Bellarmine · Judicium de Libro Concordiae · Judgement on the Book of Concord
Chapter 12: The Short Apology, Part 2: The Saints, the Mass, Monastic Vows, and the Charge That the Princes Were Called Liars
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).
In the last part of my booklet I noted the lies of the book of Concord, which are so plain that it is a wonder the adversaries dared to undertake their refutation. But how aptly they answered, we shall show by one example or another.
The Invocation of the Saints
In the 21st article of the Augsburg Confession are these words: “This is about the sum of the teaching among us, in which it can be seen that there is nothing that disagrees with the Scriptures, or with the Catholic Church, or with the Roman Church, so far as it is known from the writers.”
In these words I noted that a lie is contained, since in this very article 21 they teach that the saints are not to be called on; and yet they are not unaware that in the ancient Catholic Church, and in the Roman Church as it is known from the writings of the ancients, the saints were called on everywhere. And so that this lie could not be covered, I cited in my booklet express testimonies for the invocation of the saints, of Eusebius, Basil and Chrysostom among the Greeks, and of Ambrose, Augustine and Rufinus among the Latins. I added the testimonies of St. Leo the Pope, so that from them the faith of the ancient Roman Church might be known, and the testimony of Prudentius, older than Leo himself, who testifies that the Roman Church was accustomed to call on the saints.
They answer in this refutation of theirs that the testimonies of the ancient Fathers which we brought forward fight with the divine command, Call on me, and, You shall adore the Lord your God; and so take nothing from the truth of their confession. But our question is not whether the Fathers wrote truly (although this too can be defended with no trouble), but whether they wrote it, that is, whether they testify that the Church of their time, which the adversaries confess was the true Catholic Church, called on the saints. And since the adversaries affirm that the ancient Fathers taught the invocation of the saints, and accuse them of having done so against God's command, how do they not lie, or confirm the lie, when they say and repeat that their teaching, which forbids the invocation of the saints, does not disagree with the teaching of the ancient Catholic Church?
Next, to prove that in the ancient Roman Church there was no practice of calling on the saints, they bring forward one testimony of Ambrose, from the commentary on chapter 1 of Romans, where Ambrose seems to condemn the invocation of the saints; since it is certain that Ambrose is a Doctor of the Roman Church. But we can answer in many ways. For first, the author of those commentaries does not condemn the invocation of the saints, but the error of certain Gentiles, who taught that God could not be approached directly, but must necessarily be approached through certain lower heavenly powers. Second, those commentaries are not attributed to Ambrose by learned men. Third, Ambrose in the book On Widows, which no one denies is Ambrose's, most openly teaches the invocation of the saints; so openly that the adversaries in this place blame Ambrose on this account, that he taught against the word of God that the saints are to be called on. Fourth, Ambrose nowhere says that the saints are not called on in the Roman Church; and on the contrary Prudentius, who was a contemporary of Ambrose, testifies in express words in the hymn on St. Laurence that the Roman Church was accustomed to call on the saints; and St. Leo the Roman Pope testifies the same. Since the adversaries know all these things, and have read them at least in our booklet, with what face can they excuse the lie by which they affirm that their teaching does not differ from the ancient Roman Church? And this about the invocation of the saints we have put as an example. For otherwise there are very many things in the Augsburg confession which manifestly differ from the Roman Church that flourished a thousand years ago and more.
The Mass
In the same Augsburg confession, in the article on the Mass, are these words: “Our Churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is kept among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence.” That an evident lie is contained in these words I proved in my booklet from the Smalcald articles, which are written out together with the Augsburg Confession and approved in the same book of Concord. For in the Smalcald articles the Mass is ordered to be abolished as an invented thing and a human fiction, or rather as the tail of the dragon. They answer in the refutation that by the Mass which, according to the Augsburg Confession, is kept in the Churches of the Lutherans is understood the distribution of the Sacrament, not the sacrifice for the living and the dead; and by the Mass which in the Smalcald articles is condemned as an invented thing, a human fiction and the tail of the dragon, is understood the Papist Mass, which is said to be a sacrifice for the living and the dead.
But I had foreseen this refutation, and so had added in my booklet that the Lutherans are not accused by us of having abolished the distribution of the Sacrament, but of having taken away the sacrifice which is celebrated in the Catholic Church under the name of the Mass. So I used this dilemma: If by the Mass you understand the Lord's Supper, it is a lie that you are accused; but if you understand the sacrifice, it is a lie that you are falsely accused. To this dilemma of ours they could answer nothing else in the refutation than that the Mass has not been abolished by them, because the Lord's Supper itself in some places among the Lutherans still keeps the name of the Mass, although no sacrifice is offered in it. But the question is not of the name but of the thing. Nor are the Lutherans accused by Catholics of having abolished the name of the Mass, but of this: that the Mass itself, such as German priests celebrated for many centuries before Luther's times, they now not only do not celebrate, but even curse as idolatry and sacrilege. So we can use the same dilemma: if by the Mass you understand the word Mass fitted to the Lord's supper, it is a lie that you are accused; but if the thing itself which was called the Mass before Luther's times, that is, the sacrifice of the Lord's body offered for the living and the dead, it is a lie that you are falsely accused.
Monastic Vows
I shall add a third example too. In the same Augsburg Confession, and from it in the book of Concord, are these words: “In Augustine's time monasteries were free colleges; afterwards, discipline having been corrupted, vows were added everywhere, so that, as by a prison thought up, discipline might be restored.” That this is a manifest lie I proved from Augustine himself, who speaks thus in the explanation of Psalm 75: “Let no brother placed in a Monastery say, I leave the Monastery; for neither are only those who are in the Monastery going to reach the kingdom of heaven, nor do those who are not there not belong to God. The answer is given him: But they did not vow; you vowed.” And on Psalm 99: “While he does not persevere in fulfilling what he vowed, he becomes a deserter of so holy a purpose, and guilty of a vow not paid.”
They answer in the refutation that their Augsburg Confession is falsely accused of lying, and give as reason: first, because St. Augustine in the same explanation of Psalm 99 signifies that the holy Virgins who lived in Monasteries and others who lived in their own houses were held in the same place. Second, because the same St. Augustine, in the book On the good of widowhood, chapters 10 and 11, says that he does not approve the opinion of those who say that the unions of women fallen from their holy purpose, if they marry, are adulteries and not marriages. Third, “because the Augsburg Confession, when it says that in Augustine's time monasteries were free colleges and without vows, does not speak of vows in general, but of the vows used in the Papacy, by which girls and young men, entangled and bound in those chains before a proper age, were forced to remain against the word of God and conscience.”
But what else is this than to flee the nets of truth and run into the snares of falsehood? For first, it is false that the Virgins consecrated to God who lived in Monasteries and those who lived in their own houses were held in the same place. For those who lived in their own houses were bound only by the vow of chastity; those who lived in the Monastery had vowed, besides chastity, the common life too, as the same Augustine writes in both places we cited. Next, St. Augustine does indeed say in the book On the good of widowhood that marriages after a vow of chastity seem to him not to be adulteries but true marriages; yet he adds in the same place that they are sacrileges, worse than adultery itself. So he does not mean that they were free to marry after the vow, unless sacrileges worse than adulteries ought to be free. Add that Augustine in that place seems to speak of the simple vow of chastity, not of the solemn vow of chastity, such as is that of those women who, as dead to the world in every part, profess the common life under obedience in Monasteries. Lastly, it is false that in the Catholic Church young men or girls are forced to keep vows rashly made before a proper age. For the contrary is provided in the ancient Councils and in the Canon law itself, and lastly we see the same renewed in the Council of Trent, session 25, chapters 15 and 17, on Regulars. But this passes all shamelessness, that they want by a new gloss to restrict the words of the Augsburg Confession, general, plain and express, in which it is asserted that in Augustine's time monasteries were free colleges and that afterwards, because of corrupted discipline, vows were added, to vows made before a proper age. But we pardon their shame; for they wished to cover their Fathers' nakedness at least with some imaginary cloak. Although if someone pressed them and asked whether monastic vows made at a proper age must necessarily be kept, from the teaching of St. Augustine and the example of the ancient Church, they would, I believe, be driven into greater straits; nor do I know by what reasoning they would defend the apostasy of Luther and Catherine, of Bucer, Peter Martyr and so many others of their Princes.
The Charge That the Jesuits Called the Princes Liars
But leaving these things, I come to what they repeat and press to the point of disgust at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the whole Refutation, and indeed on almost every page of their book. For since they could find nothing solid to answer to so many lies put to them, they thought up a clever plan indeed: to raise ill will against the Jesuits on the ground that they dared to convict most illustrious princes of lying. For so, the disgrace of the lies being turned away from themselves onto the princes, they hoped it would come about that what they could not do by reasons, namely wash out the mark of the lies, the princes would do by their authority.
But I can solemnly affirm that it never came into my mind to charge most illustrious princes, even though strangers to the Catholic religion, with lying. I always thought the lies I reported were theirs who made the Augsburg Confession, the Apology and the book of Concord, that is, of Philip, of Schmidlin [Jakob Andreae], and a few other Theologians. For these are the men who knew, or certainly could know and are presumed to have known, that what they said and wrote was false; and this is to be a liar. The princes and peoples, whose task is not to turn over books, and who believed their own Theologians, can be called led astray, circumvented, deceived; they cannot be called liars.
“But,” say the adversaries on page 62, “that is why the Jesuits, not content with that foul name of lie alone, added an epithet and called it an illustrious lie, that is, the emptiness and lie of the princes; for they know well that this word, illustrious, is used in the Latin tongue especially of the persons of princes.” I would answer that this is truly an illustrious slander, were I not afraid they would twist this too into an injury to the princes. I, then, have read in Cicero and other good authors of the Latin tongue illustre very often for clear and plain; for the word or deed of a prince I have never read it. Illustre perjurium, an illustrious perjury, is in Cicero's oration On the answers of the soothsayers. And if our adversaries were to interpret it as the perjury of illustrious men, that is, of princes, who would not laugh? So the Jesuits, not even thinking of lies of princes, called the lies of Philip Melanchthon and other like sectaries illustrious, as Tully called a perjury illustrious, because they were plain, manifest, most clear; for as the same Cicero says in the Partitions: Illustrious is somewhat more than clear.
“But,” they say, “those words of the preface of the Concord in which lies are noted are the princes' words.” Those words indeed are so written as if they were said by the princes, but they were composed and written by the Theologians. For the princes wanted that preface published in their name, so that the book of Concord might have more authority. But just as they were deceived, and did not lie, when they subscribed to the Concord, because they believed that what was in it was true: so too, when they wanted a preface made by the Theologians printed in their name, they are not to be called liars themselves, although in that preface there are many false things; but those are the liars who, knowing them to be false, were not afraid to write them. This being so, if the Lutheran princes are willing to judge rightly, they will not complain of the Jesuits, from whom they have suffered no injury; but they will rightly be angry with their own Theologians, and demand fitting punishment from those who so imposed on them as to force on them, for truth, the gravest errors and the clearest lies.
As for my booklet, it gives great thanks to the adversaries: that whereas before, neglected by its author, it saw the light only by the kindness of the printer, now, attacked with the utmost effort and all the strength of such great men, and yet not at all hurt (the judgement of which is freely and gladly left to fair readers), it has not only been acknowledged by its own author as his, and published by his order, but has also been placed in the best spot among his other booklets.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
In’ postrema libelli mei parte notavi men¬ dacia libri Concordia), qua) tam perspicua sunt, ut mirum sit, ausos fuisse adversarios refutationem eorum aggredi. Sed quam apte responderint, uno exemplo, vel altero de¬ monstrabimus. In 21. articulo Confessionis Augustanae habentur heec verba : «Haec fere summa est doctrinae apud nos, in qua cerni potest, ni¬ hil inesse quod discrepet a Scripturis, vel ab Ecclesia Catholica, vel ab Ecclesia Romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est ». In his verbis notavi mendacium contineri : quoniam in hoc ipso art. 21. docent non esse invocandos sanctos : et tamen non ignorant in Ecclesia Catholica veteri, et in Ecclesia Romana, ut nota est ex veterum scriptis , sanctos passim invocatos fuisse. Ac ut men¬ dacium hoc tegi non posset, citavi, in meo libello testimonia expressa pro invocatione sanctorum Eusebii , Basilii, Ch,rysostomi , Grsecorum ; et Ambrosii, Augustini, Ruffini, Latinorum. Addidi testimonia S. Leonis Pa- pee, ut inde lides Ecclesia) R.omance veteris cognosceretur, et testimonium Prudentii ipso Leone antiquioris , qui . testatur Romanam Ecclesiam consuevisse sanctos invocare. Respondent in hac sua refutatione, testimo¬ nia veterum Patrum, quse nos adduximus, pugnare cum divino mandato : Invoca me , et Dominum Deum tuum adorabis ; et ideo veri- ' •tati confessionis ipsorum nihil derogare. At nostra quaestio non est, an Patres vera scri¬ pserint, quamquam et hoc nullo negotio de¬ fendi potest, sed an scripserint, id est, an testentur , Ecclesiam sui temporis , quam veram Ecclesiam Catholicam fuisse adversa¬ rii conlitentur, sanctos invocasse. Cum au¬ tem affirment adversarii, Patres antiquos docuisse invocationem sanctorum , eosque accusent quod id fecerint contra mandatum Dei, quomodo non mentiuntur, vel menda¬ cium non confirmant, cum dicunt, et repe¬ tunt doctrinam suam, qua) prohibet invoca¬ tionem sanctorum, a doctrina Ecclesia) Ca¬ tholicae veteris non dissidere ? Deinde ut probent in Ecclesia Romana veteri non fuis¬ se usum invocandi sanctos, adducunt unum testimonium Ambrosii ex commentario in c. i. ad Romanos, ubi videtur Ambrosius dam¬ nare invocationem sanctorum, cum tamen constet Ambrosium esse Doctorem Ecclesia) Romana). Sed multis modis respondere pos¬ sumus. Nam primo auctor eorum commen¬ tariorum non damnat invocationem sancto¬ rum, sed errorem quorumdam Gentilium, qui docebant Deum immediate adiri non posse. Sed necessario per quasdam inferiores virtu¬ tes coelestes adeundum esse. Secundo com¬ mentaria illa a viris doctis non tribuuntur Ambrosio. Tertio, Ambrosius in lib. de Vi¬ duis, quem nemo negat Ambrosii esse, aper¬ tissime docet invocationem sanctorum, at¬ que adeo aperte, ut adversarii hoc loco Am¬ brosium hoc nomine reprehendant, quod contra verbum Dei sanctos invocandos esse docuerit. Quarto Ambrosius nusquam dicit in Romana Ecclesia non invocari sanctos, et contra Prudentius , qui eequalis Ambrosii fuit, disertis verbis in hymno de S. Laurentio Romanam Ecclesiam invocare sanctos soli¬ tam esse testatur. Atque idem testatur S. Leo Papa Romanus. Qu® omnia cum adver¬ sarii sciant, et saltem in nostro libello lege¬ rint, qua fronte mendacium excusare pos¬ sunt, quo affirmant doctrinam suam ab Ec¬ clesia Romana veteri non discrepare ? At¬ que hoc de invocatione sanctorum exempli loco posuimus. Nam alioqui plurima sunt in confessione Augustana, qua) manifeste dis¬ crepant a Romana Ecclesia, qua) ante mille annos et eo amplius florebat. In eadem confessione Augustana in arti¬ culo de Missa habentur hsec verba : « Falso accusantur Ecclesia) nostra), quod Missam aboleant : retinetur enim Missa apud nos, et summa reverentia celebratur». In his ver¬ bis evidens mendacium contineri probavi in meo libello ex articulis Smalchaldicis, qui una cum Confessione Augustana describun¬ tur, et approbantur in eodem libro Concor¬ dia). Nam in articulis Smalchaldicis, Missa, ut res commentitia, et figmentum humanum, vel potius ut cauda draconis abrogandaman- datur. Respondent in refutatione, per Mis¬ sam, quae secundum Confessionem Augusta¬ nam in Ecclesiis Lutheranorum retinetur, intelligi distributionem Sacramenti, non au¬ tem sacrificium pro vivis et mortuis : per Missam , quee in articulis Smalchaldicis BREVIS APOLOGI A. 145 damnatur ut res commentitia, figmentum humanum, et cauda draconis intelligi Mis¬ sam Papisticam, qua) dicitur esse sacrificium pro vivis et defunctis. At hanc refutationem ego ante praevideram, et ideo in meo libello addideram, non accusari anobisLutheranos, quod abrogaverint distributionem Sacramen¬ ti, sed quod sustulerint sacrificium, quod in Ecclesia Catholica sub Missa) nomine cele¬ bratur. Itaque hoc dilemmate usus sum : Si per Missam intelligitis Coenam Domini, men¬ dacium est quod accusemini, si vero intelli¬ gitis sacrificium, mendacium est quod falso accusemini. Ad hoc nostrum dilemma non potuerunt in refutatione aliud respondere, nisi Missam a se abrogatam non esse, quia ipsa Coena Dominica nonnullis in locis apud Lutheranos adhuc Missae nomen retinet , quamvis nullum in ea sacrificium offeratur. At non de nomine, sed de re quaestio est. Neque Lutherani a Catholicis accusantur, quod Missae nomen aboleverint, sed quod Missam ipsam, qualem anteLutheri tempora per multa saecula Germani sacerdotes cele¬ braverant, jam non solum non celebrent, sed etiam ut idololatriam et sacrilegium execren- tur. Quare eodem dilemmate uli possumus, si per Missam intelligitis vocabulum Missae ccenae Dominicae accommodatum , menda¬ cium est quod accusemini : sin autem rem ipsam, quae Missa dicebatur ante Lutheri tempora, id est, sacrificium corporis Domini pro vivis et defunctis oblatum, mendacium est, quod falso accusemini. Addam et tertium exemplum. In eadem Confessione Augustana, et ex ea in libro Concordiae habentur haec verba : « Augustini tempore Monasteria erant libera collegia : postes ^orrupta disciplina, ubique additasunt vota, .arnquam ex cogitato careere disci¬ plina restitueretur. Hoc manifestum esse mendacium probavi ex ipso Augustino, qui sic loquitur in explicatione psalmi lxxv. u Nemo positus in Monasterio frater, dicat, recedo de Monasterio ; neque enim soli qui sunt in Monasterio perventuri sunt ad re¬ gnum coelorum, et illi, qui ibi non sunt, ad Deum non pertinent. Respondetur ei, sed illi non voverunt, tu vovisti ». Et in psalm. xcix. « Dum non perseveraverit implere quod vovit, fit desertor tam sancti propositi , et reus voti non redditi». Respondent in re¬ futatione, falso accusari mendacii suam Con¬ fessionem Augustanam, et reddunt rationem, quia S. Augustinus in eadem explicatione Tom. VII. ipsam xcix. significat, eodem loco habitas Virgines sacras, qua) in Monasteriis dege¬ bant, et alias, qua) in propriis sedibus ver¬ sabantur. Secundo quia idem S. Augustinus in lib. de bono viduitatis cap. 10. et 11. dicit, se non probare illorum opinionem, qui dicunt lapsarum a sancto proposito fccmi- narum, si nupserint, adulteria non conjugia esse. Tertio, «quia Confessio Augustana, cum dicit, Augustini tempore Monasteria fuisse libera collegia, et sine votis, non lo¬ quitur de votis in genere, sed de votis in Papatu usitatis, quibus puella), et juvenes ante justam a)tatem implicati et constricti in vinculis istis, et contra verbum Dei, et con¬ scientiam manere coacti sunt ». At hoc quid aliud est, nisi fugere retia veritatis, et in laqueos falsifcatis incurrere ? Primum enim falsum est, quod eodem loco habitae fuerint Virgines Deo sacrae, quae in Monasteriis, et quae in domibus propriis versabantur. Nam quae in domibus propriis versabantur, solo voto castitatis obstrictae erant, quae in Mo¬ nasterio degebant, voverant praeter castita¬ tem etiam vitam communem, ut idem Au¬ gustinus in utroque loco a nobis allegato scribit. Deinde S. Augustinus dicit quidem in libro de bono viduitatis, videri sibi conjugia post votum castitatis non esse adulteria, sed vera conjugia, tamen addit in eodem loco esso sacrilegia, adulterio ipso pejora. Proinde non vult, liberum illis fuisse post votum nu¬ bere, nisi sacrilegia adulteriis pejora libera esse debeant. Adde quod Augustinus eo loco de voto castitatis simplici loqui videtur, non de voto castitatis solemni, quale est illarum, quae ut mundo omni ex parte mortuae, in Monasteriis vitam communem sub obedien- tia profitentur. Denique falsum est , quod in Ecclesia Catholica ante justam aetatem juvenes, aut puellae servare cogantur vota temere emissa. Contrarium enim cavetur iri antiquis Conciliis, et in ipso jure Canonico, et demum idem renovatum cernimus in Con¬ cilio Tridentino sess. 25. cap. 15. et 17. de Regularibus. Sed illud omnem impudentiam superat, qupd verba Confessionis Augusta¬ nae, generalia, perspicua, diserta, quibus asseritur tempore A ugustiniMonasteria fuisse libera collegia, et postea ob corruptam disci¬ plinam, addita fuisse vota, per novam glos¬ sam restringere velint ad vota emissa ante justam aetatem. Sed veniam damus pudori, voluerunt enim aliquo saltem imaginario pallio Patrum suorum verenda contegere. 10. 146 BREVIS APOLOGIA Quamvis si quis eos urgeret, ac peteret, an vota monastica emissa justa setate necessario servanda sint, ex doctrina S. Augustini, et exemplo veteris Ecclesiae, in majores angu¬ stias credo, redigerentur ; nec scio, qua ra¬ tione Lutheri, et Gatharinse, Buceri, Petri Martyris, totque aliorum suorum Principum apostasiam defenderent. Sed his omissis , veniam ad id, quod in principio, in medio, in fine totius Refutationis, atque adeo in sin¬ gulis fere paginis libri sni repetunt et incul¬ cant ad nauseam usque. Quoniam enim ad tot mendacia illis objecta quid solidi respon¬ derent , non inveniebant , excogitaverunt callidum sane consilium, ut Jesuitis invidiam eo nomine conflarent, quod ausi sint illustris¬ simos principes mendacii coarguere. Ita enim derivata mendaciorum infamia a se in prin¬ cipes, id futurum speraverunt, ut quod ipsi rationibus non possent, notam videlicet men¬ daciorum eluere, id principes auctoritate praestarent. Ego vero sancte affirmare pos¬ sum, numquam mihi in mentem venisse, ut illustrissimos principes, quamvis a religione Catholica alienos, mendacii reprehenderem. Illorum esse mendacia, quae retuli, semper existimavi, qui Confessionem Augustanam, qui Apologiam, qui librum Concordiae confe¬ cerunt id est, Philippi, Smiddelini, et pau¬ corum aliorum Theologorum. Isti enim sunt, qui sciebant, vel certe scire poterant, et sci¬ visse praesumuntur falsa esse, quae dicebant, et scribebant, atque hoc est esse mendacem. Principes, et populi, quorum munus non est libros evolvere, quique suis Theologis credi¬ derunt, seducti, circumventi, decepti dici possunt, mendaces dici non possunt. « At (inquiunt adversarii pag. 62.) idcirco Jesui- tae non solo fcedo illo mendacii nomine con¬ tenti, adjuncto epitheto illustre mendacium vocarunt, hoc est, vanitatem, et mendacium principum ; probe namque noverunt, vocem hanc, illustre, in lingua Latina, praecipue erga principum personas usurpari». Re¬ sponderem profecto illustrem hanc esse ca¬ lumniam, nisi timerem, ne id £tiam detor¬ querent ad principum injuriam. Ego igitur in Cicerone, aliisque bonis linguae Latinae auctoribus frequentissime legi illustre pro dilucido, et perspicuo, pro verbo, vel facto principis numquam legi. Illustre perjurium est in oratione Ciceronis, de Aruspicum re¬ sponsis. Quod si adversarii nostri perjurium hominum illustrium, id e.-t, principum, inter¬ pretentur, quis non rideat ? Ita igitur Jesui- toe de mendaciis principum ne cogitantes quidem, illustria dixere mendacia Philippi Melanchthonis, aliorumque similium secta¬ riorum, quomodo Tullius illustre perjurium, quod perspicua, manifesta, clarissima essent*; nam ut idem ait Cicero in Partitionibus : Illustre aliquanto plus est, quam dilucidum. «' At, inquiunt, verba illa praefationis Concor¬ diae, in quibus mendacia notantur, princi¬ pum verba sunt ». Verba quidem illa ita scripta sunt, ac si a principibus dicerentur, sed a Theologis composita, et conscripta sunt. Principes enim nomine suo praefatio¬ nem illam edi voluerunt, quo liber Concor¬ dia; plus auctoritatis haberet. Sed quem¬ admodum decepti sunt, non autem mentiti, cum Concordiae subscripserunt, quia vera esse crediderunt, quae in ea continebantur ; ' ita quoque cum praefationem a Theologis confectam suo nomine typis mandari volue¬ runt, non ipsi mentiti esse dicendi sunt, quamvis in ea praefatione multa sint falsa, sed ii, qui scientes falsa esse, non veriti sunt ea conscribere. Quae cum ita sint, si princi¬ pes Lutherani recte judicare voluerint non de Jesuitis querentur, a quibus nulla injuria sunt affecti ; sed Theologis suis merito ira- scentur , atque ab his dignas poenas repo¬ scent, qui ipsis ita imposuerunt, ut errores gravissimos , mendaciaque clarissima pro veritate eis obtruserint. Quod autem ad li¬ bellum meum attinet, is magnas agit adver¬ sariis gratias, quod cum antea ab auctore suo neglectus, sola typographi benignitate lucem aspiceret , nunc tantorum virorum summo conatu, totisque viribus oppugnatus, et nihil tamen leesus , cujus rei judicium eequis lectoribus libere libenterque permitti¬ tur, ab auctore proprio, non solum pro suo agnitus, et ejusdem jussu editus, sed etiam inter alios ejus libellos optimo loco sit collo¬ catus. R. P„ VITI ERBERMANNI S. J. THEOL. IN QUATUOR CONTROVERSIARUM TOMOS v - , ' . . ■ . -