmatibus
fidei turbam ludimagistrorum , hipodida-
scalorum, et similium qui neque auctoritate,
neque scientia pollent, ut de dogmatibus
praesertim controversis judicare possint. At¬
que addidi, nullum exemplum ejusmodi
subscriptionum in negotio fidei posse ab
antiquitate peti, cum ab Apostolicis tempo¬
ribus per mille quingentos annos conciliis
tum generalibus tum nationalibus, vel pro¬
vincialibus soli Praelati, quijurisdictionem ha¬
bent, subscribere consue verint. Ad hoc respon¬
dent Theologi Yirtembergenses, his verbis :
<c Non latet nos, Deo laus, quae ratio in con¬
ciliorum subscriptionibus observata fuerit,
quam etiam in nostris conventibus ante hac
multoties secuti sumus, ut si quid de reli¬
gione scripto commendaretur, praecipui tan¬
tum Theologi subscriberent : quemadmo¬
dum in Smalchaldicis articulis videre licet.
Quod autem etiam vulgariter, nec ita excel¬
lenter docti Ministri subscripserunt ; in
scripto publico omitti id bene poterat, nisi
Electores, et Principes ad hoc coegissent
impudentes vestrae calumniae, quas contra
ipsorum Theologos et Ministros in publicam
confessionis Augustana? contumeliam pu~
i 40
BREVIS APOLOGIA.
blicis typis evomuistis. Meminisse autem Je-
suitee debebant, qualibus ementitis titulis
Tridentini Goncilii E piscor, i superbiverint,
ut homines in sui admirationem raperent,
cum se Episcopos,- et Patriarchas jactarunt
nescio quorum locorum, in qme nemo illo¬
rum unquam pervenit, neque ex iliis regioni¬
bus •quisquam Ecclesiasticus ad Concilium
Tridentinum missus erat.
Haec responsio satis indicat, cos nihil so¬
lidi habuisse, quo vanitatem illam a nobis
notatam purgare possent. Primum enim
non eis objecimus, quod antiquis Conciliis
soli Theologi praestantes subscribere consue-,
verinf, sed quod soli Praelati, qui jurisdi¬
ctionem habent, id est, Episcopi. Itaque cum
dicunt, non latere se, quae ratio servata sit
in antiquis Conciliis, ct eam a se quoque
servatam in suis conventibus, ubi praecipui
Theologi tantum subscripserunt, vel falso
dicunt non latere se formam veterum Con¬
ciliorum, vel mentiuntur cum affirmant, eam
a se in conventibus suis esse servatam. In
veteribus enim Conciliis veros Episcopos,
non autem Theologos quoscumque ; in con¬
ventibus autem Lutheranorum n ullum verum
Episcopum, sed Theologos nescio quos sub¬
scripsisse non dubium est.
Deinde cum addunt, omitti potuisse no¬
mina Ministrorum vulgariter tantum, et non
excellenter eruditorum nisi coegissent eos
nostrae calumniae, quibus eis exprobrare so¬
lemus, quod nulla sit inter Ministros eorum
concordia : nihil omnino dicunt, quod ad
rem faciat. Nos enim cum iliis objicimus,
quod in gravissimis dogmatibus inter se non
conveniant, non loquimur do turba imperi¬
torum, quam scimus facile duci ab iis, quos
opinione doctrinae' suspiciunt : sed de viris
doctis, vel certe qui docti haberi volunt. Sci¬
mus autem non solum in tota Germania inter
variasLutheranorumsecta-q sed in ipsa Saxo¬
ni a, atque inter eos, qui proprie Lutherani
dici volunt, dissensiones esse gravissimas, ut
vel ex colloquio Altemburgehsi cognosci po¬
tuit, ubi ex ipsa Saxonia duodecim viri de¬
lecti ad componenda dissidia de religione,
-non solum gravissimos errores alii aliis obje¬
cerunt, sed etiam inde absque ulla spe con¬
cordiae discesserunt. Ad hanc igitur notam
tantae inter eos dissensionis eluendam, nihil
omnino prodest subscriptio tot miliium vi¬
lium personarum. Quid enim mirum; si ex
una factione sex tantum viri (tot enim fue¬
runt auctores libri Concordiae) inter se con¬
veniant, et octo millia imperitorum, sibique
subjectorum ad subscribendum cogant?
Certe in Ecclesia Catholica definitionibus
Tridentini Conciiii omnes omnino qui Catho¬
lici haberi volunt, sive docti, sive indocti,
sive > rincipes, sive privati, sive Itali, sive
Galli, sive Hispani, sive Germani, sive An¬
gi:, sive Poloni, sive cujuscumque regionis
sint, sententiam suam, judiciumque subji¬
ciunt.
Quod postremo adjungunt do Patribus
Tridentini Conciiii, quod numquam viderint
ea loca; quorum titulos praeferunt, inter
splendida mendacia numerari potest. Exstat
Concilium, exstant nomina et tituli singulo¬
rum Episcoporum. Atque inter trecentos
ferme Episcopos, variarum nationum, nescio
an tres, vel quatuor inveniri possint, quo¬
rum Ecclcsico in iis locis sitae sint, ubi Epi¬
scopi tutum aditum habere non possunt. ’
In altera parte mei libelli reprehendi sex
errores gravissimos contra Symbolum Apo-
atolicum, quos in libro Concordiae adversa¬
rii posuerunt. Ita vero ipsi in sua refutatione
respondent, ut errores erroribus addant, et
cam imperitiam rerum Theologicarum prae
se ferant, ut indociles omnino videantur.
<*
Exemplum esto in refutatione primi erro¬
ris. Primus error a me notatus in eorum
libro fuerat, quod Christus non solum ut
homo, sed etiam ut Deus Patri fuerit obe-
diens. « Respondent se hanc sententiam li¬
benter agnoscere, nec opus est, inquit, ut
Jesuitse ex libro Concordiae, et locis com¬
munibus Philippi istius doctiinae nos prolixe
convincant, quandoquidem hanc non tan¬
tum constanter profiteamur, sedeam quoque
summam nostram consolationem esse duca¬
mus, quod ohedientia, qua justi et beati re¬
putamur, Christo non solum secundum hu¬
manitatem, verum etiam secundum deita¬
tem’ adseribatur » . Haec illi. Nec solum ad¬
mittunt Christum ut Deum, obedisse Patri,
sed etiam admittunt R. Virginem Mariam
non tantum esse Matrem Dei, quae est Catho¬
licorum omnium sententia, verum etiam
esse Matrem Christi, ut Dei, quod est hacte¬
nus apud Christianos inauditum, cum, ut
infra ostendam, reduplicatio, ut, non sup¬
positum, sed formam reduplicet. « Quemad¬
modum, inquiunt, Maria Christi non solum
ut hominis, sed etiam ut Dei Mater est, ita
quoque Christus, non solum ut homo, sed
etiam ut Deus, Patri obediens fuit ». Quid
est autem, si proprie loqui velimus, beatam
BREVIS A POLO G IA.
441
Mariam esse Matrem Christi, non solum ut
hominis, sed etiam ut Dei, nisi Christum a
beata Maria divinitatem habere, quemad¬
modum ab illa humanitatem habet? Quod si
Christus a Matre humanitatem ct divinita¬
tem habet, certe antequam ex Virgine na¬
sceretur,- Deus non erat, irnmo neque ali¬
quid erat, qui est error Ebionis, et Photini.
Ex eodem ignorantiae fundamento paulo
post adjungunt, non posse negari, quin Chri¬
stus ut Deus, fuerit Pati i obediens, nisi duso
cum Ncstorio affirmentur in Christo esse
personae, una quae obedirer it Patri, videlicet
persona humana, altera quae Patri non obe-
diverit, videlicet Filius Dei. Quasi vero non
non possit una et eadem persona divina « ia
forma servi (ut Scripturae verbis utamur)
obedire Patri, in forma Dei cum Patre ju¬
bere. Sic enim Apostolus ad Philipp. n. de
una et eadem Christi persona dicit, quod
« in forma Dei non rapinam putaverit, esso
se aequalem Deo Patri, in forma servi Patri
obediens fuerit usque ad mortem, mortem
autem Crucis»; et S. Athanasiusin Symbolo
de eadem persona Christi dicit : « /Equaiis
Patri secundum divinitatem, minor Patre
secundum humanitatem ». Neque aliud est,
quod Theologi Catholici dicunt, Christus
unus et idem, id est, una et eadem persona,
at Deus, aequalis est Patri, ut homo, minor
est Patre : ut Deus fuit ante Matrem, ut
homo ex Matre principium habuit.
Sed ulterius progrediantur adversarii, et
ohedientiam Filio Dei tribuunt etiam ante¬
quam formam servi acciperet, id est, non
solum secundum deitatem, sed etiam secun¬
dum solam deitatem, quod quemadmodum
ab haeresi Annua ciistingui possit, ipsi vide¬
rint. Ad ferunt enim illa verba Domini Joan.
m. « Non misit Deus Filium suum in mundum ,
ut condemnet mundum , sed ut servetur
mundus per eum ». Sic enim ipsi citant, qui
vulgatae atque antiquissimis editionis ratio¬
nem nullam habent : ac staiim adjungunt :
«Si igitur Deus Filium suum unigenitum in
mundum misit, ut genus humanum serva¬
ret, necesse est hunc Filium Dei obedientem
fuisse Patri, dum in mundum venit, natu¬
ram humanam assumpsit, et in ea nos mise¬
ros peccatores redemit. Bine de Filio Dei
aeterno in Symbolo Nicaeno cantatur : De-
scendit de coelis, ct incarnatus est de Spiri¬
tu sancto, ete. » Hcec illi, ex quibus mani¬
feste colligitur, eos sentire, Fidum Dei etiam
antequam esset homo, obedivisse Patri, ac
per hoc secundum solam deitatem. Filius
enim Dei cum venit in mundum, et naturam
humanam assumpsit, non erat Deus et homo,
sed Deus tantum, nisi quis ita desipiat, ut
dicat, Deum ct hominem descendisse de
coelo, ut fieret homo. Itaque Deus Verbum,
cum non esset homo, descendit de coelo, ut
fieret homo, et ideo Verbum caro factum
est, mfc ipsa incarnatio descensio fuit. Quod
aliis verbis dicit Apo. tolus Philipp. n ; E-
xinanivit semetipsum' formam servi acci¬
piens. Quod si Deus Verbum, cum non¬
dum esset homo, obedivit Patri, ut descen¬
deret et fieret homo, quis non videt, obe-
dierdiam, ac per hoc subjectionem tribui
Deo Verbo secundum solam divinitatem ?
Ncquo-enim secundum humanitatem, quam
non habebat, obedire 'poterat. At, inquiunt,
Si Deus Filium suum misit in mundum, ut
carnem assumeret, quomodo non obedivit
Filius Patri, dum venit in mundum, et car¬
nem assumpsit? Hoc ipsum est argumentum
Arianorum, qui ex missione colligebant sub¬
jectionem; sed respondebant majores nostri
veteribus Arianis et nos respondemus novis
Arianis, mktere non esse jubere, nec mitti
semper esse parere. Nam dominus quidem
servum jubendo miitit, amicus amicum hor¬
tando, inferior superiorem’ orando mittere
potest. Ac certe negare non possunt adver¬
sarii, Spiritum sanctum mitti a Patre, et
Fiiio : juxta iilud Joan. xiv :« Paracletus au¬
tem. quem mittet Pater in nomine meo, et
cap. xv : « Cum venerit Paracletus , quem
ego mittam vobis a Patre » : et tamen Spi¬
ritum saucium obedire Patri, et Filio, vel
Patrem, et Filium imperare aliquid Spiritui
sancto, ne adversarii quidem admittere ausi
sunt. Itaque vera est communis Theologo¬
rum sententia, missionem in divinis non
jussionem, non imperium, sed processionem
unius persenee ab alia significare, cum novi
effectus connotationc. Sed operae pretium
erit cognoscere quid adversarii ad nostra
argumenta respondeant. Referunt primum
htec nostra verba : Si Christus, ut Deus,
Patri obedivit, certe ut Deus a Patre distin¬
guitur. Alius igitur Deus est Pater, alius
Deus est Filius: sed unus tantum est verus
Deus, et constat Patrem esse verum Deum :
non igitur. Filius est verus Deus nec duoducno;
Patri, ut in Nicaeno Symbolo confitemur.
Respondent deinde his verbis : « Rudes asi¬
nos Jesuitas istos esse oportet, quod distin¬
guere nesciunt inter unitatem deitatis, et
142
BREVIS APOLOGI A.
distinctionem inter personas in hac una
deitate. Nam certe Filius a Patre distinctus
est, tamquam persona divina, qua ipse Pa¬
ter non est : et tamen non alius Deus quam
Pater est. Atque ita Pater et Filius unus
Deus sunt, licet distinctse personae, quarum
una alteri obedit». Haec illi. Qui qua mo¬
destia praediti sunt, eodem pollent acumine.
Nos autem quia scimus unitatem deitatis
cum sola personarum distinctione credi ab
omnibus fidei Catholicae professoribus, icleo
tamquam exploratum errorem notavimus
dogma adversariorum , ex quo sequitur ,
deitatem Filii distingui a deitate Patris, et
proinde Filium non esse verumDeum, neque
Patri consubstantialem. Argumentum vero,
quo id sequi demonstravimus , adversarii
non solverunt. Quod enim illi exponunt ,
Christus ut Deus obedivit Patri, idem esse,
ac si diceretur, Christus ut persona divina
obedivit Patri, ut alteri persona) divinae,
nullo modo defendi potest. Siquidem illa
particula reduplicans, « ut » , non reduplicat
suppositum, sed formam. Neque enim du¬
bium est, omnes actiones esse supposito¬
rum, sive personarum, et idcirco non po¬
nuntur reduplicantes particulae ad notandam
personam, sive suppositum ; sed quia du¬
bium esse potest, secundum quam formam
suppositum agat, quando plures habet for¬
mas , ideo per reduplicantem particulam
significatur ea forma, secundum quam sup¬
positum agit. Itaque sicut qui dicit, Petrus
ut musicus canit, ut medicus curat, ut homo
ratiocinatur, significat illam personam, qua)
dicitur Petrus secundum scientiam musicam
canere, secundum scientiam medicinae cu¬
rare, secundum rationalitatem, ut sic lo¬
quamur, ratiocinari ; ita qui dicit, Christus
ut Deus obedit Patri, significat Chris.tum,
qui est persona divina, obedire Patri secun¬
dum deitatem. Et quoniam, qui obedit di¬
stinguitur ab eo, cui obedit, sequitur ut
Christus, qui obedit Patri secundum deita¬
tem distinguatur a Patre secundum deitatem.
Quod si Filius distinguitur a Patre secundum
deitatem, evidenter sequitur, ut duae sint di¬
vinitates Patris, et Filii, et alius Deus sit
Pater, alius Deus sit Filius, quemadmo¬
dum ex eo, quod Filius distinguitur a Patre
secundum personalitatem , recte colligunt
omnes Theologi duas esse personalitates
Patris et Filii, et aliam personam esse Pa-
(l)Eph. VI, l;Heb. XII, 17.
trem, aliam personam esse Filium. Hoc igi¬
tur est argumentum, quod solvere debuis¬
sent Theologi illi Wirtembergenses. Sed ut
videtur, argumenti vim non perceperunt,
cum tamen tam acuti videri velint, ut eorum
comparatione cseteri omnes asini dici pos¬
sint.
Nec multo felicius ab altero nostro argu¬
mento se expediunt. His enim verbis alterum
argumentum nostrum proponunt. « Rursus
qui obedit, minor est illo, cui obedit, nam
imperare superioris, obedire inferioris est.
Ergo si Christus ut Deus Patri obedit, ut
Deus, minor est Patre, et mentitur Symbo¬
lum Athanasii cum ait : Aequalis Patri se¬
cundum divinitatem, minor Patre, secun¬
dum humanitatem ». Respondent autem hoc
modo : « Hsec ratio locum habet in iis per¬
sonis quse non sunt ejusdem dignitatis : ubi
hsec imperat, illa necessitate quadam paret
etiam invita. Cum Christo autem, ejusque
obedientia res se aliter habet. Pater enim
Filio ut Deo non imperavit, ut coactus hu¬
manam naturam sumeret : Sed Filius Dei
sponte, et libere hoc fecit secundum seter-
num decretum totius Trinitatis ; quocirca
etiam Filii Dei obedientia alia est, quam obe¬
dientia subditi erga suum magistratum ».
Novam hic audimus Theologiam , novam
Philosophiam , novam vocabulorum acce¬
ptionem. Hactenus enim obedientia virtus
fuit, qua subditus superioris sui mandatum
implet. Inter personas ejusdem prorsus di¬
gnitatis, atque adeo in omnibus eequales
inauditum est esse veri nominis obedien-
tiam, cum par in parem non habeat impe¬
rium, vel potestatem. Certe B. Paulus ad
Ephes. vi. scribit : Filii, obedite parentibus,
et rursum, servi, obedite dominis, et ad Hebr.
xiii. Obedite prsepositis vestris, et subjacete
eis (1) ; Et ratio horum omnium est, quia
praepositus major est subdito, dominus ma¬
jor est servo , pater in humanis major est
filio, quia senior, quia prudentior, quia
causa : et S. Augustinus serm. 6. de verbis
Domini scribit , obedientiam superioribus
esse praestandam, sed illo ordine, ut semper
majores minoribus anteponantur, ita ut filii
parentibus obediant, quia parentes majores
sunt filiis, sed magis patriae, quam parenti¬
bus, quia patria parentibus major est; et
magis Deo, quam patria), quia Deus major
est, quam patria. Sic etiam obediendum
/
BREVIS APOLOGIA.
docet curatori; sed magis proconsuli, quam
curatori; magis imperatori, quam procon¬
suli ; magis Deo, quam imperatori. Nec dif¬
ficile esset multa hujusmodi testimonia pro¬
ferre, non solum ex Scripturis sanctis, et
veteribus Patribus, sed etiam ex philoso¬
phis, aliisque scriptoribus profanis, apud
quos semper obedientiee, quasi e regione
respondet imperium, et obedientia subdito,
imperium principi tribuitur. Neque recte
adversarii obedientiam respondentem im¬
perio non agnoscunt, nisi in iis, qui parent
inviti : quasi vero non sit illa vera et lauda¬
bilis obedientia, qua subditus libenter prin¬
cipi suo paret. Qua3 cum ita sint, nisi ad¬
versarii vocabulis abuti, et obedientiee no¬
vam definitionem assignare velint, omnino
coguntur, aut admittere cum Arianis, Chri¬
stum secundum divinitatem esse Patre mi¬
norem, si Christum secundum divinitatem
Patri veram obedientiam exhibisse conten¬
dunt : aut negare debent Christum secun¬
dum divinitatem Patri obedivisse, si cum
Catholicis eequalem Patri Filium secundum
divinitatem esse volunt.
Sed ineptissima praeter cseteras est re¬
sponsio ad argumentum tertium. Sic enim
argumentum nostrum tertium ipsi propo¬
nunt. Ad haec, secundum illam naturam
Christus obedivit, secundum quam mortuus
est ; nam ipsa mors obedientia fuit sumina,
et absolutissima; At non est mortuus Chri¬
stus secundum divinitatem, sed solum se¬
cundum carnem : ergo nec secundum divi¬
nitatem, sed solum secundum humanitatem
obedivit Patri ». Respondent his verbis.
« Voces /.xx a, secundum, causam indicant
propter quam Filio Dei adscribitur quod hu¬
manitatis proprium est : et vicissim cur dei¬
tatis propria Homini tribuantur, quia enim
non duo, sed unus dumtaxat Christus est, in
quo duae diversas naturae arctissime, et in¬
time unitae sunt ; idcirco hae duae naturae,
omnes istius personae operationes, passio¬
nes, et gloriam quoque inter se communi¬
cant, etc. » Mirum est valde cur non animad¬
vertant ex hac responsione sua nou solvi,
sed confirmari argumentum nostrum. Nam
si vox xxxot, id est, secundum, indicat cau¬
sam, cur tribuatur Filio Dei, quod proprium
est humanitatis, et homini Christo, quod
proprium est divinitatis, certe non licet di¬
cere, Filius Dei secundum divinitatem mor¬
i4;j
tuus est, sicut non licet dicere, Christus
homo secundum humanitatem creavit mun¬
dum ; sed hoc modo dicendum est : Filius
Dei secundum humanitatem mortuus est, et
Christus homo secundum divinitatem mun¬
dum creavit. Causa enim cur Filio Dei mors
tribuatur, non est divinitas, sed humanitas,
et causa cur mundi creatio tribuatur homini
non est humanitas, sed divinitas, ut adver¬
sarii in sequenti pagina confitentur, et res
ipsa per se clamat. Quid igitur opus est, ut
nos in eorum errore confutando laboremus,
cum ipsi tam aperte secum pugnent, et sen¬
tentiam suam sua responsione confutent?
Quod vero paulo post addunt, nos cum Ne-
storianis negare, Christum Deum esse na¬
tum, passum, mortuum, mera calumnia est.
Nos enim etsi negamus, Christum ut Deum
sive secundum divinitatem, passum et mor¬
tuum esse : tamen Christum Deum passum,
et mortuum libentissime confitemur. Deni¬
que (ut hunc locum aliquando concludamus)
id unum, ab adversariis peto, ut quandoqui¬
dem ipsi in extremo libro refutationis hujus
provocant omnes Jesuitas ad disputationem
cum ea conditione, ut sola Scriptura divina
sit judex, proferant unum locum ex toto
veteri, aut novo testamento, ubi habeatur,
B. Mariam matrem esse Christi ut Dei, et
Christum ut Deum, sive, quod est idem, se¬
cundum deitatem , obedivisse Patri , aut
passum, et mortuum esse. Hactenus enim
non protulerunt, nisi illa, Sanguis Jesu Chri¬
sti Filii Dei emundat nos ab omni peccato , I
Joan. i. et illud : Non misit Deus Filium
suum in mundum , ut judicet mundum , sed ut
salvetur mundus per ipsum , Joan. m. et illud:
Ecce venio , in volumine libri scriptum est de
me, ut facerem voluntatem tuam. Deus meus ,
volui, et lex tua est in medio cordis mei { 1). Sed
neque in his locis, neque usquam alibi inve¬
nient suas illas verborum novitates. Yel
certe sicut nos illis ostendimus scriptum
esse II Corinth. xm. Christus crucifixus est
ex infirmitate; id est, ex ea parte qua erat
infirmus, et passibilis, nimirum ex humani¬
tate, et ad Rom. i. Qui factus est ei ex semine
David secundum carnem et denique I Petri
iv. Christo igitur in carne passo (2) : ita nobis
ipsi vicissim legant, alicubi scriptum esse :
Qui crucifixus est ex virtute, id est ex ea
parte, qua erat impassibilis, nimirum ex
divinitate. Yel, qui factus est ei ex semine
(4) I Joan. I, 7; Joan. III, 17. -(2) II Cor. XIII, 4; Rom. 1,3; I P*t. IV, 1.
144
BREVIS APOLOGIA.
David secundum divinitatem; Vel, Christ o
igitur in deitate passo. Quod cum ostendere
non possint, intelligant se, judice Scriptura,
ad quam appellaverant, omnino causa ceci¬
disse. lteliqua omnia, qua) ad errores perti¬
nent, omittenda censui, quoniam superiori¬
bus similia sunt, et mihi propositum est,
non ad refutationem respondere, sed id so¬
lum ostendere, refutationem indignam esse,
cui respondeatur.